Reverse Evolution

Post 028

There are two, and only two, theories of how life originated.
These two theories are as diametrically opposed as conceivably possible, which is the natural result of the nature of the two forces sponsoring each view.

The first and most accepted view by modern man, is the theory of Evolution. In a nutshell, this baseless, science-less theory suggests that all matter known in the entire universe, somehow began from nothing, and then from the most basic elements, is now the result of a series of many thousands of millions of minor biological successful accidents. Each purposeless accident made a slight improvement on the subject object resulting in the most complex forms present today beginning from the simplest elements.
This success was not just with a singular life form, but branched into the plethora of variations in life we see today, all varieties of plants, bugs, birds, fish, animals, germs, amoeba, etc. In other words; everything has gotten better and better over time.
So many amazing successful changes, I wonder if there is room in evolution for the occasional accident with an unfavorable result, or are all random accidents typically improvements in this theory?
Scientifically, there is not one known element in the entire known universe that left to itself becomes better over time. Fact; all observable matter is in the state of decay. Yet the theory of evolution defies all known scientific reality, and is so baseless it cannot even accurately be called a serious theory.

The opposing view, accepted by most of the men of recent past (those ignorant fools like our founding fathers), is the theory of Creation.
In a nutshell, this theory says God has always been, and is a force outside the constraints of our known space/time dimension. This God created from nothing everything that is, perfect from the beginning. Since then, things have progressively deteriorated over time.
This theory conforms to all known science, though there are elements that are still a mystery, they do not defy science.

Just as the re-awakening of Christianity in recent history gave light to bring back the “round earth” idea (3 laws of planetary motion, by Yohannes Kepler 1600s... who also wrote 2 books on the star of Bethlehem), and history today now thinks that was the first time that idea was developed, in spite of the fact that the bible over 3000 years ago already declared that (Psalm 19:1-6).
One day a Christian society will bring back the “Creator Theory” by scientific evidences and the world will think they invented the concept in their modern wisdom. They will look back on us and wonder how a people could be so ignorant of science as to believe in evolution, yet travel to the moon!

What am I saying?
That each generation has progressively gotten dumber over time, not smarter.
As in any trend, there are always minor forward and backward movements, but the overall progression is that of less intelligent not more so. The Greeks were performing brain surgery, the Egyptians built structures that we today have no idea how they accomplished it. Rome had sophisticated plumbing. Yet we always look back on those of the past as barbaric and ignorant.
Yes, there were cave men in the past, but no different than the Aborigines of Australia today, Mankind as a race was never in a “caveman phase” as a part of the evolutionary process of betterment. The first man was the most perfect man, each generation, like copies, have progressively degenerated little by little.
What we have in observable reality is Reverse Evolution.
This theory conforms to all science.

What does this mean to us today?
If you accept the idea that man is constantly evolving in a direction of improvement, you must do so with your imagination, because science does not support this idea. If truth, history, logic, and science are not required to come to a line of thinking, then there is nothing to stand in the way of any form of insanity you choose to believe. The idea of evolution is so mathematically impossible that to believe it removes the word Impossible from the vocabulary. Webster’s dictionary definition should then read;

Impossible: An unused, archaic word of our ignorant ancestors, [describing a now rejected idea that] 1. Evidence could show that something could not occur. 2. The nature of reality demands limits and boundaries associated with all things, therefore something beyond that scope was once considered impossible.

Our Nation was once, not long ago, a wise, benevolent, wealthy, powerful, safe place to live. Through a dynamic departure from our National foundations, our nation has become a confused, greedy, corrupt, weak, selfish nation mocked by the other nations of the earth.
How we see the cause that got us here, and what must be done to fix the problem will depend on which of the two theories you believe.
* * * * * * *