Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: If Evolution, then why ZERO evidence of mankind evolving?  (Read 3030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: If Evolution, then why ZERO evidence of mankind evolving?
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2021, 09:21:28 AM »
Don't have the source handy right now, but I read that even with chimps, among our "closest relatives" according to evolution, our DNA is so different that it would take longer than the lifespan of the universe(and that's the evolutionist 13.7 billion year universe) for such a difference to arise through generational mutation. 

And that's not even getting into the fact that mutation is almost exclusively deleterious, so only devolution and not evolution should be possible.

Re: If Evolution, then why ZERO evidence of mankind evolving?
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2021, 02:06:18 PM »
Enjoyed this discussion very much. There is however a far more serious aspect to the story. First though here is one of my favourate arguments against evolution:


We now ask how anything can survive unless complete with all its parts. How did the first evolving cells survive? What part of any creature evolved first from an evolved cell? In fauna, which organ evolved first, the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the spleen, the glands etc? Which system of a body evolved first, blood and veins, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the lymphatic system, the muscular system, the skeletal system, the urinary system, the reproductive system? Could any life function with an evolving endocrine system, an evolving digestive system to sustain its evolution, etc.? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the others? Take for example an eye, the ability of anything that sees to see. What an amazing organ, structured to take in images, light and darkness, colour and shapes, and pass on such images to the brain whereupon the creature can ‘see them.’ Did the ability to see evolve, and if so was it by chance? If anybody believes the ability of a creature to see came about by chance evolution then they are intellectually drugged, they have lost control of their thinking minds. And that is what even debating the subject of natural evolution is; indulging in simple nonsense, absolute nonsense. And that is why Charles Darwin skipped the impossible bits and his theory began with an already evolved creature or creatures ready for further evolution. But even this illusion had problems. You see if all these evolving creatures once existed then the fossils found in the earth should be able to verify their progress. But in his time, no such billions of evolving fossils had been found. Darwin knew this and hoped they would be found eventually.

And as we know, no billions of fossils were found.

But to the more serious aspect of evolution. Did you know Charles Darwin's book On the Origins of Species was never put on the Index? This was because of Galileo's reformation. In 1796 Laplace had proposed the evolution of their solar-system. In 1820, when popes allowed books promoting Galileo's heliocentrism to be taken OFF the Index, it came loaded as having evolved. Now as evolution needs MIRACLES to work, it was necessary to get God involved. Having believed the Church was wrong about geocentrism, by 1820 promenant churchmen were so humiliated that they decided never again to rule against a natural theory lest they be found wrong and HUMILIATED once again. This of course meant the churchmen of the Catholic Chuirch provided all the miracles for evolution to happen. Its called Theistic-evolution. Thus with atheists and theists now as one on evolution, evolution SUCCEEDED. Both now had their champions, and here was the Catholic one.

‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.' ---Brian Martin: J. H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.

Newman is called 'a pioneerr and prophet of Vatican II' for which he was made a saint.





Re: If Evolution, then why ZERO evidence of mankind evolving?
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2021, 02:16:25 PM »


Look up Msgr. Bugnini and Rosie Goldie.  They were hanging-out in the Vatican in the early 1950’s.
Who is "Rosie Goldie"?

Sounds like it could be the name of a female Jєωιѕн vaudeville star around the turn of the 20th century :laugh1:

Re: If Evolution, then why ZERO evidence of mankind evolving?
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2021, 04:05:57 PM »
Man's Evolution continued:

As regards the history of human society, here again it cannot be found wanting. It tells us man was monotheistic, intelligent and civilised from the very beginning. After the Fall and again after the Deluge, many did lapse into primitive ways, seeking out any environment that could sustain them, whether village, jungle, desert, cave or mud-hut, such as can be found even today. Nevertheless, because man is an ordered, intellectual and social creature, records were prone to be kept, both oral and written. It is reasonable to say then that if the Bible records a real 6-7,000 year’s history, surely this past should be evident in the traditions of some people, whether primitive or sophisticated. As it happens, this is the case. There is not a single culture discovered that had/has not a perfect language and a history of the world that begins with the biblical account, an original couple of Adam and Eve and a cataclysm. For example, consider the following studies:

(1) An investigation into Chinese palaeography called God’s Promise to the Chinese.[1] In a summary of this book, the reviewer states:  

‘The three joint-authors have clearly demonstrated, to this reviewer’s satisfaction at least, that the inventor of the original Chinese characters, which were inscribed on tortoise shells and bones, knew and believed in an identical account of creation and Earth’s beginnings to that found in Moses’ Book of Genesis….The Chinese have always revered their writing system. Calligraphy ranks supreme in their artistic scale of values… Just 142 of the earliest hieroglyphic pictograms contain, in a highly condensed (and therefore mentally portable and ineradicable form) key components of the Book of Genesis. Since the truth or otherwise of the Flood has profound implications for the study of geology, in the Book of Docuмents (Sha Ching), written 3,000 years ago, we read: “The flood waters were everywhere, destroying everything as they rose above the hills and swelled up to Heaven.” ’[2]

The authors go on to show how the earliest Chinese were monotheists who worshiped ShangDi or the ‘God Above.’ For more than 4,000 years they sacrificed to Him in the imperial city of Beijing in what was called the ‘Border Sacrifice.’ Confucius (551-479BC) thought this sacrifice so important that he compared an understanding of it to the efficient ruling of the Chinese empire. The Border Sacrifice ended with the Manchu Ch’ing dynasty in 1911. Watch this video and you will see that the Chinese language is based on Genesis.



(2) In his book After the Flood,[4] a 25-year study into Middle Eastern/European palaeography, Bill Cooper traces the early post-Deluge history of the Middle East and Europe. His task was to see if the ‘Table of Nations’ (Genesis Chapter 10 and 11) could be verified in the history of nations prior to Christianity. If he could find a lineage from the Japhetic line in these histories, it would confirm the Bible also recorded true history. Cooper found ample evidence in eastern and western archives to confirm Middle East and European lines are both descended from the Japhetic tree. In Britain, Wales and Ireland he found the records of the early settlers went back 2,000 years, with the same genealogy to European differing only in language. What amazed Cooper was that the records of this history were so easy to find and so evident that he concluded its absence from textbooks, schools and universities had to be a deliberate cօռspιʀαcʏ by the earthmoving evolutionists to uphold their version of things. (taken from the book The Earthmovers)


[1] E. Nelson, R. Broadberry and G. Chock: God’s Promise to the Chinese, Read Books, HCR 65 Box 580, Dunlap, TN 37327, USA, 1997.
[2] Tim Williams: Christian Order, November 2001, pp.629, 631.
[4] Bill Cooper: After the Flood, New Wine Press, 22 Arun Business Park, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO22 9SX, England, 1995.
What is the source of all this?

Re: If Evolution, then why ZERO evidence of mankind evolving?
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2021, 04:52:41 PM »
Another decent argument against Evolution to add to your arsenal:

Why is there no indication of ANY evolution of Man during the historical period, which goes back several thousand years?

How long do they say that modern Man, homo sapiens, has existed?  The historical record has *got* to be a decent % of that. There should be some indications, one way or the other, that we are either evolving or devolving.

Now I posit that all the evidence points to man devolving, rather than evolving. And don't point to your damn smartphone! That isn't part of you. Babies coming out of the womb today don't start with the basics of electronics in their brains, and then build from there as they get older. Most "Homo Modernus Smartphonus" circa 2021 couldn't even build a single smartphone if they had 20 "lifeline" calls (think: gameshow) and a budget of 100 million dollars.

Heck, the typical young person circa 2021 can't even produce his own food, much less work any scientific wonders.

As further evidence for my assertion, just look at ancient languages being more complex than recent ones. And people relied on their memories rather than Google. No, we are devolving if anything, not evolving onward and upward, into a new life form.

Just read a book or newspaper from 1880, and then one from 2020, if you don't believe me.
I've often stated this as well. But even better.........


Why are there still monkeys today that are not "evolving" into humans? Even partially?