Deeds Of God Title Banner

Main Menu

Statistics

Users
3
Articles
369
Articles View Hits
2098914

2013 A.D.:  The Hypothesis of Evolution Collapses Into A Heap When Viewed Through the Scientific Method!

  Here is yet another way of viewing Evolution that makes it evident that it is a dead and failed hypothesis being clung to with desperate vicious stubborness by the Scientific Community.  They would rather take a chance on directing billions of young souls towards Hell than to admit they've been enemies of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Who created the very things which Science studies.  They have acted in such a way as to claim God's glory as their own. 

  Only one entity leads the war against God, that being Satan.  By doing Satan's work of turning men away from their God, Science acts as Satan's workforce.  Had they done this in ignorance, perhaps there would not be blame, but they have learned that Evolution is insupportable.  From that point on, even if they only acknowledge its insupportability in their unspoken personal thoughts, Scientists become willing soldiers of Satan's agenda if they support its propagation as a theory.  

  Perhaps like Americans who vote for Democrats yet imagine themselves divorced from the fact that the Democrats murder tens of millions of babies by supporting abortion, perhaps in much the same way there are scientists who say in their minds something like: "I know that Science in general teaches that it is Evolution and not Yahweh who created all that we see around us.  But I am interested in other parts of what Science does which have nothing to do with Evolution, and I am merely being wise when I refrain from loudly and vigorously supporting my Savior and my God because there would be political ramifications for me within the Scientific Community if I did so.  I personally can see that Evolution is a failed hypothesis, but many of the great names in Science in our day are on record as saying exactly the opposite, and they could make a lot of trouble for me if I attested to the truth.  It would cast them in a foolish light as confused misleaders of men, intellectually pompous God defyers, and they could make me pay hard for that professionally."

  Well, Scientists, you have a soul, and you also have the same Maker as everyone else.  The Scientist that repents, turns from his sin, and follows Jesus is just as eligible for forgiveness as anyone anywhere who is guilty of being a sinner (and that includes all of us.)  But the Scientist that sticks with the crowd that wickedly claims that God is not the author of His own Creation, and in fact is probably just a myth, roughly equal to other mythical gods but no better...well, that Scientist has chosen to engage in the same work as Satan: the leading of rebellion against God, and the ruining of the souls of men. 

  If God is real, if the Bible describes Him accurately (and look into the matter, you'll find the evidence that you may think is lacking) then if that is true then the Scientific Community is a 'front and center' leader in the rebellion against God. 

  So, Scientists of all types, this issue not only concerns you, but it concerns you more deeply than anything else in your life possibly ever could.  This has eternal ramifications for your soul.  This has everlasting ramifications.  The horrendous torture you may earn for yourself will literally last forever.  Forever.  It's not like losing a battle, but there's still hope for the war.  If you are in Hell, the war never ends and you never even win battles.  Hell, the Fiery Pit, etc.,  is not described in scripture as a symbolic place, but as a real place.  So is Heaven.  After this life, scripture informs us that there is a judgement of our lives, and then there are these two places, Heaven or Hell, and we will receive assignment to the one place or the other.  Only through Jesus can any be saved.  That's what Jesus taught. 

  So, Scientists, you owe your soul a fair and unbiased look at whether Evolution and the ancient Earth hypothesis could actually survive if given a skeptical but fair investigation via the Scientific Method.  Let me do two things and then it's in your hands.  Let me post a description of the Scientific Method, and then let me point out what seem to be a couple of the weakest points (out of a great many) in the Hypothesis of Evolution.

  Here is a Wikipedia statement about the Scientific Method.  Please read it rather carefully and specifically:

The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false

End Quote

  So, there's a definition of the Scientific Method.  It's probably one that is pretty much 'center of the road'.  And remember, this is YOUR method, Scientists.  So Science's dearly held hypothesis of Evolution should be able to survive a good probing by investigators using the Scientific Method and come out shining, because Evolution is a 160 year old hypothesis.  Enough data is definitely in, so its simply a matter of examining it within the confines of the Scientific Method.

  Note the last part of the definition, however:  "The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

   Scientists adhere to this when exploring the Creation in most respects, but they inexplicably turn away from challenging Evolution, though it has failed as a theory to provide certain essential evidences that it is valid.  These evidences are so basically a necessary part of Evolution's footprint (was there such a thing as Evolution) that their absence absolutely demands an explanation.  No one utilizing the Scientific Method to determine if Evolution was a fact or only a failed theory could possibly help but be disturbed at the non-existence of certain of the proofs that everyone in the mid 1800's expected were soon to be found.  Where are the fossil skeletons of transitional creatures?  How could the first cell have been constructed or assembled without a 'constructor'?     

And as you consider it, also consider this:  When asked the question of whether a steel chain with 20 links can be used by a crane operator to lift a school bus full of children across a crevass that has formed in a highway, you cannot say that most of the links can carry twice that much weight and two of the links can lift half that much, so averaging it out, the links have plenty of strength.  You can't average the strength of links of a chain, because if even one link is not up to the job then the school bus falls, the children with it.  In just the same way, if Evolution seems plausible in some areas, but clearly is not in others, then it simply cannot be the answer.  And this is the case with Evolution.  You can make it sound plausible if you avoid certain areas of discussion, if you don't go into the crucial details, but that's all.  It does not pass muster in all of the necessary areas.....not by a long shot.  And worse, it is not definatively proven to be an operative process in any area what so ever.  That, by any measure, is a telling indictment against this farcical theory. 

  Here's the specific portions or samples or specemins  I ask you to focus on.  They are old hat, these criticisms have been around a while.  But, Scientist, have you ever truly focused your own mind specifically on deciding if there is a valid defense to these particular issues?  Remember, they can make chains so massive that they can moore aircraft carriers to the pier, but if even one link of that chain was missing, the carrier floats out to sea and is lost forever.  All required 'links' of a theory have to pass inspection, have to prove themselves, so it is not unfair to focus on a couple of Evolution's problem areas.  Even one link of the evidentiary chain supporting evolution, if satisfactorily disproven, invalidates the use of that chain as a whole.  More importantly, it makes it possible to quickly disprove Evolution.  If only certain portions of it can be cast as plausibilities, then it is ka-put!  So, simply answer these questions honestly in your mind.  They are simple, but they are enough! 

  1)  Life is composed of cells, but cells are composed of many parts. All of the parts have complexity (are composed of sub-parts necessary for their operation.  All sub-parts are manufactured from specific specialized materials.  All cell parts respond to a language, and are controlled by signals and commands provided through that language.  All cell parts must be able to understand the same language...it must be a commonly spoken and understood language.  All cell parts must have the equivalent of 'mouths' (to speak with) and 'ears' (to hear with.) 

  The cell-part-manufacturing-language had to be in place before the first cell part was built, or else the first cell part could not have been built per the plan...built to code...built to specification...built in an orderly manner, maintained in that manner.  Something had to emanate instructions (there had to be a communicator on hand before the first cell part was made, else there was no point of origin for the instructions which were conveyed by the information embedded in the transmitted 'speech' of whatever type was used.)  As for conveying the instructions from the plan holder to the plan manufacturer:  Those instructions could not have been spoken by a mouth.  Mouths are composed of cells.  We are talking about how the first cell was formed.  It could not have been on a CD disc or a chip.  Those are coherently manufactured items, their manufacture takes thought, planning, materials, etc.  They have sub-parts which work in coordination with each other.  They too have to have an agreed upon or commonly understood  'operating language'. 

  If nothing was alive before the first cell, nothing could have manufactured the specifically functioning conveyance/transmittance device.  There was no being to do so!  There was only a relatively unoccupied area of space somewhere on our planet where the first cell part of all time could be formed, and outside of that there was no other formed or manufactured anything, not anywhere, because there was no cell based life form to do such work. 

  And by the way...once you were to get enough of the necessary cell parts to make a cell, all in one place at one time by some frankly unimaginable series of accidental events....it would still have to have the ability to reproduce itself.  Every single cell part has to be able to reproduce itself.  They have to have pre-agreed coding that will trigger this reproductive division.  Each sub-part must know its individual method of dividing into two, and then later reforming itself.  The cytoplasmic membrane must know how to split in such a way that each half of it gets the necessary parts for continuing on.  The membrane must be able to reform itself.  All of this coalescing of the parts of the first cell cannot take place over such a long time span that the materials will degrade before the work is complete.  This process cannot rely on materials that cannot be obtained within an area about as big as the finished cell will be...there are no arms to reach out with, no fingers, etc., to fetch materials to the cell construction site.  And again, this whole process of building the first cell cannot take place over such a long time that the first sub-parts are degrading before the last are made.  Also, cell parts need food (ATP probably).  Make sure your plan allows for keeping them nourished in any way that might be required.   

  And let's just stop there.  OK, Scientists, given the preceding challenges and points of discussion, and without resorting to mystical magic sentient-being helpers, describe how the first cell could have ever, ever, even in a billion zillion years, have formed itself from raw, inert, languageless, codeless, lifeless, planless materials into that first fully functional self reproducing cell.  If you cannot find a plausible intellectual path to forming the first cell, then you would have the same obstacle preventing you from forming multi-cellular organisms.     

  So, in light of these difficulties and challenges, in light of these requirements I ask you to choose between only these two choices based on best evidence and soundest logic:

  A.)  A sentient pre-existing Creator is required.  By acknowledging there had to be one, then we acknowledge that there apparently was one.  After all, here we are!

  B)  Whole, orderly, functional cells, alive and capable of feeding and reproducing themselves, can spring into being from nothing, and then just Evolve until one day here we are, along with all of the other lifeforms we see. 

  Which choice, honestly, is supportable? 

2)  Using the Scientific Method to govern and order your postulations (claiming only such things as can be plausibly accepted, both individually and in sequential reliance upon the sum of your other mutually supporting postulates) explain how there can be many thousands of known fossil beds, containing fossilized creatures in copious, essentially uncountable numbers, yet not a single confirmed skeleton of a transitional creature is on display anywhere on Earth.  The question can be focused into this:  Why aren't there transitional creatures found in fossil beds with other creatures/  Shouldn't they be quite common?  If not quite common, shouldn't they be occasionally existent?  How could there be an absolute dirth of transitional skeletons after about 160 years of looking for even one, just one, so that the hypothesus of Evolution could have at least one piece of physical evidence to display?

  So, after considering those discussion points, please pick the answer that honestly and truly seems most reasonable to your mind after applying the Scientific Method in your cogitations:

  1)  Transitional creatures - Evolving creatures - probably were not there to be fossilized. 

  2)  Transitional creatures - Evolving creatures - were somehow not subject to the sort of accidents that encased and fossilized other random cross sections of existing fauna in numerous widely spread localities in thousands upon thousands of places on Earth.  So, what would a serious scientific enquirey regarding their absence make of this apparent absence of transitonal creatures? 

  Would it conclude that they were so rare that not finding them is completely understandable, though they easily found each other so that they could reproduce?  Or they were so lucky that they were never killed in those fossilization-friendly sorts of ways that other animals were?  Therefore, though they really truly did exist all over the globe, it's quite natural and readily explainable that there is thus far no proof - zip, zilch, nada - of their existence anywhere in all of the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossil beds so readily available for scientific inspection throughout the entire Earth?  Could investigation using the Scientific Method ever bring you to such a conclusion? 

  Scientists, you count yourselves as people dedicated to a path of reasoning enquirey when you perform your investigations.  Your profession says that a hypothesis can not move past theory unless the evidence allows it....in fact supports it.  Scientists, it is the Scientific Method which more than almost any other process proves an insurmountable barrier to believing in Evolution.  

  Can you build a single cell without a 'creator'.  If not, then all cellular lifeforms spring from a creator.  If you arrive at that same conclusion yourself, then please take the next step, and look for evidence of who this Creator most likely is, based on all of the types of evidence that you can gather from any source, anywhere.  I promise you, there is only one thing treated as God and worshiped on this Earth which is able to remain standing no matter from which direction you investigate.  It is the name of Jesus, the Son of God Himself, which has proven itself in all of the areas that a reasoning but fair mind might hope for.  It honestly is Jesus.  Scientists, save yourselves, and in so doing, save those you mislead.  Become a pro-Jesus scientist....a really loud one...a really unapologetic one....one that endures the persecution that may come, usually comes, from proclaiming Jesus among those who do not yet believe.  They don't yet believe now, but you may one day learn, you may one day find, that your voice came to them in their thoughts over and over and over because the Holy Spirit will try to save their souls also, and they may respond, and memory of your fully convinced words may be quite useful in bringing them to the truth when the Spirit of God, His holy Spirit of Truth does that work.         

©2017 Daniel Curry & 'Deeds of God' Website