BLUE VIEWPOINT
You have heard it said that you must set aside your brain to believe in God. And evolution makes sense?
People are smart. I honestly believe they are smarter than even they think they are. After you hear the evolution arguments put forth by the "scientists", then try to apply the definition of science, you cannot find a solid link between the definition and the theory. How can grown men reach so far to deny the obvious, and then sit back as though they had an answer?
What is worse, the public listens to them and accepts their statements without giving it the slightest amount of thought. They accept the statement that there is no God, but then they accept the outrageous, unobserved, and unsubstantiated description of the origin of the universe that has no basis in fact, as truth. The only reasonable conclusion is that the world is so increasingly opposed to a Creator, and any moral compass that might have control over their destiny, that they accept a fairy tale over any other explanation.
Definition time again
Evolution is kind of a tricky word. It has as many as six definitions, depending on the subject matter, and none of them can be connected to the modern concept of Evolution in any scientific manner. Five of the six definitions describe some thing or condition that has no basis in demonstrable fact. Only one can be shown to have happened (changes within species, like dog sizes and breeds), and this one is used by evolutionists to imply that the others are a proven fact. This one that we recognize as fact is no more evolution than the others when you apply the definition of evolution. Let's take a look at them all.
There are six types of evolution that people are talking about when they discuss this subject. The problem is, five of them are not provable, demonstrable, or even logical - and the sixth is not even evolution. Here is a list:
Cosmic
Chemical
Stellar and Planetary
Organic
Macroevolution
Microevolution
Of these six, only the last one has been observed. Now, because of that one, evolutionists can say that evolution is a fact (silently implying that all have been observed). The trouble here is that the other five are not proven, so the statement is not true for all types. But, in school, how many students makes that distinction? For them, the statement that evolution has been observed makes it a foundation for belief that all forms are proven.
Let's take them one at a time
The first in the list - Cosmic evolution. Overall, this is the general concept of the study of the period of time from the Big Bang and all the interrelaterd activities that brought us to this point in our existence, but let's limit it to just the creation of the universe that consists of the various space bodies and their systems - the Cosmos.
This matter had to come from somewhere, and science claims that it had to be some unseen (by their definition; by mine, God saw it) event on some date some unfathomable length of time ago to account for all the unobserved and uncountable number of events that must have taken place to bring us to here and now. Well, at least this narrows down the information we have to absorb.
Nothing is really something
Since science itself defines the first law of thermodynamics (energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed), the event initiating all this dispersion of matter must have happened with all the matter contained in the universe located at one place, and for some reason stated by this theory, that place had to be very small. In fact, some say that this matter was in a place so small, it amounted to nothing - virtually nothing. This nothing exploded into the expanding universe we have today.
"Watch the watch, watch the watch, you're getting sleepy..."
There is a new theory going around (String Theory), the tries to explain that this "nothing" that existed at the time of the Big Bang was actually vibrating filaments and membranes of energy. So, the "nothing" was actually "something", even though the explanation of the "something" stretches the imagination to the breaking point.
"Definition" without definition
A search for String Theory on Google results in a lot (196 million) of sites that are very happy to "explain" the explanation of the unknowable knowledge necessary to explain the something nothing of the origin of the universe that no one was there to see. Rather than go into all those here, there was one site that posed the question, "What is string theory plain and simple?". Clicking on the link, you are sent to a site at "simple.m.wikipedia.org" which I must assume means "Wikipedia for simple minds". Here is the statement from the Google blurb on the search result for Wikipedia, before you go to the site:
String theory is a set of attempts to model the four known fundamental interactions - gravitation, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force - together in one theory. Einstein had sought a unified field theory, a single model to explain the fundamental interactions or mechanics of the universe.
Okay...
OK, but what is it? Following that statement after going to the site, we are grateful for this clarification:
Einstein had sought a unified field theory, a single model to explain the fundamental interactions or mechanics of the universe. Today's search is for a unified field theory that is quantized and that explains matter's structure, too. This is called the search for a theory of everything (TOE). The most prominent contender as a TOE is string theory converted into superstring theory with its six higher dimensions in addition to the four common dimensions (3D + time).
Some superstring theories seem to come together on a shared range of geometry that, according to string theorists, is apparently the geometry of space. The mathematical framework that unifies the multiple superstring theories upon that shared geometrical range is M-theory. Many string theorists are optimistic that M-theory explains our universe's very structure and perhaps explains how other universes, if they exist, are structured as part of a greater "multiverse". M theory/supergravity theory has 7 higher dimensions + 4D.
I don't get it...
That didn't really clear it up. At this point, evidently because I am too "simple minded" for the simple.m.wikipedia.org site, I looked at the en.wikipedia.org site and found this:
In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity.
Nothing vibrates and looks like something...
So, this explanation makes it clear that the "point-like" particles (particles that have no spatial extension, thus no size or existence as an object) are replaced by "one-dimensional strings" that have no mass of their own (a contradiction in terms?) that interact with each other to form all the matter of the universe. They have no mass in themselves, but their vibrational qualities create what we perceive as mass, charge, and other properties.
We are to understand the theory as explaining how these properties of a nonexistent particle that vibrates represents the existence of all matter in the universe. So, the properties of this nonexistent matter create the "illusion" of matter, and when enough of these vibrating illusions get together, they create a state that "corresponds to the graviton", which carries the gravitational force of matter.
Well, that explains it...
We will stop here for now, since we have actually described the illusionary presence of the nothings that caused the results of the event that science claims must have happened in order for the universe to exist. Proof? Sorry, only another religion.
Moving on to more "knowledge"
The second in the list is Chemical evolution. Now this one is probably a little easier for science to describe. Once again, there are six forms of chemical evolution, and based on the methods we have seen used in evolution "science", only one must be true for them to claim that all of them are true. However, let's not jump the gun here. Here are the six types of chemical evolution:
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Cosmochemistry (or Astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions
Now, making a list is easy, and the short definition behind each type was easy to find. I am not going to pretend that I have a doctorate degree that would allow me to understand the concepts that are surely located behind these definitions. However, there are a couple of things I would like to discuss with one of these scientists - starting with the second definition above - Abiogenesis.
Simple enough to state the concept - the transition from nonliving elements to living systems. To be fair, I have to say that I had to look up the term, hoping for more of an expansion of the definition above. Sadly, I found only more wordy versions of the same concept. In the articles that described the concept, there were also questions about the validity of the concept itself. So, I no longer have to present my questions as they have questioned the concept themselves. The only thing I wonder now is how this became a type of chemical evolution if the theory cannot even describe how it could be possible.
Setting us up for a fall
Third in the chemical evolution list is molecular evolution (also called Neutral Theory). From what I can gather from the "dummies" explanation, this involves the "instability" of the DNA molecule. Whether a change in a molecule is caused by mutation or "genetic drift", the potential for "advancing" the species is equal. If two species exist with each having one of these (one mutation and one drift), they are considered equally fit. This seems to be a worthless theory, but sounds like someone is setting the stage for a future guess and now they have a foundation for the leap.
Is this really evolution?
Next is gas evolution. Wikipedia defines it as a chemical reaction in which one of the end products is a gas (such as oxygen or carbon dioxide) is produced. See also oxygen evolution. Acid-base reactions are a specific type of gas evolution reaction. There are also gas evolution reactions that are formed by the mixing of two aqueous solutions. These reactions are a sub-type of double replacement or double displacement reactions. I am not sure why this is called an evolution rather than a chemical reaction as the term "gas evolution" implies a step in the improvement or advancement of gases, but these reactions are common for the combinations.
Isn't oxygen a gas?
Next comes oxygen evolution. Again, rather than evolution, this is a reaction. This is not a process by which oxygen is created, just a process that allows oxygen molecules to form from the reaction between two or more other materials, one of which must already contain oxygen. You don't get a new, improved oxygen, so there is no evolution.
And...everything else!
Last is Cosmochemistry (or Astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions. Here is a reminder of the definition above:
Cosmochemistry (or Astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions (emphasis mine)
Before we continue, let's take a look at the definition of organic, used as a part of the definition of Cosmochemistry:
or gan ic
or ganik/
adjective: organic
1. relating to or derived from living matter.
"organic soils"
synonyms: living, live, animate, biological, biotic
"organic matter"
Chemistry
relating to or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin.
(of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents.
synonyms: pesticide-free, additive-free, natural
"organic vegetables"
2. Physiology
relating to a bodily organ or organs.
Medicine
(of a disease) affecting the structure of an organ.
3. denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole.
"the organic unity of the integral work of art"
synonyms: structured, organized, coherent, integrated, coordinated, ordered, harmonious
"a society is an organic whole"
characterized by continuous or natural development.
"companies expand as much by acquisition as by organic growth"
Without even getting into the definition of the "evolutionary" term, they use a word that requires living matter in the process to make it work, but don't explain where it started.
As for the first part of the definition of Cosmochenistry (or Astrochemistry) I can understand, but the second part presupposes some kind of knowledge of what happened to create those compositions. It doesn't matter how many times you mentally create a reaction that comes up with the desired result, if you were not there, you will never know for sure how the first one happened unless someone who was there told you. If there are 10 ways to create a composition or new chemical, the key word is still "creation", not evolution.
Back to the original evolution list
The next on the main list is Stellar and Planetary evolution. This concerns itself with the process by which stars and planets change over time. It seems pretty hard to imagine how much we can learn about the "evolution" of a subject that we have only been able to observe for a couple of hundred years, but some scientists have extrapolated enough information to guess about the changes. But wouldn't that be called "aging" or "changing" rather than the term evolution which implies the term "biological evolution"?:
Do planets and stars get "better" over time?
Organic Evolution
This one is the biggie. Very quickly, this is tied in with the second item listed in the box for Chemical Evolution above - Abiogenesis. But, they seem to have backed away from that being a reasonable theory, so we'll wait until they try to explain life from non-life with something else. God did it with Jesus, but they won't even contemplate what that really means to the rest of us.
Next...MacroEvolution
Well, they haven't been able to explain how life started, but they have it all worked out as to how a single living piece of whatever developed all the necessary life systems before the first one died. You know, silly things like ingestion, elimination, self defense, and reproduction. This doesn't even cover how it developed all the life-directing DNA processes that enable evolving into another species. If this process took millions or billions of years, as they claim, the original lifespan of the first living organism must have been a doozy.
The last item, MicroEvolution, is not really even evolution, as it can only be shown to be the combinations of various DNA effects from animals in the same species. That is not evolution, but without that included in the list, they cannot claim to have seen "proof of evolution", so they must include it.
Did the universe just poof into existence?
Referring to the statement made by Stephen Hawking, a man once considered to be the smartest man on the planet:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
What does that say? "Before I created matter from nothing, I knew I needed me, so I created myself in order to have gravity so I could create myself with it!"? Except for the "created myself" part, doesn't that sound like God?
Look at what it says, not what you were told it means
We can only hope that some will truly consider the facts long enough to compare them to what they see around them. Logic, that is, the truly scientific definition of the word logic, does not allow for the concept of evolution. They have to confuse the definitions of vague, made-up terms to make the issue so complicated that most don't even want to discuss it. This is taken as a capitulation to the scientists who made up the terms and concepts, which is shouted out as "proof of evolution". For those who disagree, let's discuss the facts and compare them to reality. I am not selling a concept, only asking thinking people to open their eyes and examine the evidence. You may find something different than I did, but at least you will have found it through observation rather than indoctrination.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at glenjjr@gmail.com and give us your view.
Contact Us |
Back to Top 
