L.F. Nexus Website Portal

The L. F. Nexus

“The Great Wikipedia Evolution Refutation”




#5  Tuesday, October 13, 2009  Update of This Page



About Our Ongoing Original Website

Visit the original L. F. Nexus website at http://lfnexus.com/originalwebsite.htm.

The Satirical/Serious Mix Version of the L. F. Nexus Website

Clueless Critics Have Criticized The “Mixed Version”




We found the perfect venue for the most powerful refutation of evolution in history – Wikipedia.  We chose Wikipedia because, in the case of evolution:


1.      It provides an extensive bibliography.


2.      It is widely read.


3.      It condenses a mountain of information in a short space.


We focused on two key web pages:


·        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


·        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


We will be publishing “The GWE Refutation” (“The Great Wikipedia Evolution Refutation”) in several articles.


Evolution is dead!



Our Book


Our book comes with a searchable, updatable, electronic version of the book on both CD and DVD and software to install the electronic version on your PC and laptop.  Those who buy the book will be able to view additional information on-line and add this information to any of the electronic versions of the book.



Article One


Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (stmt 1):


In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.


Amazingly (remember, evolutionists can be imprecise), the article starts out with the above falsehood.  Here is the correct definition of evolution from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution:


A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.


In other words:


A theory that all living things are instances of species that originated from species of a different kind and that the “species of a different kind” originated from other species of a different kind and that this origination pattern; that is, “kind from a different kind,” is repeated all the way back to the beginning of life with the first “species.”


We emphasize that common sense tells us, logically, not factually, that as we move backward in time each generation is smaller than the following generation and that ultimately you would have to end up with a tiny generation then a generation consisting of a single, living entity.  The main point to remember here is that no evidence has been provided for the assertions made.  So, all we have is talk, not science.


The second statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution is (stmt 2):


Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.[1]


Again, all we have is talk, not science.  Note that, even if this statement were true, it would not prove that evolution were true.  In other words, even if there was emergence of new species, this would not prove that every species was the result of the emergence of new species and, remember, unless this is true, evolution is false.  Let us mention at this point that our main opposition to evolution is to the unsubstantiated belief that human beings are the product of evolution.


The third statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution is (stmt 3):


The similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]


Note the lack of precision in this statement.  Is a worm similar to an elephant (author is laughing)?  Duh, no, of course not.  What we think they meant to say is “the similarities among similar species.”  Now, duh, of course, similar species are going to be similar (author is laughing harder now).  Let us restate stmt 3 in clearer language:


The similarities among similar species does not prove but does cause everyone’s mind to think that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]


We don’t know about you but the “similarities among similar species” didn’t “cause our minds to think” that “all known species are descended from a common ancestor, etc.”  Also, our current ballpark figure is that there are 4,000,000,000,000 (four trillion) missing links (these would be the living things of which evolutionists would claim [see stmt2] “changes produced in any one generation are normally small”).  So, again, all we have is talk, not science(At this point, the evidence against evolution is so considerable that the author is laughing hysterically and is beginning to question whether any more refutation is needed.  Not only that but the author is beginning to seriously doubt the sanity of evolutionists.)


The fourth statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution is (stmt 4):


The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism's inherited traits.


A claim is being made here but, as usual, no evidence is being provided.  Now, evolutionists would agree that an elephant was not the indirect offspring of a brontosaurus yet they both have genes.  Therefore, what evolutionists must mean is that “genes are involved in any discussion on evolution.”  Let us restate stmt 4 in clearer language:


Evolution involves a discussion of genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism’s inherited traits.


This statement is true if we are talking about individual species and false if we are talking about all species.  Most importantly, it neither proves evolution nor tends to prove evolution.


We will mark a breakpoint here (brkpt 1) so that it will be easier to reference this part of the refutation later.  We have a long, long way to go.  Here is a general preview of what is to come.  Evolutionists have built a scientific pyramid (see diagram #1).  The pyramid contains a superstructure and a capstone.  The superstructure is true scientific data agreed upon by all scientists everywhere and, indeed, by every rational, informed person on the planet.  The tiny capstone at the very top is the so-called theory of evolution.



Now, evolutionists seek to delude you into believing that they have evidence (the superstructure) and anti evolutionists have no evidence (see diagram #2).




Of course, the reality is that both evolutionists and anti evolutionists own the superstructure of the scientific pyramid (see diagram #3).





The SCR Rule


The SCR (Scientific Content Refutation) Rule states:


The scientific content refutation of the so-called theory of evolution consists of simply proving that a given so-called proof of evolution is simply an element of commonly accepted science (the superstructure of the CSP [Complete Scientific Pyramid {diagram #3}]) that is susceptible to varying interpretations or that does not cogently enforce any interpretation.



The Achilles' Heel Rule


The Achilles’ Heel Rule states:


The so-called theory of evolution has been rendered sufficiently powerless that it may no longer be taught in science classes.  It has been proven that there is not sufficient evidence for it to be classified as a theory but rather that it must be classified as no more than a hypothesis (see http://lfnexus.com/ifyoubelieveinthetheoryafterthisyouaretrulyinsane.htm on our original website for a basic discussion).  In addition, evolution is a low-grade hypothesis.



Now, even though the theory of evolution has been rendered powerless in science classes in accordance with the
Achilles’ Heel Rule (see above), this does not mean that it has been excluded from the realm of science.  Therefore, we must continue with our scientific content refutation in accordance with the SCR Rule (see above).



The Pure Science Rule


The Pure Science Rule states:


Our disproof of evolution is based on science and science alone.  Now, some scientific interpretations of the evidence, other than evolution, are also based on science and science alone.  While these other scientific interpretations of the evidence are not a part of our polemic, we fully and heartily support some of these other interpretations.  We note that creationists and intelligent design advocates promote nothing that contradicts common science (the superstructure of the CSP [Complete Scientific Pyramid {diagram #3}]).  One of our reasons for taking a neutral scientific approach in our polemic is to stifle the claim of some evolutionists that evolution cannot be refuted without holding to some scientific interpretation of the evidence other than evolution.



The Final Solution Rule


The Final Solution Rule states:


We have successfully refuted every claim made by evolutionists.  It will take awhile for us to publish our entire book on the internet.  Therefore, if you are struggling with the refutation of some aspect of the evolutionist position, email us at email@lfnexus.com (include the word “EON” somewhere in the subject line) and we will provide the refutative content that you need.  Note that we have never been asked a question that we were not able to answer and we have never provided an answer that any evolutionist has been able to stand against.



The Constant Perfection Rule


The Constant Perfection Rule states:


We have learned over the decades that it is virtually impossible to be perfect in every respect all of the time in the defense of any position or in the opposition to any position.  However, constant perfection is not required.  What is required is the satisfaction of the “Subcutaneous Principle,” (see next “rule” on this page) which we first articulated in 2003 as it pertains to next-generation biblical textual criticism on our original website.



The Subcutaneous Principle


The Subcutaneous Principle states:


Proofs of existing knowledge may change but the knowledge itself will never change.  This is important to know because many interpret a change in proof to mean a necessary change in what is proven.  The reason that the knowledge will remain unchanged is the fact that self-sufficient proofs establish inviolability of the knowledge because these self-sufficient proofs consist of “inviolate data.”  Inviolate data is data that cannot change.  2 + 2 = 4 is an example of inviolate data.  Since the inviolate data cannot change, the conclusions drawn from this inviolate data cannot change.



To be continued…








Copyright 2000 – 2009  The L. F. Nexus  All rights reserved.

Chicago, Illinois

United States of America