|
|
An open letter to Skepsis ry
The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so
This post contains a letter I sent to the Skepsis association. The reason was a radio program I happened to hear on Yle Puhe. The program interviewed representatives of Skepsis, who, as is well known, presented themselves as representatives of the scientific worldview. Because of this worldview, they have rejected the so-called of creationism, or the idea of God's work of creation less than 10,000 years ago. Instead, they spoke respectfully, e.g. of Darwin's theory. Why am I writing about this? The reason is that I find naturalistic theories about the beginnings of the universe, the birth of life by itself, and species changes (primitive-cell-to-human-theory) fully implausible. When I used to be an atheist evolutionist, I sincerely believed in these theories, but at the time I didn't really know anything about their weaknesses. Now, I consider these same naturalistic views about the early stages of our universe and life as lies, fables and fairy tales. It is not believable that the universe can arise by itself from nothing, that the sun and the planets were born from the same gas cloud, or that life can arise by itself. We can see well-made films on TV about these things and how everything is supposed to have happened, but these films are based on mere imagination. In my opinion, the films represent naturalistic fairy tales for which there is no direct scientific evidence. In any case, the letter I sent to the representatives of Skepsis Ry can be read next. I see that they have turned to lies, fables and fairy tales that I myself once believed in:
HELLO!
I happened to hear a program on Yle Puhe where representatives of the Skepsis association were interviewed (I don't remember the names). They took a stand on various topics, including the so-called creationism, by which they meant, and which usually means the idea that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago. The representatives of Skepsis considered this view unscientific. Why am I writing about this topic? The reason is that I myself am a former atheist evolutionist who believed in the theory of evolution (namely in the form that all species came from the same primordial cell) and millions and billions of years, but now I consider these things to be fables, fairy tales and lies. So I disagree with the representatives of Skepsis and now I think differently than before. I will ask you Skepsis representatives a few simple questions that do not need to be answered. As far as I understand, the representatives of Skepsis consider as science precisely the fact that the universe was born by itself from nothing approx. 13.8 billion years ago, that life was created by itself and that all species originate from the same primordial cell. At least they don't believe that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago, just as they don't seem to believe that God generally created everything. So I ask a few simple questions. These questions should be easy to answer if Skepsis representatives stick to science and have a scientific worldview. They should give well-reasoned answers to these questions if they consider creation, and specifically creation less than 10,000 years ago, to be unscientific.
How can something come from nothing? The first question is, how can anything come from nothing, as is supposed to have happened in the Big Bang? Have the representatives of Skepsis ever noticed that nothing, i.e. non-existent, has turned itself into stone, metal, water and everything that exists? If they don't have any practical evidence for the matter – the non-existent turns itself into material things – can we then speak of a scientific view anymore? Inanimate things like stones, rocks, wheels, airplanes, or anything else don't usually appear by themselves out of nowhere. Why would the universe, which is vastly larger than them, be an exception? This theory goes against the laws of logic and natural science. The creation of everything by itself from nothing represents rather a superstitious view that lacks all practical evidence. Anyone can imagine this thing and theory by taking a small chip of stone in their hand and then waiting for it to transform itself into planets, stars, rocks, birds, fish and the sea around them, elephants, trees, flowers, strawberries and everything else that exists. Who would expect to see such a thing? Surely we are not acting foolishly if we reject such a theory.
How did life arise by itself? Representatives of Skepsis deny God's creation work and that he created all life on earth only a few millennia ago. They consider this an unscientific view. However, a simple question can be asked to representatives of Skepsis: How do they scientifically prove that life arose by itself on earth without God? For no scientist has ever been able to show that this was possible. The more the topic has been studied, the more difficult the problem of the origin of life by itself has been found. Current certainty is that life can only be born from life. The following quote is related to the topic. It’s from an interview with Stanley Miller during his late years. He has become famous for his experiments related to the beginning of life. J. Morgan said the following about the interview:
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (2)
So the current sure knowledge is that all present life is dependent on past life. Not a single exception to this rule has been found. Therefore, if all current forms of life depend on previous generations in terms of life, what can we say about the first generation? How did the first generation come about, since there was no life before it, and since it is generally accepted that life on Earth must have a beginning? (The sun's finite lifetime puts limits on life. The sun could not have warmed the earth forever, because otherwise its energy reserves would have been exhausted.) Doesn't this clearly indicate that the first generation must have originated in some way other than as an inheritance from previous generations? If the representatives of Skepsis, and no one else, can scientifically prove the origin of life by itself, then isn't the most logical alternative that life on Earth has an external source, i.e. God? This is the most reasonable conclusion we can make. The problem is that people do not want to accept God as the creator and do not give Him glory, including the representatives of Skepsis. That's why they resort to different and certainly false explanations.
- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.
- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, 6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Has species change been observed? Representatives of Skepsis believe in the theory of evolution, which includes the view that all current species originated from the same primordial cell. However, have the representatives of Skepsis ever seen some animal species change into another? It's been over 150 years since Darwin's theory was published, but isn't it a fact that no one has been able to demonstrate species changes in animals during this time? If such a thing had been detected, it would have been mentioned in the newspapers and media with the biggest headlines. However, this has not been reported in recent years or before. Variation does occur within the basic species (resistance to bacteria, dark and light peppered moths...), but it does not make them into other species. Are the representatives of Skepsis also aware of what the mutation experiments have shown? These experiments have been done for more than a century with banana flies and bacteria, and through them it has been found that no new species have been born. Banana flies and bacteria have not changed into other species, but have continued to be banana flies and bacteria. The author of "Darwin Retried" (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33) has written about the famous geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt, and his research. This well-known scientist stated that even a thousand mutations in one individual would not have produced a new species because the changes are so small. This shows that mutations cannot advance evolution, even though this has been assumed:
After observing mutations in banana flies for several years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly small that even if a thousand mutations combined in one individual, a new species would still not have been born.
What about species changes in the past? If Darwin's theory were correct and the representatives of Skepsis were correct, we should see in the fossils a gradual development from a simple beginning to the present complex forms. However, this view is at odds with the fossil record. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the world's most famous fossil researcher, and his friend Niles Eldredge have denied that gradual development can be seen in fossils. In practice, these observations mean that the most important evidence for the occurrence of evolution in the past is missing. If no signs of gradual development can be seen in the fossils, the theory of evolution cannot be true. This is true even if millions of years of time were available. The evidence is more suitable for the fact that the species have been separate from the beginning, as required in the creation model:
Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (3)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (4)
Has there been life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years? As stated, representatives of Skepsis do not consider the idea that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago to be scientific. Instead, they believe that the universe came into being by itself approx. 13.8 billion years ago and that life also came into being by itself approx. 3-4 billion years ago. How can these people know all this? They can’t. If the big bang is just a myth and a fairy tale, because nothing can be born from nothing by itself, you can forget the number 13.8 billion years right away. The same is true of the origin of life. An inanimate substance like stone does not become alive by itself. It can turn into solid, liquid and gas with temperature changes, but it can never become alive. This has not been observed, so the idea that life arose by itself 3-4 billion years ago can also be rejected. What about the appearance of other life forms on Earth? Evolutionists assume that a simple primitive cell changed into the current forms over hundreds of millions of years. First there was unicellular life in the seas, then multicellular life, fish, frogs, reptiles, and finally birds and mammals. But as stated, neither in fossils nor in modern times are there observations of species changes. There is no reason to believe that the current species originated from the same primordial cell. Therefore, the assumption that species have appeared on Earth at different times can also be questioned. No one can know when they pick up fossils how old they are. The fossils themselves don't have labels about their age or when they became extinct.
There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science. (5)
The fossils may therefore all be approximately the same age and different species may have lived at the same time on earth. There need not be millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years apart in their occurrence on earth. Another important observation is that radiocarbon has been found in fossils from all ages, even in Cambrian fossils and coal deposits and oil wells. What does this mean? When the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there shouldn't be any of it left in fossils that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old. However, radiocarbon occurs in fossils classified as all ages. This shows that fossils can only be some thousands of years old. It is also interesting that, in addition to radiocarbon, DNA and proteins have been found in dinosaurs. DNA has also been found in "200 million year old" fish scales and insects inside amber. What makes these discoveries interesting is that the half-life of DNA is only 521 years [as reported by Yle news (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13 Oct, 2012) in an article called ”DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi” (“The last limit of DNA's preservation was found”)] and that after 10,000 years it should not be left at all (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). Similarly, proteins shouldn’t stay preserved in the nature for many thousand years.
In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (6)
In the 1950s and 1970s, however, the values given by radiocarbon measurement were approached with caution in official circles. This was due to the fact that by 1970, in the measurement results published in the Radiocarbon magazine, almost all measured samples (more than 15,000 samples) were found to contain 14C isotopes. The obtained measurement results were considered unreliable because among the samples there were plenty of fossils that were millions of years old. Their age was determined according to to an index fossil -chart, which is considered reliable. (7)
Fossils that are assumed to be very old are not usually carbon-14 dated because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that it has practically all decayed in less than 100,000 years. In August 2012, a group of German researchers reported at a meeting of geophysicists the results of carbon-14 measurements that had been made on many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! At least at the time of writing, the presentation is available on YouTube. (8) How was the result received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The results are available at http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. The case shows how the naturalistic paradigm affects. It is almost impossible to get results that contradict it published in the scientific community dominated by naturalism. It is more likely that the raisins fly. (9)
If the observations regarding proteins, such as albumin, collagen, osteocalcin, and DNA, that have been separated from dinosaur bones are true – and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefulness – the bones must (based on these results) date back to 40,000- to 50,000 years at most, as this is the highest possible preserving time in nature for such materials. (10)
Did man live before dinosaurs? As stated, the representatives of Skepsis are of the opinion that different life forms have gradually appeared on Earth, with humans appearing last. They believe in this view, even though there is no evidence of actual species changes, and even though the presence of radiocarbon, proteins, and DNA in fossils classified as ancient shows that they actually lived only a few millennia ago. There is no reason to believe that they are millions of years old. They may have lived simultaneously on Earth but only in different ecological zones, just as there are ecological compartments in modern times (sea life, beach life, land life, marsh life, highlands and mountains). In addition, some species such as dinosaurs and trilobites became extinct, just as some species are becoming extinct today. The discoveries related to people are also remarkable. The general perception is that modern humans appeared on Earth after hundreds of millions of years of development and long after the dinosaurs. The fact is, however, that human belongings or even human fossils have been found in "ancient" strata. A gold chain, an iron cauldron, other human objects and human fossils have been found from coal deposits of "300 million years" (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). Erich A. von Frange has listed more objects and human remains found from coal in his book Time Upside Down (1981). One big problem in terms of millions of years is also the fact that human footprints have been found in dinosaur deposits. Human stone tools have also been found in the same strata as dinosaur remains (Michael Brandt: Vergessene Arhäologie, 2011). In addition, old rock paintings, sculptures and paintings contain depictions of dragons that resemble dinosaurs (pictures can be seen on e.g. www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinosauruslegendat.htm.). On the other hand, some discoveries suggest that man has been on earth long before the dinosaurs. So human history must be much older than these extinct animals, at least 150 million years older! This conclusion is reached if you apply the geological time chart and the millions of years it requires to the discoveries. The following quotes illustrate the point. They tell how clearly human traces have been found in layers classified as ancient. These types of discoveries point to how the foundation of the 19th century geological time chart is wrong. If we take these discoveries as they are, man must have lived 65-300 million years ago, or the age of these deposits is only measured in thousands of years. The latter option is certainly true, because no one believes that man lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.
Many known scientific facts cast serious doubts on the geological sequence and geological eras. One such example would be the discovery of simultaneous human tracks and dinosaur tracks in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and elsewhere in the United States. These tracks occur over a wide area and are usually only exposed by floods or earthmoving machines. They have been carefully examined and authenticated by reliable paleontologists and cannot be passed off as frauds. In addition, in Arizona and the former Rhodesia, human-drawn pictures of dinosaurs have been found on the walls of caves and canyons. (11)
The human-like footprints in the rock are a puzzle to scientists. They can't be human because they're far too old - but what strange, bipedal, amphibious animal could have made them? What is it that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs with human-like feet? ... (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found (...) Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These foot prints were found by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell. Recently prof. Burroughs was visited by some Kentucky mountain men who took him to their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...) The footprints are extremely strange. They are just the right size to be human - nine or ten inches tall - and almost the right shape. Almost everyone who sees them first thinks that they are made by a human foot and it is almost impossible to convince someone that they are not human... But even the boldest estimates of human presence on earth are only a million years - and these traces are 250 times that old... Such is the riddle. A quarter of a billion years ago, this human-like animal left footprints in a wide spread of sand, which time hardened into rock. Then he disappeared. And now scientists are scratching their heads. (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)
If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)
Are the representatives of Skepsis scientific? When I myself was an atheist and a believer in evolution, I was not at all aware of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution or the weaknesses related to the birth of the universe and life. I had adopted these atheist views without question. I thought I was scientific and reasonable, although I was completely unaware of the weaknesses of these theories and how they conflict with practical observations. It has no evidence that anything can arise from nothing by itself, that life could arise by itself, or that the primordial-cell-to-human theory is true. Furthermore, hundreds of practical observations contradict the geological time chart and the associated hundreds of millions of years. Why, then, do representatives of Skepsis and evolutionists reject practical scientific findings? My understanding is that we live in a world of images, where images rule people's minds. When people have been impressed by the idea that the primordial cell-to-human theory has been proven correct, and that the problems of the origin of the universe and life have been solved, they do not think about these issues any more deeply. They adopt them without question, as I myself did at one time. It is important to emphasize that in these theories it is not a question of science, because they cannot be proven (even creation cannot be proven afterwards). Instead, they are naturalistic beliefs related to the past, just as in theism, on the contrary, God is believed to have created everything. A naturalistic worldview and evolutionary perspective also influence how such people respond to observations that seem to contradict their worldview. They usually reject such material. Matti Leisola, scientist and former evolutionist, tells his observations about the world of science. These quotes show that mental images control people's minds, even though there is no proper basis for the validity of mental images:
I have held a discussion relating to the beginning of life and first species for over forty years inside the science community and outside it. Nearly all of the hundreds of researchers that I know admit in private conversations that science does not hold explanations for the origin of genetic code, proteins, cell membrane, metabolism function, control system, or for the origin of basic structures of cells and biology (macroevolution), as professor Harold admits. Despite all that, the only acceptable creation theory of our time is the naturalistic evolution. (13)
References:
1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122 2. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley 3. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 4. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in book Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution 5. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, citation from A.M Rehnwinkel: Flood, p. 267, 278 6. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192 7. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194 8. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ 9. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146 10. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111 11. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24 12. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 187 13. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 36
Six major lies. Six arguments that appear in the literature of God-rejecting people. Read why they are not worth believing in and why they are based on a lie Dawkins and the God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is known for his anti-Godliness, as evidenced by the Book The God Delusion. Read whether Dawkins ’arguments make sense or not A letter to freethinkers. A personal letter to freethinkers, that is, a discussion of freethinkers' worldview and action against God Free thinking under analysis. Free thinkers consider themselves sensible in denying God. Does the arguments of free thinkers make sense or not? Read on and find out! Is God good or bad? Is God good and just or not? Many do not realize that Jesus was and is the perfect image of a heavenly God Christian faith and prejudice. People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense Why grace is rejected? The most common reasons and objections that cause people to turn their backs on God and salvation. Read why they are bad excuses
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Six major lies. Six arguments that appear in the literature of God-rejecting people. Read why they are not worth believing in and why they are based on a lie Dawkins and the God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is known for his anti-Godliness, as evidenced by the Book The God Delusion. Read whether Dawkins ’arguments make sense or not A letter to freethinkers. A personal letter to freethinkers, that is, a discussion of freethinkers' worldview and action against God Free thinking under analysis. Free thinkers consider themselves sensible in denying God. Does the arguments of free thinkers make sense or not? Read on and find out! Is God good or bad? Is God good and just or not? Many do not realize that Jesus was and is the perfect image of a heavenly God Christian faith and prejudice. People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense Why grace is rejected? The most common reasons and objections that cause people to turn their backs on God and salvation. Read why they are bad excuses
|
