Refuting Darwinism's Origin of Species.

Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Here we present our argument refuting Darwinism's Origin Of Species theory as pseudo-science, or Scientism, devoid of all scientific evidences or proofs.

1: The Scientific Method.

Any new hypothesis elevated to the level of scientific theory must first be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of multiple independently sourced scientific evidences supporting it and none refuting it. These evidences may be in the form of solid empirical evidences, in easily duplicable (and already duplicated) experiments, or both, with supporting consensus among all recognized experts in the field, and all results published. This process normally takes a great deal of time.

After the original proponent first satisfies himself through meticulous and objective gathering of evidences and successful experiments, his theory is then made public. New hypotheses are always expected to be openly published for peer review with elaborate explanations of duplicable observation and experiment, so that others may go through the same or similar processes themselves in a completely independent manner.

A period of objective independent criticism follows, during which the independent critics proactively seek to confirm or refute the hypothesis in the laboratory and the field. Upon complete or overwhelming independent confirmation the hypothesis may be elevated to the exalted level of a scientific theory. Upon the lack of independent confirmation, the hypothesis will be refuted.

2: Our Argument.

We submit that Darwin’s hypothesis regarding the evolution of species has never been properly subjected to the Scientific Method described above.

The hypothesis describes an evolutionary process by which new species arise from within existing ones, with members of the new species fully able to reproduce among themselves, but no longer able to reproduce or interbreed with the parent species from which they “evolved.” This is, definitively, a new species. Mutation is the hypothetical mechanism for this evolutionary event. The hypothesis holds that every species that ever existed came to be through this evolutionary process.

You can see Darwin’s original observations from which he inferred his hypotheses of survival of the fittest and natural selection, from which he further inferred his hypothesis regarding the evolution of species at the definition of Darwinism page. The entire theory of evolution is based solely upon these observations and inferences of Charles Darwin. You can see more detail on the entire subject at the actual Darwinism page itself.

Darwin’s Basic Observations. These observations regarded individual species. The variation observed represented variation very strictly within each individual species. A new breed of sheep remains within the species of sheep; the new breed may still interbreed with the parent breed and thus is not a new species. So it is with dogs, and cats, and horses, etc. And so it is with human races. All variations may still interbreed with the parent breed(s) or race(s) and thus no new speciation has occurred.

Darwin’s Concrete Observations. In Journey of the Beagle and other writings Darwin recorded many unique species and documented variation within species, with the most popularly remembered ones from the Galapagos Islands. Marine iguanas and various finches remain today among the most popular of the many elaborately described by Darwin.

Whether in his elaborate descriptions of and well documented explanations of why there were such observed changes in finch beaks within species populations, or woollier breeds of sheep within species populations, or any and all other observations, all variation was very strictly still within the limitations of the observed species. Darwin never observed the evolution of any new species.

The Theory’s Basis. The entire theory of evolution rests solely upon the purely subjective inferences of Charles Darwin, it has no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting it, and yet it enjoys near unanimous peer support everywhere today.

Any new species discovered, by Darwin or anyone else, is automatically assumed to have evolved. All extinct species found in the fossil record are assumed to have evolved. All living species are assumed to have evolved, and to still be evolving. That is what we learned in school, and that is what we believe.

Evolutionary Events. If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed an evolutionary event in which a new species was produced, then lay the evidence of the event on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. Then we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test.

The new species must be able to reproduce itself but no longer interbreed with the parent species, else it would not be a new species. Many have tried to create a species in the laboratory; none have succeeded. From short-lived species ranging from one celled plants and animals to the ever popular fruit fly, many have been subjected to purposeful mutating and cross breeding over many generations to produce truly wild variations, but alas, no new species.

If no new species produced in accordance with evolutionary theory has ever been observed by man in all of recorded history, and cannot even be produced in the laboratory, then evolution must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

Intermediary Species. Darwin postulated that there must be many more failure species that failed to survive than successful new species, and thus the fossil record should show more intermediary species than successful ones. The fossil record therefore should show not only a clear progression of evolution among successful species, but even more fossil evidence of mutant failures. Darwin insisted that if these intermediaries were not eventually found then his entire theory must fail.

If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever collected fossil evidence of an intermediary species that failed to survive, then lay the evidence of the intermediary species on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. Then we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test.


If no link species, meaning no successful intermediary species between any two successful species, fossil or living, has ever been observed by man in all of recorded history and cannot be produced in the laboratory, then evolution must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

Darwinism is a Fad of the Elite, pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less. Since birth, it simply became extremely popular among the intelligentsia, the upper class and the pseudo-sophisticated. There is nothing scientific about it, since no real science has ever been applied to it. It has morphed into a belief system, a quasi-religion, based on faith alone. It is now taught almost as dogma in schools all over the world. The damage it has done to truth is incalculable. Taken axiomatically by everyone, it forms the foundation for many other theories, all of which may now be seen to stand on quicksand.

Scientism. I have spoken elsewhere on this site about Scientism and its past and current champions. Some example pages are The Enlightenment and Scientism, Scientism and Silly Assed Consensus, Richard Dawkins, and his adoring retinue of idiotic bobble-headed-dolls, just to name a few.

We have reached a point where real scientists in various related and unrelated disciplines base new hypothesis at least partially on the educationally inculcated belief that Darwinism is true. A scientific theory, we have all learned, is taken to be axiomatic; a given. We don’t bother to put them to the test. Science that has gone before enables us to stand on the shoulders of those who have already proved the established scientific theories. If the modern scientist has to test everything that has gone before, no real scientific progress can be made. That is why science relies heavily on established scientific theory, which is assumed to be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

But Darwin’s universally embraced theory is nothing more than an unsubstantiated, purely subjective personal hypothesis, and nothing more. Popularity and consensus has nothing to do with it. A scientific theory may either be scientifically substantiated, or it may not. This theory cannot stand the test of science.

Yet today we see that an overwhelming majority among TTRSTF4 dogmatically embracing Darwinism and refusing to even consider the slightest possibility of its falsification. They are largely divided into two fiercely competing denominations, or camps, if you will. First, there are TTRSTF4 who embrace and hold to the original, or “fundamentalist” school of GESGOEAEOT2 evolutionary event scientific theory, and those who adhere to the newer PEWAG3 mass-mutation scientific theory. And that’s where it stands.

Neither group has ever observed, produced in the laboratory or found fossil evidence of either sub-scientific theory. No evidence of any from-to speciation. No evidence of any distinct evolutionary trail in any fossil records. No evidence of any intermediaries, whether successful or failures. Just a lot of conjecture and consensus, as the two groups point the finger of heresy at each other.

While these two sub-denominations of Darwinism feel free to criticize each other, they will band together against anyone who questions the main religion of Darwinism itself, in unanimous support of militant and aggressive counter attacks. Question the core, central dogmas of Darwinism and the unanimous response from both camps will be STNSEACPB8 that evolutionary theory is in any way in question.

Consensus trumps objective reality.

Beam me up, Scotty; there is no science down here.


Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (BLOG) page

Return to HOME PAGE


SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
PEWAG3 Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild Assed Guess
TTRSTF4 Them There Real Scientifical Type Fellers
TTRSPTF5 Them There Real Smart Perfesser Type Fellers
TTRSJTF6 Them There Real Smart Journalistical Type Fellers
SNRTACBT7 Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB8 Surely Today No Serious, Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN9 We Don't Know
BMDFP10 Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs
HBAACOTE11 Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU12 Anti-Christian Litigation Union
MEJTML14 Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML15 Islamic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV16 Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG17 Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM18 The Reason Man's In This Mess


Webpage Comments and


Date: Sun Jun 14 13:14:22 2009
From: Jason
Location: Keego Harbor Michigan

So what’s your alternative theory?

Creationism, I suppose …

Date: Mon Jun 15 11:35:33 2009
From: Vic Biorseth


I have no alternative theory; I don’t need one. The theory under discussion here is Darwin’s theory regarding the origin of species. It’s either a good theory, or it is not. I have said it is not a good theory, and given my reasons why it is not a good theory.

There is no evidence supporting it. Period.

Anyone who still “believes” in Darwin’s theory, on faith alone, which is the only way one could possibly believe it, has got to be a real dumb ass who never practiced critical thinking and probably doesn’t even know what that term means.



Date: Mon Jun 15 12:01:58 2009
From: Jason
Location: Keego Harbor Michigan

How do you explain all the fossilized life forms in all the various rock strata all over the world that was formed over all the millennia since the formation of the world?

Date: Mon Jun 15 12:15:02 2009
From: Vic Biorseth


I don’t. Why should I?

Again, the theory under discussion here is Darwin’s theory regarding how the species came to be, one by one. Where’s the evidence of any speciation? Where’s even any observation of any speciation event?

Regarding the most popular hypotheses regarding the age of earthly rock strata, what method do you implicitly trust to give you the age of anything in any strata layer currently theorized to be millions or more years old? Surely not the radiocarbon dating method, which is only good for thousands, certainly not millions of years.

Have you discovered something new?



Date: Sat Sep 19 10:11:42 2009
From: DetailDevil

Is there any solid empirical evidence refuting the theory?

Date: Sun Sep 20 07:34:14 2009
From: Vic Biorseth


Only such things as mathematical rules of statistical probability, and violations of proven theories such as the third law of thermodynamics and so forth. No solid evidences. Trying to disprove something that has never been proven poses some difficulties, but should not even be necessary for the obvious reason.

The more pertinent question might be whether there is any solid empirical evidence supporting the theory, and the answer is no, there is none. The only existing support for the faithful belief system of Darwinism is massive, world-wide general consensus.

That’s about it.



Date: Tue Sep 22 21:05:20 2009
From: Bernie
Location: San Carlos, CA USA

Darwin did his work during an infinitesimally small amount of time in the history of the earth. To suggest that evolution has not occurred because there is no fossil evidence to prove the inter-speciation steps seems somewhat arrogant in as much as over the billions of years of time and the dynamic processes that have happened over time obviously have not provided clear and easy "Here I am fossils" to provide your necessary sequential steps.

Even with the many fossils that have been unearthed over time they represent such a small percentage of the actual organisms that existed during an period of time that to conclusively use a given fossil to be or not be the so-called interspecies is mathematical and statistically improbable.

So how do you account for the diversity of plant and animal life over time? I know your article was not intended to address this question so perhaps you may treat us to the answer.

Date: Wed Sep 23 06:06:56 2009
From: Vic Biorseth


I don’t. And neither does the strictly worldly faith of Darwinism.

The difference is that I don’t feel the unquenchable need to scientifically prove any alternative theory or theories. So long as no scientific proof for it exists, Darwin’s theory remains exactly what it was from the beginning, which is, an unproven personal hypothesis, and nothing more.

Your argument is just a rehash of Huxley’s famous “What’s your alternative theory?” It’s the only argument there is, and the only one that ever was. Question: Why should I, or anyone, provide an alternative? Answer: Darwin’s theory cannot stand on its own.

Dim-bulb Darwinists need alternative theories to shoot down with worldly evidences and then use the shoot-downs as evidences for Darwinism, the only strictly worldly theory left standing. They have nothing else. They have no other evidence.

Darwin’s theory is either good science, or it is not. Show me the evidence.



Date: Mon Jun 07 19:10:48 2010
From: andrew

Darwin's theory was and is important, because it suggested evolution, which has since been proven.

Date: Mon Jun 07 20:09:11 2010
From: Vic Biorseth


It was? Perhaps I was taking a nap or something. Where’s the evidence?



Date: Wed Jun 09 12:13:05 2010
From: Andrew

Why aren't you posting my last comment Vic? You wanted a coherent post and you got it. So how about you post it or at least explain why in your mind it was not worthy.

Date: Thu Jun 10 05:38:25 2010
From: Vic Biorseth


Your comment and my response to it were posted on the page from which it was submitted, which is the Darwinism page. You can see your post there.

Any time you don’t remember what page you submitted something on, go to the Website Log (Blog) page for the most recently updated pages.

Also, please note that nothing gets posted here unless and until approved by me, and I’m not here 24/7. That means that sometimes there may be a substantial time lag between your submission and my posting. Sorry, but I do work for a living and this is just a spare time activity.



Date: Wed Jun 09 23:10:06 2010
From: Andrew

Wow you deleted my comment cause you realized my points were valid. You, my friend, are the tyrannical one way thinking person you accuse everyone else to be.

Date: Thu Jun 10 05:47:12 2010
From: Vic Biorseth


Heavy sigh. Calm down, son. Take a deep breath, get yourself a cup of coffee and then look at the comment above.



Date: Wed Jul 21 18:52:40 2010
From: Freedom

Darwin came up for evolution, but only religious wackos like that ones on this site call it "Darwinism". Its not an ism because it is not an ideology, it is a scientific theory, and one which is strongly supported by the fossil record. The religious nut jobs that run this site don’t have a clue. Evolution is the foundation of human understanding of biology. No fossil has ever been found in the ground out of order according to evolution. Anatomy, DNA analysis, embryology, all these aspects of biology supports evolution. You religious fanatics need to get over your superstition.

Date: Thu Jul 22 05:43:02 2010
From: Vic Biorseth


What? You again? Aren’t you the same one who just complained in the Masturbation Industry page dialogue because you so love to masturbate and you have such a wonderful relationship with yourself?

And now it seems that you are a faith-filled atheist, and a faith-filled Darwinist to boot. The two things go together. You cannot prove that God does not exist, but you believe it anyway, on faith alone. You cannot prove that Darwinism is true, but you believe it anyway, on faith alone. You may accurately be described as a religious nut job.

Your statements regarding the fossil record are just flagrant lies, or the blithering of an idiot who knows not whereof he speaks. You are far too fanatical in your silly superstitious beliefs to participate in rational dialogue here. Why don’t you just find a dark corner somewhere and play with yourself, and leave the grown ups alone.



Date: Tue Aug 02 23:19:06 2011
From: AllWellAndGood

"Richard Dawkins, and his adoring retinue of idiotic bobble-headed-dolls"



It strikes me as odd that this permanent statement should be at the bottom of every post on this website but the person writing the post is behaving in a caustic and aggressive way.

Date: Wed Aug 03 06:10:48 2011
From: Vic Biorseth


There is no rule here about being caustic or aggressive. I frequently refer to such nonsensical theories as Darwinism, Freudianism and Marxism as stupid, for instance. My arguments are substantial and reasonable, theirs are not. They are much more akin to cultic or religious belief systems than worldly or materialistic or scientific theories. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. None of them have any serious substance behind them, and I say so.



Date: Tue Aug 02 23:35:34 2011
From: AllWellAndGood

Let me try to address some of the misconceptions you have about what has and has not been proven or hypothesized about evolution.

When a mutation yields change that is unsuccessful it does not create a new species that then dies out, the individual organism dies because it alone is unfit to survive with the mutation. There have been many mutations and most of them have failed but because the mutation never birthed a successful change to the species you would not see a full fossil record of that mutated species, you would be lucky to find the single organism that was mutated in that way and even then be lucky to notice the mutation as they are generally extremely slight and could very well be exclusive to soft tissue which would have turned to dust millions of years ago.

When a successful mutation occurs (simply meaning a mutation that either does not kill the animal or improves it's ability to function even slightly) that organism is not part of a new species but for all intents and purposes a beagle instead of a bloodhound (only definitely much more of a slight difference). The organisms are only slightly different on a DNA scale and so can still interbreed. However if the offspring of that single organism of the species maintain that mutation and down the road one of the great-great-etc. offspring mutates again, and then the same thing happens again, eventually the gradual changes in DNA will make it impossible to breed with the original species, especially if the original species was developing different mutations and evolving in a different way.

Evolution has been observed and documented as recently as the 1900's. Because single celled organisms reproduce the fastest they are the fastest to evolve because their is a higher instance of mutations per unit of time compared to other organisms that reproduce less often. The family Orthomyxoviridae is what all the influenza viruses are categorized under. The reason that we must get a new vaccine every year is because some of the viruses are immune to the vaccine while all the others die. The next year a new strain of flu has evolved and we must be vaccinated again; only to creat another strain to be categorized in the Orthomyxoviridae family.

Sorry this was so long, just wanted to make sure I got everything in!

Date: Wed Aug 03 06:19:36 2011
From: Vic Biorseth


Luck is the wrong word; Darwin postulated that there had to be many, many more failure mutations than successful ones, and therefore they should be all over the place, and that if that were not the case, then his theory would fail. So, pray tell, where are they all?

All you are describing here is micro-evolution, meaning, evolution very strictly within species. That is the only evolution that has ever been observed by man in all of recorded history. There has never been a single observance, and there is no fossil evidence, of macro-evolution, meaning, evolution between species, which is what Darwin’s theory addressed. It is called “The Evolution Of Species.”

Your single-cell evolutionary observation is bogus; a pure falsehood. It is just another micro-evolutionary event pretending to be a macro-evolutionary event, like all the others. The influenza virus remained an influenza virus, and it became nothing else. The fact that one is resistant to a vaccine and another is not is pretty much the same thing as how a Pekinese looks different than a Dalmatian, while both remain canines. (And, it might be noted, they both became so different not by natural selection, but by the careful attendance of a superior being.)



Date: Wed Aug 03 11:58:08 2011
From: AllWellAndGood

Thank you for taking the time to address my comments and share with me your thoughts regarding them. I admire your website, not because I agree with many things that you say, but because you are passionate enough about these issues to dedicate time to trying to raise public understanding. I suppose that by the definitions found on this website I am not a secularist (anti-religious) but I am an atheist (irreligious) but that has never prevented me from wanting every person in the United States to be able to freely express their religious beliefs and heritage. (I always considered the type of atheist that wanted to take "In God We Trust" off the dollar bill, and other moves towards creating a completely secular nation, was a bit of an "extremist"

Date: Wed Aug 03 21:08:13 2011
From: Vic Biorseth


Atheism, while not as extreme as secularism, is still a bit extreme. Considering that one cannot prove that God does not exist, and yet the atheist firmly believes that God does not exist, implies a purely and strictly faith-based belief system, which is the root, at least, of a religion. It thus might be said, without being too far off base, that an atheist is a religious person. Without proof or evidence of their position, they continue to hold it, based on faith alone.

Re your post of Tue Aug 02 23:35:34 2011: It may be of further interest to note that all mutations that I am aware of involve a loss of genetic material, and never a gain. If anyone knows otherwise, I hope they will point me to the evidence. What this means is that mutation is devolution; if creatures change via mutation, then they always become more simple, never more complex. If mutation means a loss of genetic future possibilities, then it means that evolution (devolution?) via mutation must stop at some point, when there is no more genetic variation possible. The resultant creature will be more simple than the parent, not more complex.

Re your post of Tue Aug 02 23:19:06 2011: You make a good point, but then, the “permanent statement at the bottom of every post” that you refer to is itself rather caustic and aggressive, don’t you think? What I will not allow on this site is stacks of back-and-forth one-liners, bumper-sticker sloganeering, foul language and just nonsensical arguments with nothing behind them.

I love a good argument; I have probably learned more from arguments with good people than from all the books I have ever read. I tend toward what you refer to as caustic and aggressive, because it just makes for good rhetoric, and it’s fun. I am generally in attack mode at the outset. It comes from an ancient rule of war that says that, he who defends may only survive, but he who attacks may win.



Date: Wed Aug 03 23:15:13 2011
From: AllWellAndGood

I hope I've provided at least a civil debate on some of the subjects that are raised on this website and hopefully maybe have provided an insightful one.

The way I and many of my fellow atheists view atheism and theism is on a scale with theism on the far left end and atheism on the far right with agnosticism firmly planted in the middle. Most people do not fall exactly on either end of the scale. I will steal a term that I've heard tossed around because I feel it accurately describes me fairly well. I am a "tooth fairy agnostic". I can not, without a shadow of a doubt, PROVE that the tooth fairy does not exist, however for all intents and purposes I do not believe in the tooth fairy because I understand it to be exceedingly improbable. So to are my feelings on God. Though I can not prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God (for only the dead can do that) I find it exceedingly improbable that he exists. I do not find myself on the dogmatic right end of the spectrum completely planted on atheist; however I would describe myself as being as close to that point as I can be. It would be extremely arrogant to assert otherwise.

(Please understand that I'm not calling your God the tooth fairy, it's just an example.)

Date: Sun Nov 13 08:42:11 2011
From: thomas

"Any new hypothesis elevated to the level of scientific theory must first be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of multiple independently sourced scientific evidences supporting it and none refuting it." You are mistaking theory being proven as fact and hypothesis leading to theory. Hypothesis is an idea on which you base a demonstration that relies on the condition the hypothesis is true. This has nothing to do with facts or truth. It's just about going through logics to see that, if your hypothesis is right, then your theory holds, and the other way round. Since you make that mistake right from the start, and prove you can't properly handle concepts, what is left to your demonstration?

Date: Mon Nov 14 05:39:01 2011
From: Vic Biorseth


Not so fast. The quoted description of hypothesis becoming theory holds. Your argument only holds water in as much as it agrees with statements by Popper (of Popper’s rule of falsifiability) and others that says that nothing can ever be “proven” beyond any doubt. This argument says that a theory may be scientifically proven correct many, many times but it only takes one scientific failure to disprove it; therefore, there is no such thing as a scientific law, and no theory may ever rise above being a theory.

That being said, the world of empirical science still holds to the long established path from hypothesis to theory to law, recognizing that the original hypothesis must be both verifiable and falsifiable. Note that there is an enormous difference between mere logic and solid empirical evidences. Note further that General Relativity has been verified many times, in many ways, by many scientists, and it is still considered a valid theory. I submit that Natural Evolution of Species has never been verified (or even observed) and that it has been falsified by experiment, multiple times. The most frequent type of failed experiment has involved fruit flies and other short-generation species.

You have turned the scientific process upside down. Evolution is proven wrong and never right, and you still await the successful experiment. This is the exact opposite of how Relativity has been and still is treated. Relativity has been proven again and again, and never proven wrong. Evolution, on the other hand, has not once been proven, but attempts to prove it have failed.

At this point, you should recognize evolution as just a silly superstition if not a religion.



Date: Fri Apr 27 00:02:15 2012
From: Talitha

This is hilarious. I love how your only argument is that new species are not magically popping up in the last few years. You do realize that life on this planet has been developing for millions and millions of years? FACT. "Humans" appeared around 200,000 years ago. Darwin's theory was published in 1859. Somehow I don't think 150 years can be equated to millions of years of development.... just sayin'.

Date: Fri Apr 27 20:39:56 2012
From: Vic Biorseth


My only argument is what, now? Excuse me? When did I say any such thing?

Try again; there is no discernable coherent argument in your submission. Note that I have nothing to prove, for I put forward no theory. What is in question here is the totally unsubstantiated theory of Darwin’s regarding the origin of species. Do you have some new supporting evidence to add, or are you just blithering?




Saturday, October 06, 2012

LOVE this new release!



Date:  Tue Feb 19 21:22:36 2013
From:  Greg
Location:  Los Angeles, Ca.,  USA

Love your site

Date:  Fri Jun 14 09:34:20 2013
From:  Alexandre Castro
Location:  Porto, Portugal

Sorry for my english in advance.

I believe the problem here is the requirement for the "mutant" species not being able to reproduce with the original one to create a "new one", that by itself goes against evolution, and asks for creationism. That way it would be impossible for those mutations to happen and subsist obviously. I believe that chain mutation is the key, the further in that chain, the harder is for reproduction with early ones. So, just for the sake of example, the monkey is the "original" species number 1, and the human the most mutated number 10. Humans may not be able to reproduce with monkeys number 1, but the surely could with number 9 or 8 whatever those slight differences might be. Creationists look at evolution in a "creationist" way. They think all of a sudden an abrupt mutation occurs that changes the reproduction system so much that it invalidates reproduction between both,when that´s not the case, it happens over millions of years with slight mutations each time. Since we are all aware of genetic information being in sperm and ovules,that is why your kids look like you, but they are not exactly like you, so this by it self opens the door to evolution or mutation. I´m no one to say my view is the right view, but to me it seem pretty obvious and in your face that evolution is everywere.

Thanks for your patience in reading.

Date:  Fri June 14 19:26:58 2013
From:  Vic Biorseth


1.  The absence of evidence of a new species, i.e. one that may reproduce within itself but may not interbreed with the parent species does not "point to creationism" or anything else.  It only points to the absence of evidence for Darwin's theory.  Creationism has nothing to do with that.  Darwin's theory is either right or it is wrong. 

2.  Your description of "chain mutation" sounds like Darwin's postulated failure links and successful links.  He said that there must be many, many more failure mutant link "species" than successful ones, and that if they were not eventually found in the fossil record, his theory would fail.  They have never been found.  No failure links between any species anywhere in the fossil record.  Your theory looks good on paper, but where are links 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9?  There is a huge, glaring difference between the monkey and the man.  Yet the fossil record shows only monkeys and men.  

3. Creationists don't say that "all of a sudden an abrupt mutation occurs that changes the reproductive system so much that it invalidates reproduction between both ... ". That is what the PEWAG3 branch of Darwinism says, as a counter-argument to the gradual argument of the GESGOEAEOT2 branch of Darwinism, for which there is no evidence either.

4.  Your description of human family similarities (children look like parents, etc.) is no different than Darwin's woolier breeds of sheep, and his variations in finch beaks and so forth.  This is, of course, micro evolution, which no one has ever denied.  Micro evolution is evolution very strictly within species.  It is all Darwin (or anyone else) ever observed.  But what Darwin postulated in his theory was macro evolution, meaning, evolution between species. (Our children remain human, all the sheep remain sheep, all the finches remain finches, etc., etc., etc.)

The most micro evolution ever produces is breeds and races.  There is no such thing as macro evolution.

DNA proves quite conclusively that every human being who ever lived, of every race, is traceable back to one and only one set of original human parents. 

It may be obvious to you and in your face that evolution of species is everywhere, but not to me, for neither one of us have ever seen any of it, and neither has anyone else. 

Again, I ask, where's the speciation?



Date:  Sun Mar 09 11:13:29 2014
From:  Demetrius


Your arguments are good as far as they go, but they do not go far enough.  You show the lack of proofs for Darwinism, very well.  But then you consistently refuse to go farther and offer alternative paths for the advance of science.  You act to simply block the path to knowledge as if burning a bridge or building a stone wall in the path of the quest for scientific truth.  Could it be that you are really opposed to material science and see science itself as some sort of enemy of man? 



Date:  Sun Mar 09 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth


No, I have always loved science, from childhood on.  What I try to attack and publicize here is not science, but scientism.  Darwinism is not scientific theory, but scientistic theory.  You will find pages nearly identical to this one refuting Freud's scientistic theory in the Repressed Memory Syndrome page.  And you will find another refuting Marx's scientistic theories in the Refuting Marxism page. 

Darwin may have had good intentions to start with; I cannot be certain of his motivations, but I believe he thought he was doing good scientific research.  Freud was a complete fraud, from the beginning.  He fooled people, for profit.  Marx was downright diabolical in his deceit and deception, from the start. 

But all of these were different manifestations of scientism, or "science" of fad, popular consensus among the effete and the elite, and nothng of material substance.  I maintain that Darwinsm, as unniversally taught today, is not real science.  Neither is Freudianism, and neither is Marxism. 





Name / Pseudo-Name:*
E-mail Address:
City / State / Country:

Please enter the word that you see below.


Copyrighted Material

Your ad here


Get ther TRUTH in your News.
National Rifle Association
Refuting the false theology, doctrines and dogmas of Scientism
About Your Host

Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.

Welcome to my website.

Catholic American Thinker Free E-zine Subscription

Enter Your E-mail Address
Enter Your First Name (optional)

Don't worry — your e-mail address is totally secure.

Catholic American Thinker Back Issues

Keep This Website Going
Click for More Information

What are you passionate about? Express it on-line.


Video Testimonies of people pursuing their passion through SBI!

The Purpose of this group of links is to provide a repository for articles pertaining to the open fraud of Darwinian Evolution.

The Darwinism Pages
Natural Evolution of Species theory remains untested and even unobserved today, with no physical evidence supporting it, and must therefore be recognized as little more than an ideology, a silly superstition or a false religion.

Refuting Darwin and Dawinian “science” as bunk and silliness. Refuting Darwin is almost too easy due to his rush-to-publish and his complete lack of empirical evidences.

Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Darwinism. If Darwinism’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.

The definition of Darwinism in a nutshell. In the definition of Darwinism we find the foundational principles upon which the quest for the atheist holy grail: the purely material origin of life itself.

Darwinism: Darwin, Evolution, and the Devolution of the Scientific Method. Scientistic Materialism's cornerstone: Darwinism and the competing sub-theories of Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Radiocarbon dating as an aging method is accurate up to a point. Radiocarbon dating is reliable up to 6,000 years, shaky at best up to 40,000 years, and completely useless beyond 70,000 years.





Refuting the false theology, doctrines and dogmas of Darwinism

Old North Dayton
is looking for
A Few Good Men

Note the Military Assault Rifle common to the American Founding Era.
Your ad here

Atheist Genesis:

And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.

(See Argument Refuting Darwinism)


General Commentary Pages



































Home For Christmas 2008. Website Getting Active Again















































Get ther TRUTH in your News.
National Rifle Association

If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the