EVOLUCIONISMO É ESTÚPIDA RELIGIÃO

O Escriba Valdemir Mota de Menezes concorda em síntese com os enunciados do pastor Pedro Almeida.

-----------------
A Evolução é uma estúpida RELIGIÃO
Pr. Pedro Almeida



1. Porque Ela foi Inspirada pelo Diabo
A. Se a Evolução é uma escandalosa mentira;
B. Se o Diabo é o pai da mentira Jo. 8:44;
C. Logo, a evolução foi inventada pelo Diabo: Ap. 13:14.
2. Porque Ela não fornece nenhuma prova
A. A evolução é uma fanática religião: Jer. 2: 27.
"Evolução é um conto de fadas para gente grande. Essa teoria não ajudou em nada o
progresso da ciência. Ela é inútil."
(Lois Bounoure )
"Evolução não é provada e é impossível de ser provada. Nós apenas cremos nela porque
é a única alternativa à criação especial e isso é impensável." (Sir Arthur Keith -
evolucionista)
B. Não há prova NENHUMA do Big Bang;
C. Não há prova NENHUMA da evolução Biológica;
D. Não há NADA sendo criado: Gen. 2:1;
E. Porque TUDO no universo está piorando: Is. 51:6; Heb 1:11.
3. Porque o universo foi criado há seis mil anos
A. Se Adão foi o primeiro homem Gen. 1:26-31; Rom. 5:12; 1Co. 15:21, 45, 47;
B. Se Adão viveu a apenas seis mil anos atrás Gen cap 5; 11;
B. Se Adão foi criado no princípio do mundo: Mt. 19:4; Mc. 10:6;
C. Logo, a criação tem a mesma idade de Adão: seis mil anos.
4. Porque em seis dias tudo foi criado
A. Na semana da criação: Gen. 1:1-31;
B. O sábado judaico durava 1 dia solar igual ao 7º dia: Ex. 20:11.
5. Porque um "deus" que usasse a evolução seria mau imbecil e estúpido
A. O Deus verdadeiro faz tudo certo de primeira: Is 44:24;
B. O Tempo foi criado: Gen 1:1a;
C. O espaço foi criado: Gen. 1:1b;
D. A matéria foi criada: Gen. 1:1c.
6. Porque a morte entrou no mundo pelo PECADO
A. A evolução diz a mentira:
"Pela morte veio o homem."
B. A Bíblia diz a verdade:
"Pelo homem veio a morte"
Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 1Co. 15:21, 45, 47.
7. Porque a evolução não é só uma inofensiva mentira ela é perigosa!
A. Marx era evolucionista;
B. Stalin era evolucionista;
C. Hitler era evolucionista;
D. Os comunistas são evolucionistas.
8. Porque os inimigos de Deus a amam!
A. Os inimigos de Deus a amam;
B. Os inimigos da Palavra de Deus a amam;
C. Os inimigos do povo de Deus a amam

DOCUMENTAL UNA TIERRA JOVEN

DOCUMENTAL UNA TIERRA JOVEN

Este documental trata de mostrar algunos aspectos de los postulados básicos de la teoría de la evolución. Científicos poeminentes, el debate sobre la medición del carbono-14, la edad geológica de la tierra, las teorías de cómo la inundación debe haber sido universal. Todos muestran evidencia científica de que la Biblia tiene razón acerca de temas cruciales como la creación de la vida y el diluvio. (Texto Valdemir Mota de Menezes, el escriba)

SCIENCE OU UNE CROYANCE?

La Théorie de l'Evolution est-ce une science ou une croyance?

Des études sérieuses en biologie, la paléontologie, l'archéologie et la philosophie, montrent que la vie sur terre a été créé par un Être intelligent et puissant, pas le produit d'une évolution irrationnelle et accidentelle. (Texte de Scribe: Valdemir Mota Menezes)

HISTÓRIA DA EVOLUÇÃO DOS INVERTEBRADOS

História da Evolução dos Invertebrados






(O Escriba Valdemir Mota de Menezes discorda de alguns pontos desta aula de Biologia que faz apologia a Teoria da Evolução)



Neste nosso primeiro contato, vamos conversar um pouco

sobre a história da evolução dos invertebrados. É importante

conhecer o início para compreender o foco dado à disciplina.

Para compreender a evolução dos animais desde o passado até os dias

de hoje, são necessários que existam alguns vestígios do passado, sendo

estes por meio de evidências morfológicas (fósseis) ou evidências moleculares (biologia molecular).

Os fósseis preservam vestígios que datam de antes da última era Glacial.

As partes rígidas dos animais podem ser preservadas, pois sofreram poucas

mudanças na aparência; entre os invertebrados, as quais incluem as

conchas dos moluscos e braquiópodes, os esqueletos e as espículas dos

equinodermos, mandíbulas etc. O exoesqueleto dos artrópodes pode estar

fossilizado por inteiro ou preservado como finos filmes de carbono em rochas.

As partes moles fossilizadas normalmente foram transformadas em

pedra pela substituição do material orgânico por minerais que se encontram

dissolvidos em águas subterrâneas.

Os fósseis podem ser chamados de fósseis vivos (animais que não existiam

mais, e que, em algum período, foi descoberta a espécie viva), já

os fósseis são rastros, linhas, covas (impressões deixadas nas rochas

por alguns animais, como a água viva). O registro fóssil pode nos trazer

informações acerca da estrutura e do estilo de vida dos animais

do passado e da seqüência na qual eles surgiram: os fatos sobre a dimensão

do tempo podem permitir a construção de árvores evolutivas.

Mesmo em um grupo com muitos fósseis, como os artrópodes, alguns animais

eram bastante comuns antigamente, como as trilobitas. Em relação

aos crustáceos, as cracas da praia representam um formidável exemplo.

Desde os primeiros fósseis até as formas modernas, existe uma tendência

de redução no número das placas laterais ao redor do corpo. Portanto, por

meio das descobertas dos fósseis, estes devem ser incluídos na reconstrução

filogenética e podem influenciar a classificação dos grupos atuais.

Muito já foi revelado sobre as relações evolutivas a partir de estudos de

genes altamente conservados, principalmente aqueles que codificam o RNA

e os genes Hox que padronizam o desenvolvimento ao longo de um eixo.



As pesquisas sobre estes e outros genes são muito intensas, de forma que

qualquer publicação dos resultados tornar-se-á rapidamente desatualizada.

Foi visto que os animais estão mais estreitamente relacionados com os

fungos do que ambos com as plantas. Todos os animais multicelulares que

conhecemos hoje têm um ancestral comum. As esponjas, por exemplo,

foram consideradas, de acordo com a morfologia tradicional, animais multicelulares mais simples e representam a primeira ramificação da árvore

construída a partir de dados obtidos com genes ribossômicos. Já os ctenóforos

e os cnidários se ramificam após as esponjas.

Os animais considerados triploblastos desencadearam a explosão Cambriana.

A determinação do tempo desses eventos é muito controversa,

com as evidências moleculares sugerindo origens consideravelmente

mais precoces que as evidências fósseis podem confirmar.



(Explosão Cambriana é em síntese o período da criação divina, os estudos e descobertas paleontológicas apontam que todas as formas de vida que conhecemos hoje surgiram em um mesmo período. Texto do Valdemir Mota de Menezes, o Escriba)





Por meio de estudos moleculares as evidências dos genes 18SrDNA realmente

classificam os platelmintos como celomados protostômios em vez

de colocá-los na base dos triploblastos. Mais recentemente, as evidências

dos genes Hox confirmaram esta classificação, que também se aplica aos

nemertinos. Existem evidências moleculares de que os moluscos e anelídeos

apresentavam semelhanças embrionárias larvais e surgiu a possibilidade

de juntar os dois filos em somente um. Mas isto ainda não foi possível.



(Os evolucionistas são mesmos fraudadores da Biologia e tentam de todo jeito encontrarem vestígios de suas fantasias, uma destas invencionices é a tal das SEMELHANÇAS EMBRIONÁRIAS LARVAIS. A semelhança entre embriões de espécies diferentes não serve de argumento científico para corroborar a Teoria da Evolução.)





Os nematódeos, nos dias de hoje, são colocados perto dos artrópodes,

reavivando um agrupamento antigo de animais com cutículas rígidas que

sofrem mudas e usam a ecdisona no processo (no nematódeo Caenorhabditis

elegans e no artrópode Drosophila melanogaster).

Os protostômios estão divididos em dois grupos: os “Lofotrocozoários” e os

“Ecdisozoários”. Os Lofotrocozoários incluem os anelídeos, moluscos e protostômios

com lofóforos (forônidas, briozoários e braquiópodes), enquanto

os Ecdisozoários abrangem todos os artrópodes, onicóforos, tardígrados e

nematódeos. Os platelmintos e os nemertinos são próximos dos Lofotrocozoários:

as opiniões variam se eles devem ser inclusos entre estes.

Por intermédio de evidências moleculares os únicos filos remanescentes

dos deuterostômios são Equinodermos, Cordados e Hemicordados (se

constituírem um filo separado). As relações entre eles, e, especificamente,

a natureza dos hemicordados, continuam sendo tão controversas como

sempre foram.

Dois exemplos são considerados com maior profundidade: os equinodermos,

porque o registro fóssil é particularmente satisfatório para muitas

classes, e os artrópodes, porque os genes Hox de muitos exemplos estão

se tornando particularmente bem conhecidos. Em ambos os casos, as

evidências moleculares podem ser detalhadamente comparadas com as

morfológicas, tanto a partir dos fosseis quanto dos animais vivos.

O estudo morfológico dos grupos vivos pode fornecer argumentos que apontam

para uma única origem dos artrópodes (monofilia) ou origens separadas

para os crustáceos, quelicerados, insetos e outros (polifilia), mas as evidências

fósseis e moleculares apontam para a monofilia. Por exemplo, acreditava-

se que os apêndices birremes dos crustáceos os separavam dos artrópodes,

que possuem apêndices não ramificados. Antigamente, ambos eram

unidos como unirremes (incluindo os onicóforos, miriápodes e insetos).

A divisão do corpo no prossoma e no opistossoma se desenvolve de forma

semelhante em todos os quelicerados vivos estudados e é uma característica

exclusiva do filo. A ausência total de antenas não se deve à ausência

do primeiro segmento que contém os apêndices: a expressão dos genes

Hox nas aranhas e nos carrapatos mostra que, pelo contrário, o prossoma,

como um todo, corresponde à cabeça de insetos e crustáceos, com as

quelíceras no primeiro segmento que contêm os apêndices e os pedipalpos

no segundo. Quatro pares de patas para a locomoção vêm em seguida: os

apêndices usados como mandíbulas por muitos insetos e crustáceos, são

utilizados como patas pelos quelicerados.

Os centípedes apresentam o mesmo conjunto de genes Hox dos insetos,

na realidade, apresentado por todos os grupos de artrópodes: o fato destes

genes não terem sido utilizados para produzir segmentos especializados

não permite relacioná-los em particular com os insetos. Na realidade, com

base em outras evidências, os centípedes parecem mais próximos do quelicerados que dos insetos e crustáceos.



(Os argumentos acima sobre comparações morfológicas entre os seres vivos são uma das piadas preferidas dos evolucionistas, O fato de certas famílias de animais serem semelhantes entre seus respectivos membros, não quer dizer que tenham origem em um mesmo ancestral. As barreiras que separam as espécies uma das outra são instransponíveis, não se constituindo novas espécies por acasalamento, nem por qualquer outra forma. Não há evidências científicas e fósseis que provem a mesma ancestralidade de animais morfologicamente semelhantes. Valdemir Mota de Menezes, o Escriba)



A compreensão dos mecanismos moleculares não nos permite identificar

locais e processos possíveis da mudança evolutiva(Meu grifo). As filogenias baseadas nas mudanças (em taxas que podem variar) em um único gene podem ser incertas, mas fontes adicionais de informações estão sendo encontradas cada vez mais rápido, por exemplo, estudos do genoma inteiro da mitocôndria.

Nos dois exemplos escolhidos acima, o estudo dos equinodermos

está nos mostrando como pode ser proveitoso combinar as informações

provenientes dos fósseis e das moléculas, e o estudo dos genes reguladores

nos artrópodes revela novos usos para as informações moleculares.

É emocionante ter à disposição novas ferramentas para

estabelecer as relações entre os invertebrados. O registro

da história, perdido em um tempo muito remoto, já não é

mais tão inacessível. No entanto, o estudo das relações não pode desviar

a nossa atenção dos animais propriamente ditos. A seleção natural nos

proporcionou uma enorme variedade de animais.



(A seleção Natural não nos proporcionou nem uma espécie de planta ou animal, pois animais e plantas diferentes vivem em um mesmo ambiente, até pode ser que se uns e outros não se adaptem a um clima e solo, venha mesmo a ser extinto, mas jamais as condições ambientais irão criar novas variedades de espécie. Minhas argumentações estão apoiadas no simples fato que não há evidências que isso tenha ocorrido no passado e nem mesmo nos mais modernos laboratórios do mundo conseguimos criar uma nova espécie.Ora, se usando a inteligência e a tecnologia, não conseguimos criar novas espécies, como uma natureza sem inteligência e sem propósito conseguiu fazer milhões de espécies????????????????????????? – Argumentos do Valdemir Mota de Menezes, o Escriba)



A sua estrutura, função e comportamento podem nos dizer mais sobre a evolução do que aquilo que

podemos aprender com qualquer filogenia. O maior desafio agora é preservar

esses animais no mundo ameaçado e ameaçador dos dias atuais.

Se acabarmos com as florestas, matarmos os recifes de corais e envenenarmos outros habitats terrestres, de água doce e marinha, os animais

desaparecerão. A raça humana, como qualquer outra espécie, não pode

sobreviver com a ausência de muitas outras formas de vida. Atualmente, a

preservação é a tarefa mais urgente de todos os biólogos.



(Gostei deste final, biólogo tem que pensar em preservar a biodiversidade e não filosofar com argumentos insensatos sobre a origem da vida, excluindo o Doador da Vida, DEUS. Sei que muitos males do mundo, teve o apoio e ação direta da religião e dos religiosos teístas, mas os erros das criaturas não podem ser cobrados do criador. Deus fez o homem perfeito, mas nosso grande atributo, o livre arbítrio, foi irresponsavelmente utilizado pela humanidade, razão dos nossos sofrimentos. Biólogos louvem a Deus pelas maravilhas da criação viva de Deus!!!!!!!!!! – Por Valdemir Mota de Menezes, o Escriba)

CIANOBACTÉRIAS E A EVOLUÇÃO

As Cianobactérias






O texto abaixo eu tirei do Curso de Licenciatura em Biologia da Universidade Metropolitana de Santos. O autor do texto fala que fósseis encontrados nas rochas, datados de 3,5 bilhões de anos atrás, indicam que as cianobactérias exerciam a mesma função daquela época com a de hoje. Onde está a evolução ai??? Se transcorreu tanto tempo assim e este ser vivo não mudou sua função não seria isso prova da criação estática de Deus e que não há evolução biológica alguma em curso no universo? Supostamente 3,5 bilhões de anos se passaram e as cianobacterias continuam realizando fotossíntese do mesmo jeito que fazia a 3,5 bilhões de anos atrás. Peixes continuam nadando, pássaros voando, e cianobacterias realizando fotosíntese. Não há evolução das espécies, esta teoria da evolução é uma desculpa para os agnósticos e ateus justificarem a existência da vida. (TEXTO DO VALDEMIR MOTA DE MENEZES, O ESCRIBA)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Nessa Unidade III abordarei os grandes grupos vegetais, irei iniciar

por organismos mais simples como as algas. As algas compõem um grupo

muito diversificado de seres vivos, com características morfológicas ainda

simples, mas muito variada. Nessa primeira aula falaremos sobre as

cianobactérias (conhecidas no passado como algas azuis ou cianofíceas).



Esse grupo de organismos apresenta grande importância na natureza, pois

participa dos ciclos globais do Carbono e do Nitrogênio. Como são seres vivos

que realizam fotossíntese, produzem um material orgânico rico em energia e

liberam oxigênio para a atmosfera. Além disso, juntamente com algumas

bactérias do solo, realizam o processo de Fixação do Nitrogênio Atmosférico.

Por meio desse processo, as cianobactérias permitem que esse gás, inerte

para os seres vivos, seja transformado em nutrientes inorgânicos importantes

para o desenvolvimento vegetal.

Além da importância ecológica, as cianobactérias também apresentam grande

importância evolutiva, pois os fósseis mais antigos encontrados datam de cerca

de 3,5 bilhões de anos, provenientes da Austrália Ocidental e da África do Sul.

Tanto a natureza de alguns desses fósseis como a composição química das

rochas nas quais eles foram encontrados, indicam que a fotossíntese já ocorria

naquela época.”

STATEMENTS OF SCIENTISTS ON THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

What the Evolutionists are Saying

Here are some interesting quotes made by leading evolutionists. After reading the information that I placed in the fossil section, it shouldn't surprise you that even they think their theory is weak.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity omnipotent chance."*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs as has been repeatedly shown the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk a ned twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity ."Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin. "We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science."*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

EAR AND EYE TESTIMONY OF CREATION

COMMENTS ON THE SCRIBE VALDEMIR MOTA DE MENEZES

An accurate study of biology shows that the eye and ear two bodies are extremely complex and can not be accidentally product developments. The great amount of nerve endings, which make up the system headset, and optical can only be the work of a creator who designed it with a high degree of sophistication. Even billions of years do not justify the emergence of these bodies as mere coincidence. Especially because until these organs are fully formed, they would be without any function in the body until they actually begin to actually work.

The human ear is intricate beyond imagination. The organ of Corti, a spiraling 3mm diameter ridge of cells in the inner ear that plays a crucial part in the way we hear pitch and direction of sound, contains some 20,000 rods and more than 30,000 nerve endings. How could the ear function at all if the seperate parts had come together by chance through millions of years?

Consider the eye. 130,000,000 light sensitive rods and cones cause photochemical reactions which turn light into electric impulses. Every second one billion of these impulses are transmitted to the brain. The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all. So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitly small Darwinian improvements?

Is it really possible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coicidentally so that the lens and retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in syncrony?

The eye even troubled Darwin who said "To this day the eye makes me shudder". (written to botanist friend Asa Gray in 1860)

Evoltution is explained as a series of mutations. It takes many of these for a creature to evolve into the next. If an average mutation rate of 1 in 100,000 were calculated based on an Earth population of 100,000,000 individuals, and its average generation lasted but one day, even just 5 simulataneous mutations in one individual would happen only once every 274 billion years.

WHALE AND THE EVOLUCTION THEORY

MY COMMENT:

The Scribe Valdemir Mota de Menezes agrees with the author of the text below. There are many things that the theory of evolution can not explain (thousands of questions). One is that, if land mammals evolved from aquatic mammals such as small mammals may have ancestors as the giant blue whale?


Why we could not of evolved

Here I am going to list some of the very troubling aspects of the evolution "theory". It is real easy to convince people that we came from ape, but for the evolution theory to be correct, much more had to of happened prior to that. Here are some of the "problem" areas for evolutionists, that they might not mention along side of their so called fossil evidence.


The evolution theory claims animals such as whales evolved from small mammals. They claim that life crawled out of the water, and at some point whales crawled back in. But they are deeply embarassed by the existence of these aquatic mammals for the following reason:


The blue whale is the largest animal that has ever lived. It can attain a length of 110 feet and weigh 300,000 pounds. How would a small land mammal evolve into this huge creature? What could have caused the mutations needed to enlarge an animal to such great proportions? How could this ever happen, even in billions of years?

QUADRO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO EMBRIONÁRIO DE HAECKEL

Texto do professor Valdemir Mota de Menezes, O ESCRIBA.

A ilustração na Biologia é realmente uma questão a ser tratada com bastante cautela. Em muitos casos temos muita arte e pouca ciência. Muitas imagens ilustrativas de supostos ancestrais do homem, não passam de exagerados esforços criativos de artistas que são orientados ideologicamente a representarem o que se imagina serem ou o que se imagina que foram...

Muitas das imagens ilustrativas de Ernst Haecket (Ilustrador oficial da Teoria da Evolução) se mostrou ser inverídica e improcedente, para não dizer fraudulenta e má intencionada. Um exemplo disto é o QUADRO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO EMBRIONÁRIO DE HAECKEL. Atualmente as fotografias de alta definição mostram os erros de Erns Haecket, contudo os livros de Biologia ainda insistem em utilizar ilustrações imprecisas. Verdades científicas não precisam se apoiar em postulados falsos...

Ernst Haecket era ateu e estava disposto a todo custo dar sustentação as teorias de Charles Darwin. Haecket foi levado a julgamento em Jena por fraude e foi condenado após confessar que uma pequena porcentagem dos seus desenhos embrionários eram falsificações.

 Abaixo vemos foto da mentira comparada com a verdade.