Neo-Darwinism: a bigger scam than I thought
Channel: Brain Outy
Date: 2013-09-19

Atheists don't want religious crutches. But that's what neo-Darwinianism is. For Dawkins feels 'intellectually fulfilled as an atheist' to believe in it.  WHAT?? As if atheism needed justification? Why would you need justification, when you've no proof God exists? What could Darwinism do, to help? Evolution is decreed in Bible, Genesis 1:23-25; though what FORM, is not stated. So, as there are MORE VALID evolution theories, and NO theory can disprove God and might instead point TO God -- how can the atheist benefit, since Darwin turns Nature INTO a god, for which there is also ZERO proof?

For Darwin's Origin of the Species ( http://archive.org/details/originofspecies00darwuoft  or read online http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htmdownload ) is unscientific, blindly asserting SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE 'proves' transmutation. That's not proper: in science, you must instead prove causality by propagation. So, the scientific community back then reviled him, witness Robert Mackenzie Beverley's book ( http://books.google.com/books?id=HTkAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=page%2020&f=false ).  Read both Darwin and  Beverley, see how RELIGIFIED is Darwin's unproven argument.

150 years later, still neo-Darwinists but pile assertion atop assertion, sans PROPAGATION PROOF of 'natural selection', that a gene can BENEFICIALLY mutate and become greater than itself (mutation instead SUBTRACTs, we've centuries of proof); and that, very slowly (so a spider never could BECOME a spider, Beverley quips), etc.

THINK: as children we were TOLD the pterodactyl, for example, was ancestor to the modern bird. Never was proof furnished. We were TOLD the Lascaux paintings were many 1000s of years old -- but its art style is later (like Mycenae), though the paint (made from earth materials) is 1000s of years old. So were it painted yesterday, if you date by the paint's age, it will still seem old!

To hide all this, neo-Darwinists conflate a different mutation process once known in the 1950's as 'adaptation' (now called microevolution), with 'evolution' (now called macroevolution). They flat ASSERT adaptation applies to macroevolution with NO PROOF this is so.  For it's NOT so, in any other micro-macro structure; for micro bounds change within an individual; macro bounds change relative to the GROUP.

1.  Micro physics aka quantum mechanics, operates on OPPOSITE RULES vs. macro physics (Newton, Einstein's general and special relativity, Planck, Hawking, etc).

2.  Microbiology operates on contrary to macrobiology, as any biologist can tell you. So do macrogenetics.

3.  Microeconomics works on opposite rules vs. macroeconomics, which politicians ignore to their peril.

4.  BIRTH vs. POST-BIRTH processes, are also opposites.

Yet neo-Darwinists repeatedly insist that large populations ONLY change genetically to TRANSmute, and ONLY to benefit the species via 'natural selection', a phenomenon contraindicated in macro populations (i.e., viruses destroy)? Especially, since mutations die out within a few generations, and often result in sterility to PROTECT the population from the mutation?

So read the above links for Darwin's own words and Beverley's, to get a good sense of how Darwinism was refuted back when he was alive.  Then, to see how neo-Darwinism is worse, investigate source material in the following link ( http://www.discovery.org/a/2248 sources are at the bottom of the webpage), and read that page for the refutations by other atheists (i.e., David Berlinski) against neo-Darwinists.  They are peer scientists who also favor evolution -- but not the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian versions.  Ooops.

So it's not about proving God, nor can it be.  God could have DECREED evolution, and per Bible He did, though not the Darwinian nonsense -- so evolution doesn't prove anything for or against God.  NOTHING proves God's existence until you get that proof yourself.  Until then, you should never believe.  So flee neo-Darwinism's bogus claim that religifies nature, to rob you of your wallet and your common sense.

Seriously:  Dawkins and his ilk are to atheism what King James Onlyism is to Christianity.  Both groups' leaders make money off gullibility, both make totally unsubstantiated claims (Darwinianism is holy, King James Bible is holy), both groups' leaders depend on ignorance, both polemicize, both groups' leaders are bogus scholars.

And both became movements in the latter 1800s, as reactionary forces against the huge finds of original-language manuscripts (like Codices A and B) which also surfaced during those very years, providing unprecedented proof that Bible manuscripts in prior centuries, were largely ACCURATE.

But that doesn't mean Darwinian common-source origin is wrong.  Help proving it might instead come from physics.  Think over these Harvard videos on black holes and Unified Field Theory: http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/sst/video/sst1_5.html