|
ROMANS 1:18-21
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against...men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them... For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities... have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." |
Email this article
| Evolutionists ecstatic over methane gas discovery on Mars |
|
ARTICLE SERIES—Part 2 Had he lived, Charles Darwin would have just surpassed his 200th birthday. And to celebrate that "historic" event, almost 600 gatherings worldwide of various sizes reportedly transpired. To many revelers, Darwin was the man who finally gave atheism credibility. Yet after 200 years of government, media, and educational institution backing—an incredible 61% of Americans still don't buy his evolution hypothesis. And few "evidences of evolution" make it more obvious why than the latest cause for evolutionary rejoicing: methane gas on Mars. Evolution's need to exaggerate Methane gas had believers so uncontrolled that one British newspaper, eager to be the first, exclaimed: "NASA reveals life on Mars" (link to Sun article). And it is just this continual gross over-exaggeration that keeps so many unconvinced—and convinced. Why the need to exaggerate, extend evidence, stretch facts, or pound the "factuality" of something that clearly remains unproven? Why does evolution have such difficulty presenting hard scientific evidence that actually proves its case? And—why do evolutionists work so hard to keep unattractive evidence from the classrooms of the country? (Read article "Board of Education votes to drop evolution 'weaknesses' from Texas science curriculum".) Clearly, evolution, rather than truth, is what's being pursued. To many "educated" people (NOTE: Everyone in the world is "educated" to something, but some are not educated to truth), Darwin's Theory of Evolution has now attained the lofty status of Thermodynamics, Ohm's Law, Einstein's Relativity, and Newton's Law of Gravitational Force. But while some grant macroevolution a seat next to Thermodynamics in "Science's Hall of Fame"—others insist it would be more appropriately classified in the "Phylum" of Scientific Myths of bygone years—right there next to Flat Earth, Spontaneous Generation, Countable Stars, Leach Sucking and Geocentricism. Why? Two reasons: (1) The absence of supporting empirical evidence; and, (2) The existence of devastating empirical evidence (more on this in a later article, Lord willing). Advertising evolution as "fact" Politicians learned long ago that if you heavily advertised, you could convince people. If you control the ability to say everything, and everything you want to say, you can get people to believe almost anything. That's why dictators often control their media. Evolutionists knew long ago that since hard evidence lacked, simply advertising evolution as fact would gain converts. Simply by leaving the impression that "if you don't understand you won't understand"—the naive, or complacent, would be wooed. And backed by the vast resources of your tax dollars, programs like NASA can relentlessly pound their favorite theory as unquestionable—to the truly educated. Always absent, of course, is the empirical evidence. Evolutionists learned long ago that as long as they're permitted to express their theories in broad generalities, as long as no one questions the logic behind their speculations, then non-Experts like you and me will most likely continue to believe everything we see on TV or read in the paper. Thus, many meaningless discoveries, such as the latest "methane gas" finding on Mars, are grossly over-hyped. Yet no piece or collection of evidence has been any MORE convincing than gas on Mars. For no fragment or collection of evolutionary evidence has proved anything more or less than this latest discovery: which is nothing. Why would such a finding have evolutionists so enthralled? So, with all that said, let's get back to NASA's "methane gas" discovery. Why, you ask, would such a finding have evolutionists so enthralled? Probably at least 2 reasons: (1) Because they think methane gas provided the energy that helped the first "mother of us all" organism create itself by Spontaneous Generation (essentially); and, (2) Because bacteria on earth produce methane gas. Unfortunately for them, so do geological formations. But, as usual, that's beside the point. True to form, if bacteria COULD have produced this gas, then it probably DID produce this gas (everything else is termed "speculation"). Evolution is always naturally given the benefit of the doubt. Or, as my college zoology instructor basically informed our class at the outset: "Evolution is a fact. Just accept it." (No proof was ever presented...she instead announced that students shouldn't find it unusual that evolution can't be proved—since nothing in the world can actually be proved). So, since evolution is "fact," that means other beings ARE out there. And hospitable Mars is our best hope of finding them. So, that means that methane gas probably came from little aliens. Since that's probably the case, we can see once again that evolution is true. The myth of methane gas—and Chemical Evolution Yes, or so we're told, methane gas helped produce Martian life which in turn produced more methane gas. Or, even if the latter has yet to be confirmed, the former certainly has (in their own minds, not in the laboratory). Some call it "Chemical Evolution"—the belief that original earth-life crawled from the mud of Mars (or elsewhere) after being Spontaneously Generated by purely random chemical reactions. Thus, the inorganic transformed itself, incredibly, without the obvious assistance of Divine intervention, into life: Complete with the capacity to move, feed itself, reproduce, excrete waste, "breathe," drink, and adapt to its environment (so as to "evolve"). That's why some of us call it the "Religion of Evolution"—a false religion notwithstanding. But it was just this that the utterly meaningless 1950's experiments of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were trying to prove: that "Chemical Evolution" could have happened (see part 1 of this series). And to prove Chemical Evolution was possible, Miller and Urey combined the gases they believed were present on primitive earth (hydrogen, METHANE, ammonia, and water vapor) with liquid water in a sterile glass container, and blasted the gases with electrical sparks to simulate lightning on primitive earth. After allowing the potion to churn for the better part of a week, Miller and Urey noticed their glass container now contained a murky substance later confirmed to include amino acids (simple compounds which are the building blocks of proteins), and later experiments even got some simple nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA). Of course, Miller and Urey proved nothing more than what astute Chemists already realized—namely, if you apply heat to chemicals in a flask, they'll often clump together. So, in honor of evolution's tradition of presenting any and every finding as though it were meaningful, Miller and Urey determined that since all organisms are composed largely of proteins, and proteins are composed of amino acids, and simple amino acids can spontaneously clump in nature—then amino acids might eventually clump up with others to form proteins, which themselves could clump up to mold living organisms. In their own words, these "findings" represented much "interpretation" of a great many "indirect clues." Sadly, these men (and all scientists of their day) hadn't the slightest clue of how complex "simple organisms" really were, a fact to which Miller drearily admitted 40 years later when the eye-glazing complexity of these creatures would become more apparent. So, what is the true essence of methane gas on Mars—and Charles Darwin's evolution? Neither Charles Darwin, nor the latest discovery of Martian gas, nor Miller and Urey, nor any other "finding" of evolution—past or present—has even approached a scientific conclusion to the truthfulness of evolution. Meanwhile, the mounting non-evidence further establishes that Super Intelligent design was plainly responsible—which is, conversely, a provable fact. I'll plan to examine this in the coming weeks, Lord willing. But, in conclusion, what can we liken the methane gas discovery to? It's like a person wandering along a road, discovering a fragment of tire rubber, and concluding that if such could have appeared here by chance, then so could a perfectly formed tire; and if that could happen (given enough time), a simple automobile could eventually rise from the earth. Then, that simple car could learn to reproduce other cars just like itself, even more advanced vehicles, like Hummers, one of which could lose a tire fragment, thus leaving us an eternal clue of how it got here in the first place. A few miscellaneous quotes about nature randomly generating life In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle complained in Nature magazine: "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is [a number] big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence..."In 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question..."Old school NASA Experts actually had it right. Robert Jastrow, founder / director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA wrote: "According to [Evolution] every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none."Even Charles Darwin himself acknowledged: "The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many."No wonder Kind David of Israel wrote: "The fool has said in his heart "There is no God.'" 
BACK TO PART 1...
|
|