Evolution Debunked

https://crev.info/2022/04/trilobite-eye-dazzles-government-engineers/

The article describes the astounding and unique Trilobite eye. This creature supposedly lived 540 million years ago,

"Trilobites (according to the evolutionary timeline) appeared in the geological blink of an eye in the Cambrian Explosion that began 540 million years ago. At their first appearance, they already had jointed appendages, internal organs for digestion and reproduction, a nervous system, and compound eyes. Numerous species of trilobites, all maintaining the overall body plan of arthropods, are known from the fossil record. They thrived around the globe well into Ordovician strata, then suddenly disappeared (although extant horseshoe crabs may be related)."

It's well worth reading the rest of the article.

Something that I found our recently was a statement by Darwin that I've never thought of myself. I can't find the exact quote, but it is something like this. According to Darwin, the human mind evolved from apes. He questioned how the human mind can be trusted if it is just an evolved version of the ape mind. I infer from this, if the mind cannot be trusted, how can the concept of evolution be trusted? As "Science and Philosophy" states,

"Darwin, the great man of science, understood what today’s scientists and philosophers are concluding: if our minds are just the random spray of particles coming together every eon or so, we have no basis for trusting their ability to arrive at anything trustworthy." Including evolution.

The article describes the astounding and unique Trilobite eye.

The most compelling argument for me debunking the theory of evolution was some work done by mathematicians discussing the probability of making one of the essential proteins. People have just assumed "given enough time" well they looked into it and it is clear that is a bunch of bunk.

First it is a "chicken or the egg" question as these proteins are synthesized by a very complex molecule, so it isn't simply that this incredibly complex protein is synthesized but that you also need to synthesize the molecule that makes it. Now add to this that by itself this protein is useless, rather you need quite a few of them just to make one of these living organisms.

When you get into the nuts and bolts of the theory of evolution it seems really, really implausible.

Now apply this same reasoning to cancer. The prevailing theory on cancer is that you have 3 specific genes are damaged in the DNA and you get a malignant cancer. The problem is you have 20,000 active genes and it is really a select few, perhaps 3 out of 6 that get damaged. Imagine you have a giant barrel with 20,000 pennies you pour them out and only 3 are heads, and it is a specific 3 (you put little dots on those 6 pennies so you would know which ones needed to be heads). Obviously that would be quite amazing (if half the pennies were heads or even a significant number like 1,000 of them then the cell would no longer be viable, instead of cancer what you would see is massive cell damage. For example all those people who died at Chernobyl in the first few weeks, that is why they died). But the odds are much, much, much greater than that. There are 3.5 trillion cells in the human body and those 3 pennies have to be in the same cell! So now you have 3.5 trillion barrels of 20,000 pennies each. True, pour out these 3.5 trillion barrels and maybe one of those barrels would have had those three pennies and just those three turned over. But billions of barrels would have a far different outcome, meaning the human would have died from massive cell damage rather than from a slow growing cancer that may take years to kill them. Mathematically, the theory that radiation or chemicals damage 3 genes and create a cancer in millions of people worldwide is a statistical absurdity.

So then how do you explain cancer, and cancer clusters, etc. Why is it that we know that certain chemicals are "carcinogens" etc? The "new" theory (actually a theory that is more than 100 years old, tested and with very good results, is that cancer is a fungal infection. If your body is weakened or damaged it opens it up to attack by a fungus. Your body fights the fungus by surrounding it with a mass of cells (a benign tumor) but if the spores from the fungus break free they can travel throughout the body and spread.

The way they treat cancer is with diet to strengthen the bodies ability to fight off a fungal infection. There are two or three independent approaches to this which have both had great success and also been outlawed by the FDA (quite bizarre since they are very inexpensive and have little or no adverse reactions). As a result you have to go to Mexico or Canada to get access to them. One is called ESSIAC (I have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and was about to get an operation when I was told that the hospital would not operate unless I was vaccinated, that put my operation on hold so in the meantime I got ESSIAC). I have been taking these herbs for about two months now. My symptoms from prostate cancer have disappeared as well as three large areas of numbness around my body which may have been other sites of this fungus without my even knowing. I still have a few weeks supply of the ESSIAC and when I have finished it I will go back to the doctors to see if I have any sign of prostate cancer left.