Recently I was sent a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer with the sub heading “The Magazine for Science and Reason”. It was a special issue about Science & Religion, which was asking the question…conflict or conciliation. To me the question was mute for religions believe what they want to believe and truth or reason have little, if any, room in their doctrinal thinking which they mask under the guise of faith.
Most religions believe in a god that is somewhat akin to a genie in a bottle with a pocketful of magic dust. All he has to do, they feel, is spray some of this magical dust about, say a mystical word or two and poof there it is…whatever he desires.
On the other hand following the dictates of skepticism along with a healthy dose of reason I began to look at what the so-called science of evolution is saying to defend the tenants of evolution versus creation. What I found was that the belief in the theory of evolution, comes down to being simply another religion quite as dogmatic and just as uncompromising as any other religion. In the end just as bound by their faith, in their theory, as all religions whatever or wherever they may be. However, evolutionists like to assume a state of superiority or haughtiness about their position because they feel they can hide behind what they believe is a dignified mask of science. Nonetheless, in the end evolutionists believe the theory Darwin proposed because they want to believe it, not because it has in any way, as they claim, been scientifically proven.
Evolutionary science has its own mystical myths such as the evidence for evolution from fossils. They discuss fossils as if fossils were factual irrefutable proof that evolution has been proven when in truth this is not the case at all. Now it is true that archaeologists have produced literally millions of fossils. They have collected and stored these fossil finds in museums around the world. Nonetheless, so far fossils have done nothing but prove evolution wrong. In all the collection of these millions of ancient bones true science cannot connect a single one of them to any other single fossil to clearly show a transition from one fossil species of animal to the fossil of another. They speak as if this was so; but so far the evidence of fossils refutes this claim completely.
Concerning this in a book entitled “Objections To The Doctrine of Evolution” Dr Steven E Dill supplies the following information:
the same, the fossil record has not failed science. Rather, the fossil record
has confirmed science. Biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, astronomy,
mathematics, etc., all say that evolution can't happen. The fossil record
confirms this by proving that evolution didn't happen. It is the Theory of
Evolution that fossils fail to prove, not science. (Which means, of
course, that the Theory of Evolution is NOT science.)
There is no fossil evidence to support the theory that life emerged from
nonliving chemicals, or that life gradually underwent a series of changes until
new and different species were formed.
back all that up the following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and
Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum
Leap Into the New Age. (Jeremiah Films, Inc., 1987) This video
contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they
were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil
record. Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous.
This answer was based on their definition of "transitional."
To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an
extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved
from, and what it evolved into later. After these claims were made, they
were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly
showing themselves to be between species.
This is the creationists' definition of "transitional."
When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none.
Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when
questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support
from the geologic record.
the beginning Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum said:
are myriad transitional forms. There's really no problem finding transitional
his final statement of:
"One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil
record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts. It
doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."
(The question here is what happened to the
myriad transitional forms the good doctor spoke of to begin with?)
Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:
on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)
"We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought
not all that many years ago. And creationism was overthrown in the
scientific community by evolutionary thinking."
his later statement of:
"Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many
transitional forms out there, the likelihood of finding any one of them is
The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there
aren't transitional fossils. Luther Sunderland, a creationist and
aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson,
Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional
fossils. Dr. Patterson, a well-known and highly respected evolutionist,
had just finished writing a book about evolution. Even though he believes
in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms.
Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.
"I (Luther Sunderland) wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he
didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his
book on evolution. Dr. Patterson, who has seven million fossils in his
museum, said the following when he answered my letter:
fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of
evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living,
I certainly would have included it… I will lay it on the line. There is
not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.'"
case you happened to skim over that and missed it; I'm going to repeat this
direct quote from Dr. Patterson the director of the British Museum of Natural
“There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight
argument.” In other words the
reason evolutionists cannot supply evidence of fossil transition is because it
does not exist. What should that
tell a true skeptic?
Steven E Dill makes a remarkably detailed and thought provoking case against the
theory of Evolution using chemistry, biology, and a number of other subjects
that turn out to be very powerful arguments using scientific facts as opposed to
scientific theory. If your
interested in his views you can contact him at Stevendill@aol.com
if science were truly being scientific about refuting the claim of creation (we
are not talking about faith here) then Science would have to look at what the
Bible is saying about creation and not what religions claim concerning the
Biblical explanation of how the universe came into existence.
To do this one would have to start with things that cannot be denied.
Obvious truths! As an
example, it cannot be denied that the claim religions make that God created the
universe in six twenty-four hour days is shear unreasoned thinking on the part
of religionists, not only that but it is without logical or Biblical support.
In fact, the Bible itself refutes it.
an example, Adam and Eve were placed in a garden with trees.
Everyone knows and cannot deny that trees supply a history of the length
of time they have been in existence by the rings within their trucks, which
proclaim each year of the trees life. Even
the skinniest tree, one year old, would belie the six twenty-four hour days of
creation that religionist try to maintain.
(I personally had a religionist tell me that God probably created the
trees in the Garden of Eden to appear older than they were. I
had to point out that aside from the fact that God would have no reason to do
such a deceitful thing He couldn’t do that even if He had wanted to, for we
are plainly told in the Bible that the God of the Bible cannot, does not, and
will not, lie. Titus 1:2 Hebrew 6:18)
Therefore religionists have put unreasoned, and actually irrational faith in a single word, that word being “Day”. Facts have no bearing on their faith in that word. Consequently they have no idea of the difference concerning the word “Day” written centuries ago, in the Paleo Hebrew language, as compared with the meaning of that same word used in an English Bible today. The Hebrew word used for day in the first three chapters of Genesis is “Yowm” Let’s look at what Strong’s dictionary of the Hebrew language says the definition of that word is.
(yome); from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours),
whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or
figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]:
Now, it doesn’t require a college degree to notice that there are two separate meanings to the word “Yowm” or as it is pronounced in English yome. One means a period of twenty-four hours. The other means an unspecified space of time. So how did the Hebrew’s know which definition to use with the word “Yowm” when they read it in the verses of the first three chapters of Genesis? They knew by the associated term used with the word. Daylight or warm hours associated and identified the word with our normal twenty-four hour period we call a day. Night or cool hours identified it as being used to describe an undefined period of time. This is why the writer of Genesis makes the use of the word “Yowm” very clear by associating it with an evening and a morning, a first day a second day etc, in other words nighttime therefore proclaiming the word to mean an indefinite period of time. What does all this mean? It shows unequivocally that we have no idea how long each of the Biblical creative days was or even if each day was the same length of time as another. To make all this even more interesting there are scriptural verses that tell us that the God of the Bible does not relate time in the same way we view its passage. He views a day, as being equal to one thousand years (2 Peter 3:8) or as another verse puts it equal to a watch in the night. (Psalms 90:4) A watch in the night is four hours long. Again these two verses above are telling us that the Biblical day spoken of in Genesis in the first two chapters are God’s calculations of time and have absolutely nothing to do with the our calendar which depends on the rotation of our planet as it travels about our sun.
Now we also find by reading the Biblical account of creation that the sun and moon were not put into place until the fourth day. (Gen 1:16-19) It therefore becomes clear and reasonable that the God of the Bible was using His own way of calculating how long a day was. The point here is why would the God of the Bible not use time as He sees it? Man did not arrive on the scene until the sixth day and men calculate a twenty-four hour day due to the spin, on its axis, of our earth relative to our sun. In fact, the God of the Bible told mankind, that these luminaries, the sun and the moon, would be used for man to calculate days, months, years etc. If you require more evidence of what has just been said let’s look at verse 4 in chapter 2 of Genesis.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. NAS
Notice the verse is saying in the day they were made. But we were just told in chapter one that it took six days. If they were twenty-four hour days… which was it six days or one day? If, as religions claim, they are twenty-four hour days we have a major contradiction in the first two chapters of the Bible but since we now know the word day, as the Hebrew writers used it, means an indefinite or undefined period of time… then the word day fits just fine in both instances.
By the way, we use the word “Day” in exactly the same way today. If I said “In George Washington’s day…” would you assume that I meant George Washington only lived 24 hours? If I said in the day of the dinosaur wouldn’t that be a whole lot longer than Washington’s day which was about seventy years.
Well now it cannot be denied that the use of the word Yowm or day does not refer to twenty four hours but to a period of time that for all we know could have been thousands, millions or billions of years. But we now come up against the time scale, in creation related by the Bible, of the six thousand years or so of the history of mankind as portrayed by the narrative of the Bible.
Everyone assumes that the Bible is speaking of the creation of the universe in the first chapters of Genesis. But, surprise of surprises…that is not so! The Bible is not giving us the details on the creation of the universe; rather it is focusing on the creation of LIFE on this earth. Life is the creation that the Bible is consistently speaking of after the first verse of the Bible. After the first verse it is not speaking of the creation of the planets or the stars or galaxies or any of the other elements that make up this universe with the single exception of the fourth day. Even then it is saying the creation of the stars was something separate from the creation that was being discussed on the fourth day, which was placing the earth into the orbit of our sun to supply life giving light and warmth along with the moon to give light at night. (Where the Biblical light came from to cause the grass and trees to grow on the third day will be discussed later in this article.)
We are told by the very first verse in the Bible that it was the Biblical God that created the heavens and the earth…in other words the universe. The very next verse in the Bible introduces us to our planet covered by water in a state of complete darkness. A planet that is not being created but is already there! The planet earth had already been created during the first verse. The very next verse now deals with, and focuses on, the planet earth because the rest of the book deals with what happened on that earth; and what happened on it, had its beginning with the creation of life. The point here is if science were truly being scientific about refuting the claim of creation (we are not talking about faith here) they would have to look at what the Bible is saying and not what religions claim it says. Science would have to look directly at the issues concerning the Biblical explanation of how the universe came into existence. Instead evolutionists use subterfuge in an attempt to discredit the Biblical account. As an example evolutionist point to the creation of grass and plants on the third day stating that vegetation would not grow without the light of the sun to cause photosynthesis. This is quite true. It is also true that I live in a basement apartment and have an indoor garden growing with the use of special lights. If evolutionist were truly trying to be scientific in their findings they would have to deal with verse three in the Bible that says, “Let there be light.” Verse three brings light onto the surface of the earth the very first day. I can make a very strong Biblical case showing that the light called for in verse three of Genesis was God’s only begotten Son. In acts 9 Paul was introduced to Christianity by an exceptionally bright light that blinded him for three days, and that physical light is identified in the verses as the Biblical God’s only begotten Son; Christ.
The point here is that I am not a scientist nor do I have their training or discipline so why can I find answers to things in the Bible they cannot. The only reason I can find is they do not look.
Since the Bible is talking about the creation of life on the earth and not speaking of the creation of the universe itself, we now have to look at the time scale of that creation of life on this planet with a completely different eye. Since the only thing the Bible has to say about the creation of the universe is that God was responsible for it, this leaves time open ended for there is no reference to the passage of time in the first verse of the Bible other than its very statement implies time was needed or taken for that endeavor. Creationists want to believe that the God of the Bible used fairy dust or something similar, to magically allow all we see in creation to pop into existence. However, as has been said before the Bible allots the laws of the universe, which we know exist such as gravity, to have been put in place by the Biblical Creator. How long did it take for the Biblical God to create the universe? 13 years? Thirteen hundred years? Thirteen billion years? How would we know? The Bible does not say, in fact, it doesn’t even hint at it?
However, it does hint at how long the Biblical God took to create life on the planet earth. The bible says God rested on the seventh day, again using the word “Yowm” to portray a period of time. We are told in Hebrews that we, you and I, are still in that rest, or Sabbath day. That means that rest day is still going on after six thousand Biblical years have passed since the Bible’s God instigated it. This is backing up the argument that God was speaking of the way he saw time in connection with the Biblical days. That would give us a minimum of 6000 years for each creative day, assuming each was equal in length; which is not necessarily so. Nonetheless, that would give us a period of time, for the creation of life by the God the Bible speaks of, that would amount to 36000 years. A span of time more than sufficient for wide-open plains of grass to grow, supplying a place for buffalo to roam and trees, including the giant redwoods of California, to grow into forests. All the time that is needed to explain life, as we know it today.
If scientist, investigating radioactive substances, tell us the gas argon, in rocks, gives us the planet earths age as four and a half billion years, it becomes very nebulous to me as to why creationists would spend their time looking for silly arguments to disprove that, for it doesn’t contradict anything the Bible is saying about creation. I find the information on the age of the universe interesting but I don’t relate that to anything I might be doing on the earth at present. In other words if true science found out it was 13 trillion years ago, instead of 13 billion years ago that the universe came into existence, it would not upset me one little bit. However, it sure does put a crimp in the time scales of pseudo-scientific evolutionists as well as creationists for their arguments against each other go out the window and are blown away.
Since the Bible is not speaking about a passage of time concerning the creation of the universe in its opening chapters, then 13 billion years, that science claims is the age of the universe, could well have been the time span that the God of the Bible used for that purpose, there is nothing in the Bible that implies it’s God was in a rush. What do we know that would prove the earth isn’t four and half billion years old as science claims?
But, I’m sure, those that believe God performs magic will object for who ever heard of magic dust that took so long to work? Well, magic dust is the stuff of fairy tales. But the stuff of the universe is quite real as anyone on a clear night can attest to. And if there is a magic dust connected to creation it appears to be made up of a substance called…laws. Without a doubt laws bind and govern every one of those stars, twinkling in the darkness above our planet. Laws such as gravity! This is also something, which cannot be denied. The stars of the galaxies that exist in the seemingly endless expanse of the heavens above are clearly under the control of universal laws that govern every bit of their motion and existence; they are governed by laws, many of which I am sure, science is not even aware of as yet. Evolution has a problem when it comes to explaining how these laws came about. The Bible, on the other hand, tells us that it was its God that created the universe, bringing all its governing laws into being. (Job chapter 38 is an example) All of this leads to the question, if the God of the Bible created the universe along with life, wouldn’t reason and sense in setting up all these laws, such as gravity, be the backbone of creation; its magic dust. As far as I can see, reason and sense seem to be behind all that the Bible is saying and again, we are not speaking of religion here.
Is reason and sense also true of evolution and the big bang theory? Let’s see if it is, using reason and skepticism.
According to the big bang theory in the beginning everything was condensed or compressed into a tiny dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Now that’s pretty damn small for me to imagine that the earth was condensed into, not to mention the entire universe, but for the sake of discussing this lets assume (#1) this was so. (I am going to number the assumptions we are forced to make so that we can reasonably assess and evaluate the big bang theory.)
One of the laws governing this universe is attraction and repulsion demonstrated by any magnet in the universe and since our sun (never mind the rest of our galaxy) would put up an unbelievable strong objection to being compressed into something as small as the period at the end of this sentence, violating this law had to be explained by those advocating the Big Bang Theory. Evolutionists therefore claim that before the big bang all the laws were different. Why this was so is not explained by science it is just stated nevertheless, let us assume that is also so. (#2)
This would also mean that
right after the big bang all the laws were changed?
Who changed them or how this came about is up for grabs but let’s
assume that happened also. (#3) In reality the laws had to change before the
big bang to cause the bang to happen which is not likely to begin with…things
in motion tend to stay in motion so if the universe were no bigger than the
period at the end of this sentence then it would tend to stay that size and not
explode into something we, today, can only view as infinite.)
Now the big bang theory does not give us any idea as to how long the universe remained compressed into this tiny dot or for that matter where that dot came from to begin with. Nonetheless, let us assume that somehow or other the dot came into existence like a zit on the end of a teenagers nose. (#4) Actually that is not a good analogy because we know why… zits appear.
Now we must also assume that when this dot appeared it contained all the ingredients necessary for a universe to be created. (#5)
We must also assume that something happened within this tiny dot to trigger it to explode. (#6)
Now we must also assume that whatever it was that caused this dot to go bang did so with an unimaginable force far in excess of anything we can or could possibly visualize or conceive. The force behind this explosion had to be of such a proportion and magnitude as to be far beyond anything that we could possibly explain or even understand. As an example of what is meant we have stars that explode in our universe all the time. These exploding suns are so powerful that they can and do swallow up whole planetary systems. They are called supernovas. Still, compared to what that initial big bang had to be these supernovas would not even be noticed.
black holes in space that swallow up whole galaxies, a hundred billion stars,
but these forces are like a firecracker when we try to express the power that
had to be exerted in this big bang theory.
All of which, by the way, had to be packed into this tiny dot. (.)
So we have to also assume that this tiny little dot not only came
into existence somehow (7) but that it also did so somewhere outside of this
universe. It could not be in a
universe before that universe was created which means it had to be someplace
else, which means this unfathomable force, had to be something somewhere outside
the realm of this universe simply because it could not be in this universe as we
know it because until it exploded the universe did not exist. (However, we will not include the last part of assumption
7 in our numbered assumptions because it sounds too much like the God of the
How ever we must assume that in some way or other the space for this compressed universe to occupy or explode into was either already here or contained within the dot? Where space itself came from or how it came about is anybodies guess. (#8)
Now I could go on with these assumptions for a good deal longer but I would like to go into a discussion of each of the assumptions above a little deeper and since I am inherently lazy I will stop here and return to assumption #1.
Imagine that the entire universe along with all its infinite space was compressed into this tiny dot. How could that have come about? Well, we know that black holes in space swallow up stars and obviously compress whatever they swallow into smaller space…at least we believe this to happen. We do not know it to be true but we assume it to be so because we can view things in space that give the appearance that this is happening. Nonetheless, we do not believe that these black holes are the size of the period at the end of this sentence and as far as I know no one have ever said they were. Even so we do know that things can be compressed. This can happen because the objects being compacted are made up of, or contain, empty space and therefore things can be compressed into that empty space. Like an automobile being squashed into something a bit larger than the size of a garbage can.
Think of a room where the walls are pressed into the center until all four walls touch each other. Now you can press even further because the walls themselves are made of material that has space in it. You can continue this compression… assuming you can muster up enough force to accomplish the compression. Even this can only be done up to a point. That point would be reached when there was no more empty space available within the material that made up the four walls of the room we are imagining. Notice we are stuck with another assumption above concerning the force needed to continue compacting the walls. In other words you would need infinite force to accomplish compressing those four walls into something as small as the period at the end of this sentence and that is another assumption (#9) This of course leads us to a different or another assumption that goes hand and hand with number nine, which is an assumption that you would be able to obtain, and control, such a force. (#10.) I mention this because now instead of talking about eight assumptions we have to talk about ten.
So far we have been talking about one room but the theory says all of the universe was compressed so let us not rush but simply take another room and compress that into something as small as the period at the end of this sentence. Now after that had been accomplished we would have two small dots that have to be compressed together into one occupying no more room than the first one took? Now we are stuck with another assumption (that makes #11) Number eleven assumes we could somehow muster an even greater infinitely powerful force needed to compress the two dots together. The second force would have to be infinitely greater than the infinite force we needed to get the first room into that condition. And again you would have to assume that this mammoth infinite force was controllable also. (#12) You would need to control it so that you could get the stuff that was squeezed out back into the mix of the stuff you were compressing which would require an unbelievable force of its own.
I don’t know about you but trying to grasp what is needed just to compact two rooms is making me dizzy. It is also quite clear to anyone with reason and sense that it is an impossible task to complete under the rules and laws we know about in this universe. However, one other thing becomes clear. The assumptions one has to make to have any chance of the first assumption working, (that there indeed was a big bang?) triples and quadruples etc as you go. Remember these are not facts of science but assumptions and not all that logical assumptions at that. However, all of these assumptions that one has to make for the big bang theory to work require absolute unquestioning faith in the big bang theory itself, for none of these assumptions we are making are explainable, including where that damn dot come from to begin with.
With the Bible I need only make one assumption and that is that the God of the Bible exists. Ipso facto, it requires less faith to believe in God than it does to believe in the big bang theory or any other part of evolution. Again I ask, what should all this tell a true skeptic?
In fact, to those that claim to be skeptics concerning the God of the Bible because they say it is too much like magic; take notice of the following. The god of science called evolution, particularly the beginning of evolution, which is the big bang theory we are discussing, turns out to be nothing more than a magic genie in itself. The universe is often equated, by evolutionary science, with a giant cake mix loaded with raisins baking in an oven. As the mix rises all the raisins within expand equally from the next raisin. In other words there is no way to discern a center of the mix unless you were outside of the mix. Therefore within the mix, which we all are, we cannot see or find a center to it all because there is no center. No matter which raisin you sat yourself on you would be in center of the cake. Therefore the earth is the center of our universe. Or if we happened to be on Mars, Mars would be the center of our universe. This is true of any other planet you can name or find. Now all of that is understandable but it leaves this giant question about the big bang theory. Where the hell was that dot when this cake mix we call a universe began? Where was it when it went bang? It couldn’t have been in the center of our universe because the universe we exist in doesn’t have a center.
We know our universe is expanding because of what is known as a Doppler effect and what it shows us about light. Light shining from stars, as they race away from us, portray the appearance of changing color towards the red spectrum. In other words the universe we see, and what we feel we truly know of that universe, is telling us the big bang theory CANNOT BE SO because there is no starting point. Science can say in order to be able to tell where the dot was you would have to be outside the universe but this does not make sense. If the dot were on the left when it went bang then everything would be going to the right or if on the right everything would be going to the left or as one would have no trouble imagining from an explosion so absolutely excessively massive everything would be going in all directions from the center where the dot would have had to have been. The point here is that it is not possible for that dots humungous explosive position to simply disappear from our universe without a trace. And with all the double talk about a cake mix science is telling us the center or starting point for that dot cannot be found or observed in our universe. What they don’t say is it cannot be found because it never was there to begin with.
The theory of Quantum mechanics is a good way to explain what this pseudo science comes up with using true or factual science as its base. We know or have deduced from electronics that electrons can jump from one level around its nucleolus to another. This is called a quantum leap. It is called that because we have no idea, not even the slightest hint, as to why or how this tiny electron can do this. In fact, we cannot even see this, even though we observe the results of it in electronic devices using positive and negative values to explain it. Or at least think we do. We cannot see it happen because no matter how powerful we make a magnifying glass, or a microscope, in order to see it operating, we have to shine a light on it. The problem with that is the moment you shine a light on it…it changes what it is doing so you cannot see what it really does without the light shining on it because the light effects its movement.
We are told by science that quantum mechanics will not and cannot be observed but it doesn’t matter because the math works. Now if you were to delve into the world of quantum mechanics you would find a fantasyland of unbelievable magic. Endless universes interacting with other universes dimensions and time play tricks on each other and that…is only on the surface. None of which by the way can be proven but nonetheless that does not matter… because, we are told, the math works.
Now not being a mathematician I will have to take their word for that. Just the same I do so with skepticism and with good reason for that skeptical position. Let me give you an example of why, using something else, of how this statement “The math works” comes about so you can be the judge.
Evolutionary science tells us that dinosaurs are 150 million years old. They tell us this is so because the dinosaurs were found buried in a stratum of rocks and earth, which are 150 million years old. When you ask how do you know the earth and rocks are 150 million years old they answer…because the dinosaurs were found in them. You see! The math works!
If you told that to a jackass he would turn around and kick you in the head. Yet, people will accept this because it is coming from the supposed dignified position of science? I might also add that people accept “Evolutionary Science” not because they are stupid but because they do not really look into it. They accept statements by evolutionist without investigating what or were those statements are coming from or what they really mean. They do this because they have kids to raise, mortgages to pay, car payments to meet, in short, they have lives with higher priorities to live. The average person therefore has no idea how easily or quickly these theories change or are adjusted to fit what evolutionist consider facts.
Does this all mean that there is some kind of a conspiracy by either real or pseudo scientists to deceive the world? Of course not! To begin with there is no human person or group of persons around that are smart enough to create something the whole world would consistently follow blindly. Just the same there are things that bring this kind of foolishness about without people realizing or aiming to do so. One of these things is pride in accomplishment or notoriety or to put it simply, fame. A famous archeologist such as Dr Leakey discovers a bone in Africa roughly the size of a silver dollar and because people know he is a famous scientist he has to explain what it is he has found. Whether what he says is factual or a guess is not what the common man asks. The common man scans through an article in Look Magazine, relating this find by Dr. Leakey, and assumes that Dr. Leakey knows what he is talking about. Dr. Leaky because of his pride and fame claims this little piece of bone proves man is two and half million years old in spite of the fact that other prominent archeologists argue the claim vehemently, which one would find out if they read the complete article. But the common man does not know this. Mr. common man sees an inserted picture in Look magazine with the caption under it “Proof that man is two and half million years old”. Since he does not want to appear as a religious fanatic or unsophisticated or not in possession of the facts and since he assumes Dr. Leakey is a knowledgeable archaeologist and has no axe to grind accepts this hypothesis expounded by Dr. Leakey as being factual when in truth it is not. It is not a proven scientific fact. It is an expression of Dr. Leakey’s own ideas or concepts concerning evolution which are not hard and fast facts such as gravity but assumptions made by the good doctor. Mr. Common man does not realize that the axe Dr. Leaky grinds is his personal pride and fame. Other scientist who advocate evolution see the same inserted picture in the article in Look magazine and because the want to believe in evolution do not question Dr. Leakey’s stand to back up his personal fame, even though other archaeologists do debate Dr. Leakey’s conclusion concerning this half dollar size piece of bone. As time goes on this piece of bone takes its place in the archives of fossils and the fossil myth is propagated that much further. This piece of bone is not connected to any of the millions of other fossils in mans possession to prove or verify that man is two and half million years old. In other words there are no other fossils to show a transition to this piece of bone as to be anything but a piece of bone. In fact, it is not proven that it is even a human bone to begin with. But that is not necessary as far as evolutionists are concerned. They talk of it as if it had been a proven fact. The truth is we have no way of connecting that piece of bone to anything, including mankind, other than what Dr. Leaky says.
Now I do not believe that Dr. Leaky would deliberately falsify fossils but to believe that Dr. Leaky is above making mistakes or above his personal pride in his fame or that he could not possibly be wrong, just because he is an archeologist, would be quite foolish on my part, to say the very least. To back that up, evolution is roughly 150 years old and it is the only pseudo science that has LESS evidence today than it did 150 years ago. In other words things it thought it knew 150 years ago have been proven wrong, by true science. As an example of this at that time Darwin expounded his theory it was believed that there were canals covering the surface of Mars, which, it was assumed, had been made by water. There was a scientist that wrote books on the subject and he became the world’s foremost authority on the canals of Mars. Science has since proven that the canals were optical illusions. They simply are not there. In short the assumptions by the science of the time were proven to be wrong.
As an simple example of what men have accomplished by adding to true scientific knowledge over time doctors, 150 years ago, did not think it was necessary to wash their hands before operating on a patient, in fact, most doctors at that time scoffed at the idea as being silly and worthless. True science has long proven that attitude to be incorrect, in fact, outright dangerous to the patient.
Reason and skepticism is the catalyst behind true science. A search for truth to better our lives and future is something science has been responsible for since knowledge became paramount in humanity. Now science often postulates ideas and theories on things it does not know the answer to. It does this based on information it has gained or proven or the workings or results of which it at least understands, such as gravity. However, if it has a theory that proves to be wrong it abandons that theory immediately for whatever has been discovered to be right. Such as the simple expedient of washing ones hands to prevent the spread of germs. In other words true science doesn’t hold on to an idea as sacred once that idea or theory has been shown to be wrong. However, this is not true of the pseudo science of evolution.
We look at the seemingly endless advances of technology as being awesome and, indeed, they are. It was roughly only a hundred years ago that two bicycle mechanics came up with a flying machine, yet in our lifetimes we have watched from our living rooms as a man stepped from a spaceship onto the surface of the moon. Nonetheless, this was not accomplished by wild guesses or assumptions, but came about because of hard and fast proven scientific facts; again, not assumptions but facts.
To illustrate what was said above in the last century the world watched breathlessly as factual scientific knowledge brought a severely damaged limping Apollo moon shot back to earth safely with no loss of life. To accomplish this science had to use the moon, as a slingshot. That didn’t come about because men assumed they could do it but because science knew, for a fact, that what they were doing could, be done.
On the other hand it was a bad assumption that caused the challenger to exploded on take off killing all aboard. It was assumed that because the o-ring had not been a problem before that it wouldn’t be a problem even when the weather, for a space shot, was radically colder and different. Even when those that manufactured, the o-rings, brought this question up. Life and death was the issue in each case. The saving of life came with the use of factual proven science. Death resulted from assumption. Assumptions that change with the weather!
So what is the point of the above? The main subject of the Bible is life versus death. The Bible’s view on life and death has not changed over the thousands of years since its pages were first written. Do you really want to trust your very life, and the life of your family, to the assumptions of men; assumptions that change like the wind?Let me conclude this by pointing out that most folks are under the impression that all scientists believe in evolution. This is not so and in fact one of the worlds foremost physicists Albert Einstein, said concerning the glorious perfusion of stars we can view on any clear night, “The only reason we can find for the universe, is divine creation.”