Archive for January, 2010

“Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, of molecular biology, that you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to of come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just come into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.” -Richard Dawkins

And he certainly makes an interesting one. Some of you may have heard this before, and that wouldn’t be surprising. This quote comes from the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, and it is by far the most galvanizing statement in the film. Richard Dawkins, leading evolutionist of this day, whose works will certainly be remembered for years, is admitting that intelligent design is possible?

I am now going to focus my entire attention on the physics of cosmology, the study of the universe. My goal is to explain just how perfectly the universe is balanced in order to sustain life, and then to explain the possibilities for life on another planet that could theoretically exist elsewhere. If Dawkins thinks that its possible for another life form to have seeded our race on Earth, then it must be terribly important to examine. In the next posts, I want to stress how fine-tuned our universe is.

The stability of our planet can be described using another. Suppose a scientist was to land on Mars, and he found an enclosed, self-sustaining biosphere that had a control panel to control life. The oxygen ratio is perfect, the temperature is at exactly 70 degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity is fixed at 50%, there is an air-replenishment system, a energy production system, and even waste disposal. Every dial has many, many settings, and if you adjust just one even a fraction of a millimeter, everything is thrown out of whack and the system becomes unbalanced and no longer works. Obviously, you’d infer that somebody had built this miraculous biosphere.

In the 1950s, Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer, spoke of the very exacting process of how carbon and oxygen are produced at a certain ratio within stars. If you change their resonance states of carbon, the materials needed for life to survive will not be synthesized. If you make just a 1% change in the nuclear force, there would be a 30-1000 fold impact on the manufacture of oxygen and carbon in the stars. A change in the balance of these conditions would be detrimental to life, as stars provide the carbon and oxygen necessary for life on planets. Conditions on Earth itself would become much less ideal.

According to Robin Colins, who has a Ph.D in philosophy and began work on a Ph.D in physics, it would be like this: Suppose a radio dial spanned the universe. One inch increments would represent billions and billions of inches. The dial would represent the range of force strengths in nature, gravity being the weakest and the nuclear force binding protons and neutrons in the nuclei being the strongest (ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity). If you were to move the dial but one inch, gravity would increase by a billion. Animals of near-human size would be crushed. And here’s the clincher: A planet with a gravitational pull one thousand times stronger would have a diameter of only forty feet. The diameter of our Earth, at the equator, is 7,926.41 miles. To make this even worse, gravity is only one dial, and there are at least thirty physiological or cosmologic parameters that have a very specific, very narrow calibration within the fraction of an inch that allows the Earth-and even the universe, in the grand scheme of things-to sustain life.

Something often discussed in cosmology, and one of the greatest problems facing cosmology and physics, is called the cosmological constant. This constant is found in Einstein’s equation for general relativity. The value of the constant is unknown; it could be either positive or negative. Atheist Stephen Weinberg said that according to principles in physics and Einstein’s information, the cosmological constant should be a very large number. He adds: “If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative, the cosmological would act as an attracting force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse.”


Despite the idea that it should be large, it is actually extremely small. The fine-tuning of the universe and this constant has been estimated to one in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion, a ten with 53 zeros.


The cosmological constant would be like attempting to hit a specific atom on earth with a dart from space. If you combine the concepts of gravity and the cosmological constant, it would be like hitting a certain atom in the whole known universe.


Other positions of certain forces are remarkably tuned. The difference in mass between neutrons and protons, for instance. If the mass of the neutron was to be increased by one seven hundredth, nuclear fission in stars would stop, which would be catastrophic, to say the least. If the electromagnetic force was slightly stronger or weaker, life would cease to exist. Or consider nuclear force. If it was to be decreased by fifty percent – 1 in 10,000 billion billion billion billion – the force would be too weak to prevent the repulsive force between positive protons in nuclei from tearing apart all atoms but hydrogen.


The last thing I’d like to comment on in this post is the many-universe theory. Hydrogen has to be converted to helium in a very precise, very stately manner in such a way that seven thousandths of its mass are converted to energy. If we lower the value from .007 to .006, no transformation would take place, and the universe would be hydrogen. If it was raised from .007 to .008, bonding would be so fruitful that hydrogen would have been exhausted years ago.


But what if there are many universes, all with random dials? We could just happen to be in the right universe, and it wouldn’t have to be a big deal. We got lucky. Really lucky. This is one argument to deal with fine-tuning, and quite honestly, seems rather desperate. Scientists such as William Lane Craig, Pokinghorne, davies, Clifford Longley, and Rees have said that this theory is “a metaphysical guess” that just goes “well beyond what sober science can honestly endorse”, that the calculations made are “highly arbitrary” and the theory is simply not amendable to direct investigation.


In my next post, I want to look directly at the possibilities of life on another planet. Are we really lucky? Are we the result of chance, or is it possible that it’s much more complicated than scientists are admitting?


Read Full Post »

“Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

The third piece of the Kalam argument really sums up everything.  I’m going to try to keep everything flowing together, but this particular piece of the argument has different aspects to look at scientifically to prove a point, so it may seem to jump around a little. I apologize for this if it does indeed occur.

Based on the Kalam argument and the evidence I’ve presented, we can assume that whatever begins to exist has a cause. We found that the universe indeed had a beginning. Does this mean that we can believe it also has a cause?

Because I just had a wonderful time this past weekend throwing snowballs at people, I’d like to use them in an example. Suppose I throw a snowball at the back of a certain somebody by the name of Talan. I turn away, acting like the innocent angel I am, and he’s spinning around asking who did it. If I said “Nobody”, he probably wouldn’t accept that, and would then throw me into a snowbank.

I threw that snowball for a reason. He may not know why (it was for the look on his face, I’m sure. Priceless), but he would know that I did it.

So what can we deduce about this supposed cause? The cause/creator of space and time must be uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and a personal endowed with free will and omnipotence. I’m going to assume for a moment, based on this description, that such a being would be God. God is a paradigm in this Kalam argument. He’s beyond it. He’s causeless, beginningless. So how did he become exempt. We have to remember that the Kalam argument says “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”, not that everything has a cause. God didn’t begin to exist; He has always been, so He doesn’t need a cause. So how can scientists believe that the universe is timeless and causeless, but that there is no way a Being can exist who exists without cause and is eternal?

Scientists would also argue, if they were for a moment to even consider the fact that God might exist, that there could have been more than one creator. So why only one? Well, one principle that holds in the scientific comunity says that we should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the situation. This is universally accepted in scientific methodology, called Ockham’s Razor.

Another roadblock people find here when it comes to God is, how do we know He’s not an impersonal Being? We have to look at two ways of explaining situations. Scientific explanation is explaining a phenomenon in terms of certain initial conditions and natural laws, which in turn explain how these initial conditions changed (evolved) to create the phenomenon under scrutiny. Personal explanation is explaining a topic by means of an agent and that agent’s volition of will. There are three reasons to use personal explanation over scientific.

Reason #1: There can’t be a scientific explanation for the beginning of the world. It can’t be explained in terms of earlier conditions and natural laws leading up to such an event. But a personal explanation – one including a Creator – is possible.

Reason #2: If the universe is beyond time and space, it would be unable to be a physical reality, so it would also have to be nonphysical and immaterial. Only two things can fulfill these criterion: abstract objects such as numbers or mathematical entities, and a mind. Abstract objects do not have the ability to cause things, but a mind can be a cause, so it makes sense that the universe could be the product of a disembodied mind that chose to bring it into existence.

Reason #3: If the universe were a mechanical consequence that would occur when conditions would be met, and they were met for all of eternity, then the universe would exist from eternity past. For example, water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature were below 0 degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity past. It would be impossible for water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. So once the conditions were met, aka it was cold enough, the water would freeze. If these conditions were met eternally, or even in the future since the eternity past, then it would exist from eternity past, and the effect would be co-eternal with the cause. It just doesn’t make sense.

The last argument that some people will attempt to address would be, couldn’t the Creator stop existing? If He transcends the universe and is above the laws of nature, if He created these laws and can manage them however He so wishes, what could eliminate Him?

In my next post, I am going to look at the uniqueness of our earth through physics in cosmology. It has been admitted by Richard Dawkins that life on earth could have been the product of some other race or people or organism planting our seed to create us. I’m eager to see what the chances are of another planet that can support life coming into being.

Read Full Post »

The second part of the Kalam argument says, “The Universe Had A Beginning.” In this post, I’m going to examine exactly what an infinite past would entail, the history of the Big Bang, and the inflation theory, all of which can contribute to this Kalam argument.

In order to have an infinite past, there would have to be infinite past events, so we can infer that the past must be finite. Allow me to give you an example. I really like chocolate, and let’s say I have an infinite supply of Hershey Kisses. Now I don’t know how this would happen, but for some reason, I give you all of them (you must be a very convincing person). So now you have an infinite amount of Hershey Kisses, and I have none.

But say I number all the Hershey Kisses, and being the generous person I am, I give you the ones that are even numbered, while I keep the odd numbered ones. Now we both have an infinite amount of Hershey Kisses.

In another scenario, say I’m really greedy, but somebody’s forcing me to be generous. I give you three Hershey Kisses, while I have the remainder, which is still infinity.

In all these cases, an identical number has been subtracted from an identical number, yet the results have been different each time. This is why in transinfinite mathematics, you cannot subtract infinity from infinity to get zero. It just doesn’t work that way.

Infinity is just a concept, not an actual materialistic number. It does not apply to the real world. You can’t have infinite events in the past because you’d run into the same problems given in the examples found above.

The Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite says that you can keep adding one to infinity for forever to try to near infinity. It’s a paradoxical situation. You can never reach infinity because it will just go on for forever. So an infinite past would be a paradox in itself, and rather impossible. It would mean somebody would manage to count down all the negative numbers and arrived at zero. That’s nonsensical. It’s not even mathematical.

Now one question that could come about from this argument would be, Wouldn’t this unravel an eternal God? The thing we must understand about God is that He created time and space. He works outside of both. A second to Him is a thousand years, a thousand years a second. Time does not affect Him. God did not endure an infinite amount of time; He existed in eternity outside of it.

We must now examine the history of the Big Bang. In the year 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of relativity, and applied it to the universe as a whole. He found that this did not allow for a static universe, but instead one that should be exploding or imploding. To make the universe static, he had to change his equations by adding a factor that would allow for the universe to be static.

In the 1920s, Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and Belgian astronomer George Lemaître developed a model based on Enstein’s theory. They predicted that the universe was expanding. This means that if you went far enough back in time, you would get to the origin. Astronomer Fred Hoyle derisively called this the Big Bang, and it stuck.

Also in the 1920s, scientists found evidence that supported these mathematical models. In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the light coming from different galaxies is too red, and that this is a universal feature of all galaxies in the sky. Hubble explained that this is an effect produced by galaxies moving away from us. He theorized that the universe is rapidly flying apart.

In the 1940s, George Gamow predicted if the Big Bang did happen, the background temperature of the universe would be but a few degrees above absolute zero. In 1965, two scientists accidentally discovered that the universe’s background radiation is really 3.7 degrees Fahrenheit above absolute zero. There is no explanation for this, but that it is a vestige of a very early, very dense state of the universe, as predicted by the Big Bang model.

The last piece of evidence I’d like to look at leads up to and examines the inflationary theory. Heavy elements such as carbon and iron are synthesized in stars and exploded through supernovae into space. But very light elements such as deuterium and helium can’t have been synthesized in stars because a more powerful furnace would be needed. Because of this, the Big Bang could have forged them, as it rose to a temperature of about 100,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Most scientists add the inflation theory to the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not chaotic and disorderly, but rather a fine-tuned event with precise initial conditions. The is strong evidence that the Big Bang was designed. Because theorists don’t want to say this, they use inflation.

Inflation says that in the very early history of the universe, the universe went through a period of extremely rapid “inflationary” expansion. It then settled down to slowly expand, the way we observe it to do today.

However, there are probably fifty different inflation models, and nobody knows which is correct. There isn’t even a test to see if inflation has occurred.

But this inflationary period happened a microsecond after the Big Bang occurred, so it doesn’t really alter the origin of the universe. This produces a ‘singularity’, a state at with the space-time curvature, along with temperature, density, and pressure becomes infinite.

Based on the three different aspects covered in this post, we can see that it’s not possible for the universe to have an infinite past. It had to have had a beginning.

In the next post, we’ll examine the last part of the Kalam argument: “Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.”

Read Full Post »

The next area of science I would like to explore when examining the case for a Divine Creator is Cosmology. This isn’t necessarily a smooth transition from the previous post, but in order for many of the other topics that are going to be discussed to make sense, I must go in a particular order, and this is next on my list.
According to Neo-Darwinists, there was an explosion everywhere. Atoms and even nuclei of atoms were split at a temperature of over 100,000,000 degrees Celsius. The universe was made in just about three minutes.
An argument that is often thrown around is called the Kalam argument. This argument consists of three parts and was formulated by al-Ghazali: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.”
While not directly related to cosmology itself, it is an important topic to look at. Scientists often say that life was created without a cause. That evolution happens without cause. That the universe appeared without a cause. So this argument is a significant one to examine. I plan to look at it one section at a time, with different posts for each section. Today, I plan to step through the first part: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”
Atheists believe that the universe appeared from nothingness for no cause whatsoever. One of their ideas is that the universe was formed from a vacuum. “Quantum theory…holds that a vacuum…is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. Theoretically, anything…can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles…are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly…The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely…In 1973, assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Trion suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way…”
The subatomic particles mentioned are called ‘virtual particles’. These are theoretical, but if they were indeed real, it’s impossible for them to come out of nothingness. The quantum vacuum is not nothingness. It’s fluctuating energy, violent activity with a detailed physical structure, and can be described with physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of energy. So it’s not an example of coming into being of nothing or without a cause. The vacuum and energy are the cause of the particles. But where did the vacuum come from? Take a deep breath and see if you can wind your mind around this: if quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can’t use quantum physics to explain the origins of that domain. You need something beyond the domain to explain the beginning/origin of the domain.
I’ll write on Part 2 at the beginning of next week: “The Universe Began To Exist”.

Read Full Post »

This is a very long post, so make sure you have time when you sit down to read it!

William Province of Cornell University has said that if Darwinism is true, there is no evidence for God, there is no life after death, there is no absolute foundation for right and wrong, there is no ultimate meaning for life, and people don’t really have free will. But is this really the case? Does science prove that there is no God, or does the evidence point to intelligent design?

Dr. Jonathon Wells, possessing a Ph.D in cellular and molecular biology, says that evolution cannot be defined merely as ‘change’. Instead, scientists agree that biological change has occurred, and that Darwinism is the theory that all living creatures are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived long ago. According to Darwinism, even humans are from apes and have common ancestry with fruit flies. Darwinism also makes the claim that every new species that has ever appeared can be explained by descent, with some modification. Neo-Darwinism claims that these modifications are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. But why do they make these claims, and what is their proof?

The four images typically seen in science books to promote evolution are the Stanley Miller Experiment, Darwin’s Tree of Life, Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, and the archaeopteryx missing link. The Stanley Miller Experiment was executed by creating a primordial soup similar to the atmosphere of primitive earth, and shooting electric sparks through it to simulate lightning. This experiment produced red goo that created amino acids, the building blocks of life. Darwin’s Tree of Life starts as a trunk to become a tree, starting at fish with amphibians branching off of that branch, and reptiles branching from amphibians, and birds, mammals, and finally humans, following in the same pattern. Ernst Haeckel’s drawings compared embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and human at an early stage of development. Finally, the archaeopteryx is an ancient wing that dates back one hundred and fifty million years ago. The wing came from a creature with the wings, feathers and wishbone of a bird, but had a lizard-like tail and claws on the wings.  

The first question that should come to mind when examining the Miller Experiment should be, Did they use the correct atmosphere? Indeed, nobody knows what the early atmosphere was like. Miller used a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor. However, while there is no evidence for a methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth, there is plenty of evidence against it. The common belief among scientists today is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere, as it would have escaped into space, and the atmosphere more than likely consisted primarily of CO2, N2, and H2O vapor. So what happens when the correct mixture is used?

Nothing. Only organic molecules are produced. Why is this not a good thing? Organic molecules include molecules such as formaldehyde and cyanide, both extremely toxic. Formaldehyde fumes will kill proteins and embryos. Since proteins are composed of amino acids, this would make life impossible. True, a good organic chemist can convert organic molecules into biological molecules. But that formaldehyde and cyanide are the right substrates for life…a joke. Even if it was possible for a scientist to produce amino acids from a realistic atmosphere (which is chemically impossible), or if a comet brought them to earth, it would still be a far stretch to create a living cell. You would have to have the right amino acids link up correctly to make a protein molecule. Then you would need dozens of protein molecules, formatted in the correct sequence, to make a living cell, not to mention the complicated process of  DNA synthesis.

The probability of a situation such as this to occur would be equivalent to putting a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. If you put a single cell in the solution and poke a hole in it so its contents leak in the solution, the mixture now has all the molecules needed to create a living cell (which is more than there was in the beginning). Good luck turning that into a cell. You need enzymes, DNA, and other components to create a living cell, and the chances of those forming are astronomically unlikely. Even though the first cell would have been much simpler than those seen today, the thought that such a situation could produce such a structure is simply ridiculous.

If life didn’t come about in this way, then what theories are there as to its beginning? There is the RNA theory, which says that RNA somehow was a ‘molecular cradle’ from which early cells developed. However, nobody could demonstrate how RNA could have formed before living cells existed to make it, as the purpose of RNA is to copy DNA, which would have to be present in the cell for RNA to have a reason for existence. Another problem with this theory is that RNA wouldn’t have been able to survive in Earth’s initial conditions.

So with all of this questionable data, how much power does the Miller Experiment hold today? This experiment is prominently featured in textbooks, even with pictures. According to Wells, though, this experiment is misleading at best. Origin-of-life expert Walter Bradley said that the difficulties spanning the gap between non-life and life means there may be no potential of finding a theory for how life could have generated spontaneously.

Darwin’s Tree of Life as an illustration of the fossil record is an abysmal representation, but as an illustration of Darwin’s theory, it is excellent. Darwin’s theory expanded beyond natural selection to the point that if creatures continued to change in different environments, then new species would be formed. The key aspect of his tree was that natural selection would act “slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations” and “no great or sudden modifications” were possible.

However, Darwin’s tree is not supported by fossil evidence that has been uncovered by scientists. Darwin’s theory predicts a long history of gradual deviation from a common ancestor, with the differences slowly becoming larger until you get the major differences we have now. The problem is that fossil evidence shows major jumps between phyla. Even in Darwin’s day these jumps were known, and this is now called the Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian Explosion is a geological period that supposedly began a little more than five hundred and forty million years ago. This period gives rise to sudden appearances of most major animal phyla alive today, plus some extinct species. Before the explosion, there were jellyfish, sponges, and worms, but no evidence to support Darwin’s theory of a long history of gradual divergence. Then the Cambrian Explosion appears, and we see arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates. Mammals came later, but the fact that chordates were at the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion is contrary to the Tree of Life. Why were these developed creatures of so different structures so close to each other in the fossil record? Add to this the fact that fossils of these creatures just appearing is certainly not how a branching tree would appear. One argument is that the organisms that existed before the Cambrian Explosion were too small or soft to leave fossils. This is unlikely. Millions of fossils have been uncovered, and an abundance of sedimentary rock before the Cambrian period could have contained these fossils, but they did not. The Cambrian Explosion is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record. Even if this were not so, there are microfossils of bacteria dating back three billion years, plus fossils of soft-bodied organisms that existed before the Cambrian have been discovered in Australia. These are also found in the Cambrian Explosion itself.

Scientists are using molecular evidence in an attempt to prove that there was a common ancestor before the Cambrian period. You cannot find this evidence in fossils, but in living organisms. Scientists will examine a molecule basic to life, such as ribosomal RNA form an organism such a starfish, and then compare this molecule to its equivalent in a snail, worm, and frog. If similarities are found, scientists assume that they have a common ancestor, and then form a theoretical tree with the ‘proof’.

The problem is that if you compare the molecular tree with anatomy, you get a different tree. They can examine another molecule and end up with another tree altogether. Plus, if you give the same molecule to two different laboratories, they will each develop their own theoretical tree.

Darwin’s Tree of Life is not even a good hypothesis at this point, yet it is prominently featured in textbooks as fact.

The third image of evolution is Haeckel’s embryos. These images have embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human at three stages of development. While at first glance they appear legitimate and good evidence for a common ancestor, there are three problems with this theoretical proof.

The first problem was that these drawings were declared fake by his colleagues in the late 1860s. They explained that Haeckel had used the same wood block to print some of the early stage embryos because he was so sure his theory was accurate. Other times he doctored the drawings so that they fit more similarly. Even prominent atheist and evolutionist Steven Jay Gould complained about this.

Problem number two was that Haeckel picked what he wanted to display. His most famous rendition showed eight columns that included four placental mammals, – excluding the other two types of mammals that were extremely different and wouldn’t follow his theory – a reptile, bird, amphibian, and fish, which are also more similar than the other classes that he omitted from this depiction. He used a salamander to represent amphibians instead of a frog. Through these choices, he simply chose what would best represent his theory, not that which best represented reality.

The last problem is that Haeckel claims that these drawings are from an early stage of development, when really they represent the middle stage. The actual early stage looks far different from the drawings he created. This is detrimental to Haeckel’s argument because Darwin claimed that the early stage is what demonstrates common ancestry.

To comprehend this, the concept of the ‘development hourglass’ must be understood. Embryologists use this to describe the measure of difference during stages of development. As an embryo forms, the beginning stages – or the top of the hourglass – in different creatures are extremely different, while during the middle stage the embryos are extremely similar. Then they become different once more towards the end of development – the bottom of the hourglass. This is especially evident because cell divisions in animals, such as mammals, are different from those in other classes. It can even differ within classes.

Here’s the deal: scientists say they know the theory is true, so they use the theory itself to explain why the evidence doesn’t fit. The problem: Where is the evidence for the theory?

A similar argument used is the comparison between bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg and a human hand. This similarity is called homology. Darwin didn’t actually point out these similarities; his predecessors did, and they were not evolutionists. Richard Owen, a famous anatomist of Darwin’s time, said that these similarities pointed to a common archetype or design, not descent with modification.

An example with similarity alone does not tell us whether or not the example is one of design or descent with modification. A case of this would be Berra’s Blunder. Phillip Johnson gave this term to biologist Tim Berra’s book in 1990. Berra compared fossils to automobile models, saying that when the 1953 and ’54 models of a Corvette and the ’54 and ’55 models are compared, it is easy to see that they display descent with modification. He said this is how paleontologists work with fossils. His point, however, was used instead as an argument for design. Somebody had designed and guided the process of creating these cars. By using this example, he proved that a mechanism is needed.

So what was the mechanism for Darwin’s theory? One would be ‘common developmental pathways’, meaning if you have two animals with homologous features and you trace them back to the embryo, you will find that they come from similar cells and processes. However, this doesn’t work. For example, a frog looks like they could be developing like a frog or a bird, but they still develop as a frog, every time. Another theory would be that homologies are from similar genes. This theory says that when two features are homologous in two different animals, similar genes in the embryo would have programmed them. Once again, this doesn’t work. There are cases where there are similar features in different genes, but plenty of cases where similar genes have different features. An example would be an octopus and a mouse have similar eyes. A fruit fly’s eye is very different and multi-faceted, yet all these inherit these traits from the same gene.

So supposedly we share ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent of the same genes as apes. Can we then assume that we share a common ancestor? If you assume with Neo-Darwinism that we are our genes, then you could assume that he two percent is what makes us so different. Therefore, this would not determine that we have a common ancestor.

The last image often cited is the archaeopteryx, the missing link that scientists have been searching for for decades. Supposedly the wing shows the link between bird and reptile, but just like with the Corvette’s, it doesn’t display Darwinism. We also cannot determine from the wing whether or not you get from reptile to bird by natural process or design. There are animals like the platypus that fall into several different classes, so maybe this creature was similar.

We now run into the question of whether or not the archaeopteryx was half bird and half reptile. Based on breeding, bones, lungs, weight and muscles, the archaeopteryx is very much a bird. But the story of the archaeopteryx gets even better. Cladististics, a branch of evolutionary theory that takes evolution to an extreme, defines homology as being due to common ancestry. Cladists say that animals can be grouped on the evolutionary tree based on homologies, going to the fossil record to assume that birds came from reptiles by descent, and then looking for reptiles that are bird-like in skeletal structure. The problem here is that they discover these fossils millions of years after the archaeopteryx, which is a bird, and yet the reptilian ancestors are millions of years later. The missing link is still missing.

The link for terrestrial dinosaurs and birds is also trying to be discovered. In 1999, a fossil was purchased at an Arizona mineral show. Called the archaeoraptor, the fossil showed the tail of a raptor and the forelimbs of a bird. While some called this evidence of feathered dinosaurs being ancestors of the first bird, a Chinese paleontologist proved that the man who had sold the fossil had glued the tail to a primitive bird. Another attempt around the same time was the bambiraptor, a chicken-sized dinosaur with supposed bird-like qualities. No feathers found with the fossil, creating an obvious problem for scientists. However, instead of admitting that this was not a correct fossil, they simply added feathers, saying that there should have been some present.

Another glaring fraud was turkey DNA found in a sixty-five million year old dinosaur bone. One hundred percent turkey DNA. Even a chicken doesn’t have DNA that close to a turkey. A student in college would have been laughed at for even suggesting such a thing, yet this data was published as fact and evidence for a relationship between dinosaurs and birds.

Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois discovered bones on an Indonesian island river bank in the years 1891-1892. Called “Java man”, these bones dated back half a million years, supposedly representing a stage from an ancient ancestor. However, this man was constructed from a skull cap, a femur, three teeth, and a lot of imagination. Several years ago, National Geographic hired four artists to construct a female from seven bones. Four models were made: an African-American, a werewolf, a woman with a gorilla-like brow, and one with a missing forehead with a beak-like jaw. Obviously, these bones couldn’t be proof of an ancient ancestor, if every time somebody tried to put the bones together a different skeleton was made.

So what can we deduce from the evidence? One, the Miller experiment does not by any means support the Big Bang model. Two, the Cambrian explosion undermines Darwin’s Tree of Life. Three, Haeckel’s embryos are simply a fraud to attempt to explain evolution. Four, the fossils found are inadequate to recreate supposed ‘missing links’. Based on the current evidence, evolution doesn’t have many answers. However, there is still much to explore.

Read Full Post »

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life processes superfluous.”
Or so one textbook claimed, summing up the general view presented by Darwinists. But is this true? Couldn’t God have used evolution to create the universe? Does evolution explain the history of life, or is it lacking in the answers necessary to prove itself true? These are questions I’ve been asking for several years now, and I am challenging myself to discover which makes more sense: Creation or random chance? My goal is to examine the facts with an unbiased viewpoint in an effort to discover the truth.
Cambridge graduate and director of the Center of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Stephen C. Meyer once said, “Many evolutionary biologists admit that science can not categorically exclude the possibility that some kind of deity still might exist. Nor can they deny the possibility of a divine designer who masks his creative activity in apparently natural processes as to escape scientific detection. Yet for most scientific materialists, such an undetectable entity hardly seems worthy of consideration.” I have always wondered why scientists are so averse to believe that God created the universe and guides it today, what about this repels them. On the other hand, I’ve always wondered what they believe instead that can have them so convinced that they are right and God can’t possibly exist. Unsure of which side has the evidence to support their theory, I decided to explore the data gathered from studies and draw some conclusions.
In this blog, my goal is to examine the evidence for both Christianity and evolution through studying the images of evolution, cosmology, physics, scientific laws and principles, irreducible complexity, biological machines and transport systems, the DNA map of life, Darwinian scenarios, and other biological, chemical, and biochemical arguments. I do not pretend to have all the answers. This is just a record of my investigation into science. I’ve met many people who have the same questions I do, and from both sides of the argument. They’ve asked me questions I’ve been unable to answer, and I’m sure that more of them will come up. I welcome the challenge of answering questions, so as I present theories and facts, please ask questions if you have them, and I will do my utmost to answer them.

Read Full Post »