Evolution has too many unexplained gaps in its arguments to be regarded as Truth. Science uses two big clubs to beat down and bully Christians into abandoning their literal faith in the Bible. These two clubs are Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Both theories are seriously flawed. Life is just far too complex for a simplistic theory like evolution to fully explain. Living creatures are built up from proteins. A cell is the unit of life, and living things require thousands of different types of enzymes to make and demolish the thousands of different types of protein that make up each cell in your body. A single cell can have thousands of proteins in its borders alone. The membrane that holds the liquid contents of the cell in place within its borders is a marvel that , as yet, we cannot duplicate. Each protein is made by an enzyme in a process that can only be described as dauntingly complex. Evolution cannot explain the origin of proteins because only an enzyme can make a protein but an enzyme itself is made of protein. So what made the protein that made the first enzyme? And your body has about 74 million million cells. Each human cell makes about 2 000 proteins every second. A protein molecule is lucky to last 2 days before being shredded by other enzymes in the cell. Some last for seconds, others for a few months. Scientists now demand that we must believe that this level of intricate complexity, which they cannot duplicate, just happened by chance. We do not even know how these long molecules are intricately folded up to occupy such a small volume, because so many protein molecules have to be squashed into each tiny cell together with the DNA. Francis Crick who analysed the DNA molecule said in 1965 that within 10 years scientists would synthesize or artificially make an enzyme. In those days it seemed not too difficult. Now it is 50 years later and we still can’t make enzymes that are found in living creatures. Actually we still cannot make an enzyme at all because since then we have discovered that enzymes are far more complicated than what scientists thought in those days. Today it would take a brilliant scientist like Craig Venter in the USA, who claimed in 2010 that he had made a synthetic ( man made ) cell, to cut and join all the necessary bases to make amino acids and then splice them in just the right order if an artificial protein or DNA molecule were to be made. The four bases he uses must be absolutely pure, which is not how you would find them in nature. A very advanced computer is needed to calculate the right order in which the 20 different amino acids have to be placed in the long chains. But here lies the big problem : scientists have to use living enzymes ( which we cannot make artificially but have to get them from living cells ) to make the DNA sequence. Scientists can only cut up the segments of DNA by using living enzymes. Then scientists can re-arrange these segments in the right order, BUT then they have use other living enzymes to splice the segments together. Then when they have made a fairly long chain of amino acids, they have to put it in something like a yeast cell in order for it to be duplicated and lengthened. Then when they, very brilliantly, get the DNA chain all correctly connected up ( using enzymes and other very pure chemicals ) then they have to transplant this artificial DNA chain into a living cell to get it to work. So they have not made life at all. They have merely put together the correct structure of amino acids that the spirit or life in the cell needs in order for it to stay alive. Living enzymes were needed to cut and splice the segments. Man cannot do that. A living cell was needed to “boot up” the artificial DNA molecule. Man cannot “boot it up” and get it working. All they have done is make the correct spare part by using living enzymes and then transplant this spare part into a living cell and then obviously it will work. In the same way a heart transplant works in a new, living body. What they have very cleverly done is what your body does every day. An animal dies and we eat the fresh, dead meat. Our body breaks the meat down to the basic amino acids by using special enzymes and then our spirit or life re-arranges these amino acids into the correct order and then makes a protein or DNA by splicing these amino acids together using different, specialised enzymes. As soon as the structure is complete, the spirit of life that is in the cell is then able to move into and live within this new structure. But no scientist could put life into these molecules if no living tissue was used at any of the various stages in the construction process. To claim that Nature just randomly put together this awesome complexity, which our brightest scientists find very difficult to duplicate even with living enzymes and living cells to help them, ( not to mention using incredibly powerful computers and technology as well as highly purified chemicals ), is just wishful thinking.
Life is a spirit and as such it comes from a higher dimension. Thus we know nothing about it.
So scientists have no right to make rules about life. They simply do not know what life is.
All they are doing is re-arranging the furniture of the rooms that life lives in. We live in 3 dimensions of space: forwards, sideways and upwards. The 4th dimension is time.
That introduces us to a higher dimension. What is time? We have no clue. The 5th dimension is the region of evil or lost spirits. The sixth dimension is Heaven. God is the seventh dimension. Of these higher dimensions scientists can tell us nothing. Life is a spirit that comes from God, lives briefly in our bodies, and then returns either to the 5th or the 6th dimension depending on our faith in the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross.
Hundreds or thousands of amino acids have to be joined together in exactly the right order to make a protein. Making amino acids is usually not too difficult. Joining them up in just the right order or sequence is the tricky part. Urey and Miller, in 1952 at the University of Chicago, used small electric sparks ( which they said simulated lightning! ) in a flask full of mainly methane and ammonia ( vicious poisons to represent what they claimed was the Earth’s early atmosphere ). The small sparks were in a circle high up in the closed flask. A thick tar formed in the sparks and this tar dropped conveniently away from the sparks ( which would destroy the tar if it stayed in the sparks ) into the safety of some water at the bottom of the flask. The tar contained some amino acids. So that is how life started claimed the atheists. Notice the contradiction, life starting in an atmosphere of deadly poisons and highly destructive lightning blasts. Even today, lightning does not create life but it certainly destroys life. Try living in ammonia and methane. You would die instantly. They also used a very poor comparison. A small spark is not lightning. Any amino acid formed in Nature by a blast of lightning will be scattered all over the place and be smashed by the next blast of lightning, as there was no place of safety where they could escape the lightning blasts. Urey and Miller could not explain how the amino acids in their thick and static tar could somehow move around and go on to join up in just the right sequence of hundreds or thousands of amino acids and form proteins. If they managed that, they still had to make enzymes, the even more complex DNA and RNA etc as well as hundreds or thousands of proteins, and the thousand million ADP molecules that each cell needs to supply its energy, plus myriads of other components, not to mention the complex outer membrane that holds the cell together, just to make one cell. Then what does the first cell do for food in a highly poisonous atmosphere with nothing else to eat other than the debris of a lightning blast? And within two days, the proteins quit functioning and need to be shredded and re-made. If the first cell was somehow made, it would not last long.
The experiment in their flask stopped when the tar formed a few unjoined amino acids.
The experiment went no further. Christians were bluffed and bullied into thinking Miller and Urey were on their way to making life. Miller and Urey never even came near to creating life. But claims that this was how life began on earth were widespread and sadly undermined the faith that many Christians had in the Bible. Paul says to Timothy that he should shun the oppositions of science, falsely so called. Any scientific claim that opposes Scripture is false.
To make things worse, the scientists have changed their opinions and now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere was not methane and ammonia ( as there is no evidence of this kind of chemistry in the early rocks which contain no evidence of nitrogen that is needed to form ammonia ). They now think that the early atmosphere was mainly carbon dioxide due to a lot of volcanic eruptions as the Earth cooled down. This is because there are a lot of carbonates in the early rocks. Repeating the experiment of Urey and Miller in a flask that mainly contains carbon dioxide is not nearly as successful in making amino acids. For years this experiment was quoted as “proof” of the beginning of the evolution of life. Now this experiment has been quietly abandoned and the atheists are not looking to Earth so much anymore for the origin of life but many prefer to look to space. They collect meteorites that contain amino acids. The town of Murchison in Victoria, Australia was almost hit by a meteorite that landed nearby in 1969. This meteorite contained more than 90 different amino acids. So they claim the building blocks of life came from outer space.
But they cannot explain two things. How do the amino acids that are fixed into a solid rock meteorite move around in order to join up with each other? Secondly, living things only contain 20 different kinds of amino acids. How were these 20 selected when more than 90 amino acids were available, but fixed immobile in a chunk of rock? The atheists have no answers to these basic questions.
The only honest conclusion that scientists can reach at the moment is that we have not yet been able to discover the earliest life forms. They represent a big gap in the theory of evolution. Science deals with facts. We have no evidence, no facts, for what scientists claim are the earliest life forms. So whatever they say about the origin of life is not good science based on facts. It is merely guesswork. Notice where Evolution has an awfully big blank. Right at the crucial moment when Life started. They cannot fill in the details here so they require that a miracle happened, although they do not know what caused the miracle of the first life that appeared. Abandon your faith in favour of some unexplained guesses? Not a good idea. When Christians believe that God in a series of miracles created life on earth, they are doing what the evolutionists do : believing in a supernatural miracle that got Life started. But the evolutionists are not honest enough to admit that they also need a miracle to explain how life started in the beginning.
Darwin originally described the basic cells that make us up as simple cells. He got that one very wrong. Today scientists admit that the “simple” cell is actually a bottomless pit of complexity. That is why scientists struggle to cope with diseases like AIDS and cancer and drug resistant infections. The basic cells are too complex for us to effectively control them. Complex cells in bacteria find ways to become resistant to our antibiotic drugs. But whatever internal changes they undergo, they remain bacteria. So micro-evolution works, the small changes within a species that allows it to adjust to its circumstances. Macro-evolution means changing into a different species. Like a worm turning into an elephant over time. There is no proof for that theory.
So how did life start? Scientists keep guessing but they cannot tell us.
So do not abandon your faith to line up with their guesses because as time goes by, they will abandon their present day guesses ( called theories ) anyway. Urey and Miller’s famous experiment in the 1950’s caused many Christians to abandon their faith, and now the evolutionists have abandoned the experiment. Who are the losers? The Christians who believed the scientists. Those Christians who abandoned their faith will then end up in the fifth dimension, the regions of the lost. All they will have left is regrets. Satan fooled them. Don’t you be such a sucker.
Darwin used changes within a group of finches ( micro-evolution ) such as their different beaks, which enabled them to adapt to different food sources on the Galapagos islands, to claim that a bird can evolve into something else ( macro-evolution ) that is no longer a bird. So a bird turns into something else, maybe a rabbit. This is a false claim. Internal changes do not prove macro-evolution where one type of animal turns into a different type of animal.
Internal changes within a living creature are simply examples of micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is true. In order to survive changing circumstances, every species has the ability to adapt or change to a limited extent. A bulldog was bred to have a strong jaw so that it could bite and hang on. But as its jaw developed, its breathing channels from its nose got weaker. So the jaw could only get so strong. If the jaw got stronger, it would not be able to breathe. But despite these internal changes, it remained a dog. Improving one characteristic in the dog led to a weakening of another characteristic. This sets a genetic limit as to how many internal changes can be made within any creature.
Sugar beets in Europe produced about 5 % sugar. Napoleon, around 1811, wanted more sugar for his armies. The French scientists cross-bred sugar beets until they were producing about 17 % sugar. But that is how far they could get the internal changes to happen. Even today sugar beets don’t seem to produce more than about 22% sugar, at most. So there is a limit to how far we can push these inner changes. But through all the changes that were forced upon it, sugar beets remained sugar beets. If similar plant species are hybridised they become sterile and cannot reproduce healthy crops. Planters of hybrid seeds have to get fresh hybrid seeds each year, they cannot use the seeds that their own hybrid crops produced.
So mixing up two species makes them stronger in certain ways like producing drought resistant seeds and producing more seeds per plant, but it makes them significantly weaker as far as reproduction is concerned.
A donkey and a female horse can produce a mule but mules tend to be infertile.
So species have to be kept separate if they are to retain their breeding strength over a long space of time.
Fruit flies breed very rapidly and can go from egg to adult in about two weeks. Thus many generations of fruit fly can be cross-bred in a short time under controlled conditions in a laboratory. All sorts of physical changes, called mutations, can be observed from generation to generation ( micro-evolution ) but by the time that endless generations of fruit flies have come and gone, despite all the changes to their physical bodies, they still remain fruit flies. So macro-evolution is not observed in fruit flies despite their rapid life cycle and the many generations of fruit fly that have been bred in laboratories.
Many of these mutant fruit fly species die out as it is difficult for them to survive 50 generations. Thus they tend to survive for a while in a laboratory but not in the real world where these mutant flies are soon eliminated in a population that has free competition with normal fruit flies. Mutation tends to cause degeneration.
There are about 50 varieties of the stickleback fish in the Northern Hemisphere. The ocean variety has a spiky armour plate made up of 35 bony plates as protection. The fresh water species in lakes does not have this armour plate and moves much faster. Despite all the internal changes observed in all 50 varieties, all these fish, with all their differences, still remain stickleback fish.
How many different varieties of dog has man managed to breed? Hundreds. But despite all their differences in size and ability, they all remain dogs. How dust managed to transform itself into living things is a mystery that science can neither duplicate nor explain. God took a handful of dust and created Adam. Challenge any scientist to do the same. If a scientist claims that he can make artificial life, give him or her a handful of dust. Whatever changes they make to the dust, they will never put life into it.
So the mystery of life is a total unknown to the scientists, however impressively they bluster and drown our minds in a flood of impressive sounding data that actually only acts as a smokescreen to hide their total ignorance of the key issue of how life started. Professors at universities teach our children that they came from animals. Then they complain that our children behave like animals. So do not lose your faith in God because of the theory ( which means “guess” ) of evolution as the scientists themselves cannot explain so many crucial points in their theory. Scientists ignore the gaps in their theory and this forces them to have faith in their theory.
Faith believes in the unexplained. This makes the theory of evolution an alternative religion. Scientists do not know how the first protein was made as it needed an enzyme to make it, but that enzyme had to be made of protein too. So they simply believe, by faith because they cannot prove it, that somehow ( by some unexplained miracle ) the first protein was made. This is the logic of religion. They demand a miracle to overcome this problem that they cannot solve by any known laws of chemistry or biology. But they bully and ridicule Christians who believe in miracles. The arrival of life on earth is a mystery that no scientist can solve. The survival of life on earth is linked to the limited changes that micro-evolution can produce. So evolutionists can study aspects of life’s survival due to micro-evolutionary changes but not life’s arrival.
So the arrival of life on planet earth remains a miracle as there is no natural explanation for it. But they refuse to allow Christians to believe in a God of miracles. Science should stick to facts and not speculate about what may have possibly, somehow, perhaps, maybe happened when life began in some mysterious process that they never saw and cannot duplicate.
How accurate is Science in describing the origin of life? In 1859 Darwin published his book called “On the Origin of Species”. Read the whole book which is full of facts about micro-evolution concerning finches and tortoises that changed slightly to fit in with their environment, but still remained finches and tortoises. Darwin found no evidence of a finch turning into a tortoise. His entire book gave no factual example of one species turning into another species, like a cat turning into a dog, which is macro-evolution. Then by the time you have finished the book you will find a very surprising omission. At no stage does he ever tell us what the origin of the species was. The first life on earth was a complete mystery to him. So the title of his book is very misleading ( as is his macro-evolutionary theory which he fuzzed by trying to prove it using evidence for micro-evolution ). To this day no scientist can tell us
This is a sad cloak of ignorance draped over their theory seeing that they dogmatically insist that macro-evolution is true. But life is an invisible spirit. Not a physical body. Life lives in a physical body but when life leaves, the body is a dead corpse despite having all the right atoms in the right places. Scientists are studying the physical body and know a lot about it but still have a lot more to learn. But scientists know nothing about the spirit of life because scientists can only study atoms and energy. Neither of these physical quantities is alive because life is a spirit. Studying the body tells us nothing about the life or spirit that lives in the body. So scientists cannot tell us where the spirit of life comes from, or more importantly where it goes to when its time on earth is up. Scientists study physical science, which is matter and energy. Spiritual things like life, emotions, conscience etc are not the domain of science. Scientists have no authority in the fields of ethics, morality, life after death, faith in God, spirituality, miracles and the supernatural. So do not listen to their ignorance on the topic of Life or faith in God. Then they browbeat Christians for believing that God created life in a mysterious, supernatural manner.
Remember, we are saved by grace through faith. We are not saved by analysing and re-building DNA molecules, brilliant though that achievement is. So what if scientists argue with us. Our faith will not change but their theories are very likely to change as they learn more about Nature. Here is a typical example that evolutionists cannot explain adequately. The female mosquito needs blood to supply protein to produce its eggs. A female mosquito detects humans in the dark by sensing the carbon dioxide gas that humans breathe out. This is done by means of two different sensors that work together. Either sensor on its own will not work. And the two sensors are different to each other. So the two different sensors had to evolve simultaneously, only in the female, not in the male mosquito that feeds on plant nectar. In addition, a special gland had to develop an anti-clotting enzyme in her saliva which the female has to inject into the blood so that it would not block her thin needle-like proboscis if the blood congeals. This enzyme makes the mosquito bite itch. Two different sensors working together and an anti-clotting enzyme all had to evolve randomly at exactly the same time. And a female mosquito is unlikely to live longer than a month. Male mosquitos live for about one week. Mating has to happen during the week that the male is around. Both male and female had to evolve separately and yet meet up in such a short time period. For all this to happen by chance is simply impossible. Once again, the complexity of life defeats the too-simplistic viewpoint of the theory of evolution.
Another issue that evolutionists cannot adequately explain. Evolutionists claim that the giraffe survived by endlessly stretching to eat the leaves higher on trees, that are out of reach to other animals, when food was scarce. But every other animal has a short neck and all of these animals survived. So a long neck was not essential for survival. Secondly, the giraffe only eats the leaves of acacia trees ( thorn trees ). Other animals stay away from thorn trees so the giraffe has no real competitors for its food. It chews off the leaves in a way that encourages the leaves to grow. So evolution cannot tell us why a giraffe developed a long neck. Stephen Jay Gould, a famous professor from Harvard University, is one of the best known evolutionists. But his study of the fossil record showed that fossils were stable ( showing that small changes due to micro-evolution in the laboratory do not accumulate to produce macro-evolution of a different species ). Fossils hardly change from their first appearance in the rocks to when they go extinct. Then a quite different fossil will appear suddenly, fully formed out of nowhere. Evolutionists cannot explain this dramatic new species that just appears, fully formed. They do not dare use the word miracle, but they have no other way of explaining it. Many fossils do not go extinct. A fossilised cockroach which scientists claim is from about 250 million years ago still looks the same as a living cockroach. So time does not necessarily produce change. Evolutionists cannot say why. For every human being on earth there are a billion, trillion bacteria. These bacteria would be some of earth’s oldest inhabitants according to the theory of evolution and yet here they still are, in all their countless numbers, unchanged after four billion years. Gould showed that when there were changes in the fossil record, these occurred rapidly in an “explosion” of new species that suddenly appeared fully formed. Gould, a pre-eminent evolutionist, used this evidence to disagree with the “gradual change” theory of Darwin, another pre-eminent evolutionist.
So evolutionists do not all agree with each other. Neither Gould nor his Darwinist opponents can explain these gaps in the fossil record. The fossil evidence needed to prove macro-evolution ( as one species changes into another species ) is simply missing. Scientists keep looking for the missing link between man and ape, but the only point that they all agree on is that the missing link is still missing.
We have not been able to trace the history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. There is a big fossil gap between animals with backbones ( vertebrates ) and animals that are surrounded by an exoskeleton ( invertebrates ) like crabs. There are no fossils to show how fishes developed, just a gap in the Cambrian rocks. Fish fossils suddenly appear in the next layer, the Ordovician rocks. There is a missing gap between creatures with fins ( in the water ) and creatures with limbs ( on land ). Evolutionists say amphibians turned into reptiles. But on their time scale they have the earliest fossil reptile Hylonomus, a cotylosaur, found in rocks that they date as being 35 million years before the amphibians began turning into reptiles. The transition from reptile to bird depends on the fossil Archaeopteryx, a small dinosaur fossil. There are six known specimens, but strangely enough only two of the fossils have imprints of feathers. The fossils do not have a breastbone ( sternum ) which is essential for flight in order to attach the large muscles needed for flight ( like the wishbone in a chicken ). So Archaeopteryx could not fly. In 1986 X-ray resonance showed that the material containing the feather impressions was very different to the rest of the fossil slab. Was this a forgery? Since then scientists have discovered the fossil of a bird in a rock deposit that they date as 70 million years older than the fossil quarry in Germany where Archaeopteryx was allegedly found. So birds were around long before Archaeopteryx began the so-called transition from reptile to bird.
There are just too many gaps of missing “in between species” fossils for evolution to qualify as a scientific theory. Then the Big Bang theory requires the presence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter to explain why the galaxies look like they do if the universe is some 14 billion years old. Dark means we cannot see it or interact with it. Scientists tell us that 68 % of the Universe is energy that is “missing” as it is dark energy. If that is not bad enough, they tell us that 27 % of the Universe is matter that is also “missing” and is called dark matter. Scientists, by accepting the Big Bang theory, can now only track down less than 5 % ( many claim it is 4% ) of what is in the universe. If someone got 4% or 5 % for a test, would you really think that they knew what they were talking about? Surely they are missing something.
I TIMOTHY 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
» 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
This was Paul’s advice to Timothy, and to us, if people claim that science contradicts the Bible. Many Christians compromise by believing that God produced life by evolution. Then millions of innocent life forms had to die before modern man emerged.
ROMANS 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
But death only entered when sin was committed. Animals do not sin. So nothing died before Adam and Eve sinned. Compromising with error may make you popular with scientists but it will not establish Truth. Truth has to agree with the Bible.
II TIMOTHY 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Despite all their research and studying and mountains of published literature, scientists cannot fill the crucial gaps that indicate that they simply do not know what happened when life first appeared on planet Earth.