The Truth Giver

An interesting phenomenon has been occurring steadily that I have observed throughout my life. There are certain things, certain truths that even all but the purest of relativists call true without a second thought. Some of the truths are that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, pedophilia is wrong, and that anything that causes undue or unjust harm to another person is wrong. People that engage in activities along these lines are dismissed as evil and sick.

An interesting thing about truth, in order for it to be true it must be universally true. Otherwise it is not truth, but merely relative to circumstances. Anything that is relative is subject to change, and is therefore not truth because it is not constant.

So where does this truth come from? One look at man says that it cannot possibly come from us. Man is inconstant, and the mind and morals of man are subject to constant change and even corruption, such when illness sets in. Societal morals change dramatically over the course of time. For example, if a US soldier were to rape an enemy civilian today he would be court marshaled with a maximum penalty of death. However, during the US Civil War the Union code of conduct actually permitted the rape of enemy civilians, as long as a woman was not raped in front of her children. On a similar note, during this same period horse thieves were typically hanged, today such a thief would serve only a short jail term is he went to jail at all. In various societies around the world homosexuality has gone from wrong, to acceptable, to wrong, to widespread, to acceptable, to wrong, and so-on for thousands of years. Men can’t seem to make up their minds about whether it is right or wrong.

This said, humanity is not a trustworthy source of truth, and cannot be the truth giver. Mankind is simply too inconstant.

And what if there were no universal truths? What if there really were no such thing as truth and all is simply relative? Then all would be a lie, and not one thing humanity engaged in would be trustworthy, and there would be no sufficient moral compass to base laws upon. Prime examples of what happens when universal truth is removed from the equation can be found in the crimes of any despot who claims to be highest authority and answers to no one, not even God. The actions of these despots are appalling.

So if there must be truth, then there must be a truth giver. Since man is too inconsistent to be the source of truth, and nature is not a being in and of itself that is capable of giving moral truths, we are left with only remaining possible source of truth. That source is God.

God is the only eternal, unchangeable, incorruptible being in existence, which is what gives Him the unique qualification to be a giver of universal truth. These truths are self evident in the hearts, words, and actions of sane men. Even among men (and women) who ignore parts of the truth, other parts are so ingrained they cannot possibly ignore them, such as the examples I first gave in this article.

The existence of truth is, to my way of thinking, the first proof of God Himself.

Dismembering Evolution 8: Avida

In this world of technology no theory would be complete without computer models being used to demonstrate the feasibility of the theory. In other words, program in the parameters of the theory and see what you get. If the simulation supports the theory you are good.

There is one problem though with any computer simulation. It simulates the parameters that are plugged in whether they happened in real life or not. When these parameters are based on massive amounts of assumptions that are not supported by laboratory experiments the program is running entirely off guesses. Even complete fabrications can be programmed into a simulation as any video game proves.

One example of just such a flawed computer program was one Richard Dawkins ran to show that random mutation in the early world could have resulted in the swift changes that are observed in the Cambrian. He selected a verse from Shakespeare, programmed in 27 variables, the alphabet plus a space, and had the simulation randomly change each slot. By randomly I mean random slots and random result. In just forty five generations the selected verse was completed to 100% accuracy. Subsequent runs showed an 80% likelihood of achieving the same result within forty five generations. Pretty spectacular huh?

There is just one teeny-tiny, huge, massive, glaring, fatal flaw to this program.

He programmed it to lock in the letters when the right one fell into place.

That’s right. Once a desired mutation was achieved he removed an essential variable, the possibility of losing the mutation. As both scientists and lay persons here have stated often, evolution is not a one way process. All is capable of being changed in such a way as to advance, or to regress. But don’t take my word for it, just the comments and links left in the discussion of previous articles in this series.

According to evolutionary theory there is no such thing as a locked in change. What is beneficial one generation may be fatal the next due to environmental changes. A mutation may or may not be passed on to future generations. A mutation may or not be repaired by the DNA as it happens, or the mutated cell may simply be attacked and destroyed by the organism’s immune system. What’s more, is the mutation even possible to pass on? Most are not transferable to future generations because the germ cells are not the cells that are mutated. This, of course, does not apply to binary fission such as in bacteria, or to viruses. So Richard Dawkins programmed a fatally flawed simulation to prove a point he could not make honestly. Bad scientists! Bad! No treat for you!

A much more important, and also much newer computer simulation is called Avida. This computer program is truly fascinating.

It has gone through several revisions until it is now the most exciting bit of research simulation for studying evolution there is. Initially, with the parameters being exactly what evolutionary theory states it had the problem of actually wiping out biological diversity. Then I was altered to reward any change whatsoever, and that solved the problem of destroying diversity, resulting in a rich environment of simulated organisms, but also not achieving this result in the time allowed by geologic history.

This problem demonstrates a weakness in evolutionary theory every time someone says that evolution is not random, but sequential. In sequential evolution the number of generation the simulation needed to produce a diversity resembling the Cambrian too until past the modern day. True to Darwinist fashion, rather than looking at evolution for the problem, the programmer looked at the program’s parameters. After much tweaking he decided to bombard the earliest simulated life forms with incredible doses of simulated radiation. This produced a random mutation rate sufficient to produce the appropriate diversity of life in the appropriate time.

Amazing huh?

But there are a few problems.

First, such a high radiation level is shown to prevent abiogenesis by the destruction of amino acids and proteins. Second, it is shown not to mutate cells, but to kill them. Third, eve if something were to evade the death trap of light it would be shielded form the mutating effects of the radiation. Third, assuming something survived completely unshielded and was randomly mutated, and successive generations continued the trend for a hundred million years or so, this destroys the notion that evolution is not random. It actually reduces the soft definition of evolution that is becoming fashionable, “The change in the frequency of alleles” to bull-spit because evolution absolutely required massive random mutation to do anything to begin with. It takes early evolution completely out of the soft definitions, and even takes it out of the idea of natural selection in the classical sense because extreme mutation is not compatible with that theory.

Scientists studying evolution are going nuts, absolutely raving about Avida. Never mind that the parameters it requires to operate according to evolutionary theory are actually in conflict with evolutionary theory. Never mind that the source of the conflict is the generally acknowledged problem of UV radiation of the kind required in this simulation is simply lethal to life rather than mutating it into many forms. It is the first computer program to successfully produce a model of evolution based entirely on random changes supported by a reward (a simulated environmental factor, actually, it is more food).

What about it’s failures? What about its failure to punish the occasional change with a reduction in food, reduced viability, or even death? What about the lethality of the early parameters? What about the way it actually decimates the concept of evolution NOT being random? What about the conditions of early evolution being completely destructive to abiogenist as well? None of this matters because it provides a computer model that works.

More importantly to the skeptic, what about the parameters of the program in the first place?

This program follows a lot of assumptions, just like evolutionary theory itself. And just like evolutionary theory, this program has its serious flaws when compared to reality. To my way of thinking, the vital change that was needed to the early environment, which is generally considered to be a reasonably accurate simulation of the early Earth, and is also a set of conditions that would wipe out all life and pre-life, actually provides AGAINST evolution and abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis evolution cannot happen. If early life is destroyed by radiation the evolution cannot happen. Current laboratory experiments show that the radiation levels that are simulated absolutely destroy all life and pre-life. Lesser radiation does not provide the required mutation levels to form the diversity of life in the required geologic time. These basic incompatibilities only seem to bother skeptics, like myself, and not the highly educated scientists who should be able to look at this and see the exact same issues.

So, what do I think about computer simulations? I think they are proven to be a powerful tool for demonstrating what will happen within a given set of parameters. I think that if the parameters are demonstrably good then the tool is good. I think that if the set of parameters is questionable then the tool is not much good at all, and only shows an unrealistic simulation of what the programmer wishes were true.

And, no, there is no computer simulation to date that provides a working model of evolution under realistic circumstances.

Christian Response to the Oregon University Cartoons Defaming Jesus

In a unified burst of outrage, Christians around the world are staging violent protests over the depictions of Jesus in a University of Oregon student publication. There is violence in the streets, burning, looting, and some people have already been beaten nearly to death.

“This outrage cannot be tolerated!” said one Christian while waving a sign that read “Bomb UO! Their blood is on their hands!”

“It’s time to show those heathens what it means to insult our Lord!” said another Christian who had his six-year-old daughter helping him hold a very large that read “If you think 9/11 was bas just wait until you see what’s coming!”

Other signs and shouted slogans included “The apocalypse is now, and we are the tools of God’s wrath!” “Death to everyone at UO!” “Burn them now and for eternity!” “Death to all pagans!” “Hell awaits you!” and, my favorite, “Think Muslim terrorism is bad? You aint seen nothing yet!”

Acts of violence and vandalism were slowed slightly because the rioters would frequently stop and scream “Praise Jesus!” with a wild look in their eyes and broad geatures to emphasize it.

All of this outrage has been sparked by the publication of cartons depicting Jesus as a homosexual, terrorist, and a fraud in a UO student publication.

University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer had this to say. “I understand the outrage of Christians at the publication of these cartoons. I have ordered all remaining copies of the Insurgent rounded up for disposal and the staff of that publication are currently being reprimanded. There may be expulsions.”

The French Ambassador said “The French government does not blame the Christians for the violence in our streets. We understand that they are disenfranchised and that such outrage to such horrible pictures is only natural to people in their situation.” He also swore that France would “do everything possible to satisfy the demands of the Christian rioters.”

A UN spokesman declared “These pictures of Jesus are not acceptable. Such an attack on the founder of the world’s largest religion cannot be tolerated. The Un wishes to express it’s sympathies to the Christians and we are currently looking at ways to satisfy their demands and stop the violence.”

Okay, now for the real scoop. It has been months since these cartoons were published, they are known about pretty much everywhere in the world now, and there has been absolutely no violence, rioting, or other criminal acts of intimidation engaged in by the Christian community. Letters have been written, a few small, peaceful protests have been staged, and that’s about it.

The first portion of this article is not actually fiction though. Simply replace every instance of the words “Christian” and “Jesus” with “Muslim” and “Mohammad”, switch the University of Oregon for Denmark and you have what actually happened when Muslims faced the same situation. The difference in conduct between the followers of Jesus and the followers of Mohammad is as different as night and day.

When I look at individuals and groups of people I look to their actions to see if they are acting on Godly or demonic impulses. Godly impulses are love, patience, peace, generosity, and so forth. Demonic impulses are violence, murder, hatred, and other basic evils. My opinion of people is shaped largely by the spiritual influences I see coming through their actions. It is such actions that cause me to have a very high regard for most Christians, and a very low regard for most Muslims. I have called Allah a demon in the past, and this position is based on the actions of his followers.

Truth be told, we are very unlikely to see how the global community would react if Christians started acting like Muslims, but I suspect we would not be treated with such generosity. Rather, I suspect we would be universally denounced, and our religion might even get banned in some countries.

So, where do I stand on this whole UO cartoon thing? My stance is that I expect it because it is simply more of the same old typical assaults on my religion that are so common that I have a hard time understanding how these cartoons are even able to draw attention. With “art” like a cross floating in a jar of urine, Mary mother of God covered in elephant dung, and innumerable other foul and degrading depictions of Christianity flooding the art world I have grown rather numb to it. Assaulting Christianity seems to be a popular activity among certain groups, and artists are one of those groups. Truth be told, I fully expect this trend to grow and become so common it may even become fashionable in the mainstream. I wonder how long until we see models walking down the runway wearing crowns of thorns with the thorns shaped to look like devil horns. I wonder how long until speaking about Christian morals starts getting banned as hate speech in some countries. Not long I suspect.

The Ultimate Futility of the Good Fight

I am taking a break from evolution this week to discuss current events as they relate to Christian theology.

I have been thinking a great deal about the culture war in America, and even across the world. This subject has occupied much of my mind for several years now, and after these years of studying current events, politics, and the Bible I have reached a conclusion.

Traditionalists and conservatives like myself are doomed to lose.

How can I say such a thing? How can a man who fights for good conservative, traditional, Christian values admit defeat long before the war will be over?

I say it because the Bible predicts it.

Prophesy is an often overlooked aspect of Biblical study, mostly because is a preacher discusses it on Sunday when there are many newcomers to church and non-Christian visitors it is very easy to sound wacky and drive people away. If a preacher spends a great deal of time discussing the prophesies of the Bible and the terrible destruction followed by glorious redemption that they predict it is frequently seen as fear mongering due to the destruction and Hellfire involved. Such a thing is not generally constructive to outsiders and newcomers to the faith. Hence, almost all of the Sunday efforts are focused on God’s love, redemption, holiness, and Biblical principals of living.

Personally, I have been drawn to Biblical prophesy from a young age, and have a particular fondness for the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation. There are many other prophesies spread throughout the Bible, including a few made by Jesus Himself, and of these most have already been fulfilled, and the ones that have not yet come to full fruition are mostly, if not entirely the ones that signal the end of the world as we know it. This is one major reason that many Christians are convinced that we are living in or very near to the end times at this moment.

So what does this have to do with the culture wars and the impending victory of the radical liberals and socialists?

Put simply, these radicals are pushing for an agenda that is nearly identical to the situation man be in when the final judgments are ultimately unleashed upon the world.

Jesus said that God would hand men over to unnatural (sexual) desires. Homosexuality is now an in-your-face fact of life, and is slowly growing from a rare aberration to what will ultimately be commonplace. The final thing homosexuality and bisexuality need to be allowed to grow to the status of commonplace is some form of official sanction. That official sanction is marriage. Some countries have already made homosexual marriage the law of the land. To fulfill the prophesy that men, meaning mankind, would be handed over to unnatural sexual desires for the destruction of their bodies sexual aberrations like homosexuality, bisexuality, incest, and bestiality must become commonplace, possibly even the rule. I can foresee (logically, not as a prophet, I am not a prophet and never claim to be one) a time when Bisexuality is actually considered the norm, and various sexual triads, quads, or even bigger multiple sexual partner relationships, trysts, and affairs are just the way people conduct their sexual affairs, and heterosexual monogamy will become rare and seen as strange. The event that will almost certainly unleash this upon the world is homosexual marriage. Once homosexual marriage is legal I would be surprised if the situation I have described above takes 40 years to be a fact. I might even hazard to say it could happen in 30 years or less. SO I must extend a grudging congratulations to the homosexual activists on their impending victory. You will get everything you want and more, the Bible says so.

The Bible predicts that women would stop caring about their children. To my way of thinking there is nothing les loving than killing your own child. Enter abortion. Will it go away in America? Never. Actually, while we may manage to restrict some forms of abortion it will almost certainly remain pretty much an on demand business and it will be made ever more available worldwide with fewer restrictions. I would extend a grudging congratulations on the future victory of the abortionists, but that victory is already early complete.

A one world government WILL happen. Though I personally despise the UN and see it as an utterly useless and hopelessly corrupt body, it represents a growing movement to the impending one world government. The instruction starting to be put on schoolchildren that is inducting them to the idea of being citizens of a unified world rather than of an individual country will spell the end of widespread resistance to a single global government in 30 to 40 years. I would be surprised if it took longer than that. And it absolutely MUST happen for the Antichrist to be able to become the one leader of the entire world. If there is no one world government, how can the Antichrist rule the world? It will not happen by force but by diplomacy according to the Bible, so there must already be a world government in place. So, a grudging congratulations must be extended to the UN for its future success in becoming the sovereign governing body for the whole world. If it is not the UN it will be another world body. The Bible says so.

Christianity will become more persecuted, more hidden from view as time goes on. None of the evils that men will bring to the world will be allowed to happen without resistance as long as Christianity has a strong public voice. Right now there is a movement to silence Christianity in the public square and to remove all public reminders of Christianity from public view. Eventually this movement to suppress Christianity will succeed, and during the time of the Antichrist’s rule that silence will be turned to such persecution that the punishment for being a Christian will be death by beheading. So, a grudging congratulations must be extended to the Atheists for their impending victory. They will get everything they want and more as far as suppressing Christianity is concerned. Once again, the Bible says so.

Today we can see how values the world over are being convoluted, evil is being considered good, and good is being considered evil. The usual terms that is used to describe people who stand by what is good are bigot, ignorant, old fashioned, repressive, mean, and any other of a myriad of generally demeaning terms that the radicals and liberals use to describe everyone who stands by what is right according to God. It’s bothersome, but its okay, the Bible says this twisting of human values is going to happen.

Before any of you who actually want to see what I have described come to fruition break out the Champaign in celebration of someone who opposes you saying that his religion predicts total victory for you I suggest you consider the following.

All of this and more is prophesied to happen for the sole purpose of preparing the world for the final judgment, the ultimate wrath of the Lord God before He finally kicks all sin and all unredeemed sinners out of the world and casts them into the eternal torment of Hell. These victories for the radicals are simply preparing the world for the apocalypse itself.

So why bother to fight it? I fight it because it is the right thing for me to do as a Christian. It is my God-given duty to tell the truth so that any who will hear it and believe have the chance to do so. It s my God-given duty to tell the truth so that any who hear it but do not believe remember it when the events recorded in the Books of Daniel and Revelation come to pass, and maybe, just maybe, some of them will come to believe and be redeemed even in the darkest time the world will ever see.

Still, it is tiring. It is draining to watch events unfold that I desperately want to stop, but also know that nothing will stop them. It is draining to tell people the truth of the situation and to speak what is right knowing that the very people I a want most desperately to reach are simply going to reject what I am saying anyway. Still, I do it because it is the right thing to do.

If it were up to me none of the things I have said here in this article would come true. Christians would win the culture war handily, there would be worldwide revival, and we would enter a golden age unlike any the world has ever known to date. It will not happen though. Instead I and all others who fight beside me will lose this fight in the most complete sense of the word. The world will enter the darkest times it has ever known and will ever know. But, Jesus Christ will return, reclaim the world for Himself, kick all evil out of it, and then we will enter a golden age far greater than the one we would have if I had my way in the current culture war. And this golden age under the rulership of Jesus will last an eternity, after a slight hiccup at the end of the first thousand years when God will unleash Satan upon the Earth one last time for the final battle.

So enjoy your victory while it lasts you radicals. It will be short lived and it will be very traumatic for you. As for me and my ilk, we shall rest in the victory to come after yours.

Dismembering Evolution 7: Feathered Dinosaurs

Am I the only one who has noticed that every relatively small carnivorous dinosaur that is discovered these days is automatically assumed to have had feathers?

Take Bambiraptor for example. With no evidence to run with save for some similarities an bone structure between Bambiraptor and Archaeopteryx many artist’s renditions of it, most notably the sculpture made of it for the conference where the dinosaur was officially presented to the public, showed it bearing either feathers or hair-like projections assumed to be the precursor to feathers.

More recently a couple of small dinosaurs were discovered in China, once again assumed to have feathers for some reason. It should be noted that there have also been frauds regarding feather imprints found with dinosaur skeletons, all of which were immediately accepted and highly publicized until the fraud was exposed by a skeptic.

However, there is one very important creature to note that appears to represent a transition from dinosaurs to bird. It is Archaeopteryx.

The classic logical timeline that has been presented to students has bird-like dinosaurs preceding Archaeopteryx as a necessity to the development of this remarkable creature. The fact is that these birdlike dinosaurs appeared tens of millions of years after Archaeopteryx went extinct. Classically, it is taught that birds then arose from Archaeopteryx, with the most dinosaur-like ones coming first and advancing to modern birds. The actual timeline runs something more like this. Archaeopteryx – 10-15 million year gap – birds that survived until the end of the dinosaur age – another class of birds the lasted only a very short time – birdlike dinosaurs – a series of four classes of now extinct birds – modern birds appearing while the birdlike dinosaurs still roamed the Earth. This defies the necessary evolutionary development requirements by having Archaeopteryx predate the dinosaurs that should be its ancestors. It also fudges evolutionary theory by having actual birds appear before the supposed precursors to Archaeopteryx. It also does not fill the gap of millions of years between Archaeopteryx and birds. So evolutionary theory appears to be quite flawed as far as the fossil record goes.

It could be stated that there were divergent lines of evolution leading to similar development among birds and dinosaurs arising independently. First I want to challenge anyone to actually prove that this happened. Second, I want to point out the obvious flaw in this interpretation. This leaves no evolutionary precursors to Archaeopteryx, making it a random aberration of nature with no discernable source. It also eliminates all birdlike dinosaurs from the evolutionary mix because we are forced to conclude that since Archaeopteryx is not descended from them, and that birds themselves predate them, hey are nothing more than an evolutionary dead end. It also does not account for the multimillion year gap in the fossil record between Archaeopteryx and the first birds.

Now for some more personal musings on the whole subject of Archaeopteryx.

This beautiful fossil does share many characteristics of birds and dinosaurs. I will happily grant that. But this does not necessarily mean it is the ancestor of birds. For an example of this problem I shall turn to a more modern creature the Platypus.

The Platypus shares some remarkable similarities to both mammals and birds. It has hair and mammaries, but it also lays eggs and has a bill like a duck. By using the logic of the evolutionist this creature must represent a link of mammals descending from birds, or of birds descending from mammals. It has shared features, so it MUST be a transitional species. In fact, I am willing to bet that evolutionists 100,000,000 years from now will find platypus fossils and declare them to be the missing link between birds and mammals and something or the other.

Today, no scientist is using the platypus to try to prove that birds are descended from mammals, or that mammals are descended from birds, but it should only make sense to make this argument if you are a Darwinist. I mean, shared features prove common descent right? Mixed features prove ancestry, right? Also, isn’t hair supposed to have preceded feathers anyway? Aren’t feathers just modified hairs? That means evolutionary theory should stop looking for dinosaurs as the transition to birds and start looking to the tiny primitive mammals that lived during the age of the dinosaurs. After all, nobody is claiming that mammals evolved from dinosaurs; there is just no fossil evidence to support this.

So to the Darwinist I say, is the Platypus a transitional species between birds and mammals or not? Do the shared features prove that birds and mammals are interrelated to the point of having split from each other at some point? And if so, doesn’t this eliminate archaeopteryx as a missing link/transitional species? And most importantly, why aren’t the Darwinists asking these questions themselves? Why do people like me have to point them out?

The simple lack of reason, the inability to see and address problems with evolution is, to me, a sign of a weak secular mind. To accept a theory without question is to take it on faith. To fail to look critically at an assertion to evaluate how true it is is gullibility. I remember being taught the classic timeline of Birdlike dinosaurs to archaeopteryx to birds in school and books all the way up to a couple years when I bought my most recent book on dinosaurs. The fact that the timeline is off according to the fossil record causes serious harm to the credibility of all who teach this false timeline. The failure to address this problem openly to a critical public shows fear, fear of reducing people’s faith in evolution.

Dismembering Evolution 6: Math

Math is almost universally considered to be the one thing that take a theory and actually prove it well enough to make it a law. It is also the tool most commonly used to determine if theories are even remotely possible, probable, or incredibly likely to be true. Science loves math for these specific reasons.

Yep science loves math for these reasons, but evolution hates math for the same reasons.

Mathematically speaking, anything that has 1 out of 10 to the 50th power of probability is considered impossible. I have heard it go as low as to the 1 chance out of 10 to the 46th power, and as high as 1 chance in 10 to the 62nd power. For the sake of argument let’s use the one that grants the greatest range of possibility, 1 times 10 to the 62nd power. For those of you who are unfamiliar with scientific notation, this number is this big: 1 chance in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Any chance smaller than this is impossible.

Francis Crick, an Atheist and by no means a creationist or intelligent design supporter, a Nobel laureate for his work with James Watson in discovering the DNA helix did the following lesser known work. Inspired by the incredible intricacy of DNA and the amazing complexity of a single cell he set about working out the math to determine the probability of a single cell arising by mere chance. After much work that has been rechecked by mathematicians many times, he came up with a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 200 power. For a better visual this number is this big: 1 chance in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. That is the odds of a single cell coming about by mere chance. As you can see, this is far beyond the upper limits of possibility. And that number is twice as big as the biggest named number, a 1 with 100 zeroes after it, called a Google (sound familiar? Tasty tidbit: According to Google there are 24,430,000,000 web sites with the letter a in them. This obviously does not include any websites in any language that does not use the letter A, but it’s a big number, and a tiny one compared to the numbers we are using here.). It is important to mote that every 0 at the end of a number makes the new number 10 times bigger than the last one. So 10 to the 63rd power is actually 10X less likely than the upper limits of impossible at 10 to the 62nd power.

As I understand it, Crick solved his dilemma with evolution by deciding that life on Earth must have extraterrestrial origins. That Earth was “seeded” somehow by life elsewhere in the universe. While it is tempting to attack the obvious logical fallacies in this type of thinking I shall spare him the humiliation as no serious scientist is willing to step up and support the idea that life on Earth is actual alien in nature.

Fred Hoyle came up with even more unlikely results of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000. I’m just mentioning this as a side note since Crick’s work is damning enough on it’s own without being so easily attacked as an inflated number.

Given this, it is important to note that this work inspired another evolutionist to look into the odds of a creature as complex as a human coming about from pure chance from non-life through evolution in the entire time the universe has been around. Ted Holden found that the chances of humanity evolving from non-life are 1 chance in 10 to the 167,896th power. This is such an astronomically large number that it rivals the number of particles that can be found in entire universe.

So what do Darwinists do in the face of good math damning their pet theory? They make ridiculous statements like the following: Ted's sample calculation of the odds is invalid, because it presumes a simplest-replicator many orders of magnitude larger than abiogeneticists propose, and treats individual events as independent, which no abiogeneticist proposes. In short, those odds are a straw man (Wayne Throop).

Ah, I see. So the odds of a process happening at all are meaningless because, as you can see by the life all around you, it must have happened no matter what the odds are, so quit muddying up the waters with facts. All we have to do say it' actually easier. All we have to do is say that even simpler proteins are needed than we used to say. All we have to do is say that the smallest replicators are easier to have happen and that suddenly validates the idea that all of these simple replicators actually came together, formed a more complex replicator, then formed a living cell, and then tat cell evolved into the incredible diversity of life that has covered the Earth at various times throughout history. Who cares about the odds of all this stuff actually happening, as long as we can say that the simplest self replicating molecule isn’t quite as improbable as an entire human?

Even in this series, Darwinists have repeatedly made the claim relevant data is meaningless simply because the waters can be muddied enough to allow for reinterpretation of the data. This is, in my opinion, both sloppy and dishonest. It is also remarkably common when evolution is involved (and other politicized issues like climate change), and remarkably uncommon when ideology is left out of science. Can you imagine a doctor saying that a verified case of HIV isn't really HIV because this particular strain of HIV seems to replicate at a slightly faster rate in this patient, so it MUST be a new virus. How long before this man gets tossed out of medicine for incompetence?

Further delving into the math shows that out of the known amino acids there are 10 to the 390 possible proteins that can be made. However, out of this only 2 x 10 to the12th power are usable for life. the rest is unusable gibberish in living organisms, and by the simple lack of their use in living structures, it can be reasonably assumed that the inclusion of these 10 to the 378th power proteins is fatal in life. This reasonably explains why no new phyla have emerged following any of the great extinctions. Everything that can be used to make life was already being used, all else is dross. Why does this matter? Well, if so many proteins are available, how many unusable proteins are self replicating? I would assume none, but I also know of no proteins that are viable for life that are purely self replicating, though there may be a few. But even if we assume that out of the 2 x 10 to the 12th power proteins that life uses every one is capable of self replication (they are not, but let’s just go crazy here for a second) what mechanism would attract all of these proteins together to form a living cell? There is no answer to this question to date, and since the exceedingly generous conditions I have allowed are not reality, an answer is unlikely to be forthcoming. Even so, toss in just one fatal protein, and the entire project gets dead. All replication ceases to be.

There was a conference in England some years back where a bunch of biologists and mathematicians got together to try to prove the mathematical probability of evolution. It broke down into pure bickering and has never been repeated. This happened because every model the evolutionary biologists presented, when it was calculated out, was mathematically impossible. Even on repeated rechecks, and these mathematicians were not a bunch of Creationists or intelligent designers just out to destroy evolution, the math kept showing that every scenario, every theory, every mechanism, was simply impossible. Not one part of evolution help up to the math. So what happened? The Biologists kept telling the mathematicians that they were wrong and the math was wrong because evolution happened, it's just a fact. The mathematicians did many rechecks and concluded that the math was absolutely correct and that there is no way evolution could have happened; there had to be another answer, or another mechanism. So what did the biologists do? They continued to insist the math was wrong because the existence of life proves evolution happened. Very rational and mature of them I'm sure.

This event is not very well publicized. It is not well publicized because it casts doubt on evolution, and the only other theories besides evolution that are known today are ones that involve a God or godlike being making life. Since modern science has chosen to be antithetical to religion this is an unacceptable consequence. Amazingly, in their frantic defense of evolution, the Darwinists continue to refuse to even look for other answers. Is there another answer out there that does not include God? I don’t think so. But then I don’t know everything. There may well be another answer out there, and all research into finding it is being stifled by this idiotic insistence that evolution must be correct despite the obvious errors in the theory, the hostile math, and every other problem with the theory of evolution. Science is supposed to be self correcting, but how can it correct itself when it blinds itself to correction, or even additional possibilities?

In the realm of evolution this problem is purely theological. The Atheists need something to cling to that they use to say God does not need to exist. It is the justification they need to continue in their non-belief. That’s all fine and dandy, but don’t go trying to pass it off as science. Call it what it is. Call it your religion. It already has a name. It’s called Darwinism.