Saturday, July 2, 2016

Is evolution the foundation of modern biology? Have staunch evolutionists thought this through?

A few questions:

1. Is evolution the foundation of modern biology like many militant evolutionists/atheists claim?

2. Is modern biology founded on experiments?

3. Is empirical science founded on experiments?

4. Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and served as director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology from 1961 to 1970.Mayr was a prominent evolutionist and was referred to as "the Darwin of the 20th century".

Ernst Mayr used the term "macroevolution" and considered it to be a useful scientific term..  The term macroevolution applies mainly to the notion of evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

 In 1988, Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:which declared:
Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided. ...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution

The prominent British evolutionist  Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887
Was Ernst Mayr wrong when he used the word "macroevolution" in the way he used it? If the term "macroevolution" is wrong-headed, then why was there a conference on it at the University of Chicago? Is the University of Chicago run by creationists?

5.  Has there ever been one experiment showing macroevolution happening?

6. If modern biology is founded on experiments and there have been no macroevolution experiments, then how can evolution be the foundation of modern biology?  Wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists?

Thursday, February 4, 2016

2015 was a terrible year for internet atheism

Was 2015 a TERRIBLE year for internet atheism?  If you are a militant, internet atheist, should you be depressed?

Given the sparsity of atheist churches and atheist conferences/mettings compared to Christtendom, the internet is the place where atheists continue to gather.

So how is internet atheism/agnosticism doing?

The numbers are in and 2015 was a TERRIBLE year for internet atheism and agnosticism.


1.  Alexa ranking of

2.   Alexa ranking for

3. Alexa ranking of

4, Alexa ranking of

Global rank 221,198 Downgrade in ranking 31,858

 5.  Alexa ranking of Atheist Empire website

Global Rank  

 2,662,600 Downgrade in ranking 673,000

6. Alexa ranking of Atheist Revolution website

Global Rank 

Global rank icon 765,137 Downgrade in ranking 109,426

How is this site ranked relative to other sites?

Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms. Downward trend Starting in 2012

Google trends measures the interest in various words/phrases as far as Google searches over time.
Below is Google trends data for various terms relating to atheism/agnosticism for various countries and the the world as a whole and in general their is a recent downward trends as far as atheism related searches:
Specific atheism terms:
Worldwide interest in evolutionary ideas:

Online interest in Jesus is growing while internet atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism is in a slump

According to Google trends data, online interest in Jesus Christ is growing, while online interest in atheism, agnosticism and evolutionism topical areas is declining or is stagnating.  See also: Internet atheism

Welcome to the 21st century atheists.   A century of desecularization!  For more information, please read the article Desecularization

What's the problem internet atheists?  Cat got your tongue?

Internet atheists, are you creating less web content?  Finding it hard to write something interesting on atheism because it is a very boring topic?  See: Atheism is uninspiring  Are you dispirited and unmotivated?  Cat got your tongue perhaps?

Or you are still busy beavers spewing forth the same amount of web content, but fewer people in the world are interested in your atheist tripe?  See: Unattractiveness of atheism

I think the best explanation is that atheists are dispirited and fewer people want to read atheist web content.

Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm." - the agnostic professor Eric Kaufmann, Birbeck College, University of London, UK, 2010

One thing for certain. The internet is not going to save global atheism from desecularization in the 21st century.

Additional information 

Internet atheism