Saturday, February 19, 2011

Is Biological Evolution Really Responsible for All Life on Earth?

Once upon a time there was a scientist. This scientist was so arrogant in his knowledge of science that he one day came to the conclusion that God was no longer necessary to create life on Earth. Being confident in his abilities, the scientist challenged God to a face-off. The scientist told God that he could do everything God could do, and do it even better, including creating life on Earth. God accepted this challenge, knowing it was impossible. So the scientist went to work, determined to prove God wrong. He knew that sheep had been cloned from cells, so he began to collect human cells.

God stopped him immediately, and told the scientist, "You said you could do everything I could do, and even do it better. I created life from nothing more than my breath and dirt. Now you're trying to use cells from all my work? No, I don't think so. You better grab a handful of dirt, take a deep breath in and start from there."

I love this joke because it rings true. Science has become so arrogant in such a young age that its most prominent representatives have come out and directly said that God is no longer necessary to create the universe. I've written a lot on that topic. Today I want to talk about the contradictions that are seemingly ignored or overlooked by the scientific community when the concept of biological evolution as it pertains to the beginning of life on Earth is discussed.

To begin with, it does not take someone with a Ph.D to see the flaws in this theory. A study of both subjects show that by their very definitions they are contradictory to each other. For example, evolution is perhaps best known as the concept of "survival of the fittest". The member of a species that has the preferred genes such as being faster, smarter, etc. is most likely to survive against predators and thereby pass on these preferred genes onto following generations. Observational science has determined that this shows a decrease or conservation of genetic material within a given population.

Conversely, evolution then suggests that all living things came from a single celled organism called an amoeba. This is a contradiction to observational science. How is it possible that the preservation or conservation of genetic material is true, yet the expansion and multiplication of the very same material is also true? This cannot be. Either one is true, but not both.

It is impossible through observed science to go from a single celled amoeba being the only living organism on Earth to a human, which is made up of over 100 trillion cells, and all other living animals on Earth. Each one of these cells require genetic material in order to make its assigned species. This can only happen through the multiplication and change of genetic material, which again, is contrary to the very concept of "survival of the fittest".

I do not believe that evolution within a species is impossible, because it is a proven scientific fact. We have created over 80% of the world’s dog breeds in the past 130 years through evolution. Yet the only thing that has ever come from a dog is another dog. It is through the breeding of one dog with desirable traits with a mate that carries the same genetic traits in order to isolate the trait and pass it on through the next generation. That is how a hound dog is bred, for example. It is through the conservation of this genetic material that we arrive a preferred breed, not the expansion of random genetic material.

Simply put, the theory of all of life on Earth originating from a single-celled amoeba is contradictory to observed, scientific facts. It simply cannot be true. This doesn't even take into account how the amoeba came into existence. Secular scientists can't even agree on the creation of the amoeba, yet it is assumed to be the case. Also, regardless of what you may believe, scientist cannot provide even a single fossil record that would fill the gap from the ape to man, let alone from the amoeba to man.

In essence, secular scientists want you to believe that human life is assumed to have somehow have formed from a theoretical amoeba, contrary to proven scientific facts. This is of course supposed to have happened on a planet that is assumed to have formed somehow from a collapsing nebula that is assumed to have formed from a theory called 'the big bang' which is assumed to have occurred without a cause, again despite contradicting proven laws of physics.

When you start with the Bible as your base, you find that proven science makes sense with the creation account, without contradictions. However, if left with the ideas of secular science, that rejects all supernatural input, especially God, you are left with contradictory theories and assumptions.

[i]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/biological-evolution

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html

Asimov, Isaac. The Human Body, New rev. ed., p. 79; New Encyclopaedia Britannica,vol. 6, p. 134; Van Amerogen, C. The Way Things Work Book of the Body, p. 13.

No comments:

Post a Comment