View allAll Photos Tagged ScienceMarch
Happy Whisker Wednesday from Science March in Chicago! No cuts to Science Funding! There is no Planet B!
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
This just in: Trump still ignorant and doesn't care about Knowledge, Science, or the Future:
theintercept.com/2017/04/26/donald-trump-is-slashing-prog...
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
Just last week, I was in a fourth grade classroom at one of the public schools in Chicago and the kids were learning about Climate Change and Renewable Energy. First, they learned about the evidence that Climate Change is occurring and what that means to the world. Then, they learned about renewable sources of energy and what they could do as human beings who care about the Earth.
And then it hit me, Trump wouldn't be able to pass fourth grade. He'd also be scolded because he doesn't know how to pledge allegiance to the flag without needing reminders to put his hand over his heart.
The Credible Hulk, Mother Earth, and all the people who know how bad Polio can be want America to Think Again for the sake of the future and for all of the children who might want to grow up someday.
We need to care for our environment because Climate Change is real. We need to fund Science to continue medical advances and to develop alternative fuel resources amongst other things. We need to rely on facts and evidence and not rhetoric. People over profits, honesty over lies, evidence and facts over made up fictions the politicians try to sell us.
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
Strategy: detract from the fact that treason was committed because of collusion with Putin to undermine a so called "democratic" American election with destroying the Earth.
Today, Trump might punch a baby tomorrow for the attention. All of this from a so called "pro lifer" You can't make this stuff up. The nihilists are really showing their colors now more than ever.
**All photographs are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
Just a couple of shots to show the magnitude of the crowd yesterday for Earth Day Science March. Trump wants to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and has already loosened US Department of Agriculture (USDA) restrictions. In addition, there's been a growing laxation of what it means to have food qualified as organic. So, this effects the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Trump doesn't believe in alternative energy and would rather bring back increased oil drilling, coal and other pollutants. He doesn't believe climate change exists and this will not only effect those living in America but those living throughout the world. He wants to ignore sound scientific data in favor of his billionaire buddies at Exxon, for example.
The idea that climate change is a partisan issue at this point is alarming. This is the Earth we all live in. It's not just the children of liberals that will be affected by these policies. Trump's own children will have to struggle to survive because of the damage he is doing. And yet, he continues to show wrath towards this planet and everyone on it. Impeach Trump!
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
Day 112
April 22, 2017
March for Science - Des Moines, Iowa. Earth Day 2017.
More images of Iowa protests can be seen in this album.
Just a couple of shots to show the magnitude of the crowd yesterday for Earth Day Science March. Trump wants to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and has already loosened US Department of Agriculture (USDA) restrictions. In addition, there's been a growing laxation of what it means to have food qualified as organic. So, this effects the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Trump doesn't believe in alternative energy and would rather bring back increased oil drilling, coal and other pollutants. He doesn't believe climate change exists and this will not only effect those living in America but those living throughout the world. He wants to ignore sound scientific data in favor of his billionaire buddies at Exxon, for example.
The idea that climate change is a partisan issue at this point is alarming. This is the Earth we all live in. It's not just the children of liberals that will be affected by these policies. Trump's own children will have to struggle to survive because of the damage he is doing. And yet, he continues to show wrath towards this planet and everyone on it. Impeach Trump!
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
@March for Science London 2017
Today has been fun! There were some fantastic signs and typically hilarious scientifically-themed chants, e.g.
"What do we want?
Evidence-based policies
When do we want it?
After Peer review..."
"Scientists are good at generating questions, but not so good at slogans"
and etc... :-)
It's important to note that we have a president who treats the presidency like it's still a t.v. show and fires anyone who disagrees or might investigate him. In the meantime, he's meeting with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and not allowing US media inside. Trump must be an idiot...he tweets but he doesn't realize that by letting Russian journalists in, we'll all have access to those smiling photos of him and Sergey soon enough and it probably took less than an hour for them to be all over American media too.
We have a GOP that refuses to do their job to serve justice and their country and are only interested in passing health care bills that will actively harm and endanger the lives of their constituents. Not really any good old fashioned Christian Conservative values I'm familiar with...maybe they are reading a different version of the Bible.
In the meantime, let's not lose sight of all of the harm Trump keeps causing on the US and the world as if he's an out of control manic forest fire.
One key story that has been buried considering all the non stop media circus around Trump, Russia, and Comey is is relentless disregard for Science and the environment. The fact that earlier the Environmental Protection Agency dismissed half of its key scientists should be raising some alarm bells. Of course, Trump doesn't believe in facts suggesting global warming exists anyway. It must be blissful in his billionaire reality where his biggest problem is that he sucks at golf and people keep nagging him about his best friend Putin.
Here's more on that shameful Environmental Protection Agency story and, like I have said before, it's the kids they hurt the most...fighting for their future is what we all need to continue to do throughout the world!: www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05...
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
Photos from the March for Science in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2017. Definitely the smartest signs of any protest I've ever seen.
Clever Girls Know when a man is being dishonest about his connections, his tax and wealth, and the charges against him by other women, even if that man happens to be their own president.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tru...
**All photos are copyrighted. Please don't use without permission**
The LL stands for Legends of Learning, the company I work for. We gave 50 marchers the capes in support of science.
For the Earth. For reason. For truth. For curiosity. For answers. For evidence. For facts. For humankind. For the present. For the future. We march. #marchforscience #marchforscienceSF #ScienceMarch #ScienceMarchSF #science #EarthDay #FriendOfScience #N
Mutations = genetic, copying mistakes.
The progressive, evolution story
is one huge MISTAKE
which, ironically,
depends on MISTAKES
as its mechanism ...
Mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
So that the entire, human genome
is created from billions of mistakes.
If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Put simply ...
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the transformation of the first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from what is available, i.e. what is already in the gene pool.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.
But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.
Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the incredible idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected and preserved by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.
Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not at all surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.
If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you would be daft to expect it to improve the operation of the machine. However, evolutionists ignore such common sense and propose that something (which, similarly, would be expected to cause damage) caused billions of constructive improvements in complexity, design and function, ultimately transforming microbes into men, and every other, living thing.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....
Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations just as much as everyone else. You can bet your bottom dollar that you won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents in order to 'improve' humanity. You certainly won't get evolutionists deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution by mutations a helping hand. No way!
Evolutionists know perfectly well that mutations are very risky and are most likely to be harmful, certainly not something anyone should desire.
Yet, perversely, they still present them as the (magical) agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. They present and teach that extraordinary belief as though it is an irrefutable fact.
If we don't believe the progressive evolution fantasy, or dare to question it, we are branded as unscientific, ignorant, uneducated, backward thinking cranks or fanatics.
Incredible!
I suppose, one way to try to stifle opposition to a crazy idea, is to insult or ridicule those who oppose it. The story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind.
It is understandable that people are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new, anatomical structures, organs etc. and that really is a fact.
It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool (existing, genetic information). Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.
To clarify further ...
Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ludicrous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of an accumulation of billions of random, genetic copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and on - and on.
In other words ...
Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing, or that has ever lived, was created by an incredibly, long series of random mistakes added to previous, random mistakes.
If we look at the whole picture ...
we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, complementary sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated and randomly, occurring mistakes ... i.e. a random mistake accruing upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - over and over again, billions of times.
This notion is so incredible, we must emphasise once again what it actually means -
It means that all the body parts, systems and biological processes of all living things are the result of literally billions of random, genetic MISTAKES, accumulated over many (alleged) millions of years. This amazing thing occurred from one, original, living cell, which, it is claimed (without any evidence), spontaneously arose, entirely of its own volition, from sterile matter, in some imagined, primordial, soup scenario (contrary to the well established and unfalsified Law of Biogenesis).
Consider this ...
If, for example, there is no genetic information (constructional instructions) for bones (or any other body part) in the alleged, original, living cell, how could copying mistakes of the limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely, new constructive information? That's right, it simply couldn't, it is sheer fantasy.
Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Utterly incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations.
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The progressive, evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question the new 'improved', neo-Darwinian version of progressive evolution are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils...
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So, it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
What about the idea that radiometric dating confirms vast ages for the fossil record:
Carbon dating cannot be used for the claimed, long timescale assigned to fossils by evolutionists as the maximum age it can be used for is less than 50.000 years. Sedimentary rocks also cannot be dated radiometrically. Evolutionists have to rely on the odd occasion where there is an igneous rock intrusion into a sedimentary deposit to which they apply radiometric dating. However, the dates obtained this way are not reliable, for the reason outlined below:
"As regards radiometric dating, I refer to Prof. Aubouin, who says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Ida - the newly discovered (2009), hominid, 'missing link' (an extinct lemur),
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
The Piltdown Man fake... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was claimed as irrefutable, scientific evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
A pig, a horse and a donkey saga...
The pig ...
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary (a type of pig). It was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans, and highly imaginative, artist's impressions of an complete, ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. All based on a single tooth. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, scientist weep.
The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, was based on another single tooth ... of a horse this time! ... also proclaimed as 'scientific' evidence for human evolution.
The donkey ...
The Orce Man saga - a tiny fragment of skullcap was presented to the media as a human ancestor, accompanied by the familiar hype and hullaballoo. Embarrassingly, a symposium planned to discuss this supposed, ape-man had to be cancelled at short notice when it was 'discovered' that it was most likely from a donkey!
But, even if it was human, such a tiny fragment of skull is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as had been claimed.
Embryonic Recapitulation - The 19th century, evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who inspired Hitler's, Darwinian, master race policies) published fraudulent drawings of embryos, and his theory was enthusiastically accepted by evolutionists as proof of progressive evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor - A so-called, feathered dinosaur from the Chinese, fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man - Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... eventually admitted that it was actually a giant gibbon. However, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it. So, evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it and still maintained it was a human ancestor. It later turned out that Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention he had found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient, limestone burning, industrial site, where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So, that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series - fossils of unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth - moths were glued to trees in order to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing, gene pool, is NOT progressive evolution. It is just an example of normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
The Orgueil meteorite, organic material, and even plant seeds, were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis), which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there. And hence, abiogenesis could be declared by evolutionists as a scientific fact.
'Missing link' Ida - Hyped up by evolutionists (including the renowned, wildlife documentary, presenter Sir David Attenborough) in 2009 as a newly discovered, “missing link” of human evolution. This allegedly, 47-million-year-old fossil was discovered in Germany. However, it is now obvious that Ida is not evidence of primate (or human) evolution at all, it is simply an extinct type of lemur.
Is macro evolution even science? The honest answer to that question has to be an emphatic - NO!
The accepted definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Progressive evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief, based primarily on preconceptions.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes-to-man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis). They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Progressive evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.
Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"
And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."
"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
DNA.
The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.
It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.
Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.
Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?
Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.
Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.
Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.
That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.
It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.
For example:
1. The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life), and has never been falsified, is not universally valid.
2. They have no explanation of where the first, genetic information came from. Information Theory rules out an orign of such, constructive information by natural processes.
3. They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.
4. They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.
5. They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.
6. They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.
7. They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).
8. They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.
9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.
10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.
11. They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.
There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.
It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.
Evolutionism is not science.
Science is the method through which theories are tested and re-tested. However, today evolution is guarded against such scrutiny and taught uncritically in our public schools. This pervasive defense of naturalism has led students to view Darwinism as the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This presentation will encourage critical thinking of scientific interpretations, and examine the bedrock evidence for the theory of evolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6hm2kpYiY&list=TLGGI4E1iBi7...
We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.
That is another great MISTAKE!
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
Have you been led up the garden path of lies?
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Put simply ...
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the transformation of the first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged, multi-million year timescale.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Selection, natural or otherwise, doesn’t create any new, genetic information. It merely ‘selects’ from that which already exists.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, because the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and a naturalistic ideology entirely dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank. So, all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) favoured by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progress from microbes to human through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. It should be recognised as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
Sometimes people are confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. It is a disgrace that evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution, such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course, such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the existing variability of the gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing, gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information. That is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different things. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim. Micro evolution is an observable fact. Macro evolution is an invented mechanism based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.
To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic, copying mistakes..... an incredibly long, incremental line of mutations. Mutations built upon previous mutations ... on, and on and on.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long accumulation of mistakes ... mistakes added to previous mistakes. Mistakes of mistakes, of mistakes, billions of times over.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes.
That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES accumulated over many millions of years. Which means the complete genome of every living thing is one, MASSIVE MISTAKE. Wow! And they call that science?
What we are being asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious, fairy tale, cynically presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils.
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
_____________________________________________
A pig, a horse and a donkey!
The pig ....
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans. Highly imaginative artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc.
Having been 'discovered' 3 years prior to the Scopes Trial, it was resurrected, and given renewed publicity, shortly before the trial - presumably, in order to influence the trial and convince the public of the scientific evidence for evolution.. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... also presented as scientific evidence for human evolution.
The donkey ....
Orce man, loudly proclaimed by evolutionists to be scientific evidence of an early hominid, based on the discovery of a tiny fragment of skullcap. This is now believed to have most likely come from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as it was claimed. A symposium which had been planned to discuss this alleged human 'missing link' had to be embarrassingly cancelled when it was identified as being very similar to a donkey skull.
_________________________________________
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.
Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.
Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"
And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."
"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".
The real theory of everything
A copy of an actual photograph of Jesus Christ which formed on His burial cloth. Negative image (computer enhanced, with added colour to blood stains).
The herringbone weave of the cloth can be seen (when enlarged). The white lines are creases in the cloth.
This is a unique, photographic image (miraculously?) formed by a process unknown to science.
The only such example of its kind from any historical or modern period.
Unable to be replicated or explained by any known photographic or artistic technology.
Tangible proof of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and confirmation of the Christian Gospel narratives.
A summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
newgeology.us/presentation24.html
The shroud - new evidence.
www.asis.com/users/stag/shroud/newevid.html
____________________________________________
"This is a Nuclear Video Exploding with information about how the image was formed on the Shroud of Turin.
The Shroud of Turin is an x ray, Photographic, Holographic Image.
It has properties of
1. X Ray Photo
2. Photo Negative
3. Hologram
Yet none of these are an accurate description of the Shroud. The Shroud is a one of a kind image in which a new word would have to be invented to describe it.
The Shroud is not a painting or contact image of any kind with the exception of the blood stains which are a result of body to cloth to contact. The image is over the blood stains and is a separate event that occurred 2-3 days after the blood stains made contact with the cloth.
The Shroud of Turin is not a painting, X Ray Fluorescence, micro chemistry, ultra violet and infrared evaluations confirm this.
The painting rumor was started by Walter McCrone who found some microscopic traces of paint on some sticky tape samples delivered to him in Chicago by Ray Rodgers of the Shroud of Turin Research Project on Friday October 13th, 1978. It was a bad luck day for the Shroud. He received a total of 30 to 33 of these sticky samples. A few of them had microscopic traces of paint on them. This should not have come as a surprise to him or anyone; this is what we would expect to see knowing
The Savoy Family (who purchased The Holy Shroud of our Lord in 1453 for what would be a multi- million dollar real estate deal today) allowed artists to attempt to replicate the Shroud. No less than 52 different times they allowed artists to lay their paintings on top of the Shroud after completing their replica as a way of sanctifying it, or attempting or hoping some of its “power” would rub off on their painting. The Savoy Family kept very detailed records of most everything did with the Shroud, each time it was moved and when it was displayed. The forensic evidence on the Shroud is in agreement with the historical record. The historical record states the Savoy Family allowed artists to lay their paintings on it and of course we did indeed find trace evidence of this. Does that mean the image on the Shroud is paint? Of course not!
People like to touch famous things and or attempt to replicate them. Of course during this process microscopic traces of this paint got on the Shroud. If one was to scrape them all together and put them in one pile on the Shroud you would need a microscope to see them. They do not make up the Shroud image. There are many foreign objects on the Shroud, such as pollens from Israel and Turkey and a rare calcite from soil found in tombs around the Damascus Gate, but that does not mean the Shroud image is made up of pollens and dirt!
When McCrone was confronted with this information he stomped out of the room like a 5 year old baby and refused to listen. He could not admit he was wrong. We all make mistakes. It is important we stand up like a man and admit it. He could not bring himself to do that. Pride goes before the Fall. He fell.
To this very day this painting rumor still persists. If after watching this video you still think the Shroud is a painting or contact image, God help you.
I have spent the last 7 years of my life studying the Shroud, I know the forensic evidence and I know the scripture that relates to it. What you are hearing and seeing in this video is accurate information.
Know right now, in your heart, mind and body and soul. The Shroud is authentic, The witness to the Resurrection.
To the viewer: I hope and pray you are baptized in the Holy Spirit as a result of watching this video, in the case you are not. Amen.
This subject line in the video was inspired by John Klotz who wrote one of the best books on the Shroud of Turin ever written and is writing a 2nd book which involves the subject of life after death, near death experiences. This is not a promo for his book "Quantum Christ" but if you are interested:
johnklotz.blogspot.com/2015_01...
This is a famous quote from that book
If the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ, it is arguably the most important object on the face of the earth with the possible exception of nuclear weapons."
John C. Klotz
I don't normally recommend books, or post links to them on this channel but I recommend this book written by Isabelle Esling who is baptized in the The Holy Spirit.
This is a book for someone who has come to believe but wants to come to know and learn more about a "Higher Power Intelligence/God/Jesus/Yeshua"
Please go to this link to see and read more. FREE INFO.
encounterwithyeshua.blogspot.c...
The new astonishing phenomenon detected on the Shroud
Scientific evidence.
Carbon dating of the Shroud debunked.
_________________________________________
The real theory of everything.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211/in/dat...
Evolution timescale refuted by field and experimental evidence.
Rapid strata formation.
#sciencemarch #marchforscience #marchforsciencedc #sciencerocks #scienceresists #stem #womeninstem #womeninscience #womenintech #womenintech #scientists #scientistlife #sciencematters #ilovescience #donaldtrump #trump
#sciencemarch #marchforscience #marchforsciencedc #sciencerocks #scienceresists #stem #womeninstem #womeninscience #womenintech #womenintech #scientists #scientistlife #sciencematters #ilovescience #donaldtrump #trump
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils (faunal succession) is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not requiring the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/alb...
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Other experimental work:
arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9809432.pdf
www.nature.com/articles/386379a0
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 08/12/2017
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Radiometric dating based on unverifiable assumptions.
scienceagainstevolution.info/v8i8f.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Published papers
efficalis.com/sedimentology/paper
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
Darwinism. An interview with Dr Purdom. youtu.be/hG0MIyySsPQ
Rapid stratification refutes evolutionist timescale
evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/ evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/
Further reading:
Geology, the dreadful science.
malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/geology-the-dreadful-s...
malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/law-of-superpositio...
Polystrate fossils prove rapid stratification. kgov.com/list-of-the-kinds-of-polystrate-fossils List of polystrate fossils: kgov.com/list-of-the-kinds-of-polystrate-fossils
Rapid stratification refutes evolution timescale:
evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/
Soft tissue, including DNA, found in fossils claimed to be millions of years old. Peer-reviewed journal articles on surviving endogenous biological material including tissue and DNA. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITF...
Published paper:
www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=974471
Bijou Creek flood.
pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-abstract/37...
Greenland ice core dating.
answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/do-gre...
The Chinese fossil faking industry.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-perve...
Fake Chinese fossils
www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-f...
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
Photos from the March for Science in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2017. Definitely the smartest signs of any protest I've ever seen.
FACT.
ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false. The conclusive proof is presented here.
The proof is categorised as follows:
1. Contingent
2. Temporal
3. Temporary
The fact that EVERY natural entity or event is all three
(contingent, temporal and temporary) definitively rules out a natural entity as the origin or first cause of the universe.
The universe cannot possibly be the result of purely natural processes as atheism requires.
_________________________________________
Contingent.
All, natural entities/events are contingent.
They all require causes, and the scope, extent and potential of their properties/abilities relies entirely on their cause/s.
Their effects/properties are limited to the adequacy of their cause/s. They cannot exceed, in any respect, the abilities or properties of that which causes them.
This is supported by the Law of Cause and Effect.
'Every natural effect requires a cause' AND ‘An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s’.
A first cause of everything cannot be contingent, it must be entirely autonomous and non-contingent. Not reliant on, nor limited by, any preceding cause or causes. It cannot be inferior, in any respect, to anything else that ultimately exists (entirely self-sufficient & self-reliant).
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity or event. This rules out every, proposed, natural origin of the universe scenario as a possible, first cause.
Logically, by virtue of the first cause being FIRST, it had to be uncaused (non-contingent). If it was caused it couldn't be FIRST, as it would be preceded by another cause..
_________________________________________
Temporal.
All, natural entities/events are temporal. They all have a beginning within a physical, time frame. They all begin to exist at some point in time. That which is temporal requires a cause. Therefore, a first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity of event.
A first cause of everything cannot be temporal, it cannot have had a beginning and cannot be subject to time. If any proposed, first cause began to exist at some time in the past, it would have required a preceding cause for its own existence, and therefore could not be the 'FIRST' cause. This rules out all natural scenarios, such as as a Big Bang explosion or a singularity, as possible, first causes. They are all temporal, and that is a fact.
The first cause has to be eternally and infinitely, self-existent, not temporal.
_________________________________________
Temporary.
All, natural entities/events are temporary.
As well as having a beginning within a physical time frame, they also face an eventual demise at some point in time.
This is enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or more specifically, the law of entropy.
All, natural things deteriorate, and will ultimately come to an end.
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural, entity or event. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything cannot be temporary, it cannot be subject to entropy and deterioration through the passage of time, because its powers and potential would have diminished and ultimately ceased to exist at some point in an eternal past. It could not have survived, or have had the sustained power, to be the first cause.
And an infinitely, long chain of natural causes and effects is impossible. Because, as each cause in the chain is subject to entropy, the chain as a whole would also be subject to entropy, thus deteriorating and diminishing in potential, over time.
_________________________________________
Conclusion:
Logic, supported by science, reveals that the first cause of everything cannot possibly be a natural entity or event. Therefore, ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are patently false. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything HAD to be a supernatural entity (a Creator God). There is no other logical or credible option.
The Biblical claim; the fool hath said in his heart “there is no God” (Psalm 14:1) is wholly justified and true.
Only a fool would attempt to claim otherwise.
_________________________________________
The implications of the Law of Cause and Effect clarified.
Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C, D & E would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, without any deterioration, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-sufficient, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists).
It must be non-contingent, non-temporal and non-temporary. No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
_________________________________________
Polytheism? Why only one God?
What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
It is obvious there can only be one, supernatural, first cause.
The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.
For this reason the Christian Trinity is not 3 gods, but rather 3 aspects or facets of the same, single God:
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me" John:14-20
_______________________________________
Supernaturalism, naturalism or magic?
Does the first cause of everything have to be a supernatural one? Or is this idea (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?
What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something outside of nature. Something which cannot be explained by science or by natural processes.
The origin of the Universe must be a supernatural event.
The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes (naturalism) violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity/event (supernaturalism).
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical one? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but genuine science certainly cannot contemplate a causeless, natural event or entity, genuine scientists do not look for non-causes.
_______________________________________
Is atheist naturalism science or just paganism naturalism re-invented?
No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever atheists are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it has been claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember, it is claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist, so-called 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the worship of an All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.
Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question.
Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities and how they react according to those properties. They cannot exceed, in any way, the scope of behaviour dictated and limited by their properties. The whole basis of science is that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.
The Law of Cause and Effect is more than just an ordinary law, it is an overriding, fundamental principle of existence, not just a property of matter/energy like the Law of Gravity. It has been called the law of laws, because it applies to everything temporal; i.e. everything which begins to exist. Which means it applies to everything, except the single, first cause of everything.
If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws, (i.e. exceeds the scope of its potential based on its own intrinsic properties). For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who promote such nonsense are enemies of science.
ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (i.e. that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
______________________________________
Did natural laws exist at the beginning?
An argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe.
It is a nonsensical argument because, as I have already stated, natural laws describe the operation/behaviour of natural entities, according to their inherent properties, those properties don’t change.
The Law of Cause and Effect is exceptional. Nothing can evade the law of cause and effect.
Even if we accept the bizarre possibility that some natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.
Why?
Because, as previously explained, the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws, which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things.
It would be better described as an eternal truth and fundamental principle, rather than just a law.
It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to, and properties of, natural entities. It has rightly been called the ‘law of laws’.
Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method itself is dependent on it being true.
We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational, under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.
Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.
Natural things are all temporal and nothing that is temporal can ever escape from that overriding principle. That would also include any temporal, spiritual entities, such as angels or demons.
Everything with a temporal character, wherever and whenever it exists, is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, . There cannot be any exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on seeking and exploring causes.
Everything that has a beginning is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, even if the argument that "we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe" is correct, it cannot apply to the principle of causality.
The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.
FACT: To reiterate; if something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, it is not possible to propose a natural, origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and, therefore, are all subject to cause and effect.
The only thing not subject to causality is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it has to be non-contingent, that is - infinite and eternally self-existent.
The first cause is the ONLY exception to causality, nothing else can be an exception, everything else (including other supernatural entities, such as angels) is contingent and owes its existence to a cause, which ultimately originates with the uncaused, first cause (God).
Conclusion: A Creator God MUST exist. It is not sensible, and certainly not scientific, to deny that fact.
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/47971464278/in/pho...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of samples taken from rapidly, stratified deposits on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers. These samples, taken from rapidly formed, stratified deposits, show evidence of rapid consolidation.
Beginning to turn into rock, they are solid enough to be handled quite roughly without breaking.
They would crumble under pressure or if hit with a hard object. However, the process of petrification has clearly commenced within just a few months.
Rapidly formed in a tidal event during winter, the deposits laid undisturbed until these samples were taken at the beginning of June.
This is evidence that, given the right conditions, undisturbed sediment can rapidly solidify into rock, it does not need millions of years.
An interesting feature is the embedded stones in the large sample. This demonstrates how objects such as shells, bones etc. could be rapidly buried in a deposit, forming fossils as the sediment solidifies.
Field evidence now shows that:
1. Multiple strata can be formed rapidly.
2. Stratified deposits can rapidly solidify into rock.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Other (field) evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have more recently forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However, they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, biostratigraphy, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle.
They refuse to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition, whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. Experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism, and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it can be a normal, everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification (strata formation) is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession over a long period of time, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
See many examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
The field evidence presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photos.
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The examples in the photos are the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The varying composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
Stratified, soft sand deposits. demonstrate the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
The progressive, evolution story
is one huge MISTAKE
which, ironically,
depends on MISTAKES
as its mechanism ...
Mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
So that the whole human genome
is created from billions of mistakes.
If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis, or duplication, of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.
But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.
Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.
If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you wouldn't expect it to improve the operation of the machine.
Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations as much as everyone else. You won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents, you won't get them deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution a helping hand.
Evolutionists know that mutations are very risky and likely to be harmful, and not something anyone should desire.
Yet, perversely, they still present them as the agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. Incredible!
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.
To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series ... of mistakes ... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.
That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.
All this from an original, single, living cell.
If, for example, there is no genetic information for bones in the original living cell, how could copying mistakes of the original, limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely new information?
Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils.
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... presented as more evidence for human evolution.
Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.
Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.
Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"
And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."
"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
DNA.
The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.
It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.
Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.
Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?
Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.
Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.
Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.
That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.
It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.
For example:
1.The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life) is not universally valid.
2.They have no explanation for where the first, genetic information came from.
3.They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.
4.They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somhow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.
5.They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.
6.They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.
7.They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).
8.They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.
9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.
10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.
11.They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.
There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.
It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.
We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.
That is another great MISTAKE!
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977.)
Some of the famous atheists in the atheist Hall of Shame.
Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Kim Jong IL, Mao, Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Honecker, Ceaușescu
Atheism proved itself, in the 20th century, to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Countless millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must never be forgotten.
The promised atheist/socialist utopia ... the idea of an atheist Heaven on Earth resulted in a diabolical Hell on Earth.
Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?
Present day, so-called 'new' (improved?) atheists (and communists) try to disassociate themselves from the disastrous record of the world's, first ever, official, atheist states, established in the great, atheist experiment of the 20th century.
But all the examples we have of official, atheist rule are horrendous. And, the tyranny still continues, wherever atheism is the dominant, ruling ideology, as in North Korea.
The ‘new’ atheists try to blame the 20th century’s persecution and brutality completely on communism. They claim it had nothing to do with atheism.
But, although communism is a disastrous economic system, there is no intrinsic reason why it should be brutal, or why it should hate religion, or why it should destroy churches and persecute and murder millions of Christians and people of other faiths.
That is the hallmark of atheist ideology, not of an economic system.
Communism is fatally flawed as an economic system. And, as it thrives on envy, class hatred and division, it is a an anathema to Christianity, and any other religion which preaches love for everyone. Consequently, it is the ideal bedfellow for atheism, but that is different from requiring an intrinsic hatred of God and religion as a matter of state, endorsed policy. That is essentially an atheist ideal.
If communists weren't atheists, why would they outlaw and attack all religion? Karl Marx, the founder of communism, hated religion, because he was also an atheist. He understood that communist, dialectic materialism, class war etc. is incompatible with most religions, so, it could be argued, that to be a bona fide communist, he also had be an atheist.
Lenin was a self-declared atheist who, together with his Soviet Bloc, atheist successors, tried to eliminate religion with brutal repression and wholesale murder.
Thus, history tells us that the atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, was a brutal and diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: “it's nothing to do with us gov.”
But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving the atheist ideology another chance? Only a complete idiot would want to take that gamble.
However, it was only to be expected and it could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did. .
Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't.
Atheism and secular humanism categorically reject the concept of intrinsic right and wrong. Therefore, the ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism are the ideal recipe for abuse.
We can see from the belligerent, intolerant, rabble rousing rhetoric and anti-religious ranting of today's militant, new atheist zealots, that the leopard hasn't really changed its spots. Let no one doubt it - atheism has an horrendous and hideously, barbaric record... we must never let it happen again.
Moreover, it is a singularly perverse ideology that motivates its adherents to waste so much time of the only life they believe they have, trying to convince everyone else that they are doomed to eternal oblivion. The ultimate reward for atheists is to never know if they got it right, only if they got it wrong.
There is certainly no moral or rational defence for the atheist cult, past or present.
But what do atheists themselves say about their ethical and moral values?
They claim that they DO have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the ethics and moral code of atheism.
So is it really true?
The Humanist Manifesto looks good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists have come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.
Problems, problems ....
1. You don’t have to sign up to the Humanist Manifesto to be an atheist.
2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it. No reward for following it, and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.
3. It borrows any desirable ethics, it may have, from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist, moral code per se.
Atheism is the ideology of naturalism. Genuine, naturalist, ethical values are basically the Darwinian, ‘law of the jungle’. Progressive evolution and improvement through the survival of the fittest/strongest, and the elimination of any who are weaker or unable to adapt - nature red in tooth and claw, In societal terms - the most powerful, wealthiest, most influential, most cunning, dominate and rule for their own benefit. Anything else in the Humanist Manifesto is actually a contradiction of social Darwinism and naturalism. Any socially desirable or compassionate ethics, which may be included in the H.M, are wholly inconsistent with atheist, materialist, naturalist, and evolutionist ideology.
4. By far the biggest flaw in the Humanist Manifesto is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism'. And that major flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.
Why?
Because .....
Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.
A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.
The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pro-choice-aborti...
The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.
So we have a Government that knows it is going on, it also knows it is not what the abortion law intended, yet it is still reluctant to do anything about it.
Why?
Because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong has to take a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.
The Nazi persecution of the Jews and other races they considered ‘inferior’ became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.
Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.
So, all in all, the Humanist Manifesto and its purported ethical values, is a very dangerous document.
It gives carte blanche to any so-called ethical values, as long they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or what a government can claim people want, they are justified in giving to them.
And for that reason it would not stop; a Lenin, a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or a Pol Pot, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.
In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... Democratic People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and thus carried out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.
What about the common, atheist tactic of highlighting alleged crimes and wrongdoing committed by Christians?
The point is ....
Christians who do wrong, go against the teachings of Christianity. It is recognised as ‘sin’. If they blatantly and deliberately go against the intrinsic moral values and teaching of Christianity, they forfeit the right to continue to call themselves Christian. And they can even be excommunicated by the Church, if they fail to admit their actions are wrong.
And, without sincere sorrow and repentance, they don't get to go to the Christian Heaven.
End of story!
Atheists who do wrong, go against nothing, unless it is against the law of the land.
You cannot be chucked out of atheism for doing wrong, you cannot even be censored by atheism for doing wrong, it is a complete free for all, you can simply act with impunity according to your own desires and opinion. Atheists don’t recognise sin, right and wrong is not intrinsic or absolute. Atheism has no, unchanging, moral code. Right and wrong is, ultimately, just a matter of opinion
The atheist 'heaven' is right here on earth, and far from being a 'heaven' it is an horrendous nightmare. Anyone with any sense would call it a hell.
And even the law of the land need not stop atheists .....
Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.
That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.
And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.
They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.
So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.
The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.
Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, and make murder legal.
The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.
Doctors acting illegally over abortions get off scot-free ....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609950/Scandal-doctors-...
So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.
"Democratic societies" how do they impact on situational ethics?
We see, in practice, that democracy is treated with utter contempt .....
Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.
We are told by atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights. As usual, they deliberately ignore, or twist, the scientific facts.
And we are also told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil and a ‘far right’ fanatic, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.
So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its deceitful, devious, brutal and murderous spots, even in so-called 'real' democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.
Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful, humanist code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!
Remind you of anyone?
Always remember ....
Atheist/humanist so-called ethics and morals depend entirely on OPINION, and that is why they are so extremely dangerous.
Atheism has no moral or ethical yardstick, no concept of God-given, human rights ... only OPINION.
But WHOSE opinion?
My opinion?
Your opinion?
Or maybe Richard Dawkins opinion?
Or Sam Harris's opinion?
Or how about Barrack Obama's opinion?
Or why not STALIN'S or POL POT'S opinion?
So don't be fooled by the relentless chorus from the 'new' atheists and humanists, that atheism has its own code of ethics and morals, their code of ethics is based on the OPINION of one or more of the following ... whoever is: the most vociferous, the most charismatic, the most cunning, the most influential, the most powerful, the wealthiest, the most successful propagandist, the most persuasive, the most repressive, or the most brutal.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14797003191
_________________________________.
Unjust laws/evil laws (such as legalised abortion) are effectively null and void. They should not be accepted by any right-thinking person. In any just society, the legalisation of abortion has to be regarded as a crime against humanity, and those guilty will surely be held to account by a more enlightened society.
“civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person”. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.w
Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...
Abiogenesis - the atheist and evolutionist belief - that life can spontaneously generate itself from sterile matter, whenever environmental conditions are conducive .... And the belief that this actually happened in the early Earth.
Is it possible?
IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO INFORMATION THEORY.
Three fundamentals are essential for the material universe to exist: matter - energy - information.
Obviously, all theories about how the universe operates, and its origins, must take account of all three. However, every evolutionary, origin of life hypothesis yet devised (primordial soup, hydrothermal vent, etc. etc.) concentrates on the chemistry/physics of life, i.e. the interaction of matter and energy.
Atheists and evolutionists have virtually ignored the essential role and origin of information. We should demand to know why? Especially as we are told (through the popular media and education system) that an evolutionary, origin of life scenario, should be regarded as irrefutable, scientific fact.
Atheists and evolutionists are well aware that the information required for life cannot just arise of its own accord in a primordial soup. So why do they usually omit this crucial fact from their origin of life story?
In order to store information, a storage code is required. Just as the alphabet and language is the code used to store information in the written word, life requires both the information itself, which controls the construction and operation of all living things, and the means of storing that information. DNA is the storage code for living things.
No evolutionary, origin of life hypothesis has ever explained either how the DNA storage system was formed, or how the information encoded within that DNA storage system originated. In fact, even to attempt to look for the origin of information in physical matter is to ignore the natural laws about information.
Information theory completely rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life.
Information theory tells us: ANY MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE BASED SOLELY ON PHYSICAL AND/OR CHEMICAL PROCESSES, IS INHERENTLY FALSE. And: THERE IS NO KNOWN LAW OF NATURE, NO KNOWN PROCESS AND NO KNOWN SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, WHICH CAN CAUSE INFORMATION TO ORIGINATE BY ITSELF IN MATTER… So information theory not only rules out all evolutionary hypotheses which cannot explain the origin of information in original life, it also rules out all evolutionary hypotheses which cannot explain the origin of the completely new, increasingly complex information which would be required to be added to a gene pool for progressive evolution to take place in existing life.
Because of their zealous and unshakable faith in Darwinian evolution, most evolutionists choose to ignore this. They simply refuse to face this most important question of all, where does the complex information essential for all life come from? The reason seems obvious, it is because there are only two answers which could be compatible with the evolution fable, both are unscientific nonsense which violate information theory. They are: 1. That information can just arise magically out of nowhere. OR 2. That the material universe is an intelligent entity, which can actually create information.
(See more on genetic information and the DNA code later on)
Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.
IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS.
The Law of Biogenesis rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter under all known circumstances. All modern scientists now accept this well tested law as valid. It has never been falsified. In fact, the concept of medical sterilisation, hygiene & food preservation is wholly dependent on this law.
No sensible scientist would dare to claim that spontaneous generation of life ever happens in the world today, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this Law (like every natural law) is not always valid, in all places and at all times, within the material universe.
Yet, amazingly, because of their belief in biological evolution, evolutionists are quite prepared to flout this well, established Law and to resurrect the ancient belief in abiogenesis (life arising from non-life). Like latter-day advocates of the ancient Greek belief (that the goddess Gea could make life arise spontaneously from stones), evolutionists and atheists routinely present to the public (as a fact), the preposterous notion that, original life on earth (and even elsewhere in the universe) just spontaneously generated itself from inert matter. Apparently, all that was required to bypass this well established Law was a chance accumulation of chemicals in some alchemist’s type brew of ‘primordial soup’ combined with raw energy from the sun, lightning or geothermal forces. (Such is their faith in the creative powers of matter). They call this science? Incredible!
Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.
IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Even if we ignore the above reasons why spontaneous generation of life is impossible, the formation and arrangement by chance of all the components required for living cells is also impossible. The arrangement of all the components within the simplest of living cells is extremely precise; these components cannot just arrange themselves by chance.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered. Or in other words, things will naturally go to more probable arrangements and disorder is overwhelmingly more probable than order. Disorder actually increases with the passage of time and also with the application of raw (undirected) energy (for example, heat).
Yet we are repeatedly told the evolution fable, that the numerous components required to form a first, self-replicating, living cell just assembled themselves in precise order, by pure chance, over a vast period of time, aided by the random application of raw, undirected energy.
Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.
IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.
A fundamental principle of science is the law of cause and effect. It is a primary law of science, and the very basis of the scientific method.
The law of cause and effect tells us that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
Life is not an intrinsic property of matter/energy - so it is beyond the capabilities of matter/energy to produce a property (life) it doesn't possess.
The interaction of matter and energy cannot produce an effect with properties extra and superior to its own properties, that would violate the law of cause and effect.
Can chemistry create biology - which has entirely different properties to its own?
Of course it can't.
Biology includes such properties as genetic information, the DNA code, consciousness and intelligence. To believe that chemistry can create biology - means believing that something inanimate can create additional, new properties that it doesn't possess. To exceed the limitations of its own properties would violate the law of cause and effect.
For matter/energy to be able to produce life whenever environmental conditions permit, it would have to be inherently predisposed to produce life.
It would have to embody an inherent plan/blueprint/instructions for life, as one of its properties. The inevitable question then has to be - where does an inherent predisposition for life come from? It can only signify the existence of purpose in the universe and that is something atheists could never accept.
A purpose, order or plan can only come from a planner or intelligent entity. So it is a catch 22 situation for atheists ... the atheist/ evolutionist belief in abiogenesis either violates the law of cause and effect, OR is an admission of purpose in the universe. It can only be one or the other. Atheists cannot possibly accept the existence of purpose in the universe, because that would be the end of atheism. So the atheist belief in abiogenesis violates the law of cause and effect.
Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.
IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO MATHEMATICS.
Even if we ignore the Law of Biogenesis, Information Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which all completely rule out the spontaneous generation of a living cell from non-living matter). Mathematical probability also rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.
The laws of probability are summed up in the Law of Chance. According to this Law, when odds against a chance event are 10 to the power of 15, the chance of that event happening are negligible on a terrestrial scale. At odds of 10 to the power of 50, there is virtually no chance, even on a cosmic scale. The most generous and favourable, mathematical odds against a single living cell appearing in this way by chance are a staggering 10 to the power of 40,000. A more likely calculation would put the odds at an even more awesome 10 to the power of 119,850. Remember odds of 10 to the power of 50 is sufficient to make an event virtually impossible (except, perhaps, by magic!!).
Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible
Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist 19 Nov 1981. p.526. On the origin of life in primeval soup.
“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognise that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so. The biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles.”
“Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated, it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarising the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.” Bio-informaticist, Hubert P. Yockey. Journal of Theoretical Biology [Vol 91, 1981, p 13].
Conclusion: Abiogenesis is impossible - it is just another atheist myth debunked by science.
Evolutionists and atheists are quite entitled to abandon the scientific method and all common sense by choosing to believe that all the necessary information for life can just appear in matter, as if by magic. They can also choose to believe that: the Laws of; Biogenesis, Mathematical Probability, Cause and Effect and Second Law of Thermodynamics, were all somehow magically suspended to enable their purported evolution of life from sterile matter to take place. They can believe whatever they like. But they have no right to present such unscientific, flights of fancy through the media and our education system, as though they are supported by science.
More about DNA and the origin of life.
The discovery of DNA should have sounded the death knell for evolution. It is only because atheists and evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.
It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.
Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.
Do atheists/evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?
Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.
Even though atheists/evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.
Evolutionists/atheists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.
That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists/atheists cynically exploit,
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear evolutionists/atheists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top. Indeed, micro-strata were regarded as being somewhat similar to tree rings, indicative of a relative timescale (annual/seasonal).
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer/stratum comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
Changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils found within the rocks.
The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
A sort of circular reasoning was applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on the preconceived idea of evolutionary progression) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
Although these assumptions may have seemed logical at the time, we now know they are not supported by the evidence.
The mechanics of stratification had not been properly studied.
An additional and unfortunate factor was that the assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the general acceptance of Darwinism, for the vast (multi-million-year) ages required for progressive, microbes-to-human evolution.
Thus, because the presumed, fossil record had become dependant on it, there was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, especially as any change in the status quo would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
Unfortunately, the effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinist ideology effectively stymied any study which didn’t treat the presumed, evolutionary, fossil record as though it was an irrefutable factor. The linking of geology/stratification with Darwinism is known as biostratigraphy.
There is now a wealth of evidence which refutes the old assumptions regarding strata formation. Some recent, field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However, they claim it is an occasional, or very rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does not invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing mechanism of sedimentary deposition occurring whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water.
Experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a wealth of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal, everyday occurrence.
It is clear from experimental evidence that strata are not usually formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed, but by sediment being sorted in moving/flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram.
Rapid strata formation at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
In the diagram (Y) which is the normal, everyday mechanism for strata formation (discovered by experiments), we can see that a fossil (A) in the top strata is actually older than a fossil (B) in the middle strata. And both fossils (A) & (B) are older than the fossil (C) in the bottom strata.
Put simply, when a stratified, sedimentary deposit is laid down in flowing water, all the strata upstream is deposited before all the strata downstream. This means all strata upstream is always older than all strata downstream.
So strata at the top can actually be older than strata at the bottom of a rock formation. Which strata is older in sedimentary rock can only be determined if we know the direction of the water current at the time the sedimentary deposit was laid down.
This completely overturns the idea that fossils found in lower strata must always be older than those in upper strata. it completely debunks the idea of index fossils (biostratigraphy) and of a fossil record based on depth of burial or geological/ecological eras.
Examples:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/45113754412
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/29224301937
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/40393875072
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/44552032162
Field evidence of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposition in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in these photos ...
Rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
Examples in the photos www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
are the result of normal, everyday tidal action each occurring in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, considerable depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. It does not require the many millions of years assumed to be necessary by evolutionists.
It is also evident that the composition of individual stratum formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
Experiments demonstrate the rapid, stratification principle.
and field evidence supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Rapid strata formation videos:
A wealth of field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. The natural examples observed in field studies confirm the principle demonstrated by sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the widely accepted, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) combined with field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, and frequently in a single event.
Most importantly, in such cases, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Field studies of natural, stratification processes confirm the experiments carried out by sedimentologists and show that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession.
Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils certainly needs to be reassessed.
The observed, rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
The vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that virtually all rock formations which contain good, intact fossils were formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Radiometric dating based on unverifiable assumptions.
scienceagainstevolution.info/v8i8f.htm
Geology the dreadful science. Principle of Superposition falsified.
malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/geology-the-dreadful-s...
More about strata formation.
creation.com/geological-strata
Rapid stratification
evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Something or nothing?
There are only two alternatives, something or nothing? Existence or non-existence?
Existence is a fact!
We know something exists (the physical universe),
but why?
Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?
And where did that something come from?
Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, has been proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator.
For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, ‘A Universe from Nothing’.
Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’. His ‘nothing’ involves the pre-existence of natural law and quantum effects- gravity, energy and quantum particles (matter and antimatter).
Krauss’s ‘nothing’ turns out to be just part and parcel of the existing universe. He confuses ‘space’, which is an integral part of the existing universe, with the ‘nothing’ he claims preceded the universe.
In other words, he is claiming that some properties of the universe existed before the universe, and those properties (regarded as 'nothing' by him) brought the universe into being.
So, Krauss's proposition is; that a natural, temporal, contingent, existing thing can be regarded as an infinite, non-contingent ‘nothing’, which gave rise to all other natural, temporal, contingent things. It is like saying; an effect (without a cause) is the first cause of all other effects.
Another well, publicised example of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing was that presented by the late Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up in a single sentence:
“Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.
In a genuine state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.
Nothing means absolutely ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If no thing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.
Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.
Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists in some form.
And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in this example ‘gravity’, it cannot be called 'nothing'.
Furthermore, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. And also, How can something pre-exist that which it is a property of? Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.
“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.
Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect (the dominant principle of classical physics), which is fatal to all atheist ideology.
Incredibly, Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this law of cause and effect which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's natural, 'theory of everything' which he summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence:
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
"something can come from nothing" says Richard Dawkins
In this video clip: the militant, atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something' and is shocked when the audience sensibly reacts with laughter.
The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that a cause has to be adequate for the effect it produces. In other words, an effect CANNOT be greater than its cause or causes.
It makes sense, even to a child, that something CANNOT give what it doesn't possess, or give more than it possesses.
THE ESSENCE OF AN EFFECT IS COMMENSURATE WITH ITS CAUSE.
IF THE CAUSE IS 'NOTHING' - THE EFFECT IS NOTHING.
NO CAUSE = NO EFFECT!
It is foolish to look within nature (physical evidence) for an explanation of the origin of nature, i.e. the contingent, finite, physical universe.
There is not anything within the contingent, temporal, finite universe capable of bringing the universe into being.
Sed contra, the temporal universe cannot contain within itself the cause of its own existence. To look for non-contingency within the contingent, or non-temporal within the temporal, is counter-intuitive
The question of why there is something rather than nothing can only be answered by looking to the infinite, which relies on nothing outside itself for its existence.
The role of religion?
Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain as nothing - forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.
If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.
If the effect (I.e. the universe) is wonderful and amazing, the original cause of it MUST be wonderful and amazing.
This means we need to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only question remaining is - which god?
Is the godlike entity a supernatural creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim?
Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of (rational) religion which, in harmony with scientific principles and the laws of nature, utilises logic and reason, rather than relying entirely on blind faith.
Why God MUST exist ...
There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.
Everything that exists must be one or the other.
The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.
The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.
They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes
It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities. The first cause of everything temporal must be infinite.
Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:
A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C, D & E would not exist without A. They are all entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.
We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.
Why?
Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.
The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
Conclusion …
A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
Entropy
The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.
The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in energy potential, function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.
The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).
As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.
The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.
This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.
However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.
If the material universe itself was infinite, entropy wouldn’t exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.
The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.
Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.
That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.
As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.
So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.
This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).
The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was sustained in such a state of perfection by an infinite God, until the sin of humankind (exercised by free choice) corrupted the physical creation, undermining its perfection and resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...
Scripture: Romans 8:18–25
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."
Wisdom 1:13-15; 2:23-24
God did not make death,
nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.
For he fashioned all things that they might have being;
and the creatures of the world are wholesome,
and there is not a destructive drug among them
nor any domain of the netherworld on earth,
for justice is undying.
For God formed man to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made him.
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who belong to his company experience it.
Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.
Why?
Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.
To put it another way …
God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.
Creation - an act of will?
For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.
Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.
Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as “I am”. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).
Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:
The single, supernatural entity:
1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).
2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).
3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.
In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.
The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical, because it is obvious we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).
So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.
All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.
Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.
We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.
We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.
We can love. Thus, our creator must love.
We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.
Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.
This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.
It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.
For the origin of all our attributes, and those of all the temporal realm, we must look to their source - the infinite first cause - God.
Atheists frequently ask; how can we possibly know what God is like?
The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us some evidence of God’s nature.
For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?
To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.
If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.
The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.
Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.
We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.
They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.
To sum up:
Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.
God discovered, not invented!
Contrary to a narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not just a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward thinking substitute for reason or science, but rather, the reality of His existence and character is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.
The real character of atheism unmasked.
Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?
Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation myth, summed up in a single sentence. A sentence which is possibly the most bizarre and contradictory sentence in the history of science.
When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities and idols were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers –
“the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...
The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.
God’s power.
Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.
This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.
What caused God?
Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.
The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.
This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:
“What caused God then?”
This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.
As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.
Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.
It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.
First means 'first', it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.
So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.
God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.
As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).
Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?
This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.
Why?
It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.
Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.
Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.
Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.
What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?
Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. 2 is 2 ones, 3 is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).
The Law of Cause and Effect
"Dominant Principle of Classical Physics
Chance Events? Nothing happens by chance! Classical Science, which dominated studies
of the physical universe before the Twentieth Century, generally held an opinion that
there are no events that happen by chance. For many centuries, it seemed obvious that
all things were caused by something physical or mental. This idea was expressed by
Hippocrates of Cos (c. 460-377 B.C.): “Every natural event has a natural cause.” [1, p.
12].
History of the Concept of Cause and Effect. The concept of order maintained by the law
of cause and effect is a scientific principle with a history traceable through Hebrew,
Babylonian, Greek, and modern civilizations.
Hebrew Concept of Causality. Certain Hebrews acknowledged the role of causality in the
universe before the Babylonians and Greeks. These Hebrews denied chance and its offspring
chaos:
That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.…
Shall the clay say to him who forms it, “What are you making?”
Or shall your handiwork say, “He has no hands”?…"
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.commonsensescience.net/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
The progressive lie in science and society.
The essence of the ‘progressive’ lie, in science and in society, is a denial of both the intrinsic natural order, and the natural tendency towards physical and cultural/social entropy.
In hypothetical science, progressive cosmic and biological evolution deny the basic principles of causality and universal entropy, effectively undermining truth in science.
Although presented as science, they are both scientifically incongruous.
If your initial paradigm relies on the denial of fundamental scientific principles or natural law, it spectacularly fails. To call it ‘science’, discredits the perception of science as an objective search for truth.
To present an hypothesis wherein an effect is greater than its cause, and which requires a naturally occurring, autonomous increase in order, is preposterous fantasy.
Negating the effects of entropy, both physically and culturally, requires an active, sustained input, or renewal of, directed or guided effort/energy. (i.e. energy/effort + information, instructions or rules).
In the social and political field, indifference to, and denial or encouragement of, cultural entropy, masquerades as progressive.
Progressive politics derives from, and is allied to, this denial of intrinsic natural law and fundamental principles. By opposing or negating those guiding principles and rules, which are based on maintaining the natural order, it encourages and supports an insidious, social entropy, which inevitably undermines and ultimately destroys civilised society.
Just as the atheistic purveyors of physical evolution, cosmic and biological, posit the progressive development of order in the universe by denying the laws of cause and effect and entropy, which are fundamental principles of the natural order and science. So, the social allies of physical evolution, the purveyors of cultural and societal evolution, propose a progressive improvement of society, based on a similar denial of the natural order.
False equality and unjust denial of genuine equality:
Rejection of the natural order has spawned an insidious, egalitarian deception.
Demands are made that things which are clearly not equal should be treated as equal, and things that should be equal are denied their rightful equality.
Proponents of so-called, progressive policies seek to impose socially, and even legally, ideas of equality which ignore the natural order.
Equating things which are not equal, demanding equality for things which can never be equal, is quite bizarre, irrational and unscientific. That which violates the natural order is thereby elevated to parity with that which is in conformity with the natural order, diminishing the perception, approval and societal support of the latter.
It is a gross injustice to undermine and degrade social recognition and acceptance of the benefits of compliance with the natural order. Truth and error are not equitable, regardless of any legislation which decrees they should be regarded and treated as though they are.
A couple of examples:
Same sex marriage...
Traditional marriage is undeniably compatible with the natural order, socially, scientifically and theologically.
Biologically, the reproductive, and only, purpose of complementary, sexual characteristics is irrefutable. This scientific fact has been traditionally recognised, socially and theologically, in the institution of marriage, throughout history. The only reason marriage exists is because of this biological fact. There cannot be legitimate equality for any so-called marriage/sexual partnership which is not based on this fundamental principle of the natural order.
The unjust denial of genuine equality:
Abortion...
Biology, through the study of genetics and embryonic development, decrees (without doubt) that a unique, human life begins at conception. There are no ifs or buts, this fact of the natural order is supported by science and, traditionally, through theology and the legal system. Any denial of equality for unborn, human babies is illegitimate, grossly unjust, and contrary to basic human rights.
Human institutions attempt to counter social entropy and maintain order through social constructs; tradition, convention, etiquette, customs, religion, contracts, charters, treaties, laws etc., but the enduring success of these depends on how closely they conform to the natural order.
The success of Western civilisation was mainly attributable to its clear understanding of physical and cultural entropy. Christianity was rightfully endorsed as the supreme antidote to cultural/social entropy.
This is perfectly logical because, as the Bible makes clear, physical entropy is the result of an originally, perfect creation sullied by sin.
Likewise, in society, sin is the cause of social entropy, it undermines the natural order and ultimately destroys civilisation. If you break rules which serve to maintain the natural order, you inevitably wreak havoc.
Christianity seeks to retain and, where necessary, restore natural order in society, combating the tendency towards social or cultural entropy by instilling principles and rules which respect and actively defend the natural order. Just as physical entropy is only negated by a sustained input of directed energy/effort, so social entropy is only negated by an enduring adherence to binding rules and principles. The adherence to such rules and principles by humans, who have a propensity to rebel against the natural order (behavioural entropy, inherited from our first parents; Adam and Eve), can only be reliably maintained by an input of spiritual energy/divine, sanctifying grace.
It is a perverse society, which applauds as ‘progressive’, those who rebel against, and deny, the natural order and laws, while appropriating science and culture to suit their regressive, ideological agenda (contrary to fairness, justice and basic human rights). Their denial of fundamental principles appears to be scientifically and socially legitimatised through corrupt, propagandised education, media hype, and intense political lobbying.
The arrogant claim of ‘progressives’, to hold the rational, scientific and ethical high ground, is bogus and dangerous.
The opposite is true.
To rail against the natural order is irrational and unethical. It undermines truth and unjustly denigrates everything which is compliant with the natural order. True science, morals and ethics must wholly respect fundamental principles and the natural order. Christian teaching is based on loving, maintaining, respecting and honouring these basic truths of the universe evident in God’s creation.
ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe, scenarios are false.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/32557999087/in/dat...
If and then - the atheist dilemma.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...
Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...
So, you think you are an atheist?
To be a genuine atheist, one of the things you MUST believe is - that life originated by entirely, natural processes.
The questions below should make you ask yourself whether your belief in atheism is intellectually tenable.
Question 1.
Do you believe that life can self-generate from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis)?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to Question 2.
If you answer no, please go to the footnote at bottom of this questionnaire.
Question 2.
Do you believe that matter is inherently predisposed (programmed) to develop life whenever conditions are conducive (suitable)?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to question 3.
If you answer no, please go back to question 1 and reconsider it.
Question 3.
Can you explain how an inherent predisposition for life originated in matter?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to question 4.
If you answer no, please go back and reconsider question 1.
Question 4.
Do you believe there is purpose or design in the universe?
Yes or No?
If you answer no, please go to question 5.
If you answer yes, you are certainly not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.
Question 5.
Can you explain how matter can be inherently predisposed to self-generate life, if there is no purpose or design in the universe?
Yes or No?
If you answer no, you are not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.
If you answer yes, please give your explanation in the comments section. But, before doing so, please read "Background to why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe." which is written below the following footnote...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
Footnote:
If your answer to question one is 'no', you are certainly not an atheist. Unlike atheists, you respect and agree with the following scientific laws and principles - so, well done!
The Law of Biogenesis. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It tells us that life does not self-generate from sterile matter, under any circumstances.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is regarded as one of the premier laws of the universe, it tells us that the universe is subject to entropy. That the universe running down towards an ultimate demise in energy potential and order. The self-generation of life requires an increase in order and complexity which violates the second law. The only way entropy can be temporarily halted or reversed is through an input of GUIDED energy.
Information Theory.
Life requires complex instructional and constructional information (which is encoded in DNA). Information Theory tells us that such information cannot arise of its own accord by purely, natural processes.
The Law of Cause and Effect.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
Whatever produced life (its cause), must be entirely adequate to produce it. That means, the original cause of life should not be inferior to it in any way. The cause of life should be capable of producing every property we observe in living things.
A random, or chance, interaction of energy and matter (or a 'big bang' explosion) cannot produce self-replicating cells, genetic information, or any of the qualities which are uniquely attributed to living things, such as intelligence, consciousness, creativeness, purpose, decision making, ideas and ideals.
____________________________________
Background: ‘Why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe.’ (If you answered 'yes' to question 5, please make sure you read this before commenting).
Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life on Earth, and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?
And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?
Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.
Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It is now universally trusted as the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and it is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect.
So, is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?
The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.
The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.
It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing…. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely, fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, as an effect cannot be greater than its cause, any proposed first, 'natural' cause, of the universe and life, would have to intrinsically embody the entire potential for the creation of natural laws, information, order, life, consciousness, intelligence etc.
What do atheists themselves say about this....
In a debate (available on youtube), the well known atheist, Richard Dawkins, while trying to describe the first cause (as being something coming from nothing), claimed, the something that he believed came from nothing, would have had to be something simple. Amazingly, he ignored the law of cause and effect which tells us the exact opposite, i.e. that first cause could not be simple. It tells us that the first cause of everything HAD TO BE ADEQUATE (sufficient in every respect) to produce the effect. The effect (the complex universe, life and intelligence) certainly isn't simple.
So, Dawkins believes the first cause can be inferior to the effect. Or, put more simply, he believes something which came from nothing can give what it doesn't possess - and he calls that science!
It is not surprising that an audience (with common sense) found his attempt to define ‘nothing’ hilarious.
See here how the world famous, atheist Richard Dawkins foolishly tries to define 'nothing' as 'something' and is shocked at the audience reaction.
youtu.be/b6H9XirkhZY
Dawkins famously wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ this video clip reveals his own delusions.
If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?
The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated – and, also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.
For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So, there must be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.
Thus, atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they must explain where that predisposition for life comes from?
It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.
Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.
Thus, the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.
The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.
Therefore if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.
Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?
Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong – period.
Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart said, "The most famous atheist is the one who can say the greatest absurdity with the straightest face."
______________________________________________
The real theory of everything.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211
Neo Darwinism - completely bonkers.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...
____________________________________________
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions