Wednesday, 13 July 2011

HISTORY DENYING 101: Darwinian Evolution Falls Short

MACRO-EVOLUTION: Do you still believe that twaddle?!

"The difference between any two breeds of dog gives us a rough idea of the quantity of evolutionary change that can be achieved in less than a millennium. The next question we should ask is, how many millennia do we have available to us in accounting for the whole history of life? If we imagine the sheer quantity of differences that separate a pye-dog from a peke, which took only a few centuries of evolution, how much longer is the time that separates us from the beginning of evolution or, say, from the beginning of mammals? … Can you imagine two million centuries, laid end to end?"
(Richard Dawkins)

Extrapolations are not facts, are not proof. Species did not transform from one into the other (macro-evolution). A mouse did not evolve and become a horse. No matter how many centuries are laid end to end. This is so embarrassing that (white-privilege) Dawkins would rely so heavily in his book (The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution) on unproven conjecture, imaginings, fantasies, tricks of the mind…to prove his Darwinian point!

Show me the fossil records—which clearly show DRAMATIC CHANGE, change ACROSS species, over time. 

Well Dawky?
*fingers tapping on desk, impatiently*

Exactly. There aren't any.

We all know that WITHIN species there can be significant change.  A large St Bernard dog that mates with a small thin Whippet is going to produce a dog.  

It ain't gonna' be a big husky St Bernard, and ain't gonna' be a thin racehorse style Whippet.  

It will be a combination of both dogs.  This is an example of MICRO-EVOLUTION, change within a species.  In this case the general dog species.  These two dogs mating are never going to suddenly produce a baboon, or a shark, or a red-tailed hawk.

But that is just the kind of evolution (Macro) that Dawkins ACTUALLY believes in!  

Wants you to believe in!

Without any proof of such occurrences of dramatic change from our discoverable, fossilized past!

And if you question the proud Richard Dawkins and his elaborate and unproven vacuous assertions—you become a history-denier!

Proud to be a denier, since, forever ~


  1. Where are the fossils that show dramatic change across species, over millions and millions of years? They're in museums all over the world. You should visit one sometime.

  2. No, they're not.

    Those museum beasties are elaborate 'guesstulations' from a handful of bones that have actually been found.

    No dinosaurs appear in any evolutionary chain of any existing modern animals because no such evolutionary chains have ever, or will ever, exist.

    Soon all the 60s trippy hippies will be dead…

    …and soon, so also will all the mindless nerdbots that believe macro-evolution is actually supported by science. It isn't. There IS NOT ONE example that can be pointed to…that supports an evolutionary succession, from one genus to another.

    Ride your bicycle and believe in Darwin/Dawkins fables, that's the hand you've been dealt.

  3. Since you seem to think that there is some qualitative difference between species rather than mere arbitrary classifications, I'd be interested to see how you explain ring species.

    Just curious.