The following are William Finck’s opening remarks in Part 1:
We are going to play a tape, actually a YouTube video, of a man who is interviewing several PhDs and science students, and asking them for one observed instance of macro-evolution. While micro-evolution is often used for what may better be called the adaptation of species, macro-evolution is the actual changing of one identifiable kind, such as a cat, into another identifiable kind, such as a dog or a cow. Evolutionists play with the word species, and when it comes to macro-evolution they are challenged by the concept of kind. When they are cornered, as one PhD in the video was cornered, they insist that by adding an unspecified but very long amount of time, macro-evolution somehow happens. But they cannot prove that it has ever actually happened, and it has never been observed to happen. Therefore macro-evolution is a religious belief, and it is at least as fantastic a belief as those of any other religion. One PhD interviewed was forced to admit that evolution in this regard is a “belief”, even though he was very reluctant to do so. Other PhDs were speechless and fumbling when challenged on macro-evolution. Textbooks and journals, which hypothetically extrapolate entire genera from the bones of certain long-dead animals, are merely promoting conjecture which does not at all amount to valid science.
White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance Part 1
White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance Part 2
Think about this:
It is evident, given the rhetoric heard daily in academia and the media, that when choosing a belief system people are for the most part offered only two choices by their schools or churches, which are drastically opposed to one another. On one end of the spectrum we have what is called evolution, and it is offered in the name of science yet it is a religion in its own right – and usually a religion for the godless at that, although lately some religionists have found creative ways to blend it with the Biblical account of creation. The evolutionists insist that all life came from a single miraculous combination of chemicals and energy which – combined with other presently unknown circumstances – created the single-celled ancestor of every living creature on the planet. A few zillion years are then added into the equation, because in that much time, everybody knows that just about anything can happen. On the opposing end of the spectrum we have what is generally called creationism, and the standard version usually insists that everything which we can perceive was created in six literal days approximately 6,000 years ago, and then the entire planet suffered a cataclysm approximately 4,200 years ago, from which 8 people and a boatload of animals were miraculously saved and just as miraculously repopulated the entire planet with hundreds of thousands of diverse species in a very short time.
To the thinking man, both of the concepts reasoning our existence as they are generally perceived are utterly ridiculous. Yet this is what the paradigms offered by society today boil down to, and millions of people feed the system by subscribing to one or the other, rather than demanding something more studious from their clerics or their teachers. While a belief in creationism is demanded based upon blind “faith”, a belief in evolution is demanded based upon blind “science”.