Creation
Evolution versus Science (logic)
Evolution is just a fairy tale
Science has destroyed it
My comments in blue, Scriptures & quotes in black, references in green.
Evolution is just another theory, that you can’t see, you can’t prove as you can’t observe it in any way or form what so ever and the science that has been thought to support it, has eventually utterly destroyed it, it’s now just like many of man’s other theories or fact-less ideologies that are not based on any real evidence or scientific facts, and now thanks to science it’s out dated and dead. Which has been quite a shock to some scientists that I have spoken to who have desperately in vain tried to defend their beloved evolution.
It’s like the fairy-tale; the Emperor’s new clothes, where the emperor was fooled by two weavers who said that only fools couldn’t see his new clothes and those fools were said to be unfit, stupid and incompetent, so only the worthy intellectuals could see them, but an innocent little boy wasn’t told the story, so called out; The Emperor (or King) is in the altogether, the altogether… The weavers hadn’t made the clothes that they said they would, but came up with a story that fooled the emperor that they had, with the invisible clothes. Likewise evolutionists haven’t found any evidence that they said they would, but still fool most of the people that they have. However in both cases not everyone is fooled and the truth normally comes out in the end.
There are a lot of people talking about evolution, but look closer into it enough and you will find they are baseless, very few have done any real research to try to prove or disprove it. That is not the case here, so read the real naked facts here and even the concerns of the experts themselves. The two weavers sound like Dawkins, so don’t be fooled.
Biologist Richard Dawkins wrote some time ago: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”
Well Dawkins thanks for that, Dawkins has added absolutely nothing of factual value to support the fairy tale of evolution, just a lot of bluff and arrogance. However not everyone is so sure of themselves, take Brian Cox physicist speaking of the lack of evidence in science he stated; One of the key traits is to be delighted about not knowing, to be excited about not being sure… It’s a problem across our wider society… we have a lot of people so sure, they say I know, I know… And I think that’s one of the great lessons, he then quotes the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner who said; “Science is a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance” I think that’s quite a beautiful definition. Stated Brian Cox; It teaches you humility because if you think you know how something works, then usually if you look very carefully you will find that you aren’t so clever… BBC Breakfast 7/12/17.
I do like Brian Cox, I have quoted him on numerous subjects below. He must be getting very delighted and excited about evolution these days because it is becoming evident as time goes by that they know less and less in so many fields of science. However he too has stated that spurious things are facts, on the subject of multi universes he said; there are in fact countless… number of universes, but then changed his mind to; so there may be, then; it might make sense then; it’s just a sensible suggestion and finally; it’s our current best theory. He has even stated that; Natural selection is a law that applies to all life. And then he states it’s; as precise as Einstein’s theories of relativity, and as profound as thermodynamics. Based on what I ask? Who knows how he imagined that one (covered later), but Dawkins could do with some humility.
Also Hawking stated “Theoretical physics…. is all in the mind” which suited his condition, but that can be a major problem with physics as there’s no evidence, and theories have no real value unless they are proven by evidence and then and only then can they be called FACTS.
However when it comes to evolution being a fact if you read on you will see the facts prove otherwise, and the facts are from the mouths of numerous experts themselves, on the following subjects; DNA, The origins of life, Entropy, Natural selection, Quantum mechanics, Multi universe theory, our unique Earth, the difference between Man and apes 2%, the Fossil evidence, Evolution of our brain. Interestingly they show how illogical, contradictory, nonfactual evolution is and some even share their concerns of the lack of evidence there is in their fields of research. The evidence will clearly show that evolution by this magical mystical natural selection has no basis in science and is nothing more than imaginative constructions of the human mind.
More recently: Richard Dawkins – world news 27/2/16 He starts with; In Darwinian natural selection which is the process that gives rise to all life including us. So according to him natural selection started all life, which would include the first cell, when it’s only supposed to select from species that are up, running and mutating, and what survives in its environment naturally lives on to reproduce again, it’s in the name! Anyway then speaking of religious opposition he said: It’s deplorable and it’s all fuelled by ignorance. There is no informed educated opposition to evolution. It’s entirely pushed by people who have no education or understanding. Admitted he was being asked about American fundamental creationists who believe in six literal days of creation, but what an arrogant bigot, the shoe is on the other foot. I have met numerous so called scientist with similar attitudes who have been quite derogatory and started the conversation with; I haven’t got time for you but I’ll just give you something to go away and think about. However their arrogance was soon destroyed when to their horror they discovered that “some who believe in Almighty God also know their science” and time and again I have had to bring such conversations to an end after half an hour or so, as it’s not my intention to embarrass them, or see grown men cry due to their lack of scientific support for their belief in evolution, saying we are not going to agree, but I hope they now realise exactly the above, so we can agree to disagree.
I am not a creationist (fundamentalist, see Creation, The Genesis account), however I do believe in creation and not evolution. I am not arguing with science, just how evolutionists twist or interpret the facts, the same way many religions twist the interpretation of the bible for their own ends. I don’t believe in blind faith, my faith is based on knowledge and logic, but Wisdom is also required to dig deeper to see the truths, not just what we want to see. The more we find out about life, our planet, its solar system and the universe as a whole strengthens my faith, its all been shown to be far more complex than was first thought when the theory or hypothesis of evolution came into fashion. Evolution has become a tradition widely held, but based on faith, a false belief based on no facts, that must be supported no matter what new evidence comes up that show it to be totally impossible, it’s a myth! Take the simple cell, well turns out it’s not so simple, it’s one of if not the most complex things known to man, with DNA (RNA and proteins) Genes have been compared to a super computer with 3 billion letters of code in each cell, of that only 2% has been coded or labelled, the rest their workings are a mystery, the rest was supposed to be junk, then they realised it ‘Seems that…most of the action lies in that none coding [junk, darkness] DNA’ (covered later). More recently it’s said that 80% of DNA is active. Our body has about 100 trillion cells, each cell is different as it has a different job depending where in the body it is, heart, bone, etc. so each one is programmed differently! So our bodies as a whole have 300 billion, trillion letters of DNA code! They also have found millions of switches one on the end of each strand in the on and off position. Added to that; Computers use binary code, which consists of two variants; zeros and ones, where as DNA uses four variants; A- Adenine, C- Cytosine, G- Guanine, T- Thymine, which vastly increases its complexity, computer code doubles in complexity every step, but DNA quadruples every strand, so it’s a super, super computer and it’s still called a simple cell! And all this happened apparently by chance and mutation, with no evidence, no designer or creator, all on its own, when we are told;
DNA
The Gene Code BBC 4 25/4/2011
There isn’t going to be a moment when we are going to stand up and say; that’s it we understand the human genome. It is as complex as we are and we are pretty complex and so to – I don’t think it will be reached in my life time, I think we will have progress, we will know so much more, I’m sure… I’ll be surprised. Dr. Ewan Birney- Head of Nucleotide Data, European Bioinformatics Institute
The Big Questions 13/1/2013
DNA is universal through out all creation and because of that apparently ‘There is no question’ that all creatures on this planet are related, we see that in the genes, they all share the same genetic code, it looks like a frozen accident, i.e. There no rhyme or reason why we have a particular genetic code we do, but bacteria have it, we have it, plants do’ Matt Ridley author, Genome – The Big Questions 13/1/2013.
So even the first early microscopic life; had the same DNA, ‘the same genetic code’, then over time that same DNA has apparently reprogrammed it’s self sequentially (by following in a logical order) ‘it has been evolving by sequential changes in DNA sequences‘, ‘We now know it’s an information technology like any other.’ Matt Ridley
So it’s a ‘Technology‘ which is; the action of applying of scientific knowledge for practical purposes into operation. Concise Oxford Dictionary
He said; DNA has been evolving by sequential changes in DNA sequences. However to evolve is a process in which something passes by degrees to something different by stages (bit by bit). The fact is there are not sequential evolving bit by bit changes seen in DNA, only huge gaps between species like the difference of at least 1,200,000 strands of DNA between man and apes (covered later) and there is nothing sequential about that, time and again evolutionists make big statements with no factual evidence. And also if it’s like any other information technology that we know of it has to be thought up by someone and like all the other information technology we know of it has to be applied by someone, so the logical question is who thought it up and who is applying this scientific knowledge to DNA? But that’s probably too logical for them.
Question; why would the first microscopic life develop such a complicated DNA or 3 billion letter super computer with the capacity to be used in the most complicated life form, in fact in all life forms that have lived on earth and how could it? Surly that’s a development far, far greater than required for a so called simple life (if there is such a thing). We were told life kept mutations that helped it cope better to changes in environment or gave it an advantage and evolved gradually from simple life forms to more and more complicated forms. You would think if evolution were true the very first life form would have had a very short string of DNA just about adequate for a single celled life form and then increased in length and complexity (evolved) as needed, but time and again new things suddenly appear from nothing, even massively big things like 3 billion letter super computers with no explanation. How could it have come about? Logically so called natural selection wouldn’t select something beyond its need, it couldn’t and from nothing, and normally the more complicated something is the more unreliable it is because there is more to go wrong, this is so illogical.
The origin of life
On the origins of life Brian Cox Forces of nature 28/7/16 stated: The origin of life is one of the great unsolved scientific mysteries. Its origins seem to be lost in the mists of time. So it is one of the great unsolved scientific mysteries.
Louis Pasteur microbiologist in 1864 proved conclusively that life only comes from life and stated: Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. That fact still stands true to our day, it has never been proven false and never will be.
The Big Questions 13/1/2013
Dr. Robert J. Asher palaeontologist & Christian This idea that on top of explaining all this bio-diversity an evolutionary biologists has to also explain origins of life it’s self is also quite mistaken. Which is not to say there is not a compelling scientific theory that is used in understanding of natural mechanisms of life I suspect that’s true! … It’s not about the origin of life.
So he said: This idea that…an evolutionary biologists has to also explain origins of life it’s self is also quite mistaken. If that is so, it’s illogical that they are making claims that all life is related, if a/or many super computers could suddenly pop up in one species without explanation it could do the same in others species. If they don’t know how they came about or really understand DNA or how it could possibly reprogram itself; as if it has an intelligence into the vast variety of life forms on earth, how can they say ‘there is no question‘ they ‘are related‘, its one impossibility after another and another, blind faith. And Dawkins says I’m insane!
Not explain origins of life wasn’t it evolutionists that asked and made a big fuss about who created God, Almighty God is eternal anyway, He has no beginning or ending. You have to face the obvious something or some being with awesome power has had to always exist, or you’ll go around in circles. And Dawkins was one of them he stated: Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? They came up with this ridiculous evolutionary idea about an alternative beginning of life, and yet they do not know how it started, they haven’t a clue how it happened, yet alone show any factual evidence to prove it. So how can they criticise the creation by God or question God’s eternity, their evolutionary stance is far from logical or scientific. There are many flaws in this evolutionary theory, this is just the start.
Dr. Robert J. Asher also said; which is not to say there is not a compelling scientific theory to explain origins of life, well unfortunately there are too many evolutionists who think the evidence is or will be shown in other areas of science! And that is not true. Sounds like; Confirmation bias, which is recognised in psychology and cognitive science and is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall only information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, ignoring any evidence that could disprove pre-existing beliefs in their hypothesis, even to the point of believing that someone else has checked it out and has the evidence that proves their beliefs. It’s also called my-side bias.
Reminds me of James Burke’s documentary of how scientific views of the world and reality have changed not to conform to what is true in reality, but to what man believes or wishes to be the facts, there by supporting their beliefs.
Tomorrow’s world’s James Burke. The day the universe changed. 1985. 33min. In spite of what science would have us believe, that kind of switch doesn’t happen because of science steadily and purposefully heading to the truth, with one discovery somehow following another along the way as part of some grand plan. As you’ve seen, each structure in the past worked perfectly well. That’s what the truth was for a while. And as for one discovery following another along the way, what way? Going where? The so called voyage of discovery has as often as not made landfall for little to do with the search for knowledge. Science like all other human activities, is a product of what society at the time thinks is important. What science has done in the last few years has been directed by that fact.
Why only one DNA for all life
How could the first living creature have DNA that was so advanced that it could be reprogrammed for all future life on earth? The only logical reason that all life has the same one genetic code is that of forward planning in design. And only a super intelligent extremely powerful being with the forethought to look or plan ahead for the variety and complexity of all life he intended to create on this planet, could design and build a standard device ‘the one genetic code’ that could be used in every life form by programming it ‘by sequential changes in DNA sequences’ accordingly for each species or kind, rather than having to design and build thousands or millions of different devices, one per kind and sub kinds. Therefore He would use this one device throughout all creation and they would ‘share the one genetic code’ reprogrammed. Forward planning is the only way something as complex as DNA could exist in the very first cell, so that we have it, plants have it and even bacteria. That is the only possible logical explanation why something so overly, inordinately complex as DNA the same DNA that is in us could be in all life including the very first so called simple cell. Nothing else could possibly make sense, it screams creation by Almighty God. To add to that later on we will see how extremely complex DNA is, far more than anything man has ever made. Man has only tried to copy God’s workmanship, rather poorly at that.
Ps 139:13 For you formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I will give thanks to you, For I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. My soul knows that very well. 15 My frame wasn’t hidden from you, When I was made in secret… 16 Your eyes saw my body. In your book they were all written…17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! 18 If I would count them, they are more in number than the sand. WEB
As a Christian who believes in the Genesis account I have no problem with the universe, the earth and life on earth in general having been in existence for millions or billions of years (I’ll explain why later and in more detail in Creation, The Geneses account), I also have no problem with the possibility of a big bang type start to the universe, but you ask the evolutionists what started it? Ah well! It seems there is a theme with evolutionists. I have no problem with all life having ‘the one genetic code’ but ask them what started it or how it came to be? The theme is; they don’t know, they pretend they don’t need to know; but not GOD, no not God. Although man has dreamt of a time in the future of going to other planets and terraforming them, mans been trying to create life for hundreds of years; so is it so difficult for man to humbly acknowledge that a far more intelligent and powerful being has already done it with us! But that would put God in the limelight not them and they don’t want that or to be answerable to a superior being.
Isaiah 40: 21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. 26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. NWT The descriptive Hebrew words in Isaiah for his creative power are; bara, ‘mmiyts, koach, own, rob, meaning; to create by strong vigorous power in abundance.
Job 26:7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing. . .NWT
More on DNA
The Gene Code BBC 4 25/4/2011;
Only 2% of the genome has been labelled and the rest is junk, but it ‘Seems that…most of the action lies in that none coding [junk, darkness] DNA’ Professor Mark McCarthy, University of Oxford
‘There’s an assumption in a lot of genomics that a lot of the DNA is just junk, its garbage, its rubbish. And I have to say, at first glance it seems reasonable because a lot of it doesn’t produce any thing, there are only about 24,000 genes that go to make a mammal, a human being say, which is about the same number of bits that you need to make a double-decker bus, it’s not very many. Well I would like to think that I’m more complicated than a bus. And that is a surprise and what it tells you is something very important is that we don’t understand genetics at all, we are in a situation that we have a lot of boxes labelled screws, washers, bolts and we don’t know even know how to put them together, let alone how to start the bus & drive it through the streets!’ Professor of Genetics Steve Jones –University College London (I like him nice chap, seems grounded)
I believe we are seeing the biggest revelation, because the real break-through has been understanding just how little we know about the genome; and that is true enlightenment! This mass of waste land is fare more important than we first imagined! Presenter; Dr. Adam Rutherford, The Gene Code
So most of the action lies in that none coding [junk, darkness] DNA… we don’t understand genetics at all and we are seeing the biggest revelation… has been understanding just how little we know about the genome. I expect he’s a fan of Richard Feynman too. Nice chap
However back to; The Big Questions 13/1/2013- Matt Ridley author, Genome; on the question of evidence and evolution he thinks; “its quite clear now, because the evidence has got stronger and stronger; we’ve now got the genetic evidence, as well as the evidence from fossils and other things, we’ve sequenced the genome … We can read in the genes the exactly whole history of life, gradually understanding all of that. It absolutely confirms that there is descent with modification, there’s natural selection and all these sorts of things that Darwin said… There’s plenty of room for disagreement, its not one dogmatic theory there’s a whole bunch of theories. He thinks he can map evolution by DNA! ‘We can read in genes exactly the whole history of life.’ ‘But there is no question that all creatures on earth are related we can see that in the genes, they all share the same genetic code, it looks like a frozen accident, there’s no rhyme or reason why we have a particular genetic code we do, bacteria have it, we do it, plants do, it’s all connected …. it’s an information technology like any other and it has been evolving by sequential changes in DNA sequences. The Big Questions 13/1/2013
Without rhyme or reason; lacking discernible sense or logic Oxford Dictionary
This is amazing he said “we’ve now got the genetic evidence … It absolutely confirms” what “Darwin said” or evolution, this is because he can see that all life has the same super computer DNA and so “there is no question that all creatures on earth are related“. However he then shoots himself in the foot by saying “there’s no rhyme or reason why we have a particular genetic code we do“, or in other words it’s illogical and goes against common sense! Yet again we’re supposed to swallow the idea that a super computer DNA, not only some how came about on its own without external help, how they cannot explain, but then reprogrammed itself without external help.
He thinks there is “evidence from fossils” well that’s a myth (covered later), He also said; there’s a whole bunch of theories, if they have the genetic evidence they can read in genes exactly the whole history of life and the evidence from fossils and other things why do they still have a whole bunch of theories, then it should be clear, sorted, no theories only one factual evidence based outcome, but no they don’t have one just plenty of… disagreements, it’s totally illogical they clearly don’t have a clue, but plenty of bravado.
If you were given a book to study on a subject or years of course work to enable you to take exams to qualify in a certain profession and you only managed to read 2% of its content and could only understand a small part of that 2% you did study, it’s unlikely you would pass those exams or qualify, yet alone be called an expert on the subject and looked to as a reliable source on the subject, and that is a fitting comparison to some so called experts in DNA when they make such outrageous statements and claims.
Entropy
BBC4 Order and Disorder
Then there’s Entropy the second law of thermodynamics, Boltzmann published a series of papers on it in the 1870’s, however evolutionists talk about it but then conveniently ignore it, as it completely destroys the progression of their precious evolution. Jim Al-Khalile. “Entropy; a law that applies to everything; left to itself in the universe will always get messier” he stated everything “without external help goes from bad to worse“, that’s the law it screams creator, but then the presenter says; “Car engines tap into the order to disorder and do something useful” he jumps to; ‘Evolution has designed our bodies‘!!! Cars are designed and made by man, man is the external help and not being left to itself, and evolution is supposed to select the best of things that make an improvement not design that requires a designer. However everything gets worse because of the subject they are trying very poorly to explain ‘entropy’ without proving evolution a fake. So this ‘natural selection‘ does’t have any thing better or improved to select as it’s all getting worse! Then Prof Peter Atkins says; ‘It’s like a waterfall rushing down, but the waterfall throws up a structure and that structure might be me or you or a daffodil or what ever’!!! Poetic dribble or what! Entropy would not allow any improvement or advancement of any kind, it’s the law, the second law of thermodynamics.
Wonders of the Universe, 6/6/12 Brian Cox agrees with the law of Entropy, sitting in a dessert type location he uses an analogy of the high entropy of dry sand blown about by the wind and the moist sand of a very decorative sandcastle with turrets from a sandcastle bucket, which is a good analogy, but he then states; ‘But there’s nothing fundamental in the laws of physics that’s says the wind couldn’t pick up sand from over here, deposit it here and deposit it in precisely the shape of a sandcastle. In principle the wind could spontaneously build a sandcastle out of sand. There’s no reason why that couldn’t happen. ‘Given he does then say’ It’s just extremely, extremely unlikely.’ He’s a nice chap, but the law he’s talking about states; ‘everything left to itself in the universe will always get messier’ that is the prime ‘fundamental‘ core statement of entropy. It’s impossible and it’s a whimsical ideology that evolutionists seem to use time after time, which is like grabbing at thin air, it’s totally illogical, but you have to admire his blind faith.
Wonders of the Solar System, Brian Cox, BBC 2 11/2/10 However; previously in when he needed to demonstrate the conformity and order of Saturn’s rings, he used a comparison of the order of the desert winds blowing the sand and the sand dunes always having the same angle of back drop; ‘at first sight seems to be an immensely chaotic place billions of grains of sand being blown randomly about by the desert winds, but actually look a little bit closer and you see there is an immense amount of order, there are sand dunes as far as the eye can see and the remarkable thing is the angles of the all sand dunes are exactly the same. Now in the Sahara, the emergence of that order is driven by the desert winds.
So the desert sand has an order that’s used almost as a law so much so that it’s used as a standard or example of always being the same, but then we are supposed to accept it can change to create a decorative sand castle all on its own. In yet another series Brian Cox states the law of Entropy is the law that will never be broken.
Wonders of life – Brian Cox 1/5 – 27/1/2012 “How can it be wrote Schrodinger ‘That the living organism avoids decay?‘” Now, that’s a paradox, because the universe is falling to bits, it is tending towards disorder. That is enshrined in a law of physics called the second law of thermodynamics. And I think that most physicists believe that it’s the one law of physics that will never be broken.
So now he states the second law of thermodynamics is the one law of physics that will never be broken and yet previously to try and make some sense of evolution the wind can make decorative sandcastles all on its own, saying there is nothing fundamental in the laws of Physics to say that wouldn’t happen, when thermodynamics is a branch of Physics. Now, that’s a paradox that he has made for himself.
The only way ‘that the living organism avoids decay’ and not break the second law of thermodynamics entropy is by having external help, and that help is God, then there is no paradox, but evolutionists can’t accept that! Brian Cox also states; Living things borrowing order from the wider universe, where is the evidence for that statement and it is ridiculous as all living things have to obey the second law because they’re physical structures; they obey the laws of physics, and every single thing in the wider universe is suffering the same entropy. DNA as the existence of life is a paradox only explained by external help, and that help is God.
Natural selection
They say can you see God? So the logical question is; can you see this mythical godly natural selection, where is the proof of its existence. Well the answer is simply that there isn’t any proof, however they need natural selection to make some kind of sense of their illogical theories, but just because they need it doesn’t mean it exists. However they have to have faith in its existence otherwise their whole theology of evolution would fall flat and they would have to except the existence of Almighty God. Not very scientific reasoning.
Anyway evolution from nothing to so called simple life forms, to higher life forms is against the law, the law of Entropy, the second law of thermodynamics; it would be squashed by entropy, as evolution hasn’t got any external help. Natural selection is not external and only supposedly has an effect on life that exists, is up, running and mutating, entropy wouldn’t let it get that far. Evolution hasn’t got a chance, entropy wouldn’t let life happen in the first place (without external help), and it would destroy simple life if it did exist (without external help) before it had chance to evolve or improve, as that is the opposite of entropy. Natural selection also wouldn’t have any connection with what ever supposedly mystically created DNA, because it supposedly selects what works best and it couldn’t do that again until life that exists, is up, running and mutating.
A kind of Natural selection may make changes within a species or a kind due to a God given design that allows creatures to adapt to changes in food supply or environment, that’s true, man has done selective breading with many creatures as Darwin did, but it’s known as micro evolution, and is only within a species or a kind that can easily be seen and is indisputably a fact, but that’s it. The general definition of (macro) evolution with it’s mythical Natural selection has no basis in science, can not and has not been tested by carefully observation or proved in any form, it is a wishful figment of imaginative thinking, and it is totally illogical, it is just a theory a poor one at that, a myth.
As scientists, engineers and many others know as I do from personal experience that mankind has only made advancements because mankind has generation after generation added to our predecessors by hard work, which is a fact of life and can be said of everything mankind has ever done. Evolutionists have said that we have found many things by accident as in science and medicine and Natural selection is like that, but that is not true, mankind advances only because they were working or looking for new things in the first place, by their intelligent hard long work, without that we would have found nothing, mankind is the external help that evolution doesn’t have.
Quantum mechanics
The previous reminds me of the documentary; Atom BBC4 1/11/10 Presenter Jim Al-Khalili Professor of Nuclear Physics, Surrey University; when Professor Andrew Jackson – Copenhagen University; Said don’t worry about interpretation or the cat [Schrodinger’s cat experiment; where a cat is both died and alive at the same time], we shouldn’t be concerned with the true nature of reality [the state they actually exist]… interpretation [explaining] doesn’t add anything! It’s not testable! Presenter Prof. Jim Al-Khalili asks; Quantum mechanics is counter intuitive and goes against common sense! Prof Andrew Jackson replies; Yes!!! Presenter Prof. Jim Al-Khalili asks; What do you say to people who insist on wanting to know what an atom is doing when you are not looking at it? Andrew Jackson “Shut up and calculate“? replies; Presenter Prof. Jim Al-Khalili; Is this really scientific pragmatism or dogmatic fundamentalism? … I think it’s fair to say that most physicists use quantum mechanics to describe the subatomic world without worrying too much about the interpretation; personally I am not in favor of this view… I certainly don’t subscribe to the “Shut up and calculate” interpretation… when I’m away from my work, I still worry about what it all means! … Atoms present us with dizzying contradictions. … the way trillions of them come together in concert to create the world around us is still largely a mystery. To give you one dramatic example; The atoms that make up my body…
Unfortunately or not when it comes to evolution not being testable and being counter intuitive and goes against common sense it is par for the course and again it’s just blind faith, and stubbornness or in other words dogmatic fundamentalism.
Also Presenter Prof. Jim Al-Khalili covered numerous other professors’ theories of Quantum Mechanic’s like; he said it’s “Something truly nightmarish… The measurement problem; don’t mention it … an atom only appears in a particular place if you measure it!” Professor Paul Davis, author and Physicist; The strangeness of the measurement problem, explains how the universe came into being “experimenters today in the lab can make measurements that will affect the nature of reality as it was say 5 billion years ago, I think there is a sort of feedback loop… why does he believe this; because otherwise it just seems though um its a bit miraculous that the universe seems to have started out with the right laws and the right conditions…we have an influence on the past through measurements we make today. There’s a statement; they have to believe this illogical dribble; because otherwise it just seems though um its a bit miraculous that the universe seems to have started out with the right laws and the right conditions, again and again they shoot them selves down, showing their ideas to be no more than science fiction.
So they have to believe this fantasy dribble that they know goes against common sense about; experimenters today in the lab can make measurements that will affect the nature of reality as it was say 5 billion years ago…. Why? Because otherwise it just seems though um it’s a bit miraculous, Wow so no scientific reasoning then just they don’t want to believe that it proves the existence of God! Now thinking of the Big Bang Theory when they discovered noise from background radiation they accepted the connection, why because they wanted to, but it’s not accepted when it proves the existence of God!
Multi or Parallel universe theory
Also mixed up in all this is the Multi or Parallel universe theory, due to the fact that we appear to live in a perfect universe and also the possibility of simple life (no life is simple, but any way) first evolving in our universe is so astronomically impossible they have to believe in ‘an infinite number of parallel universes’, otherwise there’s creation by God and they can have that! So to increase the possibility of life existing in our universe or dimension they have come up with something like this idea of multiple or infinite number universes or dimensions, so then Brian Cox can state; somebody’s got to get the right ticket!
Professor David Deutsh – Oxford University; says that what quantum mechanics actually describes is not one universe, but an infinite number of parallel universes.
Human Universe 14/10/2014, Brian Cox. The reason that we appear to live in a perfect universe with the perfect numbers, the perfect constants of nature, the perfect laws, is because there are in fact countless millions, perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with different physical laws, different numbers, different constants of nature. Then we shouldn’t be so surprised to live in the perfect universe. It’s like the lottery – somebody’s got to get the right ticket, somebody’s got to win it. So it’s a fact, is it? But then he says: Just as the lottery has many tickets, each bearing different numbers so there may be many universes, each with different values for the constants of nature. So now it’s just a may be! Universes with stronger or weaker gravity, slower light or faster light. Now, that might make sense mathematically but is it a sensible suggestion, an infinite number of universes? What does that mean for reality? And now it might make sense mathematically and it’s just a sensible suggestion and it’s made because ‘we appear to live in a perfect universe’ everything is just so perfect, just so incredibly impossibly perfect and as Cox said earlier in Wonders of life 2013 (covered later) the odds of that happening are absolutely infinitesimally small, it’s impossible, it just could not happen on its own without… one of those words being used like; a Creator or God and the escape from this conundrum is by increasing the odds with an infinite numbers of universes and later it’s back to the mythical crutch natural selection.
Brian Cox finishes with; … Now the suggestion is that we’re infinitesimal specks in a vast infinity of universes. Our current best theory for the origin of the universe… suggests that there are an infinite number of universes, an infinite number of copies of you and me, and that the existence of the whole thing is inevitable. No purpose, nothing special, you are because you have to be.
So again it’s just a suggestion of a theory, one of many, the best currently for now, so why did Brian Cox state; there are in fact countless millions, perhaps an infinite number of universes, because it is not a fact at all, yet again it’s just an attempt to avoid the fact that there has to be a God. So so-called scientific fact and the truth as we have seen can and quite often is two totally different things. Which reminds me of scriptures;
Ro 1:20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. . . 22 [men] Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish. NWT
1 Cor 1:19 For so it stands written, “I will exhibit the nothingness of the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought.” 20 Where is your wise man? Where your expounder of the Law? Where your investigator of the questions of this present age? Has not God shown the world’s wisdom to be utter foolishness? Weymouth
Evolution is like an old gas guzzling truck belching thick black poisonous smoke which blinds their vision so they can’t see the facts, despite having a huge amount of money thrown at it, it’s never been serviced or checked for road worthiness for fear it would be scrapped.
Our unique Earth
Wonders of the Solar System BBC 2, 2010 Professor Brian Cox. He starts each program with ‘I think we are living through the greatest age of discovery our civilization has ever known’, At the start of part 3, speaking of our earth’s atmosphere he states; ‘amongst all these wonders sits our earth an oasis of calm amid the violence of the solar system… unique atmosphere … perfectly balanced…the slightest changes… can lead to violent worlds’. And although he speaks through the series of evolution with its if, perhaps and possibilities, in part 4, on the subject of our violent universe he states; ‘our home is a very special ball of rock, although it’s governed by the same universal set of rules; our planet is not too big, not too small, not too hot, not too cold. Earth has been called the goldilocks planet, because everything is just right, our world is unique” He finishes with “our view of the earth’s place in space has been turned on its head….and so I suppose it’s in many ways a miracle that it exists at all.” Professor Brian Cox So after examining our Solar System he’s hit by the awe and uniqueness of our earth and he feels he’s required to state that he thinks its existence is a miracle, in many ways. So he’s just attributed our unique earth to a divine agency a man of faith in God after all probably not.
Miracle; An extraordinary event unexplainable by natural or scientific laws, attributed to a divine agency. Oxford Dictionary
Suppose; 1; think or assume that something is true or probable, 4; (of a theory or [as a] result) required as a condition (design in creation supposes a creator) Readers Digest-Oxford Dictionary
DNA again
Wonders of life 2013 1/5, Brian Cox. In which Brian Cox spoke of a spark of life that started the first life on earth which he believes all life came from; DNA is the blue print for life, but its extraordinary fidelity means it also contains a story and what a story it is. The entire history of evolution from the present day all the way back to the very first spark of life, and it tells us that we are connected not only to every plant and animal alive today but to every single thing that has ever lived. But here again there is no consideration of how DNA came about and why it has this extraordinary fidelity which is against the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) without external help;
He continues; The question what is life is surely one of the grandest of questions and we’ve learnt that life isn’t really a thing at all; it’s a collection of chemical processes that can harness the flow of energy to create local islands of order like me and this forest by borrowing order from the wider universe [where is the evidence for borrowing order from the wider universe and when entropy without external help makes everything do the opposite, by making the wider universe more and more disordered] and then transmitting it from generation to generation, through the elegant chemistry of DNA.
So; The question what is life is surely one of the grandest of questions. Yet again Man doesn’t know the answer to that question, he hasn’t a clue, but Brian Cox has a go; it’s a collection of chemical processes that can harness the flow of energy… by borrowing order from the wider universe, so he rely doesn’t have a clue either.
Notice after asking what is life he states that it; create(s) local islands of order like me and this forest, so he is now suggesting life created DNA, created him and created the forest! And my question is; where is the scientific reasoning or proof to back up this statement? As per usual there is none.
He’s got it backwards logically the physical cell or cells with their DNA would have to exist first and then become alive and which logically of course is how God had it written at; Gen 2:7 God formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The Man came alive. Clearly showing first the formation of the physical and then making it alive [life], it’s pure simple logic. The life force came from God and we know as a scientific fact that life only comes from life and that’s been proven by observation since Louis Pasteur. But of course the first creatures to be created was shown at; Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures. This order was stated first in God’s Word and later proven by science, as is the basic order of the existence of different species through time (see; Creation the Genesis account).
Continuing; and the origins of that chemistry can be traced back 4 billion years, most likely to vents in a primordial ocean and most wonderfully of all, the echoes of that history stretching back for a third of the age of the universe can be seen in every cell of every living thing on earth. And that leads to what I think is the most exciting idea of all, because far from being some chance event ignited by a mystical spark [he says that] the emergence of life might have been an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics [when the physics law the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) states the opposite, he continues] and if that is true then a living cosmos might be the only way a cosmos can be!!!!
Notice this emergence of life might have been an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics is based on an exciting idea and it is the most exciting idea of all which basically is all evolution is an idea nothing less and nothing more. Anyway it is poetic, but dribble again, no facts, it’s like grabbing at thin air. Especially when you compare DNA to modern computers binary code, DNA dwarfs man-made computers in its complexity, it scream’s creation. Things later on in the series aren’t inevitable, but in Wonders of life the chances are vanishingly small and even impossible, I do wish he would make up his mind. But first on the same topic;
Forces of nature 28/7/16, Brian Cox. (The Spark of life and Complex life)
By looking carefully at nature by doing science we might be able to understand what life is and just perhaps how it began. The origin of life is one of the great unsolved scientific mysteries. Its origins seem to be lost in the mists of time. But in common with many scientific mysteries there may be answers, if you ask simple questions.
What are the ingredients of life?
How does complex life form from such simple ingredients?
What was the driving force, the energy source that ignited the flame..?
Somewhere somehow the ingredients of the planet were transformed. Inanimate became animate and once ignited that spark has never been extinguished. He speaks of life as just a spark as if it’s just a candle and he throws in a bit of waterfalls and as he called it complicated and weird chemistry.
By studying vents like these scientists discovered that the chemistry of life exists in a non-living thing in the earth. There is a huge difference between a mix of chemistry and the design and creation of DNA.
Have you ever heard the saying ‘if life was so simple’ well here it is literally thought to be the case. He states; To create a spark of life all you need is a battery, with a flow of charged particles in this case protons. And to power the battery you need nothing more than water from the vent and some sea water. Poor chap thinks all you need is a spark of electricity. Ask any doctor who knows you can zap a dead body with effectively electric sparks all day long and you will never make a dead body or non-living thing come to life, they use Defibrillators to restart stopped hearts, not make or restore life. All they have is a short period of time before there is a dead body in front of them with everything, masses of cells and DNA, except that precious thing called life and no spark will remedy that. What life is, that is a mystery to everyone except God and if you don’t know what it is, how can you begin to know how it came about. So he should stop making outlandish statements. It’s one of the most stupid things I have ever heard.
Speaking of Hydrothermal vents with an outpouring of fresh water that’s been heated by … geothermal energy. He states; The theory is that the chemistry of life, the beginnings of the assembly of complex molecules all the way up to the first living things to DNA and everything we think of to day was built, was constructed in conditions like this. The waterfall, the cascade of protons is the driver of complexity, the spark of life. It’s the exquisite control of the proton waterfalls that separates life from chemistry, the moth from a flame… The answer is a wonderful story. The origin of you the most distant ancestor of you wasn’t a living thing at all, it was a geological thing. It was most likely to be a vent… in some ocean four billion years ago, the very earliest life of our planet.
For me this theory of the origin of life is the perfect example of the power of science… like asking questions like what’s the difference between a moth and a flame. But the answer is a wonderful story. You are just chemistry. The earth is your ancestor. A restless planet is your creator. If science has any power it is in answering questions from facts, not asking them, telling stories and not dribbling on about waterfalls.
He should have stopped at; the origin of life is one of the great unsolved scientific mysteries, because he and no one else has ever and never will add anything of any value dribbling on about waterfalls and sparks of life, daffodils and Somewhere somehow’s, he is just digging himself a hole on the back of others like Prof Peter Atkins who was lost for what to say, when he too seemed to realise the futility of their theories. There are no facts, and no proofs to make such stupid statements, they are just silly little stories made from their desperate Imagination.
Wait a minute I originally missed that Brian Cox in Forces of nature above did not ask how does simple life (as in the simple cell) form from such simple ingredients? He asked “How does complex life form from such simple ingredients?” Notice Brian Cox is talking here of “The origin of life” of how that first life came into existence, which he states is a mystery, however he is so focused on trying to explain this that he then states “How does complex life form from such simple ingredients?” Woops he is now calling and acknowledging that the first life form known as the simple cell was in fact complex life and not a simple cell, in doing so he like others have killed off the idea of the simple cell, he is not alone in acknowledging this as we will see as time goes by people who are researching DNA particularly in the desire to improve health and cure diseases (covered later) are finding that DNA is more and more complex than ever thought possible. However Brian Cox is trying to prove, support and explain evolution not destroy it. There’s an admission from an evolutionist and in doing so he has unintentionally destroyed the basis of his beloved evolutionary belief, the mistaken theory that life started from the simple. It may have been a single celled organism but it definitely was not simple. It cannot be both complex life and a simple cell, now that’s another paradox that Brian Cox has made for himself! It’s like another evolutionist pushing his belief Matt Ridley who stated; ‘We now know it’s an information technology like any other’ do they ever think before they speak. Darwin was ignorant of our modern day scientific knowledge, which is revealing his theory was massively flawed. Now back to the Wonders of life;
Complexity of DNA
Wonders of life 2013, 3/5, Cox Brian. Now, whilst there’s no doubt that random mutation does alter DNA [There is no evidence that random mutation has ever produced anything beneficial to lead to a different species], evolution is anything but random. It can’t be, because the chances of something with DNA as complex as this [hippo] appearing by luck alone are vanishingly small. Imagine you just changed just one position in the code at random, a random mutation. There are four letters, A, T, C, and G, so there are four possible combinations. If there are two places in the code, there are four combinations for each one. So that makes 16. If there are three then there are 64 possibilities. Compared to three bits of computer code where there are only 8 possibilities.
Computer code doubles in complexity every step, but DNA quadruples every strand, the diagram below clearly indicates how superior DNA is over the computer after only three strands;
(Note: The molecules A & T are always together as are C & G always together that make AT, TA, CG, and GC which make the four different possible combinations per strand.)
The mass of DNA data after three strands means it can only be shown here in numerical form, so the diagram below takes it to twenty and again clearly indicates how superior DNA is over the computer;
By the time a computer gets to a million possible combinations, DNA has over a trillion combinations, or to put it another way; by twenty strands DNA is a million times more complicated than a man-made computer, or you would need a million computers at 20 bits of code side by side to be equal to DNA and a cell has three billion letters of code.
These numbers are massive so to give some kind of perspective of the vast difference between the two if we were to use the element of time in seconds as a comparison; 1 million seconds for the computer equals < 11 days, whereas 1 trillion seconds for DNA equals < 34,865 years. That’s some difference for just 20 strands.
If that doesn’t start to tell you that there is an intelligence behind DNA probably nothing will. Added to that; in our body a cell is one of a hundred trillion cells, so there is no comparison between a man-made computer and one single cell, and the number of possible combinations in the DNA that are inside us could have made is unfathomable.
To make the statement that a cell with its DNA is simple and just happened to come into existence all on its own is like going back a century and finding today’s computer in a field and saying it just came into existence on its own, nobody made it! Except DNA is far, far more complicated. Surely with the information we have today on DNA, the days of calling a cell simple are over. No one should call a cell simple, but evolutionists still do, because if they don’t how can they possibly explain its existence. Talk about madness, stupidity and insanity.
Brian Cox continues; By the time you get to a code of with a hundred and fifty letters in it, then there are more possible combinations in the code, than there are atoms in the observable universe.
That seems to be quite an exaggeration as the observable universe is massive, although it does show how impossible the whole idea of random mutation is and the number of random mutations that would have to take place for the mythical magical natural selection to choose from for just a single species. It certainly highlights DNA’s complexity and as he states next it’s impossible. Which reinforces the fact that life could not exist without a Creator.
So I’ve done the calculations and for just 150 DNA codes the possible different combinations are; 2,037,035,976,334,490,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
And is 2 Quattuordecillion (2E+45) times more complicated than a man-made computer.
Our bodies as a hippo have 3 billion (3,000,000,000) letters of DNA code reprogramed, in the 2% of our DNA that’s been coded we have 20,000,000 times more code than that and that’s too big to calculate! And all life share the same genetic code even the first simple cell, which suddenly appeared and suddenly became alive all on its own! Not forgetting that is just for one cell and we have 100 trillion cells in our bodies, all programmed differently in part, it brings a new perspective to the saying a chain is as strong as its weakest link particularly with the effects of entropy. It’s impossible for just one cell and he agrees;
Brian Cox continues; Now the Hippo has a code [DNA] with around three billion different letters. So the number of combinations of those letters, the chances of producing that code at random, are absolutely infinitesimally small, it’s impossible. So there must be a non random element to evolution or a natural process which greatly restricts this universe of possibilities and shapes the out come, we call it natural selection… well natural selection has been thrashed above and here he states it greatly restricts this universe of possibilities well is that an under statement and remember it is not supposed to guide evolutionary changes as he seems to suggest here, it’s supposed to select from what is up and running, what is working best in actual living creatures over time, it’s impossible to comprehend the number of life forms that would have to exist for natural selection to select the best for just one species, it’s insane!
So it’s impossible indeed and I think he’s put another nail in evolutions coffin not that it needs more, but then he said the problem is solved by this magical mystical natural selection which has no basis in science, still no suggestion of how DNA came into existence in the first place he’s probably suffering from entropy as it gets worse, he later states that; Natural selection is a law that applies to all life. And then he states; as precise as Einstein’s theories of relativity, and as profound as thermodynamics, Darwin has given us another universal law; Evolution by natural selection. Disgustingly wrong he has a vivid imagination, but time and again doesn’t know fact from fiction. So the most complicated super super computer ever then goes on to reprogram it’s self, to make millions of different life forms without external help, and he’s now calling it a universal law! Universal laws can be tested by observation as opposed to theories (or myths) that can not be and are imaginative constructions of the human mind; as in the case of natural selection and evolution.
Empirical laws; follow reasonably clear observational rules, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to. Theories; differ in several ways; refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind Ency Britannica
Empirical based on and verifiable by observation or pure logic or experience rather than theory. Oxford dictionary
BBC Christmas lectures 2013 Dr Alison Woollard
Apart from the DNA itself… around the nucleus of the cell there are; cytoplasm with mitochondria (makes energy), golgi (transport and sort proteins)… deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. The most important molecule in the living world. And the study of DNA is one of the greatest triumphs of modern science. It’s found in every living thing on earth… Its regularity, stability, reliability… make it the perfect system for storing the vast amount necessary for building life… DNA must tell each and every cell in the body what it is to become and when and where… There are regulatory proteins switches on genes… beautiful in its simplicity! … The idea was that organisms change very gradually over time. Eventually they might gain or loss a limb, an eye or a wing. We now know that this change is caused very, very gradually by mutations in DNA molecules (where is the evidence?)… Darwin was right, life started with simple life forms… and then natural selection has sent organisms off in a myriad of directions to make the diversity we have around us today. This means everything is related to everything else along a complex tree of life (proved false & covered later)… we have a few more of one type of gene, a few less of others, a tweak in expression pattern here, a small adjustment on protein there. We are just a cog in the wheel of life fantastic. So is that it? … The magic of evolution over aeons of time a single species can give rise to so many… She finishes with; we humans are extraordinary privileged to have evolved a brain advanced enough to both appreciate and understand the fantastic life all around us. Not according to Cox, well sometimes he does agree and sometimes he doesn’t! (Covered later)
So after demonstrating different parts of the cell around the nucleus; cytoplasm, mitochondria, Golgi all of which is in effect a miniaturised factory providing all the necessary services to its core DNA, enabling it function, divide and multiply and then demonstrating the complexities of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) stating it’s the most important molecule in the living world and even though they have only managed to decode 2%, people are given credit for understanding that part of DNA that has been coded with their advanced brains which they clearly require because DNA is obviously extremely complicated as the study of DNA is one of the greatest triumphs of modern science, and later she stated DNA’s actions as the magic of evolution, so clearly it seems to be influenced by mysterious or supernatural forces. However she still refers to it as the simple cell and later states Darwin was right, life started with simple life forms.
A single cell creature is clearly simpler than a creature with a trillion or more cells, but in no way can we in our day with the knowledge we have today call it a simple cell or a simple life form. Darwin can be forgiven for such ignorance due to the lack of scientific knowledge on the subject in his day, but in our day this is pure deception of the facts.
Looking at the basic two molecule strand design and the way it divides is igneous, and in that singular strand state it could be called simple or even possibly beautiful in its simplicity of design. However the constructed, developed and programmed cell (where 98% is still a mystery), as a complete whole cell that is alive, as the first cell was is totally different, that very first cell was an entity and it was extremely complicated, man doesn’t even have a clue what life is or how it came to be. However they cannot acknowledge the fact that DNA is extremely complicated, as that would totally destroy the basis of their evolution ideology that rides on the false belief that life started from the simple and eventually evolved over time to the complicated and to acknowledge otherwise opens the door to The Creator God and they can’t have that.
She also stated: then natural selection has sent organisms off in a myriad of directions to make the diversity we have around us today. Natural selection is supposed to select life that is up and running, as in the survival of the fittest, everything else dies off. It’s not supposed to send organisms off in a myriad of directions to make the diversity. She states everything is related to everything else… we have a few more of one type of gene, a few less of others however the difference between man and our supposed closest relative the ape is 2% which is a massive 1,200,000 million strands. Far more than a tweak here and there and she must think everyone is simple to believe this twaddle, but unfortunately so many do and sadly the audience for these lectures are teenagers. It’s as bad and deceitful as the church and others pushing or teaching the false doctrine of hell fire or that God takes away to youngsters, both alienate ones from God. When the creation of the first physical life form especially due to its complexity and design is another evidence that proves the existence of a loving, caring all-knowing and all powerful God, leading through the many separate creations of life forms to the ultimate of intelligence mankind. And that’s why they try to hide its complexity.
To recap; to evolutionists DNA’s first existence, how it came to be is a mystery. Why a so called simple cell could or would suddenly have such an extremely complicated super, super computer far beyond the requirements of a single celled organism is a mystery, they can’t even acknowledge its complexity and to evolutionists how it was first programmed for the first life form all on its own is a mystery (not to mention the mystery of how it became alive). And as we now know the maths of the complexity of DNA we know that the evolutionists’ view of all these things coming about on their own is astoundingly implausible, and it is in FACT IMPOSSIBLE and then later on somehow DNA is reprogrammed all on its own to make different species which also is a mystery to them and again this is astoundingly impossible and that it could happen again and again, time after time all on its own without external help, millions of times for all the species that have ever lived.
The series Wonders of life like other evolutionary propaganda productions have some beautiful filming and really shows the awesomeness of our planet and the abundance of life on it, many have impressive CGI, but so did Avatar which is also fiction as is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Darwin didn’t have the evidence that completely destroys his theory as we do. If he were alive today I think he would admit he was wrong and Brian Cox as others shouldn’t present fiction as if it is factual, it’s immoral.
Gene Therapy
How to live longer: The big think, BBC4 18/4/2017. 3min
Where the world’s most powerful particle accelerator’s complexity is compared to DNA, although it stretches for miles, Seventeen miles (or 27 kilometres) in circumference, cost ten billion dollars to build and one billion annually to run. The CERN Hadron Collider is the largest most powerful machine in the world and possibly thought to be one of mankind’s greatest achievements, however according to Prof. Sir Paul Nurse geneticist; it is trivial compared with a cell;
Many people think that CERN the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is the most complicated machine known to man, but I tell you that is trivial compared with every one of those cells, those billions of cells that makes up every one of us. Prof. Sir Paul Nurse geneticist, Francis Crick Institute.
Throughout his career Paul Nurse has attempted to unlock the secrets of the cell and understand how it relates to illnesses. Narrator Caroline Catz
So many of the diseases of old age; heart disease, dementia, and cancer can be traced back to cells. So knowing how cells work is important for understanding disease and knowing how we can fix cells provides new ways of thinking of how we can cure disease. Paul Nurse
It’s a technique known as gene therapy…. although it might sound simple, it is in fact one of the greatest challenges in modern medicine… Narrator Caroline Catz
They are still trying to unlock DNA’s secrets and those greatest challenges will probably never be fully reached and understood, however this is yet another example why the idea of calling a cell simple is pure stupidity, which is the foundation of evolution, its removal makes evolution baseless.
DNA yet again
The superiority of DNA over the man made computer has caused problems when trying to store the overwhelming amount of data from DNA, the problem with man’s simpler computers is they just can’t handle and store that amount of information, so an amazing discovery was made on where to store that DNA data and in fact not just DNA data but the mass of general data that all mankind has created. Also notice that the data could be stored forever;
Breakfast 24/3/18. Naga Munchetty presenter. It may sound odd but all those videos and photographs we love to take one day may be stored in the form of DNA, saving huge amounts of space and energy.
Richard Westcott presenter. We are producing data at a staggering rate. All those videos, social media posts, online forums… the problem is it takes a huge amount of computer space and energy to store it all.
Nick Goldman Cambridge mathematician. We take the… files… which on a computer is zeros and ones and we convert that into A, C, G and Ts.
Richard Westcott presenter. Cambridge mathematician Nick Goldman has devised a way to turn computer code into DNA code. It means you can use the DNA as a kind of hard drive. Tell us about the day you came up with the idea. The day was a big meeting discussing how we were going to keep on storing large amounts of information coming from DNA. We… started talking about other ways we might store the information. And in a lightbulb moment we realised that the DNA we’d been worrying about was itself a way of storing information.
Emily Leproust, Twist Bioscience. So the first huge benefit of DNA is that it’s extremely dense. And if we stored all the data that is on the internet in DNA that would be the size of a shoebox. And the second main benefit of DNA is that it’s permanent. You could store it forever, which is very different from a normal medium, which ages very rapidly.
Wow just think all the data that is on the internet could be stored in DNA that would be the size of a shoebox and could be stored forever which is another evidence that we were created as God designed us to live forever.
Now that clearly reveals DNA’s complexity is far, far greater than ever thought possible and if that doesn’t destroy the false idea of peoples’ belief that life came from a so called simple cell, and then that (extremely complex) cell’s DNA could somehow evolve all on its own to other complex life forms then nothing ever will, now the evolution idea is clearly shown up for what it truly is; stupid, insane and clearly displays a sense of blind ignorance on the part of those who support it and believe it.
Man and apes
Only 2% difference?
Also the difference between man and apes is said to be just a small 2% maybe 3% of the 2% that has been coded. Let’s be generous and say 2% (and we’ll be even more generous and forget about the 98% where it ‘Seems that…most of the action lies in that none coding [junk, darkness] DNA’), so 2% which seems to be quite small until we look at how many DNA codes are different in that seemingly small 2%.
First we have to take away the part of the 3,000,000,000 letters of DNA that they know absolutely nothing about the debatable so called Junk DNA and that is a massive 98% of DNA 2,940,000,000, which leaves a puny 2%, an achievement agreed but it’s not enough to be over confident, to able to make the statements of facts and assumptions that they do not have the information to make. Anyway take the 98% away which leaves 60,000,000 letters and then 2% of that is 1,200,000 difference between man and apes. And one point two million is a huge difference.
Now added to that remember the huge number of possible different combinations of just 150, well we couldn’t possibly imagine the number of combinations of 1,200,000 DNA codes ( or 300,000 strands) would be! So the Fact is that there is in Fact a huge difference between man and ape and any other mammal, Genesis is correct again.
Update on the previous 2% maybe 3% that was thought to be different between man and ape that has been coded has increased to 4%! They were apparently calculating on the basis of the stands that are the same without allowance for missing and added sections between species.
BBC Christmas lectures 2018 1/3. Professor Alice Roberts & Geneticist Professor Aoife McLysaght. “96% chimp, including insertions and deletions” Or 4% different between man and apes.
They started by saying although we are 98% the same or we have a 2% different between man and apes, however when you take into account the insertions and deletions of sections of code that adds another 3% difference, making a 4% difference. So the 2% or 1,200,000 difference I used above between man and apes has doubled to 2,400,000 difference between man and apes. They always belittle the differences but when you do the calculations it is in fact extremely huge. Not a tweak here and there, that’s for sure.
It is amazing how they bluff their way trying so desperately to support their beloved evolution with no evidence in this lecture they compare the bone structure of man and ape as if God wouldn’t use a similar basic skeleton design. We can see things with similar designs in many of man’s creations, like cars, aircraft, and housing. Ooh most houses use bricks they must have evolved! With no designer, no builder, no creator.
Tree of life
On the Darwin’s tree of life; We constantly seem to get headline news reports that the missing link has been found, due to some fossil, bone, like in the case of ‘Ida’ in 2009, it wasn’t, but that didn’t get much press. Well it’s expected that they’d get excited; that at last some evidence has been found, because there isn’t any.
Ida
To quote; BBC Breakfast 9/4/2010, where two fossilized partial skeletons were found and again it was thought that these could be the missing link and on the programme the expert was very excited and made an interesting acknowledgement, he said; “Human evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, we have lots of pieces, but we don’t know where the connections are, we don’t know where we start to see the trait or ideas move from one to the next and every new fossil gives us the potential for new bits of information!” Simon Underdown Senior Lecturer in Human Evolution, Oxford Brookes. So 170 years since Darwin’s theory (1839) and the record still doesn’t support his tree of life, as it is said by the Senior Lecturer in Human Evolution, to be a giant jigsaw puzzle with no connections and they don’t know where traits or ideas start to move from one to the next, and after 17o years, so logically as the fossil record has no connections it supports the Genesis creation account, not evolution. Creatures of different kinds or species are not related, did not evolve but were created according to their kind as written at Gen 1: 20-27. There are many others who know that Darwin’s tree is a myth, though they too don’t get much press.
The Two Million Year Old Boy 31/9/17
Australopithecus Sediba
First it must be stated that it was not human, so it’s deceptive to call it a boy, but that’s par for the course, sensationalism.
Boy; a male child. And a Child; a young human being. Dic
What this programme doesn’t do even though it’s supposed to is support evolution, it only highlights how little they do know, how fragmented the fossil record is and it remains one of the biggest mysteries in science. One section seems to have quite an honest look at the concerns of some specialists in evolution, who share their views on the difficulties of trying to prove this evolutionary theory. Interestingly we start with the statement; humans and chimps shared a common ancestor, however this is disproved by his and virtually all the specialists’ statements.
Narrator Mark Bazeley. About six million years ago, humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. In the millions of years that followed, a variety of creatures started walking on two legs, including some called australopithecines. But which of these bipedal creatures on this jumbled family tree led to us remains one of the biggest mysteries in science.
Bernhard Zipfel Paleoanthropologist, University of the Witwatersrand. The line between exactly when we became human and between australopith, Homo, modern humans. I think it’s very blurry.
Steven Churchill, Evolutionary Anthropologist, Duke University. The human family tree is incredibly bushy. There are a lot of dead ends, a lot of side branches. It is very, very difficult to draw any kind of straight lines between us and our ancestors. There is no single missing link.
Jeremy Desilva, Biological Anthropologist, Boston University. There is a gap in the fossil record. The transition from the gene australopithecus to our own gene, the genus Homo is poorly understood.
Lee Berger Paleoanthropologist, University of the Witwatersrand. Who found the new fossils. If you took the entire assemblage of possible ancestors for the genus Homo, between 2.5 and 12.8 million years, you could literally fit them in a shoe box. So where does our lineage, the genus Homo, come from? That’s the point that really interests me. But he didn’t have the answer for that. We truly are a science of fragments.
Narrator Mark Bazeley. The vast majority of the human fossil record is composed of isolated bones. Of the 3,000 known pieces, 90% are isolated teeth. From this tiny collection, Paleoanthropologists have struggled to piece together the course of human evolution and to understand how the Homo emerged.
Bernhard Zipfel. Because we are humans, we have this fascination with where we as humans come from. So animals are different and don’t do that, wonder why? So it does matter which creatures are on the direct lineage to us. And of course with the fossil record as fragmentary as it is, it’s not entirely certain. That’s an understatement.
It’s difficult for us to understand how these animals looked, how they functioned. You start making huge statements about it and coming up with all sorts of very clever hypotheses. In other words baseless.
Darryl De Ruiter Paleoanthropologist, Texas A&M University It is in some parts story telling. We reconstruct, we interpret, and then out of those interpretations we create a scenario. Which is another way to say assume that something is true or factual whether it is or not. It’s sometimes it’s a little bit like trying to build the image of a train from just having the steering wheel. Trains run on railway lines and don’t have steering wheels! Wow
Narrator Mark Bazeley. It became clear that they were looking at an entirely new species.
Lee Berger. What we have found are arguably the most complete early hominid skeletons ever discovered. They represent a completely new and unexpected species of human ancestor to science. Called Australopithecus Sediba. However he was asked by a reporter; Have you found the missing link? Answer; We do not tend to use the term “missing link” although I know you’re looking for a snappy headline. But it is a remarkably transitional form. From what and to what they cannot say because they don’t know as it’s an entirely new species. So some may believe that this Australopithecus Sediba is our ancestry, our lineage that these are our fossil ancestors, but there is still no fossil evidence of any connections or links and so that is just wishful thinking.
So this is arguably the most complete early hominid skeletons ever discovered. So this should have enough information and carry enough weight of evidence to be the definitive proof of evolution, however we have a narrator and numerous specialists and the best they can come up with in connection with mankind’s mythical evolutionary family tree is;
We truly are a science of fragments,
This jumbled family tree
The human family tree is incredibly bushy,
I think it’s very blurry, poorly understood,
There is a gap in the fossil record,
There is no single missing link,
With the fossil record as fragmentary as it is
It is very, very difficult to draw any kind of straight lines between us and our ancestors
Struggled to piece together the course of human evolution
So where does our lineage, the genus Homo, come from?
It is in some parts storytelling.
To us [it] remains one of the biggest mysteries in science.
No wonder: It is in some parts storytelling, and that is because it; remains one of the biggest mysteries in science.
Yet again despite this new find that’s arguably the most complete early hominid skeletons ever discovered the fossil record clearly shows that there are no links between species, which can only prove one thing and that is evolution is no more than a fairy tale, and this it proves that all life and we ourselves were created by Almighty God.
It has taken our Creator Almighty God a very, very long time to develop a bare barren planet into the beautiful world we have today. Clearly a lot of plant and animal life had to live and die to create soil and our lush green world. When it comes to the plant and animal life He has clearly created an enormous amount of variety, He may have had our complete design in His mind from the start or dare I say as He was creating everything with His only begotten son. Pro 8:29 When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. So it could have been a learning curve for His Firstborn Son gradually getting to the climax the first human being with everlasting life instilled into him with a brain capable to handle anything and everything we choose to put our minds to even for everlasting life. However Jehovah God clearly knew the range of life forms He was going to create, which is seen in the complexity of DNA.
Evolution of our brain
Brian Cox in 2012 said that our brains had evolved in more recent times because of the demands we have put on them, our senses drove the evolution of our brains, and so they became increasingly sophisticated brains…and that’s how we could build telescopes which showed us a universe!
Wonders of life, 2/5/12, Brian Cox. There’s a wonderful feedback at work here, because the increasing amounts of data delivered by our senses drove the evolution of our brains, and those increasingly sophisticated brains became curious and demanded more and more data. And so we built telescopes that were able to extend beyond the horizon and showed us a universe that’s billions of years old and contains trillions of stars and galaxies. Our insatiable quest for information is the making of us.
However Brian Cox in 2014 said that our brains have barely changed since we first evolved. In fact he said; a baby from 200,000 years ago one of the first Homo sapiens could achieve anything a modern child could do today;
Human Universe – Brian Cox – 1/5 – 7/10/14 We are all related to someone who lived here (Ethiopia) 200,000 years ago. And those first Homo sapiens weren’t that different to us, in many ways they were the same. So if you bring a newborn baby from the Rift Valley all those years ago to the 21st century and subject it to a 21st-century education, then there’s no reason why it couldn’t achieve anything that a modern child could achieve. It could even be an astronaut. … those brains have barely changed since we first evolved…
Additionally it seems as with Darwin many evolutionists have the idea to disprove creation by God and prove evolution is factual, all they have to do is demonstrate life, and the earth and the universe are older than six thousand years. Well unfortunately for them that isn’t the case with anyone who understands the Hebrew language that the bible was translated from, where the word day is from the Hebrew word; ‘yom’ and can mean 1 of 4 things; 1. a day (24 hours); 2. day time (in contrast to night). 3. an indefinite period of time; 4. an era with a certain characteristic. Logically just think when Almighty God started His creation of the universe, the earth didn’t even exist, so it’s quite daft to assume His time scale is limited to the rotation of a planet that wasn’t even in existence when He started and despite Trinitarians false belief that Christ was God incarnate (see Trinity), this world is not capable of holding the magnificence of Almighty God, so why would He limit His creation of so called days to the rotation of our planets’ time scale of just 24 hours, instead of indefinite periods of time to show the order of creation in different periods of times or stages. (see Creation, The Genesis account)
Supplementary
“Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Or not connected as Darwin hypostasised; “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all. Biology and Philosophy, Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999
“We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” Evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste, New Scientist 2009
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology, by evolutionary palaeontologist David M. Raup, 1979 “
The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999
“The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.” Archaeology, The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual, Suzan Mazur, 2008
“The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Evolutionary biologist Michael Rose, New Scientist 2009
If the evolution theory was first thought up today, with the science we have today and without the mass of wealth, status and fame that some have made out of it, it would be mocked. I could go on and I will later. I don’t want to mock there is too much of that about, mankind has come a long way, but sometimes unintentionally or not man thinks too much of him self or of his ideas at the expense of others and 9 times out of 10 in time someone else comes along and blows his ideas out of the water.
Now the bible that’s been around in part for over three and a half thousand years and everything fits and never changes, admittedly it’s been wrongly translated at times and man has misquoted it for his own gain, manipulated others by it and made wars by it and in it’s authors name, but that’s down to man, not God. We can sort out any question of translation with study and the Hebrew and Greek interlinear bibles, and man’s misuse well that was prophesied within its pages;
Ec 8:9 All of this I have seen…that man has dominated man to his harm. 10 And I saw the wicked being buried, those who used to go in and out of the holy place…futility. NWT
Mat 7: 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name…done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ New King James
We started with an arrogant person stating that evolution is a FACT, which has clearly been disproved and now we know that God’s existence is in Fact a scientific FACT proven by scientist’s own scientific evidence. The theory of evolution is dead, eternally live The Eternal Almighty God Jehovah our indisputable Creator.
Now see something logical;
Creation – The Genesis account
or
End of section
—————-
BiblicalNut 