Read Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution Online
Authors: Ray Comfort
Tags: #Chrisitian
Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution (5 page)
ROM
D
UST TO
D
UST
It was the eminent scientist, Stephen Hawking, who said, “There have been various ideas, but for me the most attractive is that the universe was spontaneously created out of absolutely nothing.”
8
So it’s not too difficult for someone to take that a step further and believe that it was
God
who spontaneously created the universe from absolutely nothing.
But the Book of Genesis goes on to tell us that God then made man from the
soil
of the earth. What an embarrassingly unscientific statement…so it seems. According to Yale University, the elements that make up the soil are: 1. Potassium, 2. Calcium, 3. Magnesium, 4. Phosphorous, 5. Iron, and 6. Manganese.
9
If God made the human body from the soil, it makes sense that both the soil and the body would be made up of the same elements. Let’s then see if these six elements that are present in the soil are also in the human body:
1. Potassium plays an important role in…nerve transmission [and] in conversion of glucose into glycogen and muscle building.
10
2. Calcium…is known as the fifth most common element in the earth’s crust and is a primary mineral in the human body.
11
3. Magnesium is essential to the functioning of the human body because it transmits nerve impulses, causes the contraction of muscles’ and is integral to healthy development of teeth and bones.
12
4. Phosphorus is present in bones and teeth and combines with calcium to form calcium phosphate which is the substance which gives the skeleton rigidity.
13
5. Iron is a mineral found in every cell of the body.
14
6. Manganese is an essential element to the human body…
15
So, is it a coincidence that the same six elements that are in the soil are also essential for the life of the human body? That’s what you and I have to figure out before death takes us into eternity…when our bodies decompose and turn back to the soil from which they came.
In answer to the question, “Did life begin in an “RNA world?” L.J. Gibson of the Geoscience Research Institute says:
For many years there has been a general dissatisfaction with the protein hypothesis of the origin of life. Proteins cannot replicate themselves, making them unsuitable as a starting point for the development of life. However, there seemed to be no naturalistic alternative available until recently. This newer hypothesis has been dubbed the “RNA World” (Gilbert 1986). The basis for this model is the discovery that certain RNA molecules have catalytic properties. Since RNA also serves as a carrier of information, it seemed reasonable to suggest that ancient RNA molecules might have acted as a starting point for the origin of life. The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life seems a significant improvement over the protein hypothesis, and has been the subject of considerable discussion.
His article concludes with:
The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life requires implausible events at each step in the sequence outlined. Small molecules are highly unlikely to have been available in any plausible model of a primordial earth. Even if small molecules were present, they would be highly unlikely to produce the large protein and nucleic-acid molecules useful for life. Even if the large molecules were present, there is
no known mechanism whereby they might be organized into functional cellular or subcellular units. The “RNA World” hypothesis suffers from many of the same problems as the protein hypothesis, and has additional problems of its own. Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator.”
16
HAPTER
F
OUR
I
NTELLECTUAL
D
EGRADATION
A
S WE HAVE
seen, man
cannot
create a grain of sand from nothing, let alone a living, breathing entity. He can manipulate, engineer, influence, or maneuver, but he cannot create a green pea, sheep, chickens, a pig, a tree, or even a flea, from nothing. Again, we know that with all of his genius, man cannot create anything from nothing, so how intellectually preposterous is it to actually believe that in the beginning nothing created everything? Atheism is off the charts of human folly. By contrast, the flat-earther is a real genius.
The moon has a lot of silica on its surface, which is a very reflective mineral, ideal for reflecting the sun. The moon turns at exactly the same speed it orbits, so we never see the other side. The sun and the moon govern the tides, the moon more than the sun since it is closer to earth. When the moon is close to earth the tides will be high in that region, since the gravitational pull of the moon pulls the water on earth towards it. The moon causes tides, which cause waves to break along shores (also waves at sea). This tumbling effect brings oxygen into the water, which keeps sea life alive. If the moon were larger or closer the tides would be devastating;
if it were smaller or farther away the tides would fail to oxygenate the water and most sea life would die.
The moon governs our entire tidal system. Yet atheists, in the name of science, mock the thought that the moon can “rule the night” (see Genesis 1:16). Perhaps in time science will discover that the moon has a relationship to the night. Sadly, atheism has done to science what hypocrisy has done to Christianity.
When a man (or woman) professes atheism, he immediately disqualifies himself to speak as a representative of science because his premise is a violation of the fundamental rule of science.
Some evolutionists seem to think that I’m a monk and I live in some sort of monastery. But I’m not locked away from the real world. I go out for meals, follow the news, and read books. I also love science. In case you didn’t know, “science” is God allowing man to discover the secret workings of His incredible creation. Many of our greatest scientists loved God—Galileo, Newton, Francis Bacon, Nicholas Copernicus, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, and Kepler, just to name a few. Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a
personal
God), rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world... I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.
My Christian friends also love science. Without it they would be blind, as Einstein said. But look what he said about those who leave God out of the equation. They are lame. But they also intellectually disqualify themselves from speaking on behalf of science, because their basic worldview of “nothing created everything” is a scientific impossibility.
Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”
1
If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.
An atheist speaks of the incredible creation. I speak of the incredible Creator. He speaks of the greatness of space. I speak of the greatness of the One who made it. He loves creation. I love the Creator and will escape His terrible swift sword, because I trust in His mercy. It’s my earnest prayer that every human being would also trust Jesus for his own eternal salvation.
Y
“D
ISHONESTY
”
AND
E
VOLUTION
Atheists and evolutionists are continually accusing me of dishonesty because I want evidence of species-to-species transition forms. They say that I don’t understand the true evolutionary theory.
Let’s settle this argument once and for all. The “missing link” is something that links one species changing into another species. The following article addresses the subject. In it, I have italicized references to species-to-species transitional forms:
Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution. Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link
between fish and land animals
[change from one species to another species], showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago. Paleontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the
Tiktaalik roseae
and described today in the journal
Nature
, could become an icon of evolution in action—like
Archaeopteryx
, the famous fossil that bridged the gap
between reptiles and birds
[change from one species to another species]. As such,
it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.
2
Of course, as touched on earlier, the above claims can’t be substantiated.
Archaeopteryx
(unlike
Archaeoraptor
) is not a hoax —it is a bird, not a “missing link” between birds and reptiles. The missing link is still missing, and we’re still waiting for the first piece of genuine evidence for the theory of evolution.
ONFESSIONS OF A
B
ACKSLIDDEN
A
THEIST
Atheist, novelist, and biographer A. N. Wilson, a friend of bestselling atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, made the stunning announcement in April of 2009. He had become a believer in Jesus Christ.
Explaining his original embrace of atheism, Wilson said:
As a hesitant, doubting, religious man I’d never known how they felt. But, as a born-again atheist, I now knew exactly what satisfactions were on offer. For the first time in my thirty-eight years I was at one with my own generation. I had become like one of the Billy Grahamites, only in reverse. If I bumped into Richard Dawkins (an old colleague from Oxford days) or had dinner in Washington with Christopher Hitchens…I did not have to feel out on a limb. Hitchens was excited to greet a new convert to his non-creed and put me through a catechism before uncorking some stupendous claret. “So—absolutely no God?” “Nope,” I was able to say with Moonie-zeal. “No future life, nothing out there?” “No,” I obediently replied. At last! I could join in the creed shared by so many (most?) of my intelligent contemporaries in the Western world—that men and women are purely material beings (whatever that is supposed to mean), that “this is all
there is” (ditto), that God, Jesus, and religion are a load of baloney: and worse than that, the cause of much (no, come on, let yourself go), most (why stint yourself—go for it, man), all the trouble in the world, from Jerusalem to Belfast, from Washington to Islamabad.
But then Wilson began to think, and the catalyst that made him think was the same one that started my brain working when I was twenty-one years old. The reality of death is a massive elephant in the room under and around which this unthinking world walks. A foot coming down full force on friends and loved ones tends to remind us that death is a level playing field. I could see the elephant and knew that it was just a matter of time for the foot to fall. Wilson continued:
Watching a whole cluster of friends, and my own mother, die over quite a short space of time convinced me that purely materialist “explanations” for our mysterious human existence simply won’t do—on an intellectual level. The phenomenon of language alone should give us pause. A materialist Darwinian was having dinner with me a few years ago and we laughingly alluded to how, as years go by, one forgets names. Eager, as committed Darwinians often are, to testify on any occasion, my friend asserted: “It is because when we were simply anthropoid apes, there was no need to distinguish between one another by giving names.” This creedal confession struck me as just as superstitious as believing in the historicity of Noah’s Ark. More so, really.
Creation cannot be divorced from a Creator. Its existence is testimony to Him who brought it into existence. Yet the professing atheist “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.”
3
He denies the axiomatic. Interestingly, it was the “evolution” of language that spoke to Wilson about God:
Do materialists really think that language just “evolved,” like finches’ beaks, or have they simply never thought about the matter rationally? Where’s the evidence? How could it come about that human beings all agreed that particular grunts carried particular connotations? How could it have come about that groups of anthropoid apes developed the amazing morphological complexity of a single sentence, let alone the whole grammatical mystery which has engaged Chomsky and others in our lifetime and linguists for time out of mind? No, the existence of language is one of the many phenomena—of which love and music are the two strongest —which suggest that human beings are very much more than collections of meat. They convince me that we are spiritual beings, and that the religion of the incarnation, asserting that God made humanity in His image, and continually restores humanity in His image, is simply true. As a working blueprint for life, as a template against which to measure experience, it fits.
When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion— prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.