Proven Scientific Fact or
Miracles of Faith?
Creation or Evolution?
Of all the probabilities for the way that things came into existence, there are really only two possibilities ever seriously considered for the origin of things. These two theories are creation and evolution. This brochure will explore individual steps from the very foundational beginnings of evolution to its present climax comparing each step with the accepted rules of science.
The origin of all non-living matter.
The question is, Where did the non-living mater come from? (Stars, planets, moons, solar systems, galaxies stars, planets, moons, dirt and rocks, etc.) Presently, the most common theory is the Big Bang Theory. This theory is the evolutionary origin of everything. The key to evolution is time. If we go back in time far enough we eventually arrive at the point of the causative force. This is the point of origins. by definition, there can be nothing prior to this point and after this point there is something. If we only go back in time to a point where there is still something then we must ask the question, Where did this something come from? We must still explain the origin of this something (whatever it may be). In order for the Big Bang Theory to explain the origins of all things, it is necessary for it to start with nothing. Starting at this point in time, we can not add any thing to this system because no thing has been created yet. At this point if we added any thing to our system we must ask the question, Where did this thing come from? How did it come into existence? Evolution must start with nothing and show a cause for the creation of everything. If we assume that this everything that was created is an endless number, we can use the term infinity. If we assume that the number of things created is a very very large number so large that it is humanly innumerable, but is still finite, then we might say the number of things approaches infinity but is not quite equal to infinity. The basis of the Big Bang Theory can be summarized this way, With no help from the outside, Nothing by itself, caused a Big Bang which is the cause of all non-living mater. This can be shown mathematically by the following formula. Nothing plus nothing times nothing causes everything.
This formula is the best Mathematical explanation of the Big Bang Theory. Obviously this equation goes against all the elementary rules of the science of Mathematics.
The origin of all living plants
Now let me violate the laws of Mathematics by assuming the non-living mater has come into existence, it is time to investigate the living organisms coming into existence. These living organisms are made out of the chemicals and minerals that make up the non-living mater previously formed. Somehow, raw chemicals randomly combined themselves together in such a way that they unintentionally invented or discovered the process of photosynthesis and formed the ability to use it. These chemicals in a totally random unintentional way formed the first simple cell parts. These first cell parts eventually came together to form more complex parts that we call Cell membrane, DNA RNA cytoplasm, mytoplasm, Nucleus, etc. These single cells were able to process chemicals into forms that looked like living mater. These first randomly formed cells were still dead. These perfectly formed cells next needed to be zapped with what ever it takes to become alive. These cells randomly found a way to reproduce themselves differently to form more varieties of plants. The assumption that non-living things give rise to living things is called spontaneous generation. In the middle of the 1800's Louis Pasteur completely disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. But Pasteur proved conclusively that all living things come from other living things. (1965 World Book Encyclopedia - spontaneous generation & Pasteur, Louis)
The origin of the animals
Evolution assumes that at some point in time plant life gave rise to animal life. Included in this assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated. These forms of life are so different that at this point the missing links are still missing. Animals are different than plants in that they don't eat dirt to stay alive. Animals must eat life and life products like milk, leaves, seeds, etc. to stay alive. In order for these new animals to have enough food to sustain life, plant life must have been in existence long enough to be relatively plentiful as a food source. To accomplish the transformation from plant life to animal life requires a total change of the chemicals and the chemical processes which govern the digestive processes providing energy for this new type of life. A partial or gradual change in either the chemicals or the processes would mean certain death to this new life form. Therefore, this change must be fairly instantaneous. The problem is that the theory of evolution requires that things change slowly over long periods of time. If this is the way the animals were formed we would expect to find examples of transitional forms of some type or another still alive today or in the fossil record. The problem is that no type of digestion has been found between photosynthesis and animal digestion. The conclusion is that this step is a theory with all the observable scientific facts against it.
Simple celled plants and animals are the predecessors of the more complex animals by random chance.
Advancement along the evolutionary trail is accomplished by simple celled animals over great periods of time and through countless random changes eventually becoming improved and more complicated. This is a direct violation of one of the observable laws of science called The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is summarized by the statement that the Protozoa (single-celled animals) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled animals). Scientific evidence for this is still missing.
Another unsolved problem is that the simplest and smallest forms of life require the more complex forms of life to be in existence first. This is due to the fact that Viruses, Bacteria, and Rickettsiae cannot sustain life and reproduce without having a host that they live in. This problem is similar to the famous question, Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Did these simplest forms of life come first? The answer has never been solved scientifically.
Most of my friends who work in scientific fields (biology, chemistry, physics, geology, mathematics, etc.), tell me that they believe in evolution but they don't believe in miracles.
The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates give rise to the vertebrates.
The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates, the fish give rise to the amphibians, the amphibians give rise to the reptiles, and the reptiles give rise to the birds and mammals.
In order to be scientific, these steps must be reproducible. We must define an assumption that all of the previous assumptions happened only once (otherwise they would be reproducible). If they were reproducible then they would be observable and wouldn't need to be assumptions.
Note: It is claimed that evolution has been proven, yet, all of these main points have been assumed not proven. The above steps are statements of faith not statements of proven scientific fact.
Author: Marshall Almarode -- 509-582-5627