#78 Icons of Evolution

Suppose you are a high school or college science student and you walk into class on the first day. They hand you a brand new science book. You open it up, but inside is the text book from 50 years ago. The President of the United States is Lyndon Johnson. No Internet, no cellphones, VCR’s are not available yet, DVD’s not invented. A minicomputer cost $18,000. There are no personal computers.

How much credibility would you place on the material in that textbook?

What if I told you that current science books are still publishing the same information as 50 years ago about the Theory of Evolution, without any updating with new research? The truth is some of the information has been known to be false for 50 years and yet it has never been removed. One drawing that was known to be false 100 years ago (Haeckel’s embryo drawings) is still being included as truthful. Young minds of today are not being told the accurate scientific truth. Why not?

This Proof for God is going to talk about the explosive truth contained in a book titled, “Icons of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells [1]. This is not a religious book. It’s a science book about truth. Textbooks in school are supposed to tell the truth, right? Taxpayers are footing the bill to have their kids educated not indoctrinated. We should be collectively outraged if Dr. Wells is correct, and he thoroughly documents that he is.

Copyright Icons of Evolution, Page 249

In the back of the book, the author analyzes 10 popular high school textbooks and lays out a clear procedure for giving out grades on the scientific accuracy of the material covering the Theory of Evolution. Seven of the 10 textbooks rated an “F”. 2 graded out at “D-“. One got a “D+”. This is sickening.

Dr. Wells even called them “massive distortions and even some faked evidence.” [2] The book states, “An ‘F’ indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.” [3]

The book was published in 2002 and to be fair, some of those textbook publishers have probably altered their publications. Nonetheless, we now have a great grading system thanks to Dr. Wells in order to judge the truth or falsity of a lot the material that we learned as kids that supposedly proved evolution was true. Wells spends a chapter each on 10 different examples used in textbooks which are false or misleading at best. If you have kids, I hope you will enlighten them about their 50 year old text books.

The worst lie is Heackel’s drawings from back at the time of Darwin. He tried to show that embryos of many very different species are very similar and thus closely related in an evolutionary tree of life. Even 100 years ago it became known that he faked the drawings and that the real embryos are not that similar.

People who have indoctrination in mind understand very well the purpose of having an “icon” or picture that people can easily relate to and thus swallow a complicated concept uncritically. True seekers of truth, which is the supposed calling of scientists, would have protested these drawings for the last 100 years and they would not be in textbooks today. But people with an agenda always bend an inconvenient truth to fit their own ideas. They make a drawing and claim it as fact when it is not.

Here are the 10 “Icons of Evolution” from the book of the same name. All of them are massive distortions or deliberate falsifications. See if you remember any of them from your science classes.

Icon 1: The Miller-Urey Experiment. This experiment in 1952 supposedly showed how life could have originated in an early earth gas mixture that was struck by lightning. Scientists as early as 1960 began to doubt that the elements in the test tube were the actual elements on the earth at the time of the origin of life. Even if the elements were correct, all it did was create a small number out of the many amino acids required for life. That is still light years away from creating a protein. Hundreds of various proteins are required in order for even a single cell to exist.

Icon 2: Darwin's Tree of Life. It supposedly showed how all life originated from a single cell and branched off into all forms of life in later generations. No fossil evidence has ever been found to support Darwin’s tree of life and over 99% of the fossils we now have were discovered since Darwin. It’s a drawing from his imagination. He made it up.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 3: Homology in Vertebrate Limbs. Because the combinations of bones of various animals seem to be similar and used similarly, this supposedly proves they all descended from a common ancestor. This is obviously a logical fallacy and doesn’t prove anything about ancestry. Cars looks similar but they don’t reproduce, they are created by intelligence. Bats and whales have the same ability of echolocation, but do they come from the same ancestors? No one thinks that.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 4: Haeckel's Embryos. Already I discussed how this has been a known fake for 100 years and yet we can’t get rid of it. In the picture above is Haeckel's fakes on the first line and the actual embryo on the middle line.

Icon 5: Archaeopteryx-The Missing Link This fossil was first discovered in 1861 and was touted as the missing link between reptiles and birds, thus proving evolution. There should be millions of missing links but people were satisfied enough to believe in evolution once they could point to this one fossil. Actually a total of 8 of them were found, parts of them anyway, and they were even called “holy relics” and “unimpeachable evidence” by evolutionists. Most paleontologists today, however, do not believe it is the ancestor of any modern birds. There went the missing link.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 6: Peppered Moths. This supposedly showed how moths “evolved” because the darker ones would get eaten less if the trees they landed on were dark trees. Changing color may be an adaptation, but it is not evolution. It was also discovered that the original researcher faked his data by gluing the moths on the trees. They don’t really land on those trees.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 7: Darwin's Finches. The beaks of finches got bigger in dry seasons when food was less plentiful. This supposedly showed evolution, but it doesn’t because when the rains return, the beaks return to a smaller size. Even if there were permanent change, they are still finches. That’s not evolution.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 8: Four-Winged Fruit Flies. Intelligent scientists in a laboratory bred fruit flies so two small appendages grew into the size of extra wings. You can’t prove evolution by applying intelligent breeding. Fruit flies in the wild never develop extra wings. Even for the ones in the lab, the wings were useless and would have been selected out by natural selection as a disadvantage.

Icon 9: Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution. This goes all the way back to a drawing from Othniel Marsh in 1880 supposedly showing the straight-line evolution of small horse fossils to large modern day horses. It turns out the fossil record is not a straight line and it really can’t be used as evidence for or against evolution or intelligent design either.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 10: From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon. This drawing/icon is especially caught up in the minds of people for several generations. There is no scientific evidence behind this drawing at all. My Proof #1 Male and Female [4] is all about the impossibility of this drawing because it does not show women evolving simultaneously. My Proof #64 on Missing Links [5] goes into the fact that there is no fossil evidence for anything between the chimpanzee and the man.

If the Theory of Evolution rests on these icons for its evidence, it should have been in the dust bin of history already 50 years ago. They are just pictures and drawings. There is no science here.

If this is all the evidence they have for evolution, if this is the best they can do, then game over right now.

A number of evolutionist believers reviewed Dr. Wells book and called him essentially ignorant, stupid, or wicked. He responds to them very adequately in my opinion with scientific evidence. If you are interested in all the arguments, please go to his response: "Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution". [6]

Once people realize they have been duped by clever marketing using false icons and rabid character assassination of anyone trying to teach the truth, then the Theory of Evolution will be quickly shown to be like the Emperor’s new clothes, nothing there.

The only ultimate explanation of it all is going to turn out that life came from a non-material, very intelligent source.

There must be God.
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong, 2002, Regnery Publishing. Articles by Jonathan Wells, http://www.iconsofevolution.com/articles.php3

[2] Wells, Jonathan, Survival of the Fakest, Discovery Institute, appeared The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

[3] Wells, Jonathan, Survival of the Fakest, Discovery Institute, appeared The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

[4] Stephens, James, Proof for God #1 Male and Female, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/05/male-and-female.html

[5] Stephens, James, Proof for God #64 Missing Links, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/64-missing-links.html

[6] Wells, Jonathan, Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: A Response to Published Reviews, Discovery Institute, June 12, 2002, http://www.discovery.org/a/1180

#77 God of the Gaps

If you start to share with people some of the recent scientific evidence that points to God or a master designer, you may hear the rebuttal from someone that your evidence is just a “God of the gaps” explanation. It might even be said with some condescension.

There is no need to fear the “God of the gaps” slur and I’ll tell you why. But first, what is “God of the gaps.” The term was actually invented by Christian theologians who were trying to identify a certain strategy for proving that God exists which they assumed is doomed to failure.

If you try to argue for God scientifically by saying that scientists have no answer for something, therefore it must be God behind it, eventually science may discover a materialist process that explains it. If they do, then God is pushed out. Centuries ago, people did not understand thunder and lightning and concluded that it must be the gods fighting in the heavens. Once thunder and lightning were understood, poof, no more gods.

200 years ago, people assumed there must be God because the world was so complex and highly organized that only design could explain it. Then Darwin came along with a materialistic based theory that sounded pretty logical and scientific, and poof, many people who didn’t want a master designer anymore could base their rejection of God on evolution theory and so-called science, developing their faith that it could all happen randomly.

"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." That makes perfect sense to a believer, but to a God-denier and even your average scientist that is a “God of the gaps” statement. They have faith in a different place. They believe that scientists will eventually discover how life started and additionally of course there will be no need for God.

If you are a believer, you will be happy to hear this news. Over the last 50 years of research you would think that the “gaps” would be disappearing one by one and that scientists are slowly proving the case for the materialists. That’s even the way the materialists might be preaching it.

However, actually the “gaps” are getting bigger and bigger. What once seemed to be a small “gap” in materialistic explanations has often, after newer research, turned out to be an even more complex and complicated problem to explain materialistically. Also new “gaps” are being discovered all the time which scientists cannot explain. The evidence for a master designer is getting stronger, not weaker.

Here is a totally mind blowing fact I heard just today. I’m sure it’s going to be very controversial for years to come. It is totally beyond my understanding of how such a calculation could have been made, so I’m only reporting this new research. Here it is. Astrophysicists at UCLA have calculated that the total density of the mass of all the particles in the whole universe is so absolutely precise that changing the density by a single grain of sand would have caused the whole universe to cease to exist. Read that again, will you. Here is the reference.[1] My mind is blown thinking about it. That’s a pretty big “gap” to explain without a designer. Below is a chart. The density of the universe was so precise at one nanosecond after the Big Bang (447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc) that a variation of 0.2 grams would mean no universe. 0.2 grams more and the universe would have imploded after 15 billion years or 0.2 grams less and there would be no stars or planets, just dust.

“Thus the density 1 ns after the Big Bang was set to an accuracy of better than 1 part in 2235 sextillion (i.e. 10(exp 21)). Even earlier it was set to an accuracy better than 1 part in 10(exp59)!” [2]

Here is a different example in another field. Biologists thought for a long time that most of the DNA was useless, left over mistakes along the evolutionary trail. They called it “Junk DNA”. Maybe you have heard about it. But have you heard the latest? They have found that there is no such thing as “Junk DNA.” In fact, all the DNA seems to be used in the best, most efficient way possible to create living beings. They further discovered that some DNA does even double duty in two different processes. One amazing section does triple duty. A new “gap” was discovered. A really big one for evolutionary biologists! There is no known materialistic explanation for this type of DNA evolving because it performs two essential processes for life.

The “gap” for a materialistic explanation for the formation of a single living cell is growing bigger also. The odds of a single functional protein happening randomly are put at 1 in 10(exp180). Scientists currently estimate that 265 to 350 proteins are the minimum requirement for life [3], but more likely at least 500 to 1,500. Still those estimates are only for parasites that live off other living cells. So the estimate for a self-existing and reproducing cell is probably between 1,500 and 1,900 genes for making proteins. So the odds of producing just the proteins for life by random chance are now something like 1 chance in 10(exp 40,000). [4]

Gaps are not disappearing as predicted. They are getting wider. And new gaps are being discovered all the time. Take another example of astrophysics. My last Proof #76, 200 Parameters for Life, lists a few examples from the 200 known requirements for a planet to be hospitable for life. It was first thought there were only 2. It’s a known fact that 200 number will never decrease. Most likely it will continue to grow. These are not “gaps” anymore. They are proven facts. Calculations against natural forces alone creating a habitable planet like ours have been increasing. Hugh Ross optimistically put the odds at 1 chance in 10(exp215) [5]. Remember there are only 10(exp80) atoms in the universe. [6]

All the evidence in the world will not convince some people who don’t want to be convinced. But when the evidence becomes so overwhelming, what can you say about the person who won’t accept it?

Here is an example that I’m borrowing from Richard Swinburne.[7] There was a man who was kidnapped by a terrorist who was intent on killing him. The terrorist rigged up ten machines from a casino that are used for shuffling cards and dealing out one at a time. Each machine had a regular deck of 52 playing cards to shuffle. The terrorist set explosives all around the man and he calibrated each machine so that it would send a signal to set off the bombs if any card were drawn except the ace of hearts. Only one card from out of 52 in each machine would save his life, the ace of hearts. And all 10 machines had to produce an ace of hearts. If any machine dealt a different card, he would die. The terrorist goes a long way away and activates the shuffling machines. No explosion. He comes back to the room and there is the man safely alive and each machine has dealt an ace of hearts. The man totally cannot believe his good fortune. He is alive. How could it have happened? Was it an act of God? The odds of his survival were impossible. He had one chance in 52x52x52x52x52x52x52x52x52x52 = approx. one chance in 144,555,000,000,000,000. He states to the terrorist that surely there is a God or this could not have happened. The kidnapper says that there is nothing remarkable or surprising about this at all. It happened. He would not be alive to observe it if it hadn’t. No big deal. Any other result and he would be dead and not able to see it.

The mathematical calculation of the odds of our being alive in this universe is far, far less likely than the man surviving the bombs above. To those denying a God, our existence is no big deal. The only reality to consider is physical matter. They have decided that science must be limited to material processes only and they have faith it will eventually find all the answers there.

Whether they realize it or not, their beliefs and assumptions are based on faith. Faith in miracles unexplainable by current science and often violating the well known laws of nature identified so far. As each new “gap” in materialistic explanations is discovered, it makes the odds of us being here by accident less and less likely.

There must be God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Fine tuned density of Universe at time of Big Bang, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

[2] Fine tuned density of Universe at time of Big Bang, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

[3] Science Daily, Scientists Find Smallest Number Of Genes Needed For Organism's Survival, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm

[4] Williams, Peter S., The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design, http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=53&mode=detail

[5] Boyle, Tim, Does Life Exist On Any Other Planet In The Universe? Another Look At SETI, http://www.konkyo.org/English/DoesLifeExistOnAnyOtherPlanetInTheUniverseAnotherLookAtSETI

[6] Villanueva, John Carl, How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe?, http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/

[7] Swinburne, Richard, "The Argument from Design", http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/swinburne-design.pdf

#76 - 200 Parameters for Life

As scientists learn more and more about the world around us and the universe, they are learning how incredibly synchronized, interconnected, and interdependent every little aspect is.

In fact, some are saying that according to the laws of physics and chemistry, we shouldn’t even be here.

In 1966, astronomer and famous promoter of science, Carl Sagan announced that there were two requirements for life to be possible on a planet. He said you had to have a certain type of star like our Sun and you had to have your planet a certain distance from the star. Given there were 10(exp 27) stars in the universe that would mean there were about 10(exp 24) planets where life could exist. Surely we were not the only life. Our planet was just a “pale blue dot”, tiny, and insignificant. Humans were insignificant in any scheme of things.

But since that time, scientists have kept discovering more and more parameters that are requirements for life to come into existence. The number of parameters required went up to 10, then 20, then 50. One Christian apologist, Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has compiled 200 parameters [1] that must be met by any planet that could possibly support life such as us. That was over 10 years ago.

What started out as 10(exp24) possible planets for life, kept shrinking and shrinking and shrinking until it hit zero, zip, nada. Then it kept right on going! In other words, the probability that any planet at all, even ours, could exist and support life became more and more impossible. We shouldn’t even be here!

Check out these two links for long lists of the necessary parameters along with detailed explanations.

Does Life Exist On Any Other Planet In The Universe? Another Look At SETI
http://www.konkyo.org/English/DoesLifeExistOnAnyOtherPlanetInTheUniverseAnotherLookAtSETI

Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004). (Lists 154 parameters necessary.)
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2004/06/07/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004

Let me give you some examples. It turns out that not any old galaxy could allow life to exist. Actually it will have to be a spiral galaxy. It will have to be a certain size, not too big, and not too small. It will have to be a certain age, not too old and not too young. These facts would eliminate an estimated 90% of galaxies as candidates for a planet that could support life.

Next, some more parameters about the necessary star were discovered for life to be supported. It would have to be situated in the right location in the galaxy. It has to be located in a narrow region between the spiral arms of the spiral galaxy. If it is too close to the center, it will be destroyed because it will travel too fast and run into one of the spiral arms. If it is too far away, it will travel too slow and be destroyed as well. It can’t be in one of the spiral arms either.

There is a nice name given to all these amazing coincidences: the “Goldilocks” parameters, as in “not too hot, and not too cold, just right.”

The star has to be a single star. 75% of the stars in our galaxy are double stars or multiples. So they get eliminated. A planet can’t exist for long unless the star is single due to the irregular gravity. Also, the star has to be the right size, and the right mass, and the right age. It can’t be too hot or too cold. It can’t burn erratically and send off varying amounts of energy. The star has to be formed at just the right time in the history of the galaxy or the right chemicals for life won’t exist.

The planet that can support life must be in a very narrow zone around the star. It can’t be too close or it will get sucked in or burned up. It can’t be too far away or it will be too cold. It also has to be tipped on its axis approximately 23 degrees to allow for seasons and the right climate for life to grow in a large habitable zone.

Since life first began on earth, the sun’s luminosity has increased about 15%. Normally this would destroy all living things, but because life was growing and absorbing CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it was perfectly synchronized. Life was able to flourish. A very life supporting temperature has been maintained as life developed and exactly because that life was developing. It never got too cold or too hot. Going too far in either direction would have started a chain reaction leading to destruction of life.

Most stars as they revolve around the center of their galaxy also oscillate up and down. This is bad for life because the center of a galaxy sends off lots of radiation. It is extremely fortunate for us that there are lots of cosmic dust clouds to shield our sun from the radiation coming from the center of the Milky Way and also that our sun does not oscillate up and down too much. If it did, we’d die from radiation.

Obviously we need lots of water for life. If the earth moved just 2% closer or farther from the sun, there would be no more water.

The gravitational pull of the earth is exactly right for keeping water vapor trapped, but also amazingly and precisely right for letting methane and ammonia escape from the earth. These gases would be deadly. A few percentage points change in that and we all die.

The earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours. This is perfect. Any slower and we would be frozen or toasted, depending on which side you were on. Any faster and the winds would blow us away.

The earth is tilted on its axis 23.4 degrees. This is again perfect. More tilt and the climate would go crazy. Less tilt and the amount of livable space would be very small.

I wrote a whole proof for God on the unique qualities of our Moon. [2] It has many, many significant parameters that are just right. For example, if it was not a an abnormally large size for a moon or the exact distance which it is, we’d all be dead.

Did you know that you owe your life to the planet Jupiter? It is estimated that Earth would be struck by large meteors 1,000 times more often if not for Jupiter, obviously resulting in huge catastrophes and death. Jupiter is just the right size and in the right position to protect the Earth. If it were bigger, it would suck us away from the sun. If it were smaller, it would not shield us as well. Jupiter and Saturn have very nice smooth orbits which is to our benefit. If their orbits were a little more erratic, they’d pull us out of our orbit and you guessed it, we’d die.

All the gases in our atmosphere, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. seem to be in exactly the right proportions to sustain life. A little more oxygen and we could never put out all the fires.

The Earth has so many “Goldilocks” parameters that it is really mind boggling. The tectonic plates are necessary. The molten core is necessary for life. The earthquakes are necessary. The correct ratio between oceans and land masses is necessary.

This goes on and on and on. Up to 200 parameters have been identified already and that was 10 years ago. I’d be willing to bet that in the future even more parameters are going to be discovered, thus making it more impossible that we are alive by accident. If you want to get into more of the details, I highly encourage you to go to the two webpages I have referenced above or other resources that exist. Here is a third from the Wall Street Journal in December, 2014: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. [3]

So you can decide for yourself of course what you are going to believe, but you certainly have to admit that the odds of all these factors occurring so that life could emerge are almost infinitesimally small. Dr. Hugh Ross put the odds at 1 in 10(exp 42). There are an estimated 10(exp 27) stars in the whole universe. Let me write those odds out for you; 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. He also said that was an optimistic estimate because he was generous when assigning the odds to each parameter.

Could we really be that lucky? Here’s my conclusion.

There must be God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Hugh Ross, PhD., Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004), https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2004/06/07/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004 

[2] Jim Stephens, Proof for God #49, The Moon. http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/01/49-moon.html

[3] Eric Metaxas, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God, Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

#75 Hospice Workers

If you wanted to know what happens when you die, who would you talk to? Who are the experts? How about a chemist, or a biologist, or a psychology professor? Would you seek out a theologian or a minister? Let me recommend that you talk to a hospice worker. These people belong to a relatively new branch of nursing and have a special calling in life.

Hospice came to America from England, opening the first facility in 1971 in Connecticut. Hospice focuses on pain management, emotional, and spiritual support for the terminally ill. They provide counseling for both the patient who is dying and their loved ones who will be left behind.

Hospice workers see it all. Every day they take care of the dying individual and also their loved ones. They care for all ages, from very young children to teenagers, adults, and of course the elderly who are terminally ill.

Maggie Callanan, a hospice nurse for 27 years, has witnessed more than 2,000 deaths. She is an author and speaker on death and dying. She co-authored the book Final Gifts: Understanding the Special Awareness, Needs, and Communications of the Dying which is all about the striking similarities of what people experience as they pass from this life. She said:

"Wouldn't you like to learn what dying is like, since you're going to do it? Our patients are talking while it's happening. It's like you're standing there watching a preview of coming attractions." [1]

In 2014 there were more than 8 new books published (see Amazon.com) on Hospice workers experiences. Now’s the time in history that the world is destined to learn about life after death from those workers who intimately experience it every day. Watch for it and you will see more and more stories being told publicly.

Trudy Harris wrote a book in 2008, Glimpses of Heaven, True Stories of Hope & Peace at the End of Life’s Journey, about her experiences with 44 patients who died.

“In the beginning when my patients were explaining these experiences to me, I was very skeptical. I began to hear the same stories over and over and over again…. After twenty plus years of caring for hundreds and hundreds of patients and hearing the same scene played out over and over and over again, the skepticism went away.” [2]

Elissa Al-Chokhachy, author and speaker, wrote Miraculous Moments: True Stories Affirming Life Goes On. This book contains 88 stories she has collected from medical professionals and educators. She writes about the experiences of doctors and family members after a person dies. 

After a death, their loved one comes to them through sight, sound, touch, smell or a sign.

“Originally, I thought it was really rare that people had these experiences of loved ones after they die…. I can now say it's quite common, but very few people talk about it. They don't want people to think they're crazy, and they're not even sure it's real or not.”

“The more I work with the dying, the more I believe in life after death, I know there is life after death because there are so many affirmations.” [3]

Here is more from a news article:

“However, for workers who specialize in aiding dying patients, known as hospice caretakers, the afterlife is a far more solid place than a religious ideal or comforting dream for the dying. Visions of deceased relatives and angels are frequently debunked as the product of a dying brain. Yet, the sheer volume of reports of otherworldly experiences from the dying and the common ground they all share despite religious, cultural, and geographic differences raises questions and suggests these waking dreams are valid experiences, not mere hallucinations.” [4]

In Death-Bed Visions: The Psychical Experiences of the Dying, William Barrett says: “If these otherworldly visions were simply hallucinations, how could countless patient stories match? In fact, there have been several sightings of angels by dying children who were surprised to find their holy guides arrived without wings.” Hospice workers and doctors' reports of their dying patients' visions from Europe, Asia, and the United States were found to have eerie similarities. Aside from minor religious differences, the deathbed visions of these patients were consistent.

Here are some more words from Trudy Harris:

“I began to see a pattern in my work. The closer my patients came to dying, the more their eyes and spirits seemed to open to a reality I only glimpsed dimly. One after another, patients recounted not just visits from absent loved ones but an extraordinary awareness of God’s presence.

Sins they’d agonized over for years suddenly felt forgiven. Grievances they’d spent a lifetime nurturing vanished in a rush of reconciliation. Even unbelievers unaccountably yearned for God, questioning or arguing with me about my faith, until all at once they began praying.

Slowly it dawned on me that death is an ending only for those of us still wrapped up in the story of our own earthly lives. From the perspective of the dying, death is a strange and wonderful beginning, a threshold to some new and more beautiful world.” [5]

If there is life after death and all indicators say that there is, then there must be God.

------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Barbara Brotman, Chicago Tribune, "Striking similarity of dying words, Longtime hospice nurse believes patients are glimpsing the afterlife", http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-x-dying-words-0619-20130619_1_hospice-nurse-maggie-callanan-death-awareness

[2] Trudy Harris, Glimpses of Heaven, True Stories of Hope & Peace at the End of Life’s Journey, Revell, 2008

[3] Jody Feinberg, The Patriot Ledger, "Hospice nurse comforts the dying and bereaved through her work and new book", http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20100810/News/308109676

[4] Joseph M. Higgins and Chuck Bergman, Hospice Workers' Stories, http://www.netplaces.com/evidence-of-the-afterlife/medical-personnel-witnesses-to-the-crossing-over/hospice-workers-stories.htm

[5] Trudy Harris, Guideposts, “Evidence of Life After Death, Is there proof of life after death? This hospice nurse has faith that her patients move on to heaven.”

#74 Proteins

Most people are familiar with proteins, as in “be sure you eat enough proteins.” However, proteins are far, far more significant than that. In fact, if you took all of the water out of your body, what would be left would be 75% proteins. [1]

Proteins are especially troublesome for the God-deniers. This is because thousands of proteins are necessary for even a single cell to exist. However, there is no known process for producing proteins without the DNA from an already living cell. It’s a real “Catch-22”. Without proteins there is no life, but without life there are no proteins.

The total number of different proteins that are estimated to exist in the human body is around 50,000. “The common bacteria, E-coli, is predicted to have a total of 5,000 organic compounds of which 3,000 are proteins.” [2] The sum of proteins in biological organisms exceeds 10 million, but nobody has a clear picture of this. [3]

Proteins are very complicated molecules. If a simple bacteria requires 3,000 in order to live, then it’s impossible that a simple bacteria occurred by accident because you cannot get even one protein by accident, let alone 3,000.

It is estimated that the human body has the ability to generate 2 million different types of proteins. However, the Human Genome Project concluded that there are only 20,000-25,000 genes, i.e. sections of DNA, used to make proteins. How is this possible? The human body clearly is not using 1 to 1 coding to make the proteins from genes. Some process way more complex and intelligently designed must be at work.

Proteins are made up of amino acids, the building blocks, linked together. There are about twenty different amino acids commonly found in plants and animals. A typical protein contains 300 or more amino acids. Especially important to note is that each protein has its own specific number and sequence of amino acids. One mistake in the sequence and it doesn't work, or even worse causes disease.

Yeast proteins are on average 466 amino acids long. The largest known proteins are a component of the muscle fibers with a total length of almost 27,000 amino acids. Do you really think that the thousands of proteins that exist could have accidentally formed with the correct number and configuration of amino acids? Even the simple yeast protein has exactly the right 466 amino acids (of a possible 20) in exactly the right place in the sequence.

Proteins are long chains of molecules, but they are “folded” around on themselves many times making specific, unique 3-dimensional shapes that allow them to do the work they do.

Once a protein is formed, it only exists for a certain period of time and then is degraded and recycled by the cell's machinery. They can exist for minutes or years, having an average lifespan of 1–2 days in mammalian cells. Abnormal and or incorrectly folded proteins are degraded more rapidly.

Proteins are essential elements for growth and repair, good functioning and structure of all living cells. Hormones, such as insulin, control blood sugar levels. Enzymes are a type of protein crucial for digestion of foods. Antibodies, another type of protein, help us fight infections. Muscle proteins allow for contraction or muscles would not work. Hemoglobin, an iron containing protein, transports oxygen via the bloodstream.

From the National Institutes of Health [4] 

Here is another list of protein functionalities from a science website:

Protein has a range of essential functions in the body, including the following:
- Required for building and repair of body tissues (including muscle)
- Enzymes, hormones, and many immune molecules are proteins
- Essential body processes such as water balancing, nutrient transport, and muscle contractions require protein to function.
- Protein is a source of energy.
- Protein helps keep skin, hair, and nails healthy.
- Protein, like most other essential nutrients, is absolutely crucial for overall good health. [5]

Every one of the above processes is almost a miracle of design in itself. For example, every single cell needs nutrition to exist, but the cell membrane is impermeable to food particles. How does a cell eat? The cell membrane has thousands of proteins actually embedded right in the wall. These types of proteins are called “receptor proteins” because they have an exact shape that fits a particle of nutrition that comes along. When that particle fits into the protein, the protein becomes something different and absorbs that particular nutritional element into the inside of the cell. It’s awesome! Clearly it acts more like a designed machine than a random accident.

Here is another additional and more gigantic problem for the God-deniers. “A cell needs over 75 ‘helper molecules,’ all working together in harmony, to make one protein as instructed by one DNA base series. A few of these molecules are RNA (messenger, transfer, and ribosomal RNA); most are highly specific proteins.” [6]

Think about that. Just to make a protein in the first place, you have to have 75 other proteins and specialized molecules already there in place and available to play their role. Try to get that to happen accidentally. Any type of evolution is impossible.

All those 75 "helper molecules" must be present in the right places at the right times in the right amounts and with the right structures or else cells cannot make proteins by using the DNA’s base series coding. If all those requirements are met, then the cell can line up the amino acids at the rate of about two per second. It takes a living cell only about four minutes to “crank out” an average protein (500 amino acids) according to the DNA coded specifications. Wow.

Now I’ll give you one more last insurmountable problem for the God-deniers concerning proteins. For over 50 years, even aided by the super-computers of today, researchers have what is called the "protein folding problem". They are able to determine easily what is the amino acid sequence inside a long chain protein, but every protein is a folded up three-dimensional shape and they have failed to find where are the instructions for the folding. They can't crack the coding. It does not seem to exist in the physical, material realm. [7]

There are all kinds of issues associated with protein folding. Why does the protein fold the way it does? Where are the instructions, i.e. the code? What is the mechanism for the folding process? How can they fold so fast? Is there any way to predict how they will fold? The ongoing research is getting better at describing what is going on in the mechanism and the orderly arrangement of the molecules, but the big secret that they are not talking about is that this totally exhibits characteristics that had to be designed. It’s impossible to have occurred without an intelligent guiding force.

One parting shot. You may have heard about Stanley Miller and his experiments in a spark chamber creating what the media called “building blocks of life” or “life in a test tube.” Many school textbooks even proclaim his experiments. Please read up on the latest truth as explained by Prof. Gary Parker in his article “The Origin of Life.” Here’s the summation of what scientists now know about Miller’s experiments. "He had the wrong starting materials, used the wrong conditions, and got the wrong results." [8].

There must be God.

-----------------------------------------------------

[a] a. "Protein in the body", Iowa State University, Human Sciences Dept., http://www.extension.iastate.edu/humansciences/protein

[2] “How many Proteins exist in human body?”, http://www.innovateus.net/health/how-many-proteins-exist-human-body

[3] Dr. Gary Parker, The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein, https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/the-origin-of-life-dna-and-protein/

[4] What are proteins and what do they do?, National Institutes of Health, http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/howgeneswork/protein

[5] Emma Lloyd, An Introduction to Protein Molecules: The Building Blocks of Life,
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/6050.aspx

[6] Dr. Gary Parker, The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein, https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/the-origin-of-life-dna-and-protein/

[7] Ken A. Dill and Justin L. MacCallum, The Protein-Folding Problem, 50 Years On, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6110/1042.short

[8] Dr. Gary Parker, The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein, https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/the-origin-of-life-dna-and-protein/

#73 Punctuated Equilibrium

Many people have never even heard of The Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. It has been around since 1972 and it spells the end of Darwinism as you know it.

As I have explained fully in Proof #18, The Fossil Record [1] and Proof #58, The Cambrian Explosion [2], there is no evidence in the fossil record for Darwinism, the slow and gradual emergence of new species from previous species by passing through transitional forms (also called Missing Links, see Proof #64 [3]).

Even Darwin himself recognized this, but he blamed an inadequate fossil record. Ever since Darwin, as more and more fossils were discovered without any transitional forms, evolutionists found this only an uninteresting observation not disproof, if they acknowledged it at all. Certainly they kept it an unspoken secret if it could damage belief in Darwinism.

Here are two quotes from 1980.

“The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule:  the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.” [4]

“… Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school:…Increasingly scientists now believe that species change little for millions of years and then evolve quickly, in a kind of quantum leap…The theory is still being worked out” [5]

You didn’t know that Evolutionists don’t believe in Darwinism any more, did you?

Darwinism actually began to die out among paleontologists even earlier in 1954 when Ernst Mayr published his paper, “Change of genetic environment and evolution". [6] He showed that Darwin’s theory of slow and gradual evolution could not work in real life if there were large numbers of a given species. He proposed “Allopatric speciation” as the process of evolution and it was generally accepted by 1972.

“Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments. If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates.” [7]

After 120 years of observing the fossil record, the evolutionists finally recognized that any given species does not change much, if at all, for millions upon millions of years. True believers that they are, this didn’t stop them. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution predicted that there would be slow and gradual changes upward over time resulting in many new species. This didn’t show up. Rather than say that the Theory of Evolution was wrong, they decided that the slow and gradual must have been wrong.

They didn’t think to tell every school teacher after about 1954 that what they are teaching about slow and gradual evolution is false. The evolutionists let them go on teaching Darwinian evolution that they themselves no longer believe.

“In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” [8]

Let me add my own emphasis to double the impact: Darwinian gradualism is virtually nonexistent. 

The Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium states that a species will stay almost exactly the same for millions of years, i.e. in stasis or equilibrium, until there are sudden “punctuated” changes of a huge degree and a whole new species emerges in a very short period of time. The original species will probably continue to exist but a new daughter species will spring up suddenly in some isolated location from a small population. Only a small group of individuals could change so radically in a short geological time frame into a new species.

Here is an astounding statement which is found in Wikipedia. “Before Eldredge and Gould alerted their colleagues to the prominence of stasis in the fossil record, most evolutionists considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.” [9] Darwinism predicts there is slow and gradual change over time and yet Wikipedia says the fact that nothing was changing over time was unimportant to them!

This admission and the new theory obviously turns Darwinism on its head. However, evolutionists, even if they don’t see evidence, still believe it is the truth. Evolution is still true even if they can’t find evidence yet. Besides, they concluded, there was never any real requirement that the changes be slow and gradual.

“…at a conference in mid-October at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the world’s top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists and developmental biologists supported some form of this theory of “punctuated equilibria.” [10]

Let me say that more clearly for you. A majority of the world’s top scientists agreed in 1980 that Darwinism as it was taught to you in school is false. Hence my conclusion, Darwinism has died.

Therefore for teachers to teach that scientists believe in Darwinism has been false since at least 1980.

Punctuated Equilibrium accounts for the fossil record much better than Darwinism. But you are probably asking yourself, “How could such massive changes take place evolving a new species in a short period of time if it hasn't happened over millions of years?” The new theory explains this by saying that the massive changes take place in small fringe populations that get isolated from the larger populations. The huge changes take place in a short geologic period of time, i.e. a few thousand years through processes something like inbreeding and major environmental shifts.

This is very helpful because it explains why there are no transitional fossils, no missing links. The populations were isolated and also there were relatively few individuals, therefore they were less likely to leave fossils in the record.

It’s also very helpful to evolutionists because it predicts that you won’t find the fossils you need to prove it’s true. So also you conveniently won’t be able to find any evidence that the theory is false either.

Many philosophers of science accept a definition of a valid scientific theory as one that is based upon (1) repeatable observations, (2) one that is subject to testing and making accurate predictions, and (3) one that is "falsifiable."  The “punctuationists” clearly have some problems having a valid scientific theory.

Random Mutation and Natural Selection cannot be shown to create any new species even over very long periods of time, so the best new theory evolutionists have come up with is that it must happen over a very short period of time. Their theorized descriptions come off sounding very scientific and very complicated, but the bottom line is that there is no evidence that the process actually works or could work.

Here is an astounding statement by an evolutionist.

“The core observation that once most species show up in the fossil record they exhibit hardly any change at all – not uncommonly remaining essentially static for millions of years – was made 150 years ago and was known to Darwin, but little was made of it until comparatively recently.” [11]

The Theory of Evolution predicts slow and gradual change over time. However, they made the “core observation” for 150 years that this was NOT happening and yet “little was made of it.” Do they really call themselves scientists?

“Now we admit that evolution is more of a fits-and-starts affair than we used to think. This hardly seems to be the stuff of revolution.”[12]

That quote is from Niles Eldredge, who came up with punctuated equilibrium. He can say it is no big deal, but it means traditional Darwinism is dying out, if it’s not already dead. To me that is certainly very revolutionary. Why, because all the schools teaching Darwinism need to stop it right now.

Probably, it will take time, but the handwriting is already on the wall. Darwinism is dead. What you and I learned in school and what is still being taught today is FALSE and they know it. And they don’t have any viable proof for their latest theory either, just blind faith and hope they can find some other mechanism in the future to make the theory come true without God.

I thought you should know what many of the scientists have admitted to themselves since 1972.

We believers can see that evolutionism is pure faith, not science, even if they can’t.

Actually their faith is less scientific than someone’s faith that there is a Creator God. The theory of a Creator better explains the scientific facts. Maybe if evolutionists keep researching, they’ll eventually find God, but only if they are willing to go where the evidence leads them.

The only truly scientific conclusion is that there must be God.

----------------------------------------

[1] Jim Stephens, Proof for God #18 The Fossil Record, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/08/18-fossil-record_29.html

[2] Jim Stephens, Proof for God #58, The Cambrian Explosion, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/04/58-cambrian-explosion.html

[3] Jim Stephens, Proof for God #64, Missing Links, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/64-missing-links.html

[4] Jerry Adler and John Carey, Is Man A Subtle Accident?, Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 1980, page 95

[5] Jerry Adler and John Carey, Is Man A Subtle Accident?, Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 1980, page 95

[6] Mayr, Ernst (1954). "Change of genetic environment and evolution" In J. Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. Evolution as a Process. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 157-180.

[7] Wikipedia, Punctuated Equilibrium, Theoretical mechanisms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

[8] Princeton University Website, article on Punctuated Equilibrium, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Punctuated_equilibrium.html

[9] Wikipedia, Punctuated equilibria, section on Stasis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Stasis

[10] Jerry Adler and John Carey, Is Man A Subtle Accident?, Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 1980, page 95

[11] Niles Eldredge, Evolutionary Housekeeping, Natural History Magazine, February, 1982, page 79

[12] Niles Eldredge, Evolutionary Housekeeping, Natural History Magazine, February, 1982, page 80