This is an old article that I originally wrote on a community writing site, then later moved it to my own personal website. Well, I've recently deleted that website, so now I'm re-publishing it here. The original post date is: 4-30-2012
Here of late, I have stumbled upon a lot of debate about the Theory of Evolution.
In the past, I’ve always accepted the fact that life evolves, adapts, and acclimates to its surroundings. I have never related the theory of evolution with religions or creationists, etc.
Actually, the concepts of evolution should have nothing to do with philosophic pondering or creation theories for that matter, but yet, nowadays it often seems to be lined up in direct opposition with such things.
It’s a different world out there today, and unlike what Darwin originally wrote, albeit he borrowed most of his theories from others and received way too much credit for this notion, a lot of people have somehow managed to turn the “theory of evolution” into a religion, it seems…
In my opinion, among many others including certain biologists with a sense of awareness beyond authoritative textbooks, Evolution is not a real science. True science would not base itself on assumption of progression with limited fossil evidence, for example. Yada-yada, I said limited, as I can hear the moans now…
Look, I’m not going deep into the animal kingdom on this one, unless the comments provoke it, because the main point of this article is about a question that no evolutionist can ever seem to answer.
You can’t conclude the reason for all the different forms of life without the evidence to do such, which this lovely theory simply can’t do, nor can it be absolutely proved and so on.
For one, you can’t perform live tests on fossil records, and what dead evidence you gather, only leads to educated guesses in hopes that there is no outside variables and factors, which we will cover in a moment.
There are so many holes in this theory of evolution, it isn’t even funny.
If you try to argue with an evolutionist (dang, they got titles, too...), they will simply say that you “don’t understand” what the science is. Does this sound familiar? If you argue with a creationist and their Bible, they may tell you that you “don’t understand” the word of God or the translations.
What is going on here?
Are the core components of spiritual belief and insight about half as right as science and evolutionists?
Whatever happened to intuition?
Definition of intuition: 1) quick and ready insight; 2) the power or faculty of knowing things without conscious reasoning
Can’t people put two and two together? Oh, that’s right, we have mathematicians out there that say 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4! I’d love to see somebody rationally prove that one, although there really are people out there who play with integers long enough, that they create a fantasy of some sort and alter the reality of actuality.
Well, regardless of personal beliefs, mathematics or science and/or which side of the fence you are on, in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe that we spawned from a single-cell amoeba than from being a dividend of a divinity.
In my opinion, it takes more faith to believe that a so-called “Big Bang” came from a point of a minuscule singularity of “nothing” as opposed to believing that you came from “something.”
By the way, please define a “singularity” in a cosmic fashion…
I’m not getting into a theory of unity on this particular post, so please spare me from your ancient philosophy that we all end up holding each other in the end; yikes!
In fact, as interesting as it is, I’m not in the mood to hear about Quantum Entanglement either, at the moment, as this post is about the missing link between the Homo erectus and the Homo sapiens, and how this unexplained gap kills this theory of evolution, at least when humans are involved.
Oh, there are many complaints about the animal kingdom having missing links as well, but the more pertinent matter on this post, is about those little, crafty humanoids.
I’m not getting into the whales, giraffes, horses, dinosaurs, superbugs, and so on.
Hold up… Stop!
Watch this quick video that is under two minutes long:
Now, tell me you didn’t laugh at around the 16 or 17 second mark of that video?
What is wrong with that picture?
By looking at that chart of his, there is a great eye sore, to say the least…
These evolutionist people are, uh, serious...? Ha-ha!
I mean, holy crap!
You got a Bonobo lined up with a Chimp next to a Humanoid beside a Gorilla and an Orangutan…and this highly worshipped atheist is pointing at all five, while talking about the “great apes being cousins and relatives,” all while one (the Homo sapiens) is not even remotely freakin’ related!
Sarcasm: “Oh yeah, my cousins are chimps and bonobos with my distant homies being gorillas and orangutans.”
Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever!
These overly educated morons make some of the most asinine preachers look intelligent!
Yeah, and a cow-like being decided to go swimming one day and eventually turned into a whale. WTF!
Anyway, I’m getting off track here … moving back into the subject of the “missing link,” where in the hell is it?
If you really want to read a genuine paper (Homo Erectus ‘to’ Modern man: Evolution or Human Variability?) about this matter, that ultimately comes to the conclusion of this: “After careful study of hundreds of scientific descriptions and photographs of scores of fossil humans, it is clear to me that all shades of intergrading exist between “ancient” erectus and modern humans, but the chronological patterns of appearance, even using the evolutionists’ own dating methods, do not match the predictions of the theory. In view of the clear-cut and unmistakable morphological gap between apes and humans, I believe that human fossil study provides strong circumstantial evidence in favor of the theistic view of origins.”
Read more, if you are really serious about this subject, here: Homo erectus Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?
Although this page is not primarily concerned with the origins of Homo sapiens, just the missing link between the ape-like Homo erectus and the Homo sapiens that lead one to believe that “humans” seem to have come out of nowhere and just sort of magically appeared as if we were created by another race of beings or by some divinity of some sort, the Theory of Evolution is yet to explain, as noted above, the origins of Homo sapiens (modern man) and my original, seemingly simple question that is always avoided by evolutionists without proof or a sound theory.
It comes down to this, when it concerns our origin (and this is not a freakin’ “non sequitur”):
Did the Evolutionists’ single-cell amoeba do it?
Did the creationists’ God or Gods do it?
Did the aliens from another world do it?
Or did we all do it via a universal consciousness?
Until the day comes when Evolutionists can gracefully explain the missing link between Homo erectus and the Homo sapiens of today, they will never really hold any ground when it comes to real science, fact or actuality.
I know, I know, it would be nice & easy to say that we are all from the same species, race, etc., and that the extinct Homo erectus, Neanderthals, etc., are all close relatives to the same type of beings that roam the earth today and that we all evolved from a single-cell amoeba and got extra motivated from some mad race of trilobites (just threw that in there for fun), but that simply isn’t true.
I hate to say it, but the ancient alien theorists make better sense than the evolutionists when it concerns “human” evolution, and the religionists lie somewhere in between the two. Ah, the joys of life’s mysteries…
Humorous Quote: “Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.” — David Coppedge, Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003
Additional, Informative Link related to “Theory of Evolution: Where is the missing link between Homo sapiens & Homo erectus?,” here: “Debunking Evolution: Problems between the Theory and Reality; the False Science of Evolution” [https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html]
—End of Original Post
Below, are the comments this post garnered from the previous website it was on:
Comments:
David Pugh says:
June 19, 2012 at 2:28 am
Wow! I can tell you really have a brain in that skull, excellent writing. Nice to see a good common sense. I was raised Christian but kind of set aside everything I was taught when I was 18 to find my own truth, so I looked at evolution and alien theories, other religions and Christianity. Evolution kept looking more like a joke every time I researched it, no answers only odd opinions on unreasonable claims based on no solid evidence. And it seemed to be pushed so hard that I started to feel like there was some agenda to it and they absolutely hated the idea that any religions bring to the table. Christianity and Islam made more sense. And I actually started to notice that all the bible stories I was told wasn’t exactly accurate, if you study Islam and the bible especially you start seeing very sci fi like stories, and you find a lot of them were removed by churches over the centuries because they were too “weird” maybe. But the more you keep looking the more you start to get freaked out about how much sense they really make, especially the bible and Hebrew texts. And then you get hit with something amazing, almost everything you can possibly think or have ever wondered about all falls into place and makes perfect sense, and then you start feeling so separate from everything else, you start seeing that 95 percent of people including Christians have absolutely no idea about what is going on and what has happened over the last millions of years. And that's where I am now. I continue to look deeper into ancient knowledge and my eyes continue to open wider every day. And it brings much peace as understanding always has for mankind.
Comment #2:
Thanks, David, for providing such an excellent comment. Enjoy your journey towards higher awareness; cheers!
Comment #3:
headlyvonnoggin says:
July 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm
The word ‘evolution’ in and of itself is a major source of confusion in these discussions in my opinion. I agree with evolution, depending on the definition we’re speaking of. For example, I agree that animal life on this planet did change and adapt throughout the ages, which the fossil record and DNA evidence both supports. However, if we’re talking about the idea of random mutations plus lots and lots of time resulted in life as we know it today, I’m not so on-board. Like the idea of legs evolving because this one fish with a bump mutation was more successful at moving around than this other, and therefore more likely to pass on this mutated bump, then future generations continued to do the same with other bump mutations that formed on the first bump being more advantageous and so on and so forth, then you have legs!!! Ludicrous.
The element that always seems to get left out is the driving force behind life in general. The will to live and procreate is what propels evolution. Those creatures had to be motivated to get food to feed their bodies to continue to live. They had to be motivated to procreate. Something had to drive them. Yet this drive is never mentioned. It’s just summed up as nothing more than instinct. That’s it.
As for human evolution, I don’t have an issue with the tie between humans and primates. To me, the near identical match DNA wise is a pretty clear indicator that we share similar roots. It’s just the mechanics of the theory of evolution that I don’t see adding up to the end result.
Personally, I see the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and Adam in Genesis 2 as two separate events. The creation of humans in Genesis 1 matches up incredibly well with the evolution of early humans. Each command given to humans by God can be seen, and become more prevalent, in each subsequent species of the homo genus; be fruitful, multiply, fill/subdue the earth, establish dominion in the animal kingdom.
Fully populating the earth and establishing ourselves as the only surviving species of the homo genus and the dominant species on the planet is what makes humans unique compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, outside of our minds of course. We’re the only species to do it. And these were direct commands. Homo habilis traveled long distances. So did homo heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, and sapien. The latter species also became formidable foes for every other species of animal, including megafauna, who eventually got pushed out of existence.
It’s not the progression itself that I have an issue with as far as evolution goes. It’s what drove the process. It’s what pushed these creatures to the end result we know now. The theory of evolution puts way too much into the idea of how much can happen totally randomly as long as it spans millions and millions of years. This, in my mind, simply doesn’t fly.
Comment #4:
How about Homo floresiensis? LOL!
I have no problem with adaptation and acclimation, but I do when people confuse such things with creation. Perhaps you need to read my post about the Primordial Soup Theory.
No, I’m sorry, but I do not believe that my cousins are chimps and bonobos with my distant homies being gorillas and orangutans. I have a feeling, that something happened along the way. By the way, if you follow evolutionary beliefs of origin, we all used to be fish that got all monkey one day and eventually turned into the humans of today; what a load of steaming dung!
Comment #5:
Speaking of the main concept behind this article “Theory of Evolution: Where is the missing link between Homo erectus & Homo sapiens?,” it would probably be better if I wrote a separate piece about how the concept of speciation doesn’t make sense. When it comes to the theory of evolution, “speciation” and the “primordial soup theory” is what makes me go against it, due to the level of asininity involved. I mean, some of these people are nuts! Humans used to be fish? WTF? That Thanksgiving turkey you eat used to be a Raptor (informal name for a certain species in the Velociraptor genus of dinosaurs), etc. Get real!
Here are a few comments I have left on other posts, with the last 2 getting deleted:
1) Earth provides a life-giving substrate that has obviously been “played” with, numerous amounts of times throughout the timetables of history; albeit I’ll never believe in the silly speciation concepts of Evolution nor the magic from a Primordial Soup theory or the Dogma dung from organized religions, howbeit there is definitely a divine unity amid the madness, nonetheless…
2) The Cambrian Explosion is just a big mouthful that chokes on the theory of speciation, which leads to a Primordial Soup Theory of magic that many feel forced to believe… Have fun delving into Earth’s mysterious substrate… Have you ever heard of an eraser and the fact that, sometimes, things start over… Ya know, like from the drawing board… Ha!
3) Of course, everything adapts, evolves and acclimates to their surroundings over time, but the whole “speciation” concept is another matter. Regardless, birds will be birds, cats will be cats, etc. The Cambrian explosion sort of kills the speciation theory, to say the least. However, I have wrote on other websites about evolution, but never really focused on speciation, but I may do so in the future.
As many of us realize, this will ultimately lead us to a primordial soup debate [I’ve wrote about that elsewhere, as well], and then everything goes back to the drawing board for the ones who maintain such notions. I just can’t accept the theory of evolution’s version of creationism [speciation], but I do agree that everything adapts and changes due to its surroundings – within reason, of course.
If anybody has any fresh ideas, feel free to add additional comments below...
Related Post: Did the Bees evolve with the Flowers?
---End of Post "Theory of Evolution: Where is the missing link between Homo erectus & Homo sapiens?"
No comments:
Post a Comment