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:
Stellar and Planetary
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.
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. We will stop here for now, since we have actually described the event that science claims must have happened in order for the universe to exist. Proof? Sorry, only another religion.
"Definition" without definition
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 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.
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
1. relating to or derived from living matter.
synonyms: living, live, animate, biological, biotic
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
relating to a bodily organ or organs.
(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.
We can only hope that some will truly consider the facts long enough to compare them to what they see around them. 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 email@example.com and give us your view. Contact Us
| Back to Top