perceptions and lies in science and morals

Images in the main role

People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

The subject of this writing is mental images, especially regarding the beginnings of the universe and life. Because if people have the image that creation did not happen and that the Bible is not historically reliable, they probably do not even think about the relationship with God, eternal life and how eternal life can be obtained. They will probably very soon reject these things because they do not fit their worldview and because they believe that the Bible cannot be considered historically reliable.

On the other hand, if the Bible is historically reliable and creation has taken place, the images of these people are based on lies. The possibility of lies should be taken into account, because everyone can easily make mistakes and the Bible also talks about how the enemy of the soul can deceive people. This comes up e.g. in the following verses:

- (2 Cor 4:3,4) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.

This article deals with the early stages of the universe and life. It is well known that only one view is presented as scientific in the media: the naturalistic or atheistic view. In general, it means that the universe came into being by itself out of nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, that life came into existence by itself and that all species originated from the same primordial cell. It is never believed that God created everything, and especially that he created everything less than 10,000 years ago. This latter idea is usually regarded with arrogance and contempt.

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) 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 the same naturalistic views of the universe and the beginnings of life to be 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 beautifully 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.

Next, I will ask a few simple questions. It should be easy to answer them if you stick to science and people have a scientific worldview. Well-reasoned answers should be given to these questions if creation, and specifically creation that took place less than 10,000 years ago, is considered unscientific.

How did everything originate from a pinhead sized space or from nothing? When we start looking at mental images, it's good to start with the big bang, because people have an image that the universe was created by itself in the big bang from nothing. It is believed to have happened about 13.8 billion years ago.

The first question is how all material things arose by themselves from a pinhead sized space (the idea of a pinhead sized space has been presented in several scientific publications) or from nothing. Have the representatives of science ever seen that non-existent (nothing), 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 talk about a scientific point of view anymore?

Logically thinking, the idea of a space the size of a pinhead generating the whole world is rather absurd. It goes against every practical observation. No one has ever observed that rocks, rock road signs and other inanimate materials appear by themselves out of nowhere. Why would a universe many times larger constitute an exception? Why can only the universe appear by itself out of nothing, when no other things appear? This theory is contrary to the laws of logic and natural science and pure superstition. Scientists abandon real science and their wisdom when they adhere to such theories.

Anyone can imagine this thing and theory also by taking a small pinhead 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? Who would have thought that a pinhead could turn itself into complicated things? Surely, the pinhead would remain the same unless some external force acted on it. Surely we are not acting foolishly if we reject such a theory.

Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (1)

If the Big Bang is true, why is the expansion not observed? As stated, people have an image that the universe was created by itself in the Big Bang from nothing. It is believed to have happened about 13.8 billion years ago. Evidence is considered to be that the universe is believed to be expanding.

The fact is, however, that no one has ever directly observed the expansion of the universe. On the contrary, if we look into space, it looks the same as it was 10 years ago or maybe in our childhood decades ago. Likewise, the Otava constellations and other constellations that were known in the early days of mankind look the same as they did millennia ago. No expansion has ever been observed.

I will take a few comments on the subject. They show how uncertain the Big Bang theory is and how there is no direct evidence of expansion. Instead, indirect redshift observations have been used to support the expansion, which have however been questioned by many well-known astronomers. They have questioned them for several reasons, such as the fact that neighboring galaxies that are interacting with each other can have completely different redshift values. This should not be possible if their expansion rate is the same.

The mystic nature of dark energy has led some critical researchers to question, whether it could be an illusion. That is, no one has ever detected the expansion of the universe. We can only measure the properties of light and, especially, the redshift of light transmitted by far away objects. (Kari Enqvist in the book Kaikki evoluutiosta, p. 40)

I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the red shift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only issue that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)

One indication of the impossibility of the Big Bang theory is the fact, that several well-known cosmologists have questioned it . They have noticed that observations contradict the theory. It is universally agreed that the universe has a point of beginning, but when people refuse to believe in God’s creation, they end up in an impasse, when trying to find other explanations for the beginning. We can confidently question and abandon the idea of the Big Bang:

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

How were the galaxies formed? As for the beginning of the universe, it also involves the birth of galaxies, which should have happened at some point after the big bang. Some publications give us the understanding that this mystery has been solved, like the Big Bang. They let us believe it is a proven fact, which should not be questioned. Many really think and have the image that the heavenly bodies have formed by themselves so that God did not make them.

However, on this issue, scientists are faced with a dead end. They do not have a clear idea of the initial stages, which is natural, of course, since none of them witnessed these events. The origin of celestial bodies is still a mystery, despite claims otherwise. The formation of galaxies in particular is considered problematic. There is no proper evidence for that, as the following quotes show:

I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)

It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109)

Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)

What about the birth of stars? Here, too, scientists are faced with a dead end. In particular, the birth of the first stars is considered problematic. For while the first stars have been assumed to have formed from the collapse of a gas cloud, such clouds today are too hot and scattered to be able to collapse. The following comments suggest how uncertain the birth theories of stars are:

Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Cited from Marcus Chown’s article Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)

“Not all nebulas in the Milky Way can constantly form stars all the time. Most times the nebula is puzzled by, what it needs to do next. Actually, it is the astrophysicists, who are puzzled here. We know that the nebula would want to implode due to its own weight to form one or more stars. But the rotation of the nebula and the vortical movement inside the nebula are fighting against this faith. So does also the normal pressure of gas, which we read about in our chemistry class in high school. Magnetic fields of the galaxies are also fighting against imploding: they infiltrate a nebula and clutch onto any freely moving particles that are charged, thus restricting the chance of the nebula to counter its own gravitation. The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born.” (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)

How were the Solar System and the Earth formed? Just as it is difficult to find a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and galaxies, there is the same problem regarding the beginning of the Solar System and the Earth. The problems with the theories of the origin of the Solar System are so great that, according to some researchers, the entire Solar System should not even exist. Especially the different composition of the planets and the Sun creates a problem for which no solution has been found. It is much easier to believe in God's work of creation than to believe that the sun and planets were born by themselves. Theories about their self-emergence are not on solid ground.

Firstly, we notice that the matter detaching from our Sun, is not at all capable of forming such planets that are known to us. The composition of the matter would be utterly wrong. Another thing in this contrast is that the Sun is normal [as a celestial body], but the earth is strange. The gas between stars, and most of the stars, consists of the same matter as the Sun, but not the earth. It must be understood that looking from a cosmological perspective – the room, where you are sitting right now, is made out of wrong materials. You are the rarity, a cosmological composer’s complilation. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951)

Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)

All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6^th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

How did life originate? One image is related to the birth of life. Many people have the idea and image that the problem of the origin of life has been solved, and that life arose by itself in some warm pond or sea.

However, here again is a mental image for which there is no scientific evidence. It is believed, even though there is no practical evidence for it. The more the subject has been studied, the more difficult the problem has become. In naturalistic theory, dead matter is given supernatural properties that it does not possess. That is why it is strange that many people deny the miracles mentioned in the Bible, but believe in fairy-tale theories in which dead matter itself gives birth to life. They believe in miracles without a miracle worker, and it sure doesn't make sense.

Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. They have no solution to the origin of life. They admit that life on earth had a beginning, but they are deadlocked on the matter because they do not admit God's work of creation. Here are some comments on the subject:

I think we have to go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this idea has been ostracized by physicists, and in fact by me, but we shouldn't reject it just because we don't like it if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)

Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)

More than 30 years of experimentation in the field of chemical and molecular evolution have highlighted the immensity of the problem associated with the beginning of life rather than its solution. Today, basically only relevant theories and experiments are discussed and their drift into a dead end, or ignorance is acknowledged (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)

In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University) (2)

The following quotation also refers to the subject. It is about an interview with Stanley Miller in his later age. He became famous for his experiments regarding the beginning of life. J. Morgan talks 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. (3)

The current certainty, then, is that all current life is dependent on a past life. Not a single exception to this rule has been found. Therefore, if the current generations exist only because of the previous ones, where did the very first generation come from? 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 limited time of existence puts limits on life. The sun could not have warmed the earth forever, because otherwise its energy reserves would have been exhausted.) Isn't this a clear indication that the first generation must have come into this world in some other way than the generations after that? If representatives of science, and no one else, can prove the origin of life by itself, isn't the most logical option then 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. 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.

Have species changes been observed? One common image is that all current species have descended from one and the same primordial cell in the sea or water. This concept, called the theory of evolution, is one of the biggest reasons why people doubt the reliability of the Bible and the existence of God. This theory became known mainly through Charles Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species.

So are species changes real? Have believers in evolution ever seen an animal species transform into another before their eyes? It's been more than 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. Is is true that variation does occur within basic kinds (the resistance of bacteria, dark and light peppered moths...), but it doesn’t transform them into another species.

Mutation experiments have confirmed the same, i.e. the immutability of species. These experiments have been done for over 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. Rather, mutation experiments – as well as breeding – have shown that there are certain limits to variation that cannot be crossed and new species do not arise.

Relatedly, the author of the book 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 image of species changes were true, 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 time has been available for millions of years. 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. (...) (4)

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. (5)

Richard Dawkins, well-known for his atheism, has also admitted that there is no gradual development in visible fossils, although in the following comment he appeals to the inadequacy of the fossil record, as Darwin did in his time. However, this is a bad argument, because more than a hundred million fossils have already been excavated from the earth. If no gradual development has been observed in this material, it certainly won't occur in the material that is still inside the country either.

Richard Dawkins: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries. (6)

To make the matter clear, let's bring up more comments on the topic. Fossil scientists admit that there is no evidence of species change in fossils. A gradual change from one species to another cannot be observed in the fossils, but the species have been complex and separate from each other from the beginning. This observation fits the creation model but does not support the idea of species changes.

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at find out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution [7])

In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum [8])

No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla... The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been same since the beginning... Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types... This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only... If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)

Are millions and billions of years true? As noted, atheist scientists are often arrogant towards the notion that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago. Instead, they believe that the universe was born by itself about 13.8 billion years ago, that life arose by itself in the form of an initial cell about 3-4 billion years ago, and that other forms of life appeared on Earth during hundreds of millions of years.

How then do the representatives of this view know these things? Well, they don't know that. If the Big Bang is just a myth and a fairy tale, because nothing can be originated 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 cannot begin to live. 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 and that life has existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years? 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. It is assumed that more and more new species appeared on Earth over millions of years. We also often read that certain species lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. For example, dinosaurs are believed to have died out 65 million years ago.

But as stated, there is no reason to believe that the current species originated from the same protocell. 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, what age they are. Anyone can try this. The fossils themselves don't have labels about their age or when they became extinct. This applies to dinosaur fossils, trilobites and other fossils.

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. (9)

The fossils may therefore all be approximately the same age and different species may have lived at the same time on earth. It is not necessary that there are millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years between the appearance of different species.

An important observation is also that radiocarbon has been found in fossils from all ages, even in Cambrian fossils, dinosaurs, coal deposits and oil wells. In addition, DNA has been found in dinosaurs, the half-life of which has been calculated to be only 521 years (information about half-life was reported in news called: DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat [The last limit of DNA preservation was found - dreams of cloning dinosaurs ended]; yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012).

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. Similarly, DNA should not be present in ancient fossils because its half-life is even faster than that of radiocarbon. However, radiocarbon occurs in fossils classified as all ages, and DNA in dinos. This shows that fossils go back only to a few millennia. Another indication of their fairly young age is that some of them, such as dinosaur fossils, have contained proteins, which only stay preserved for only some 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. (10)

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. (11)

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. (12)

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. (13)

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. (14)

How did hydrogen gas turn into a rational and feeling human?

- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your 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 you. Amen.

If we go back to the beginning of everything, according to the naturalistic explanation, there was mainly only hydrogen in the universe. It was born sometime after the Big Bang.

Next, a simple question. If the universe consisted of hydrogen, how did fish and the sea around them, birds, people, flowers, trees, butterflies, lions, strawberries and all the wonders of nature come from hydrogen? Have scientists ever proven that hydrogen can transform itself into complex life forms? Does hydrogen behave the same way today, i.e. did hydrogen give birth to humans and all other forms of life? Or is it not a fact that such a thing is not observed? Instead, it is known that substances become solid, liquid or gas with temperature changes. No forms of life can born through it.

It is equally problematic to explain how such things as joy, laughter, crying and sorrow, hope, fear, humor, love, infatuation, sexual desire, anger, irritability and the senses (sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing) can come from an inanimate substance, like hydrogen or stone. How can a lifeless and impersonal substance like stone give rise to properties that it itself does not have? Isn't it easier to believe that the above characteristics were created by a personal God who originally created man in His own image, as the Bible shows (Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)? People reject true wisdom when they believe in naturalistic explanations

- (Rom 1:20-23) 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:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

How mental images affect moral? When it comes to the early stages of the universe and life, it was stated above how weak naturalistic theories are. They cannot explain e.g. following things. It is much more reasonable to believe in God's work of creation, as the book of Genesis shows.

• The Big Bang. It is absurd to believe that the current universe and life originated from a single tiny dot. It is absurd to believe that elephants, trees, people, fish and the sea around them, the sun, mosquitoes, birds, flowers and everything else have arisen by themselves out of nothing or a space the size of a pinhead.

• The formation of galaxies is another problem. It has never been observed.

• A major problem in the birth of the Solar System and the Earth is e.g. a completely different composition of the sun and planets. No one has been able to explain how these celestial bodies could have come about by themselves.

• The origin of life is an unsolvable problem.

• Species changes (primordial cell-to-human theory) have never been observed. Several well-known paleontologists have admitted this.

• When radiocarbon, DNA and proteins are found in fossils, such as dinosaur fossils, their age can only be measured in the thousands of years. Millions and billions of years can be questioned.

• Naturalistic theories cannot explain how emotions and senses could originate from hydrogen gas or lifeless rock-like matter.

What, then, does it mean to reject God as creator, as has generally happened? One consequence is at least a change in morality. If you don't believe in God as the creator, it's hard to believe that he is the lawgiver and judge who defines right and wrong and ultimately judges every person.

Thus, in modern times, when people have an image of God's non-existence, that he is neither a creator nor a lawgiver, they defend e.g. following things. Often it happens in the name of love.

• Abortion. It is explained that it is better for the child not to be born into difficult circumstances. Therefore, the child can be killed.

• Euthanasia is also justified by love and alleviation of suffering. It does not take into account that in modern times, painkillers remove most of the bodily pains.

In Nazi Germany, before the extermination of the Jews, euthanasia came into use. It was instilled into people’s minds through propaganda films.

• Extramarital affairs have been justified by love. That's what happened at the end of the 1960s, when the so-called the sexual revolution spread to society through the media.

The problem with extramarital relations is that children can be born in them to parents who have not previously committed to each other.This is not a good option for the children who will be born, because they do not have a ready, shared home with their parents.

• Homosexual relationships have also been justified by love.

So why are the above things accepted in today's society and treated kindly? Surely the biggest reason is that Westerners have rejected Christian teaching as a whole. Evolution theory and liberal theology have replaced people’s faith in the existence of God, and the belief He is the creator and judge. People have the impression that scientific evidence has shown the worldview of the Bible to be outdated and that the basic teachings of the Christian faith are not binding on modern people.

Instead, it has been replaced by an atheistic humanist world view, where man is the measure of everything. Man defines right and wrong not God, who has revealed himself through his own Son Jesus Christ and the apostles he appointed. This orientation towards an atheistic humanistic worldview and away from the Christian faith is the main reason for the change in morality in Western countries. The more the Christian faith is abandoned, the more we will see change in this area.

But is it worth believing in the atheistic claim that there is no God who is the creator and judge? Isn't there a great possibility of error if God exists in spite of everything and He judges every person? Because if atheistic theories about the origin of the universe and life have no basis, this should be taken into account. The ideas that God does not exist and that He is not the creator and judge should be rejected. The teaching about judgment after this life comes up e.g. in the following verses:

- (Rom 14:10,12) But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nothing your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

- (Hebr 9:27) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:

- (Rev 20:12-15) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

From this it is good to move on to another matter, i.e. man's sinfulness and relationship with God. Because if God exists and man is an eternal being, the most important thing should be that we get a connection with God and the forgiveness of our sins. No one should ignore the most important thing in the world because of false images and lies.

What then, if a person has noticed his own deficiency and sinfulness and how he has transgressed against God? Is there hope for such a person and what does the Bible teach on the subject?

In fact, here we are moving to the most important issue of the Bible and the New Testament, the forgiveness of sins. For the clear revelation of the New Testament is that we can have our sins forgiven because God has loved us and appeared in His Son Jesus Christ. God was in Christ and reconciled the world to himself. The motive in everything was God's love for us:

- (2 Cor 5:19,20) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be you reconciled to God.

- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- (Rom 5:8) But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The next question is how to get sins forgiven and go to heaven and what is our part in it if this thing does not automatically happen to everyone. Is there a clear answer to that?

The answer to the former is that unrepentant wrongdoers cannot be forgiven and enter heaven, but similarly, people who have genuine repentance and conversion to God can receive complete forgiveness and enter heaven. It's that simple.

Jesus' description of the prodigal son is one example. It is the story of a person who was forgiven, even though he had turned his back on his father. The Bible says that when the son repented, turned to his father and confessed his wrongdoing, the result of it all was that his father had mercy on him and accepted him. So turn to God and let His good plan come true in your life.

- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Moreover, the most important aspect of all; we all must turn to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, in order to receive salvation and enter God’s kingdom. Only surrendering ourselves to Him, can we get home to our God.

- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

- (John 6:67-69) Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

What if we reject God’s grace and Jesus? What if we don't care about Him and the life to come? Are there any consequences? Will it affect our eternity?

The answer is that in that case, we need to be responsible for our own sins. We must atone our sins in eternal damnation – a place that has no way out. We have then turned our backs on the only chance to be saved and enter God's paradise. Therefore, do not personally turn your back on God's mercy. Let yourself be saved by God today, so you wouldn’t have to regret your choices later. It is the best decision you could ever make.

My friend, if you are damned, it is not because of your sins, but because you have not received mercy that God offers to you through Jesus. That is why it is fair. If you reject Jesus, what can God do? You then dismiss your only hope of salvation. (15)

The prayer of salvation. Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

References:

1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), s. 122

2. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. 5 2004, cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

3. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

4. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

5. 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

6. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

7. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.

8. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

9. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278

10. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192

11. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194

12. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www._youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

13. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p .146

14. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111

15. Oswald J. Smith: Maa johon kaipaan, p. 89