The Spirit of Real Science
I saw a video on Youtube where an interviewer was asking an Israeli scientist why compared to its small size does Israel produce so many scientific and technology breakthroughs compared to the rest of the world?
The scientist said something like this (not the exact words but his intent is here). Most researchers investigate something, find the answers and then say, “Okay now that is settled. What shall we investigate next?”
Here we START where everyone else leaves off. We say, “What else might be related to this?” Then that leads us often to whole new ideas about things that many thought were already settled.
That is the whole idea behind the greatest discoveries of science through the years. Those who say, “We already know that the sun revolves around the earth.” and quit there have already closed the door of their minds to anything new. Since evolution is commonly taught and easy to find on the internet, there is no reason to repeat what evolutionists believe is ‘settled science’. For a while Copernicus and Galileo and others changed all that. Who would have thought that dogmatism would return to science in century 21?
Scientific Problems Evolution Which Evolution Cannot Answer by Dr. Randy Raaum
- Evolution cannot produce new systems in the body. How could natural selection ever select between organisms where the first few molecules of an eye or a wing were forming? How could such an organism have any kind of advantage in survival? Suppose a tear duct evolved. How would natural selection keep it in the organism’s lineage until other mutations developed the lashes, slit, cornea, and lens? Or would natural selection breed out the organism that had a tear duct but no other eye components because it was not useful alone?
- Without mutations, evolution is impossible. But mutations are very rare and they are almost always harmful. Only one fruit fly in a million will ever develop a mutation. Even the random mutations that have not been harmful have still never, ever been proven to increase complexity, let alone grow an organ. Evolution can only select from preexisting genes; it cannot, especially by mutations, create new genes. So, where did these “new genes” come from?
- After over a hundred years of intentional experimental breeding, the amount of variation that has been produced has been very, very limited. Despite extensive breeding experiments, dogs never stopped being dogs, and fruit flies have never stopped being fruit flies. And these were intelligent, calculated experiments, not random chance.
- Evolution hinges on the fact that complexity must increase. But the second law of thermodynamics states that complexity breaks down over time, not that it increases. Some say that since evolution had billions of years to produce life, that was sufficient time to allow for the random mutations to line up. But remember that during those billions of years, entropy was also increasing, thus multiplying the disorder times billions of years.
- No scientist in a lab has ever created life, or anything close to life, so how could it ever have happened by chance? Even Stanley Miller’s attempt did not come close to creating a living cell or even an amino acid molecule. Such a well funded, extensively planned and conceived, intelligent experiment failed to produce any kind of life. But chaos succeeded where our best scientists failed?
- It is called “The Theory of Evolution.” But a theory must be observed. Unless there is a scientist somewhere who is 100 million years old, macro evolution (evolving a more complex species) has never been observed. We can’t even compare notes with cavemen that wrote things hundreds of millions of years ago, because the earliest human writings were from about 3,200 BC (even cave drawings don’t go back any farther than 30,000 BC). Evolution, then, must scientifically be labeled as a hypothesis, not a theory.
- Where are the millions and millions of missing links? If there were intermediate or transitional life forms for hundreds of millions of years, why aren’t there millions of intermediate skull samples within any archeologist’s reach?
- Why is the fossil record so inconclusive? Why are there so many gaps? If evolution happened, there would be hundreds of millions of fossils that conclusively told the evolutionary tale. But instead, the fossil record shows sudden “bursts of development” (which is actually just different creatures). Evolutionists explain these bursts with a hypothesis called “punctuated equilibrium,” a view that exists for no other reason than to try to reconcile the deficient fossil record with evolution.
- The chances that a single protein molecule could have developed by random chance are less than one in 10243 (That is ten with 243 zeroes). And in the most basic cell, 239 of these proteins would need to form by chance. But evolution has to depend on those kinds of absurd odds along every step of the evolutionary process. Most people call odds like this a complete fantasy. No one would ever start a business if the chances for success were even one in 100. So if the chances of evolution happening is one in 10243, why do we teach it to kids in school as scientific fact?
- One human eyeball is more complex than the entire internet on planet earth. To say that such complexity is the result of blind chaos is nothing but insanity. So could the internet have evolved? Why didn’t it?