Darwin's Fatal Admission

I was just introduced to a wonderful book! I am still reading it, am about half way through--- I so want to recommend it to everyone here! This is great!

The book is titled Darwin's Fatal Admission--What Do You Do With Eternity? By Lachlen French.

You can get it at Amazon- It really quite a brilliant study on how Darwinism became such an accepted theory and yet it has no, none, nada evidence to back it up---One thing for sure, the Darwinists never ask "so where did the first 'cell' that divides come from---what is it that was here to 'create' the first thing that mutated--or what made the planet with the water for the first cell thing to even exist? or he even takes it to DNA and how DNA was not known about during Darwin's time. He also mentions that atheists say maybe it all came from another planet---but they do not ask 'yes, so where did that other planet come from"--- anyway, he really takes apart the Darwinists in such a very brilliantly factual intellectual way---anyone who considers himself the type who prefers coming at the Truth or Reality through the more scientific direction will enjoy this book---anyone who believes in God and Creationism will also love it! and those who are Non-dualitsts more metaphysical types will love it too!

Ok, that is all---but, if anyone reads it and want to discuss it here---that would be fun to see what you think of this---I think it is a book that should be taught/read in schools---It's really a good book!

reply to post by Sweetmystery

One thing for sure, the Darwinists never ask "so where did the first 'cell' that divides come from--

Darwinism and evolutionary theory doesn't attempt to answer of origin of life, only how it evolved.

nice plug btw newish member

and yet it has no, none, nada evidence to back it up

This statment is so wrong, evidence has been posted many times on ATS, and if you do some research you will find this evidence easily

Is the Author religious? yes or no?

yeah thought so..

reply to post by Sweetmystery

Oh dear he we go again. How man times do we have to repeat this :

1. He had a THEORY. Do you know what a theory is as opposed to a law?.....probably not especially if it allows ignorance to let God creep in.
2. You have clearly demonstrated the usual ignorance of how science works.
3. Evolution has been demonstrated no matter how many times the bible thumping God apologists claim it hasn't.
4. No doubt his book gives the believers in God a nice warm fuzzy feeling and he has a nice fat wallet...DUH!

He's not religious as in that he has a religion. He is more metaphysics, I'd say. Kind of like he see God as the Divine Intelligence behind the 'things' ---

Also, my explaining of the book is all my words, trying to encapsulate, but really, he goes much deeper than that---I just can't reiterate the book here--

Not sure why I should not have posted this? can explain to me a little better about the "other posts' et al?

Sorry, you are right, I am not much of a writer here, but I have tried to join a few threads---most are very gracious and I really like reading more than posting---but, if I messed up, I sure did not know---

Thanks you guys, I am happy for the comments---

i take it you are both "Darwinians" ? So, I guess it felt like huge 'slam'--- but his book is a huge slam on Darwin and he states his proofs really really well. You know Darwin is a "theory" not a proven at all---not even close.

Maybe, my mistake, this is the Darwinists club? or what? I am confused by your rather combative responses. Or is that just the norm here--- If so, I am not very good at combat--- so I can delete perhaps? Let me know if you'd rather I delete my thread--- or suggest where else I might post it---I was just very excited about this book--I've not read anything quite like it, it is simple and yet very deep and factual and science and includes the Intelligent Design and quantum stuff---really a good book --

Thank you and Much Peace to you---

There was not Bible stuff in the book---I don't think so? Or I did not see any-- and he was not being 'religious', ---although, I do relate to his 'venue' which is more metaphysics I'd say--- Or 'spiritual' without a religion---but yes, he is a "god believer' and that is for sure---and so am I---

Well, as I say, I guess I am not astute enough to know where I should have posted this ---

I do apolize, I feel like I accidently walked into a little club I should not be in---

Much Love to you---

Hey, i thought maybe you'd like me to post a little excerpt from the book (well not you two, but maybe some others who might be reading this

"Darwin never describes how Something came to be. But it is now popular, even required to believe in this illogic of nothing sponsoring it. When something as miraculous and infinitely complex as the universe (in its inescapably lawful nature) is described as coming from an accident – one just sighs.

This was a first. That one man could audaciously claim against the lead of all amazing minds of history – whose shoulders he stood on that Nothingness (in a dumb explosion of miraculous Lawful detail) could be the reason All things exist – was a height of intellectual egotistic-hubris. Sometimes certain ones desire to be an iconoclast-’truth giver’ or just the ‘first one’ to say something. What we find, as with any new Idea, Fad, Religion, Philosophy or Discipline is, the followers make it into a ‘sacred’ sacrosanct object, or into a zealous ‘belonging’.

I absorbed Darwin’s self proclaimed theory and its principles, anecdotal indicators its ideation and its supposed “certainty” because the public school system in America and many others now teach the theory as a FACT. But near the end of his life Darwin offered up a fearful unease that what he wrote could create a debilitating effect.
He never got to see its full flowered worldwide acceptance and dogmatically pressured promulgation. It’s truly pressured now almost everywhere. Many are fired from institutions of higher learning for not believing it, Or in pointing to ideas such as intelligent design (ID) in their class rooms. (See the movie: "Expelled").

I had no solid reason to question evolution at my young age in school. I even have friends who now believe in a deific- evolutionary belief system – God uses evolution they think. Then as with most ideas one hears divergent views spoken in various group-settings, regarding its merits, its foundations or logic.

Whether it’s politics, religion or scientific theories we always eventually come to understand there’re differing views out there

and they appear to come from very astute reasonable even well educated individuals. Then we say inside Oh this is interesting – and we may ponder: How may I contribute here? Then we discover the world is full of other views, not just one dogmatic idea. And we expand our minds.

But I have one cognition that truly amuses me. When we look at the world of science or any discipline be it religion, the arts, poetry, athletics, history, pursuits in and of knowledge even Beauty (as in it’s in the eye of the beholder) there are always EXPERTS on two or more sides. Wait, I thought they were experts. How can they be on opposite sides? How can he be right if she is right, really? Where did the expert status go?

See, people are just people, and their social underpinnings are more important than their degrees held. Capitalists will never love socialism – Socialists always distrust capitalists and everyone hates fascism, tyranny and dictators, (not the rulership parties of course) – but the people hate them. Darwinists fall on the side of ‘forcing’ people into their beliefs, which is not good. Too much like tyranny."

"Yet everyone is just expressing and advocating from where their mind-preference SITS. See, when you sit and hear an expert, it is not from his research you are hearing, it is from his mind-perspective. Sure, facts can be offered to you, but the context in which they’re held is what you’re receiving. It is THEIR context you are receiving more than their expertise. They choose to use some facts, but not others.

This is why letting a small group of people, in totalitarian, fascist, communist or socialist regimes-elites control the lives and policies of masses, is silly. They’re as non-objective as the next man. You can be sure most human beings are not objective. These regimes are simply serving Their context, not ours. They enjoy huge power, wealth and THAT is what they love.

A democracy of the people, by the people, for the people will always serve the people better than a tiny group of self-serving elites. Do we want liberty or egalitarian-equality-attempting elites ruling us with promises of being equal? Do we want to be yellow pencils? All of us? I know through my decades of research in all forms of science, that evolution has no evidentiary reality. It’s from the perspective of atheistic science’s disbelief in a Prime Mover, but it means there’s no evidence. Yet it is presented as having certainty to it.

This is merely ego-pushing not science. Science proves. Science Knows. Science tests, retests, reproves, verifies, and comes at it again from as many perspectives as possible to verify its veracity. Yet they cannot explain the fact of, or the reason for an infinite, fine, shimmering energetic pulse of liveliness in all of time-space-matter-energy. I would assert that most of them do not even know about that.

Darwinism has never done this reproving, testing, etc. – Evolution cannot even do this even if they desired to which they do not. The ruling elite in evolutionary biology wish to maintain their esteemed positions of influence, money, authority."


Really, I found this book to be so enlightening and I have not finished it yet---but, his view point is really unusual and quite profound, honest and meaningful ideas in this book--- An excellent read for helping to understand these belligerent, chaotic times of fighting among oppressors and repressors we are in the middle of -

Ok, maybe I can get some comments here about the excerpt or something---

Thanks,

How about this from the book:

Darwin was bothered by the eyeball because it has so many systems that need each other to work Together to provide SEEING, and it appears they all arose at once in a perfect systemization of systematic harmonies and teamwork creating Vision only together. If you don’t have the lens, all other aspects (perfectly here, and housed) do not matter. Or if all is there except the retina (and the wondrous rods and cones within it) everything else is pointless. Darwin said –

“What shall we say of the eye? Is it conceivable that this transcendent organ with its power of adjusting its focus to different distances and of letting in more or less light – with its nearly perfect correction
for chromatic and spherical aberrations, could’ve formed by the accumulations, through natural selection, of infinitesimally slight variations, and each useful to its possessor. I confess, that there’s no language at first that seems too strong to condemn the absurdity of such a notion.”

(Darwin, C.R., in Stauffer, R.C., ed., “Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection: Being the Second Part of His Big Species Book Written From 1856 to 1858,” [1975], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK),

By admitting the inconceivable Darwin seems open-minded, but he really wants folks to just forget the inconceivableness and accept his theory. The EYE is a System of Systems working Together. And vision does not work if all are not present. So once again, he said something self-sabotaging of his theory.

If it’s ever shown that systems have to arise together, simultaneously to survive forward (impossible by his own admission) then his theory’s proven wrong. It looks like the eyeball proves that, thank you Charles.

reply to post by Sweetmystery


Wow. Talk about one giant strawman. So basically what this book does is make up its own definition of evolution, label it "Darwinism" while ignoring the mountains of evidence behind modern synthesis and not even understanding the basics of a scientific theory. Books like this are seriously detrimental to society as they rely on reader ignorance and directly conflict with the pursuit of knowledge and understanding through science, simply to dishonestly promote a faith based belief system. It's sad that people resort to attacking science and evolution instead of understanding how they can be compatible.

Maybe, my mistake, this is the Darwinists club? or what? I am confused by your rather combative responses. Or is that just the norm here--- If so, I am not very good at combat---

No, it's just that it's the same old silly lies and scientific illiteracy that's been posted here and debunked a thousand times over. There is tons of evidence that backs evolution.

it is simple and yet very deep and factual and science

Considering the passages you posted have nothing to do with evolution or are blatantly false, I'd say the factual and science part is out the window.

This is merely ego-pushing not science. Science proves. Science Knows. Science tests, retests, reproves, verifies, and comes at it again from as many perspectives as possible to verify its veracity. Yet they cannot explain the fact of, or the reason for an infinite, fine, shimmering energetic pulse of liveliness in all of time-space-matter-energy. I would assert that most of them do not even know about that.

The guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about. What fine, infinite, shimmering energetic pulse of liveliness? What does that even mean? Which part of that is science, because I've never seen a single experiment that proves anything like that exists. This book sounds like the ramblings of a madman.

Darwinism has never done this reproving, testing, etc. – Evolution cannot even do this even if they desired to which they do not. The ruling elite in evolutionary biology wish to maintain their esteemed positions of influence, money, authority."

Blatant lie. Evolution is testable, repeatable, falsifiable just like any scientific theory. What a load of dung.

The dude is writing a book about evolutionary theory as it was back in 1850 and Darwin had just come up with the idea. How can you simply ignore all the progress that has happened since then, in particular the advancements we've made in genetics? You can't be that wrong without it being intentional.

SweetMystery, I recommend reading an actual science book, perhaps the link below for starters.

en.wikipedia.org...

End the war on evolution and knowledge!

reply to post by Sweetmystery

You can get it at Amazon- It really quite a brilliant study on how Darwinism became such an accepted theory and yet it has no, none, nada evidence to back it up

This may one of the most ignorant and uneducated statements I've seen on here. The evidence is plentiful and the theory has change over time -- "evolved", if you will -- as new evidence has been uncovered.

One thing for sure, the Darwinists never ask "so where did the first 'cell' that divides come from

Three points here:

1. There's no longer any such thing as a Darwinist. Why creationists and interventionists persist in trying to refute a theory that was no longer the dominant explanation for biodiversity by the early 1900's is beyond me. Darwinian evolution was merged with Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, and then other disciplines were integrated as well. That's why it's called "modern evolutionary synthesis". Catch up.

2. Of course scientists are still asking questions. That's an incredibly silly thing to assert.

3. The origin of the first cell would be the study of abiogenesis. While related to evolution, it's not evolution.

what is it that was here to 'create' the first thing that mutated--or what made the planet with the water for the first cell thing to even exist? or he even takes it to DNA and how DNA was not known about during Darwin's time.

I've always found that to be one of the more intriguing parts of Darwin's theory -- he knew there had to be a mechanism by which information could be passed down from generation to generation, but he wasn't aware of Mendel's work when he developed his theory.

He also mentions that atheists say maybe it all came from another planet

Why are you conflating atheism and acceptance of evolution?

but they do not ask 'yes, so where did that other planet come from"

Panspermia doesn't necessarily require another planet. The molecules that are basic to life are easy to generate under the right conditions. Further, and maybe you aren't aware of this, but astronomers are actively finding and cataloguing other planets. Do you really suppose that evolutionary biologists aren't keeping an eye on the data that's coming in?

anyway, he really takes apart the Darwinists in such a very brilliantly factual intellectual way

If your summary is any indication of how he's "taking apart the Darwinists", then I feel sorry for you having spent money on the book.

reply to post by Sweetmystery

i take it you are both "Darwinians" ? So, I guess it felt like huge 'slam'--- but his book is a huge slam on Darwin and he states his proofs really really well. You know Darwin is a "theory" not a proven at all---not even close.

If you believe that anything in science is ever proven, especially a theory, then I'd suggest you take some time to learn more about science. Also, it looks like you're falling into the "just a theory" fallacy. The word "theory", when used in a scientific context, is vastly different from its use in a colloquial context. When used scientifically, it's not a hunch or a guess, it's an explanatory framework for natural phenomena that has been exceedingly well tested and backed by empirical evidence.

Maybe, my mistake, this is the Darwinists club? or what? I am confused by your rather combative responses. Or is that just the norm here--- If so, I am not very good at combat--- so I can delete perhaps? Let me know if you'd rather I delete my thread--- or suggest where else I might post it---I was just very excited about this book--I've not read anything quite like it, it is simple and yet very deep and factual and science and includes the Intelligent Design and quantum stuff---really a good book --

I'd suggest that the combative nature of the responses so far is due to most posters here having seen the same fallacies ("just a theory", "not proven", "evolution can't explain abiogenesis", etc.) posted again and again. If people would take the time to learn what the theory of evolution actually states before trying to argue against it and take the time to learn about science and how it works, this forum would be much less combative. But when you've seen "it's just a theory" for the hundredth time, it gets a little old and polite, well written responses are going to get less and less frequent.

oh, I see I got some more responses!

Someone asks about this 'vibration' stuff:

Never mind---not worth the effort to discuss with ---

Here's a quick primer on abiogenesis



His channel has quite a bit of information on evolution too, aimed at different levels of understanding.

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
oh, I see I got some more responses!

Someone asks about this 'vibration' stuff:

Never mind---not worth the effort to discuss with ---

No offense, but anybody can lie in a text book, especially a religious nutjob with no credentials whatsoever about the subject matter. The fact of the matter is that science says this book is a lie. I trust science over some random fundamentalist who's trying to preach his belief system as fact and attack science for no reason, and without substance. Not a single point he raises in the book is backed by evidence. Do even the most basic reading about the theory of evolution, and you should immediately realize this.

I'm not a scientist, so can someone explain to me if Darwin ever managed to explain those flowering plants that plagued him to the point where he called them "abominations."

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
I'm not a scientist, so can someone explain to me if Darwin ever managed to explain those flowering plants that plagued him to the point where he called them "abominations."

I'm not a creationist, but can someone explain to me why people only talk about Darwin in 1850, while ignoring everything about the field of science since?

reply to post by CodyOutlaw


Thank you---Nice to find someone here who understands my point of posting about this book. Its a wonderful book!

And the guy who wrote this book, as I said before, is not a fundamentalist (as someone insisted he was) He is more into Metaphysics and God as Divine Intelligence behind all we see and how things happen---

Tell me, how did that DNA become so Intelligent? How? Where did its "self organizing" ability come from? is that just a fluke? Wanna try creating something like that by mistake? or random chaos coming to be DNA?

I also know that none of you will really read what I am writing---you have already made up your mind and closed the doors---You already know there is no Intelligent Design or God Being ---that is not a very scientific approach, but it is basic Fundamentalist-Darwinism.

So the following is for those who would enjoy this book:

"Sir Fred Hoyle arrived at a beautiful comprehensible analogy proving evolution could hardly be considered a string of accidental fortuitous occurrences. He used the analogy of the 3-dimensional puzzle called the Rubik’s Cube. The six faces of the hand held Rubik’s Cube puzzle-game are made of 9 smaller cubes on each of the 6 sides of the main cube, with the 54 smaller cube's base-colors all mixed up. The puzzle of course is twisting the cube faces on its 3-base axis, so that at the end of all the rotating and twisting in the player's hands - in its 3-axis rotations - each of the six sides are all one color.

Now imagine giving a Rubik’s Cube to a blind man. Ask him to solve the Rubic puzzle by aligning all the colors. Hoyle

calculated with the odds and numeric combinations of possible permutations involved, which is staggering, a blind man requires about 5 x 1018 turns, to solve the puzzle in chance.

Just Suppose he makes one turn per second fairly fast; well it will take him 5 x 1018 seconds to do it accidentally. This is equal to126 billion years to finish the puzzle by haphazard chance. This is what Darwinism tells us about how it happened here (just on our planet -- Not the universal creation). That’s longer than our entire 14 billion year old universe has been existing!

Someone in the know, with eyesight, can do the Rubik puzzle in 2 to 3 minutes. The Rubik’s Cube solution means manipulating and aligning just 54 smaller cubes on it. But in solving life’s living puzzle it requires 3.1 billion nucleotides to be aligned in absolute perfection, within the famous double helix DNA ladder. And that does not even ask: How did the double helix get constructed, to have the ladder to begin with. Could accidents really design living Perfection - in truly empty, chance-filled blindness?

It’s like expecting that an explosion in a printing press will perfectly assemble Webster’s Dictionary fortuitously.
Sir Fred Hoyle also was very well known for his pithy saying: “There is a coherent plan in the Universe”."

-------

Lachlen French, the author of this book, is also an entertaining and very informative writer---its a fun read and educational read.

Originally posted by Barcs

I'm not a creationist, but can someone explain to me why people only talk about Darwin in 1850, while ignoring everything about the field of science since?

I asked a genuine question.
Maybe you could drop the snark and answer me?

Here is a bit about the Quantum Pulse:

"There’s a view out there (almost everywhere) that space is dead, inanimate; and the universe of matter-energy is essentially dead too. “It’s just material stuff” we think. When you hear this from now on you’ll know it’s not true. Although it may take some settling of concepts in your awareness, to truly assimilate its depth in meaning and impact on everything.

The universe is alive with most crucially rhythmic energy, pulsing out cosmic heartbeats in effusive mathematic movement everywhere in every direction. It’s in the constructiveness in ever-more sophisticated complexities, arising all over, through this wisdom that’s about to be shared. Here it is.
There’s a pulsing rhythmic mathematic energy-heart- beat all Through and At every quantum-point in the bubble-continuum of Space-time-matter-energy. It’s a modulated constant fine-vibrational ‘movement and rest’ of rhythmic-pulsation.

It’s a very minute-fine-shimmering-essence-of-frequency-vibra- tion (a faint shimmer pulsed out regularly - say every trilli- second) at the Planck mass level of the universe (our smallest aware point of existence). In giving everything movement and rhythm it even provides moving structures to what we call Time in a modulated constant pulsing vibration. It provides spatial geometry within the All of everything every where as well through this movement. And why focus on Rhythmic? This indicates order. It indicates structure-purpose-intention.
It reveals a source somewhere pulsing, doing it in a periodic fashion, rhythmically.

There’s not one particle at quantum point that is absent from its influence. It Touches Every thing. Movement IS geometry in space. When there’s a There over there it’s because you have movement. If you only have 'here' there’s no Experience or geom- etry anywhere out there (only in Here – in consciousness). But with a moving cosmos you have the experience of travel, of ME, of coming, going, of volume, depth, width, breadth, distance. If there’s no movement there’s nothing to experience. All is ideation only in pure I am here (when nothing’s moving anywhere).

Why do we bring up this wonderful fact of the infinite cosmic shimmering heartbeat? First of all, we should know about it, as we may have not been told about it before. But put simply, none of us knows where this heartbeat Pulse of Infinite minute energy comes from or Why it’s in the universe or how it is Everywhere in an omnipresence. It’s an anomaly. No one understands it.

Who can explain an ever-present vibrational-pulse of energy through the all of everything? Is there a scientist somewhere with an answer? No. This shimmering frequency vibration is invisibly everywhere – from somewhere.
Now here’s an interesting concept. Since it’s everywhere then it is Not traveling to everyplace from some single locale to pulse out its energy (as the universe is 15 billion light years wide). No, no the vibration is Now everywhere all the time (no need for it to travel) it’s already here. My friends ask HOW can some frequency vibration BE everywhere already?

What could be infinitely pulsing in omnipresence? Is there a hyperspace Source of vibration beyond all time-space-matter- energy? If there is, what do we call this source – a Prime Mover behind it all? And if there is a hyperspace source, how can you say it’s not Consciously Purposed in its lively rhythm? Who’s to say this pulse does not create warmth, so important to everything, especially life."

-----

Isn't that cool! It gives me the sense that we are part of God's Living Heart Beat! Or maybe 'we are" the Living Blood Cells of God's Body and Mind---well, in some way----something like that! but certainly we have to part of Something Greater and More Mystical and Wondrous than we can imagine--- This is why I like the book, it takes us to the Mystery and for me Mystery is the Ineffable Omnipresence Something Holy and Sacred and that makes Life Holy and Sacred! I Love That!