An analysis of the origin of life – from a Biblical and evolutionary perspective – is given. The Word of GOD – the Holy Bible – brings forth the truth of life while evolution is seen for what it is – a complete absurdity and a theory and vehicle of absolute wickedness.
The WORD of GOD vs Evolution – Part 2 (Clip #1 of 2)
The WORD of GOD vs Evolution – Part 2 (Clip #1 of 2)
The WORD of GOD vs Evolution – Part 3 (Clip #1 of 2)
The WORD of GOD vs Evolution – Part 3 (Clip #2 of 2)
“The Fairy Tale Story of Evolution – Part 1” (Clip #1 of 3) Evolution minus the scientific jargon is told. It becomes obvious to the viewer that evolution is an absurd (and evil) fairy tale. Belief in it, as shown in this episode, brings with it, governmental tyranny, cultural death, and infinitely worse of all, the sin of personal idolatry.
Dr. Russell F. Doolittle, his PhD from Harvard, was/is an American biochemist, was a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and is the author of The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting, etc. Duane T. Gish, his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, was an American biochemist and a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research. He is the author of Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, etc. This debate took place circa 1982 and was held at what is today Liberty University, VA.
There is a good amount of evidence that dinosaurs lived with man. Evidence that a few dinosaurs still exist today in remote locations, such as the Congo. Eye witness, fresh fleshly remains of dinosaurs, human and dinosaur footprints together, artifacts showing humans interacting with dinosaurs, stories upon stories of dinosaurs being killed off in history, sightings of dinosaurs today. Potential skin of a dinosaur and other dinosaur artifacts. http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncrun… Forums: http://www.godrules.net/phpBB3/viewfo… Standard evolutionary geologists and biologists basically claim that “IF” there was any dinosaurs in existence today, they were be a breading population of them. And if that was the case, we should readily see such populations. The problem with this argument is that only 4% of the Congo has been explored. Its like claiming to have looked for an item you lost in your room, while only looking in 4% of it. Same is the case with the ocean. Only 5% of the ocean has been explored. How is it they can claim there is no dinosaur when only 5% has been explored where they potentially live? Same was the case with the Panda bear. For many years, geologists discounted its existence. There were even expeditions to China to find this “so called Panda bear”. The first expedition was a failure. Many years later a second scientific expedition was sent and finally the Panda bear was considered to “exist”. How could this not be the very same thing here? How is it our “scientific community” can declare that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago when there are thousands of stories of them living in the time of man and even sightings today.
Since the Scopes Trial of 1925 and the Darwin Centennial of 1959, neo-Darwinism has used intimidation and groupthink to maintain its status of “accepted truth” beyond need of further evidence. Critical papers have appeared, but usually outside the leading biology journals. Indeed, merely expressing doubts about Darwin has been a career-limiting move for many (see Free Science). Look at these recent papers, though, and see if it appears to be getting safer to question the explanatory omnipotence of random mutations and natural selection.
How powerful is natural selection if it can stall out? This team ran mutation experiments on E. coli’s translation machinery and found that “cellular modules may not be fully optimized by natural selection despite the availability of adaptive mutations.” Darwin’s mechanism is not omnipotent. Natural selection, being blind, can stop improving one module and skip to another, leaving the first module below optimum. The authors are not quitting their subscription to natural selection, but they are losing faith in its ability to explain molecular machines by a simple mechanism.
Overall, our results highlight the fact that it is impossible to fully understand the evolution of a cellular module in isolation from the genome where it is encoded and the population-level processes that govern evolution. The ability of natural selection to improve any one module depends on the population size, the rate of recombination, the supply, and the fitness effects of all beneficial mutations in the genome and on how these quantities change as populations adapt. Further theoretical work and empirical measurements integrated across multiple levels of biological organization are required for us to understand adaptive evolution of modular biological systems. [Emphasis added.]
This team resurrected an old criticism levied against Darwin: “a longstanding evolutionary question — dating to criticisms of Darwin’s theories by his contemporaries — concerns how such ecological divergence can occur when challenged by hybridization with non-adapted populations.” In their studies of sunflowers, the researchers found adaptation occurring not through traditional neo-Darwinian mechanisms, but by information sharing: hybridization and introgression. They explain this non-Darwinian “borrowing” of supergenes, which are “Massive blocks of genes — inherited together ‘plug and play’ style.” Where do you remember the term “plug and play” from? Was it not in intelligently designed peripheral devices able to operate in a computer without user intervention?
“Initially, evolutionary biologists believed that geographic isolation between populations was required for them to differentiate into ecological races or separate species,” says UBC evolutionary biologist Loren Rieseberg. “But recent research shows that populations that exist side by side can, and do, differentiate.”
“The traits that govern such differentiation often appear to be inherited together as supergenes despitegenetic exchange with non-adapted populations that are nearby. In many cases, plants are able to adapt to a new environment by borrowing a supergene or two from a related species that is already adapted.”
Such mechanisms of supergene sharing “play a larger role in evolution than previously thought,” the headline says. Within one supergene, which can be as long as several million base pairs of DNA, multiple adaptive traits can be passed along from one plant to another. These may include traits for “seed size, timing of flowering, as well as the ability to withstand environmental stresses such as drought or limited nutrient availability, among many others.” Here was their reaction to observing a pervasive, non-Darwinian process:
“We were quite surprised,” says University of British Columbia (UBC) geneticist Marco Todesco. “Cases in which individual supergenes controlled adaptive traits had been reported before, but it wasn’t clear if they were the rule or just a small number of odd exceptions. What found [sic] is that supergenes have a pervasive role in adaptation, and can be truly massive.”
This paper and the next one are preprints (not yet certified by peer review), but they reveal additional non-Darwinian thinking among biologists willing to stick their necks out. These authors studied a trait that had an on-off switch. That’s pretty cool in design thinking. Why would natural selection keep a useless trait for 200 million years? Maybe the organism was programmed with foresight to know the trait could be useful again some day if the environment were to change.
Dollo’s law of irreversibility states that once a complex adaptation has been lost in evolution, it will not be regained. Recently, various violations of this principle have been described. Here, we argue that the logic underlying Dollo’s law only applies to traits that are constitutively expressed, while it fails in case of ‘plastic’ traits that are up- or downregulated according to needs. We tested this hypothesis for an archetypal violation of Dollo’s law, the loss and regain of fat synthesis in parasitic wasps. Wasps from lineages that supposedly had lost lipogenic ability more than 200 million years ago were grown under various conditions. In line with our hypothesis, it turned out that fat synthesis had not been lost but was only switched on in low-fat environments.Such plasticity cannot only explain supposed violations of Dollo’s law, but also the maintenance of adaptations to rarely occurring extreme events.
Eugene Koonin, the occasional gadfly to Darwinian conformism, contributed to this paper, arguing that punctuated equilibrium is the “default mode of evolution” in certain conditions, and that stasis is the norm. The opening lines recall Stephen Jay Gould’s bold affronts to standard neo-Darwinism back in the 1980s:
Punctuated equilibrium is a mode of evolution in which phenetic change occurs in rapid bursts that are separated by much longer intervals of stasis during which mutations accumulate but no major phenotypic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium has been originally proposed within the framework of paleobiology, to explain the lack of transitional forms that is typical of the fossil record.
The import of this Darwin-free paper is clear from the title of the news release from the University of Southern California, “Design redundancy is in our DNA.” Design? Can you say that in a scientific paper? Oliver Bell is smiling in the accompanying photo, apparently not fearing censorship by the Darwin mandarins. “Design redundancy is not only an invention of engineers for building machines, but also a principle of nature for designing organisms,” writes Cristy Lytal in the first sentence. Yikes! Where did the censors go?
While the paper itself does not mention design (as in intelligent design), it does mention “redundancy” 17 times, e.g., “these findings… demonstrate that PRC2/cPRC1 and vPRC1 act redundantly to silence lineage-specific genes and ensure robust maintenance of mESC self-renewal.” Surely natural selection must be responsible for this excellent performance. What? No mention of Darwin, selection or evolution?
The redundancy is that there are two separate groups of PRCs [polycomb repressive complexes), and both groups independently and simultaneously work to silence the same lineage-specific genes. If PRC group one stops working, then group two can handle the job. If PRC group two fails, then group one is a capable backup.
Redundancy sounds like a principle an engineer would design into a robot or software program for critical fail-safe functions. Why would natural selection do that? The earlier paper by Venkataram et al. already found that “cellular modules may not be fully optimized by natural selection despite the availability of adaptive mutations.” If one PRC would be unlikely to evolve to be optimized through natural selection, why would a second one emerge and also be optimized? This is undoubtedly one of many backup plans in the living world.
The scientists observed how stem cells maintain their identity during development. Bell adds,
“Thus, the PRCs coordinate redundant mechanisms that ensure robust repression of key lineage-specification genes not only for differentiation, but also for maintaining the identity of mouse embryonic stem cells.”
Design, clearly, is “written in our DNA.” What a concept. It might lead to a movement.
James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.
Do You Have Free Will?
The mind exists. Mind over matter is real. The mind controls the brain—not the other way around, as scientific materialists would preach. To them, anything that casts any doubt on their godless religion is dismissed offhand as ‘not scientific.’
We are conscious, we have willpower, we are emotional, we have a special purpose, and we search for meaning. The world changes us, yes, but we also change it.
It is common sense that we have minds. We say, “Mary finally made up her mind,” we do not say, “Mary’s brain told her what to do.”
So the divide is between people who do not believe mental processes actually exist—those who think that eventually science will explain away consciousness, mind, self, intentions, desires, beliefs, aspirations, goals, expectations, morality, good and evil, right and wrong and free will—and those who believe consciousness and the mind exist independently of the physical brain; we do not only undergo experiences, but we also create them. And we are self-conscious.
If nothing exists except the material world, your thoughts are not really your own, since they are produced by chemicals and electricity far beyond your control. Yet many famous scientists, even those not Christian or religious at all, believe there is a non-physical world in addition to the physical world. To name just a few: the ‘Father of Parapsychology’ and influential author of Extrasensory Perception J.B. Rhine; the ‘Philosopher of Science’ Karl Popper; and the ‘smartest man who ever lived,’ John von Neumann.
The great physicist Sir James Jeans tells us: “Consciousness is fundamental, and the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe. The universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine, in the mind of some Eternal Spirit.”
Neutrinos & Quantum Physics
Now, the discovery of neutrinos, ghostly particles that typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected, shows the Cosmos is not merely physical. A neutrino has no matter or energy and defies gravity and electromagnetism. Quantum physics will put a stake through the heart of scientific materialism. It has already shown that subatomic particles do not occupy any definite positions in space and time—as scientific materialism posits everything does.
Quantum physicists even acknowledge the mental nature of the universe. At the quantum level, the fundamental layers of physical reality are collections of force fields. We have learned that an observer changes what is observed. For instance, an unstable elementary particle will never decay as long as you are watching it. But when you stop watching, it deteriorates, which means it is impossible to separate the observer entirely from the thing observed. That is quantum physics, and your brain is a quantum system.
We have learned that there are spaces between the neurons in your brain, called synapses. They conduct signals using parts of atoms called ions, which function according to the rules of Quantum Physics, not Classical Physics. Your free will decides the pattern of neurons in your brain based on your decisions. That is how you can hold an idea in your head—if you want to. And whatever you pay attention to changes your brain circuitry.
If you focus on a given thought, you hold a pattern of neurons in place, and the very idea of keeping an idea in place is a decision you make. If neural circuits receive a great deal of traffic they grow; if not, they shrink, and the amount of traffic depends on what we choose to pay attention to. We can change the patterns of our neurons consciously. But a collection of atoms cannot become conscious, aware of their own existence.
Who Is In Charge: You Or Your Brain?
The truth is that your thoughts originate apart from the physical brain. Consciousness is not material; it exists outside the domain of science. A computer cannot think on its own and neither can your gray matter. There is a ghost in the machine.
The brain is the medium through which you tell your body what to do. When you speak to me, your brain isn’t telling you what to say; you are commanding your brain what to make your vocal cords say. And if you have a mind independent of your brain, it is possible that your psyche will live on long after your brain dies, perhaps even for eternity.
“The most striking feature of our own existence is our sentience. It may be to the interests of science to turn a blind eye to this central fact of the universe, but it is certainly not in the interests of the truth.” – Michael Polanyi, polymath.
People who believe nothing exists except matter and energy sometimes think the purpose of science is to buttress their worldview. They want to free man from God because they want to release man from God’s moral expectations. They expect less of men and women because they do not think men and women can help what they do.
Since they can do nothing except whatever their brains tell them to do, they have no free will to choose the right path or the wrong path. In fact, there is no right or wrong way. So the idea is we need to stop blaming people for what they do. But if these atheists are correct, all of our thoughts are worthless, including all of our philosophies, including the Theory of Evolution.
Are We Responsible For Our Actions?
We have good reasons to reject their view of the human robot that can only do as programmed. We have good reason to believe man is a spiritual animal—the only one in the universe.
The molecules that make up your brain might be replaced 10,000 times during your lifetime. And yet, you are still you, not only to others, but also to yourself. All the material that produced your consciousness is long gone, but your spirit remains.
Some folks love to think their genes make them do what they do. So we latch onto any theory about the ‘gay gene,’ ‘fat gene,’ ‘infidelity gene,’ ‘addiction gene,’ or the ‘violence gene.’ The idea is to excuse disobedience to God—sometimes of a sexual or criminal nature—by saying it is caused by your genetics. So it is not your fault. You didn’t select your genetics in the first place.
That is a neat way of absolving us from responsibility for our actions. And so it is another means to attack the Bible, which says God holds us responsible for what we do. He does not accept the ‘I couldn’t help it’ excuse.
You cannot observe consciousness. As B. Alan Wallace writes in his book the Taboo of Subjectivity: “Despite centuries of modern philosophical and scientific research into the nature of the mind, at present, there is no technology that can detect the presence or absence of any kind of consciousness, for scientists do not even know what exactly is to be measured. Strictly speaking, at present there is no scientific evidence even for the existence of consciousness! All the direct evidence we have consists of nonscientific, first-person accounts of being conscious.”
Other evidence for mind over matter includes placebos and near death experiences (NDEs). There have been cases where placebos have cured patients who were severely mentally ill and suicidal. Not only that, but when told to expect nausea as a side effect, they got nauseous! The placebo effect is defined as “a healing effect created by an ill person’s faith that a remedy has been given to their problem when in fact the healing could not possibly be the result of the medicine.”
Doctors have doled out placebos for millennia. Drug tests show that placebos work about forty percent of the time—actual medicine only has to work forty-five percent of the time to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. How can a placebo work if you have no mind of your own? Sixty percent of doctors have prescribed placebos. Why isn’t this more widely known? There is no money in placebos for drug companies.
Near Death Experiences
Does your mind die when your body does? That is the question. To Wallace again: “Mainstream science insists that individual consciousness vanishes with the death of the body. However, given its ignorance of the origins and nature of consciousness and its inability to detect the presence or absence of consciousness in any organism, living or dead, neuroscience does not seem to be in a position to back up that conviction with empirical scientific evidence.”
Many people have had experiences they remember after being clinically dead—with no brain activity whatsoever—while under medical care. Some can recall precisely what the medical personnel said and did. That certainly seems to be proof that the mind exists even if the brain is dead.
In one study, 18% of clinically dead people brought back to life could recall such details and 7% report a profoundly religious experience. Almost all people who have an NDE will afterward believe in life after death, yearn to know God better, care more about loving other people, know life has meaning and purpose, no longer fear death, and develop steadfast faith. The only disappointment seems to be that they came back to this life. Caution: There are some who have described their NDE as nightmarish and hellish, but they were atheists.
Religious Spiritual Mystical Experiences
Billions of human beings have had Religious Spiritual Mystical Experiences (RSME). Such experiences are worldwide phenomena throughout human history. The godless sneer that such people are poor, uneducated, unintelligent, low class, and easy to dupe. But the actual research, in America at least, proves that RSMEs are more common among highly educated people, and among upper class people, and those who have had an RSME are psychologically healthier than those who haven’t.
And here is the kicker: Scientific research shows that those who have had RSMEs have changed for the better—they become better people. Studies show that they become less interested in wealth, status and material possessions but more involved with loving others and being compassionate; they care more about the world, other people, and themselves—they seek God, and want to become more like the divine, more like Jesus.
Now, think about this. If RSMEs are delusions or hallucinations, then they are the result of brain deficiencies or malfunctions. But there has never been any research ever that has shown long-term positive changes in people because of delusions or hallucinations. In fact, they always produce adverse outcomes. We are not meat puppets. The death of your body does not mean the end of you as a person. Your mind, consciousness, and self, lives on.
The Media Promotes Scientific Materialism
Our media promotes scientific materialism. It doesn’t show any skepticism towards claims that support it but shows plenty of skepticism for any argument against it. Sociologist Richard Flory explains that this is because Journalism sees itself as gradually taking as the place of religion:
“Journalism was the ideal successor to religion because it alone could provide the appropriate guidance for both individuals and society. To the extent that religion is presented as having any positive role, it is in purely functional terms, in the sense that moral precepts from religion might be a source of strength for some individuals, but had no authority for modern society.”
So-called Evolutionary Psychology claims to have solved all the riddles of human life and history by blaming Evolution for all of it. It argues that to believe in God is to be deluded. Its explanation for the fact that religion is a worldwide phenomenon all through history is that our brains must have been hardwired to dream up a phony God and phony religious beliefs. But wait a minute . . . I thought Evolution weeds out the bad stuff and kept the good things as it progresses. Why would our brains be ‘hardwired’ to believe a delusion?
As John Lennox puts it so well: “Any final explanation of the universe and human beings that does not include God will unravel into darkness. Naturalistic attempts to explain the existence of life solely in terms of the nonliving, of consciousness in terms of the unconscious, of human beings solely in terms of animals, of morality solely in terms of the dictates of pain and pleasure, are bound to fail in the end.”
We know that subjectively experienced mental states have real effects on our bodies and wellbeing. Our hopes and fears, joy or depression, faith or skepticism, affect us physically. Our powers of subjective observation make science possible. But to the godless, the mind, mental states, and even ideas are not real.
The priests of science cannot answer even fundamental questions about our world. Science has no clue what consciousness even is. Neuroscience can tell us nothing about how brains supposedly create mental experiences.
Scientist Richard Feynman, a militant atheist, admits, “It is important to realize that in physics today we have no idea what energy is.” But he still teaches that energy underlies, empowers, and regulates all that exists.
B. Alan Wallace Chimes In
All human beings have faith in some view of the world that they cannot prove. As B. Alan Wallace declares:
“We can passively attend to mental imagery or create it intentionally. We can ascertain whether we desire something and whether we intend to try to fulfill this desire. And we can sense whether we believe, disbelieve, or doubt a proposition.
“We are as directly aware of many mental phenomena—such as thoughts, feelings, and mental imagery—as we are of sensory phenomena. The mind thinks, feels, desires, intends, remembers, imagines. For each of us as human subjects, what is more real than our joys and sorrows, hopes and fears, desires and beliefs, and our sensory experience of the world about us? On what grounds are we to believe that these mental phenomena are any less real that such physical phenomena as mountains and buildings, let alone quarks and electromagnetic fields?
“In stark contrast to all other relationships between physical phenomena and their emergent properties and functions, when observing the brain, no mental states are observed; and when observing mental states, the brain remains out of sight. It is conceivable to learn a great deal about experienced mental states without knowing anything about the brain, and it is feasible to learn a great deal about the brain without knowing anything about subjective mental states.
“Under the doctrinal influence of scientific materialism, the public has been led to believe that scientists know things about the mind of which they are in fact ignorant and to believe that ordinary human subjects do not know things that they do in fact know perfectly well.”
Man Is More Than An Animal
The forces of darkness present this worldview to our youth: “Only the physical world is real. There is no God. There is no objective truth or morality. Spirituality is an illusion. The Cosmos and all that is in it, including living creatures, arose accidentally. You have no purpose, meaning, or significance. Your physical body solely determines everything you think or feel or do. Death brings the annihilation of you as an individual forever.”
Here is the main thing about that: It is presented as scientific, but it is not. None of it can be verified by science. There are many facts – much evidence – that show us the falseness of this worldview, but they are dismissed as ‘unscientific’ by its disciples.
Any who disagree are to be called ‘ignorant’ and ‘uneducated.’ It reduces the human experience to the physical only. So, naturally, hedonism is the response of the indoctrinated—which is the goal of the dark spiritual force behind this worldview that preaches, “ Physical pleasure is what makes life worth living. Indulge. Go for the gusto. Just do it.”
The fact is, scientific materialism is designed to keep you a spiritual infant; to stop you from reaching your potential as a spiritual being; to prevent you from finding God; to stop you from attaining the transcendental peace and joy that endures, which only comes from Him; to stunt your growth so you focus on base animal instincts while not finding faith, hope, and love.
Look at the fruit produced by this ideology where it was implemented by state force in the Soviet Union and Red China. Misery, suffering, and mass murder.
The thing is, we are intentional beings with a spiritual dimension. We recognize virtue and vice, morality, and wisdom. As Roger Scruton says, “What is deepest and most lasting in our lives is religious faith, erotic love, friendship, family ties, and the enjoyment of art, music, and literature.”
Man is the only spiritual species on Earth; the only one made in God’s Image; the only one aware of itself, aware of evil, aware of right and wrong, aware of our own mortality, aware of God and capable of a relationship with Him. Only man makes art and music, clothing and jewelry, and has hope, meaning, and purpose. Only we can worship and communicate with God.
This article originally appeared as a chapter in the book by the same writer, James A. Watkins, entitled What Does The Devil Do All Day?