"The Fool Hath Said...There Is No God"
FROM:
The biggest bill of goods ever sold to supposedly intelligent people is that there is no God and that present life originated from one simple cell and evolved through a process of natural selection to its present form.
I submit that this hypothesis is not only unfounded, unscientific, and untenable, but that it is also, based on all known and established laws, impossible. Moreover, I suggest that when man denies God, man becomes a fool (Rom. 1: 21, 22). There are many irrefutable proofs that spontaneous generation is responsible for life. Creation implies a Creator and design a designer.
If I were to show you my wrist watch and tell you that it simply evolved from the basic shapeless metals and materials into its present state, you would view me as the fool that I most surely would be. "Such is impossible," would be the outcry.
"If such could happen, from where were the basic metals and materials derived?" Still, a further question could be asked, "what intelligence provided the impetus for the formation of the watch?" Yet, my wrist watch example is very crude and simple compared to the more advanced complexities involved in the universe.
The Bible believer who necessarily accepts the six-day creation account of Genesis one and two is often styled as uneducated. Notwithstanding, Doctor Russell Humphreys (practicing physicist) wrote, "there are around 10, 000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day recent creation"
(Creation Ex Nihilo, pg. 37, referenced by Doctor Steven Taylor, In Six Days, pg. 304, see addendum).
How can I say that Darwinian evolution or naturalism is impossible? I believe one of the most successful proofs that renders evolution not only untenable but utterly impossible is the factual study of how creation interacts. Not only interacts but how each particular component is a dependant component of the whole.
These components are often absolutely necessary for even the primary and rudimentary existence of each other. Allow me to introduce this line of thought by quoting Doctor Jerry Bergman who is a biology scientist who is instructor of science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio (Doctor Bergman has been a consultant for more than 20 science text books):
"Naturalism must account for both the parts necessary for life and their proper assembly.
For life to persist, living creatures must have a means of taking in and biochemically processing food. Life also requires oxygen, which must be distributed to all tissues, or for single-celled life, oxygen must effectively and safely be moved around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed, without damaging the cell. Without complex mechanisms to achieve these tasks, life cannot exist.
The parts could not evolve separately and could not even exist independently for very long, because they would break down in the environment without protection.
Even if they existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens.
For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life…Creating the universe in parts would not be unlike creating a liver and waiting a few days before creating a brain, then several more weeks before creating a femur bone - until the body was eventually complete.
No other method appears to exist to produce life other than creating instantaneously a fully functioning complete organism. This does not preclude that changes may have occurred since that time, only that a certain level of complexity must have existed for both an organism and a universe to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 27, 31, all emphasis throughout mine, dm).
What I shall address in the remainder of this study are a few areas to illustrate how there must be initially a totality of the interactive and co-dependent parts in order to have the functioning whole. I shall begin with the simpler and advance to the more complex.
The human skeleton.
Doctor Bergman wrote:
"To illustrate this concept as applied in biology, an ordered structure of just 206 parts will be examined. This is not a large number - the adult human skeleton, for example, contains on the average 206 separate bones, all assembled together in a perfectly integrated functioning whole" (In Six Days, pg. 34, 35).
Before I proceed, please allow me to ask you the question, have you ever wondered about the perfectly shaped, located, and supporting relationship positioning of the bones making up the human skeleton? In view of this basic anatomical fact, how could these 206 bones have evolved separately and sequentially? This may sound very simple, but it becomes mind boggling. Allow me again to quote biologist scientist Doctor Bergman:
"To determine the possible number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which can be lined up in only one way (1 x 1); or a system or two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or 1, 2, and 2, 1; a system of three parts, which can be aligned in six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or 1, 2, 3; 2, 3, 1; 2, 1, 3; 1, 3, 2; 3, 1, 2; 3, 2, 1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2 x 3 x 4) and so on.
Thus, a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3…206 different ways, equal to 1 x 2 x 3…x 206. This number is called '206 factorial' and is written '206!.' The value 206! is an enormously large number…, which is a '1' followed by 388 zeros…." (Ibid., pg. 34, 35).
Achievement of only the correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their upside-down or right-side up placement, their alignment, the origin of the tendons, ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of 10 to the 388th power random assortments….
If one new trial could be completed each second for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate gives us 10 to the 18th power seconds."
In view of this, I might ask, what does this mean in simple terms? Hear Doctor Bergman: "…The chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is less than once in 10 billion years…." (Ibid., pg. 36).
Notwithstanding the simple matter of the human skeleton, not even mentioning all the different anatomical differences and structural interaction of all living forms, the evolutionist considers all uneducated who do not accept their unintelligent explanation for life!
A God who could create the human skeleton that would be immediately aligned and functioning would have no difficulty in restoring "strength" to the feet and ankle bones of the lame man (Acts 3: 1-11).
The means of sight, the eye. We are told regarding Eve, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" (Gen. 3: 6). God told Abram, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen. 13: 14, 15). Doctor Ariel Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. Doctor Roth is a biology scientist. Concerning the 670 muscles in the human, Doctor Roth wrote: "The presence of complexity - interdependent parts that do not function unless other parts are also present - poses another major problem for evolution.
For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without the complicated control mechanism in the brain to direct the contracting activity of the muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles.
Without these three essential components, we have only useless parts. In a process of gradual evolutionary changes, how does complexity evolve?" (In Six Day, pg. 87). Doctor Roth next mentions the eye:
"Without the foresight of a plan, we would expect that the random evolutionary changes would attempt all kinds of useless combinations of parts while trying to provide for a successful evolutionary advancement.
Yet as we look at living organisms over the world, we do not seem to see any of these random combinations…The simple example of a muscle…pales into insignificance when we consider more complicated organs such as the eye or the brain.
These contain many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. The eye has an automatic focusing system that adjusts the lens so as to permit us to clearly see close and distant objects.
We do not fully understand how it works, but a part of the brain analyzes data from the eye and controls the muscles in the eye that change the shape of the lens….Then there are the 100, 000, 000 light-sensitive cells in the human eye that send information to the brain through some 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers of the optic nerve. In the brain this information is sorted into various components such as color, movement, form, and depth. It is then analyzed and combined into an intelligible picture.
This involves an extremely complex array of interdependent parts. But the visual process is only part of our complex brains, which contain some 100, 000, 000, 000 nerve cells connected by some 400, 000 kilometers of nerve fibers. It is estimated that there are around 100, 000, 000, 000, 000 connections between nerve cells in the human brain.
That we can think straight…is a witness to a marvelous ordered complex of interdependent parts that challenges suggestions or an origin by random evolutionary changes. How could such complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?" (Ibid. pg. 88, 89).
Can you just imagine the lens saying to the brain or in the reverse, Now evolve me 100, 000, 000 light sensitive cells and an optic nerve with 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers and put in place capability and storage for color, movement, form, and depth, oh, yes, I will need the necessary delicate muscles to activate these components?
Remember that all of these necessary components would have to come into existence within a very short time of each other or they would deteriorate. However, according to organic evolution, such an intricate and complex evolution through natural selection would take multiplied years (some say trillions) to happen.
The science of cells. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," wrote the inspired writer of Hebrews, "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb. 11: 3). The more we study a matter, the more we discover.
I am not sure Hebrews 11: 3 is referring to such matters as cellular consideration, but it is possible. The more science has discovered about cells, the more ridiculous the notion of evolved life becomes. Doctor John Marcus (a biochemistry scientist) wrote regarding cellular matters and Darwinian philosophy thus, "We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us" (Ibid. pg. 180, 181).
Doctor Hickman wrote: "Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells.
In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman, 1997, pg. 43). How could these 60 trillion cells in the human that are interacting and often co-dependent, I ask, have simply evolved?
Doctor Jerry Bergman in referencing the work of Overman considers the cell in the following fashion;
"Evolutionists once argued that all life could develop from some hypothetical first cell, because even today all new life develops from a single cell, but we now realize that a cell can develop into a complex organism only because all of the parts and instructions are in the original cell produced from conception.
The human mother passes not only 23 chromosomes but also an entire cell to her offspring, which includes all the organelles needed for life. A cell can come only from a functioning cell and cannot be built up piecemeal, because all the major organelles must have been created and assembled instantaneously for the cell to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 29 and Overman, 1997).
When the cell is microscopically considered, another area of research emerges, the matter of DNA. Doctor John Marcus wrote:
"DNA evidence is often claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God's handiwork of design in a powerful way.
Let us consider the complexity of this important component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living organisms.
The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex organism. If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one meter long and yet so thin it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes.
Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space that is much smaller than the head of a pin and that this tiny string of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1, 000 books, each containing 1, 000 pages of, text" (Ibid. pg. 174, remember that there are about 60 trillion interacting cells in the human).
Amazing as the DNA molecule may be," Doctor Bergman continues, "there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of instructions to put together the machinery.
Without the cellular machinery, we would have no DNA since it is responsible for synthesizing DNA; without DNA we would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are co-dependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning or it will be meaningless bits and pieces" (Ibid., pg. 174, 175).
Relative to the cellular and DNA, all of this is comparatively simple when one considers how all of this graduates. Involved in the cell and DNA, there must be a number of proteins present. The DNA template then (when everything is perfect and equally functioning) produces RNA. For RNA to be synthesized, at least five different protein chains must be present and cooperate.
Furthermore, this enzyme complex must be able to recognize where to start reading and transcribing DNA into RNA. All of this is still simple when we advance to the three types of requisite RNA and the process produced by a large number of proteins called the ribosome. The paramount point that I wish to make is stated better by Doctor Bergman:
"Needless to say, without proteins life would not exist; it is as simple as that. The same is true of DNA and RNA. It should be clear that DNA, RNA, and proteins must all be present if any of them are going to be present in a living organism.
Life must have been created completely functional, or it would be a meaningless mess. To suggest otherwise is plain ignorance (or perhaps desperation). So, we truly have a 'which came first?' problem on our hands. I believe the answer is, of course, that none of them came first!
God came first; He designed and then created all of life with His spoken Word. DNA, RNA, and protein came all at exactly the same time. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe that this astoundingly complicated DNA-blueprint translation system happened to come about by chance" (Ibid., pg. 177).
Beloved, organic evolution that is being increasingly accepted today as science is not science. It is a fanciful hypothesis that is not founded on scientific laws and it is incapable of being reproduced, duplicated, or replicated to study in a laboratory.
It is high time that this Godless philosophy be stripped of its claims of super intelligence and be presented as the unintelligent belief system that it is. Darwinian evolution is not even a theory because a theory has some facts upon which it rests. As we have seen, naturalism is not only unbelievable, it is impossible. We have shown this, I believe, based on the interacting and co-dependent nature of some of the most basic and necessary components of rudimentary life.
We have also shown from actual science that these co-supporting components cannot be viewed as sequential in their developmental and evolutionary processes, as evolutionists claim, because they cannot separately exist for even a short period of time in their rudimentary forms. Hence, life had to have opened at once, just as we are told in Genesis one and two.
In view of the complexity and the interacting nature of the most essential and basic of the components of life, we should now more greatly appreciate the biblical statement:
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good"
(Ps. 14: 1).
Addendum:
The work In Six Days was compiled by Doctor John F. Ashton.
It is a book based on asking fifty different established scientists why they choose to believe in creation as opposed to naturalism.
Hence, the fifty chapters making up the book contain simple and straightforward reasons as to why these scientists believe in the Genesis account of creation and reject Darwinian evolution.
The Definition of an Atheist
Posted: 06 Jul 2011 06:02 AM PDT
"Primate worshiper, I need your advice. When Ray says that atheists are 'fools,' is that raw hate? When he quotes (out of context, but that's another matter) Psalm 14:1 in defense of his position, does that prove that the Psalms are a reservoir of raw hate?" Steven J.
I don't hate anybody. It is clear to me that if someone believes that nothing created everything he or she is a fool (see the sidebar of this blog to see the list of the many atheists and scientists who believe that).
To believe that there was no First Cause is not only unscientific; it's unreasonable. To believe that nothing could create anything, let alone everything is absolute foolishness. And that's the position of the professing atheist.
I know that you define "nothing" as "There's nothing to eat in the fridge." By "nothing," you mean that there is something there, but you find it distasteful. Agreed.
Let's see if Psalm 14:1 is quoted in context:
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no, not one" (Psalm 14: 1-3).
The Word of God says the atheist is a fool. I agree wholeheartedly. There's no "raw hate." It's simply raw common sense.
In another comment, you (Steven J.) said "Ray frequently cites Psalm 14:1 as 'proof' that atheists are fools; occasionally he feigns erudition and calls us 'morons.'"
I don't cite the verse as proof that atheists are fools. It's not something that needs proving. It's self-evident.
Also, I am not aware of ever calling atheists "morons" on this blog or anywhere else--even once, let alone "occasionally". I would therefore be grateful if you could cite evidence of me doing this. If you do, I will sincerely apologize. If not, I think you owe me an apology. Thank you.
