The true treasure that cannot be accidentally lost

“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which, when a man finds, he buries, and goes away rejoicing, and sells all that he has, and buys that field.”

(Matthew 13:44)

The concept

The theory of evolution in biology is that different types of plants, animals and other living things on Earth are descended from other pre-existing types, and that the distinctive differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Life began with inorganic molecules and evolved through nature into viable organisms, from simple molecules to modern humans.

It is an undeniable fact that organisms have changed or evolved throughout the history of life on Earth. Natural selection is a simple mechanism that causes populations of organisms to change gradually over time. The processes of natural selection operate slowly, over generations.

Those organisms that could adapt survived the ordeal, and those that could not, perished. Evolution can therefore be understood as a gradual change (genetic variation) in the characteristics of a species, brought about by the need to adapt to situations and environments through natural selection. Some of these characteristics may give individuals an advantage over others, which they can then pass on to their offspring.

The theory of evolution is one of the most powerful concepts in modern science. It is backed by abundant evidence, observations and testable hypotheses, allowing for the prediction of outcomes, changes and effects.

Ethical behaviour has emerged as a necessary consequence of man's superior intellectual capacities, which are traits directly promoted by natural selection. One of the main problems with the evolutionary view of morality is that it undermines the idea of objective moral truths, according to which there is no ultimate truth in morality about whether an action is right or wrong. According to its defenders, however, this is precisely the value in it, where the evolution of society shapes the norms of behaviour that everyone can follow.

Misleading science with personal consent

"Scientific truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings and prejudices have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter. Verified, repeatable facts are the basis of scientific truth." /Scientific truth - https://academic.oup.com/book/10860/chapter-abstract/159067052?redirectedFrom=fulltext

As a non-expert on the subject, you obviously didn't even realize how much science has misled you with the above statements, as you are convinced of their truth during your compulsory schooling, which is in line with your value judgement - which is a very important aspect, the most important! It gives you the freedom to choose the lifestyle that you practice and to which you adhere. You do not want anything else, saying that there is nothing else that has a perspective in your life.

What you may be forgetting is that the theory of evolution itself is an explicitly atheistic concept, since it does not seek scientific balance (things could have happened differently if other factors were taken into account), but rather it was specifically sought to prove it, sworn to, that everything happened as Darwin had stated and scientific principles were laid out accordingly. Subsequent adjustments may be made to the modalities of the evolutionary scenario, but the fact of evolution itself stands on a firm and irrefutable foundation.

The claim that "Scientific truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings and prejudices have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter." to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality! Especially the fact that "Verified, repeatable facts are the basis of scientific truth."

For the most part, forget the latter, as far as evolutionary phylogeny is concerned, or the origin of man from the animal kingdom. This is about as repeatable as the big bang, just have a person who survives the experiment.

Mutual self-deception - self-hypnosis

Right from the start, it should be pointed out that the otherwise not obvious fact is that the tastes of those representing evolutionary science are perfectly in line with your own, as long as you find nothing objectionable in the position of the elite who support evolution.

This is not surprising, because the roots found support on similar ground, but you may be quite surprised that the essence of the position was recorded from the very beginning in a book that you, by the way, do not hold in high regard, nor does the scientific elite.

The biblical description of the Garden of Eden has suffered countless criticisms throughout history, not only from the atheist camp, but also from those who consider themselves Christians and think in terms of evolution.

The Garden of Eden is a symbol of a sanctified, protected, enclosed, place, a symbol of the human world set against the fearful, surrounding world. "The garden is our own world, a world created and controlled by us. An ordered and harmonious universe, in contrast to the disordered and disharmonious world outside" (Hankiss, 2006 142).

“What is the most well-known case of sin in the Bible?
The description of the sin of our first parents resulting from pride and disobedience (Gen 3:1-6). This is the symbolic story of all other falls into sin.” (ASKING THE SCRIPTURES [Biblical Catechism] - St. Stephen's Society, 1980. p. 55.)

“Most people have heard, for example, that according to the Bible, God created the world in six days; or they have heard about Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. But few know the symbolic and profound teaching of these stories.” (ADULTS IN CHRIST [book of confirmations] Szent István Society, Bp. 1988. p. 33)

The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, supports the idea that evolution is God's means of creation, which has been accepted and embraced by more than 1 billion believers.

"The number of baptised Catholics worldwide has increased from 1376 million in 2021 to 1390 million in 2022." - https://www.vaticannews.va/hu/vatikan/news/2024-04/egyhazi-statisztika-novekszik-katolikusok-szama-vilagon.html

Well, the point here is not what is considered a symbol (which is not a symbol, by the way), but what the text inspired by God precisely points out, which is the most important moment: 

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1-5)

The world is searching for solutions to countless problems, such as a cure for cancer and answers to challenges in countless other areas, but the real problem is not here, but what the Bible states: “You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

What have we observed in the previous discussions? “Ethical behavior emerged as a necessary consequence of man's outstanding intellectual abilities… this is precisely the value in it, when the development of society develops norms of behavior that everyone can follow.”

Here is the meeting point of problem-solving of all things, the essence of which is the legalisation of autonomous thinking, man deciding for himself what is right and wrong for him:

"The concept of morality refers to the set of rules of behavior that a given society has collected based on past experience and deemed correct." /Wikipedia/

So the individual, society, and the scientific elite take for themselves the right to decide on a position that is favorable to them, in which the problem is not the decision itself (because it is necessary and useful), but rather that they decide their position in advance and stick to what they have decided in advance afterwards.

"I cannot believe in something, whose existence is not proven. To me, the Bible and God are nothing more than simple tales. Until there is proof, the Bible is a fictional book from ancient times. It is everyone's right to decide what they believe in, for me the important thing is that everyone respects the other's belief or atheism." /Atheist position/

If you decide on morality, you show that you reject it: morality decide on you. You may as well override the that sets the traffic rules for you. Or even the laws of nature.

Let's say you protest by not breathing for 20 minutes or so. But don't try to cheat me, because I'm measuring time with a stopwatch. Haven't you noticed that you exist within the ordered framework of time and space that operate independently of you?!

Free will – is it there or not?

Proverbs 11:27 (ASV) He that diligently seeketh good seeketh favor; But he that searcheth after evil, it shall come unto him. - says the Bible.

What does the scientific text say in contrast?

“Since our present decisions and actions are, according to determinism, the necessary consequences of the past and of natural laws, we have no control over them, and thus no free will… our choices are determined by our genetics, experiences, and environment, and the common use of the term “free will” is incorrect.” /Wikipedia/

So, on the one hand, man has no free will, but on the other hand, he can decide his own position - even in advance - on any issue that may or may not concern him. What is this if not a legalisation of the attempt to deflect responsibility from oneself?!

Free will is the choice of the moment before action, which overrides all predictability. If there were no free will, there would be no A la Carte menu in restaurants, only menus, and only one of them.

If the atheist has no free will, he cannot avoid the puddle in the street, so when the atheist parent chastises his child for getting mud on his clothes, it is totally unfair!

That man has free will is well demonstrated by his decision that "Life began with inorganic molecules and evolved through nature into viable living beings, from simple molecules to modern man."

It was decided by the scientific elite, it was decided by the rest of society, and it was decided by you, who are similarly in this mindset. And what is important about the decision is not the decision itself, but that you have decided in advance in a sovereign way /free of any external constraints, influence; self-willed/. Because you have chosen this worldview for yourself.

You may not have done your research either, but chose it because you like it, because it is close to your spiritual and intellectual feelings and thoughts. And that is a fact that you have to face up to when it is said to your face!

However, the fact that humans do have free will is evidenced by the fact that many people have not chosen the evolutionary worldview, even though they share the same atoms and neurons.

If there are two equally valid theories for the origin of the universe - creation or spontaneous generation - and one chooses the latter, it shows that one wants to live without God.

Those who seek the answer to the existence of God should not rely on others, but investigate for themselves. Others may not be able to give you the answer, but what you have sought for yourself, no one can take away from you.

That science has looked into things, it is claimed, but in reality it has looked into why the Darwinian concept of evolution is true, to which it is committed in the first place, and not into what conclusions the facts themselves might lead to. Yet how interesting it is that atheistic science leans its hand towards itself!

Evolutionists want to prove afterwards what they previously accepted as a basic worldview and from then on explain everything subordinate to it. To state in advance something they want to prove afterwards, shouldn't it be the other way round?!

On what do you build the credibility of evolution? "It is an undeniable fact that organisms have changed or evolved throughout the history of life on earth."

And why doesn't he say that his other statements are an irrefutable fact? Because the other statements are being dragged onto this one, without having the status of "irrefutable fact" in relation to it.

Let us then examine whether this proposition really holds for evolution? Does the evolutionary worldview deserve the respect it is given, and if so, to what extent?

The evolutionary worldview

In a subjective statement, only the statement is true, not necessarily what it says. Atheism is evidence of free will, that they have chosen this worldview and not the Christian faith. And a worldview absolutely exhausts the notion of a subjective /determined by personal interests/ position. [A statement is objective if it is arrived at in a completely unbiased way and is not distorted by our personal opinion.]

Evolution is basically a worldview, if you embrace it, you will see everything through that lens. "Nothing in biology makes sense unless you look at it in the light of evolution." (Theodosius Dobzhansky) The evolutionary worldview of Theodosius Dobzhansky - https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400863808.179/html?srsltid=

But the question is what justifies putting on these glasses in the first place, if not a predetermined worldview.

"Science commits suicide when it accepts a creed." /Thomas Henry Huxley/ By accepting evolution as a worldview, it has done just that. "The great tragedy of science - killing a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact." /Thomas Henry Huxley/

What is the ugly fact that kills the beautiful Darwinian hypothesis? I'm surprised the scientific elite hasn't figured this out yet, even though it's so obvious.

The GPS test of Darwinism

"The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) developed and operated by the United States Department of Defense (primarily for military purposes), which operates 24 hours a day, anywhere on Earth." /Wikipedia/

Imagine a GPS system in which all the world's roads suitable for car travel are programmed to rank on a scale of 10 to 100. The highest quality roads are at the top, the lowest quality at the bottom.

[For example, Afghanistan's infrastructure is well illustrated by the fact that one of the best quality roads between Kabul and Bamyan is 180 km long, and the journey takes about 4 hours by car, due to table-sized potholes (2-3 meters) that are 30-40 cm deep. /2024 data/ So where does this road rank on the scale, above or below? Obviously below.]

Suppose you live on one continent, say a country in Europe. Let's say it's Hungary, in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, in a village called Vilmány, at 9 Paprika Street.

You are now in the middle of Europe as a tourist in a small town called Saarbrucken /Germany/. You get into a taxi and say to the driver: - "Please turn at every intersection to the best quality road /where there is the most viable traffic option/ and I will let you know when I get home!"

The taxi driver turns on his GPS navigator, which shows him which road to take and when he reaches any intersection, he turns onto the best quality road. When do you think you'll get home?

The fact is, you will never get home because the strategic route home is not provided by the best routes, but by those that are purposefully chosen for the shortest route home!

So what you need is a GPS navigation system that has a map of the whole of Europe, and of Hungary, fed into it. There is also the county of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, the village of Vilmány, and in it Paprika Street 9. Why shouldn't it exist.

Now let's apply the same to biology. What built-in GPS system does nature use?

Adaptability is the key to survival

"Survival is not the strongest of the species, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change," wrote Charles Darwin in his seminal work On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. This is entirely consistent with the selection of the best quality paths.

Nature does not engage in species selection (which would be equivalent to choosing the shortest route home), but favours survivability. It does not select for species, but for adaptability.

If Darwinian evolution determines survival by the quality of adaptation, what does this have to do with the breeding of individuals of a given species? When does evolutionary orientation /by prioritizing adaptability/ result in the kind of character that would be essential for the evolution of any species? For the inexorable truth is that the survival of the fittest individuals is not the same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution of the species. And this is a truth that is proven by the laws of nature!

The concept of breeding

Breeding is the constant activity of mating and then breeding individuals with excellent breeding characteristics in order to obtain offspring with even better internal and external characteristics than the parents. [The totality of varietal characteristics and external characteristics (stamps) is called breeding character.]

So how did evolution from that very first alleged stem cell, called LUCA, manage to blindly and without guidance evolve millions of different species of plants and animals, and eventually humans, if natural selection favours adaptability over the conscious selection of the best breeding individuals?!

It cannot even create a new sub-species, let alone a whole new species that did not exist before! [To use the tourist example, a taxi driving blind on the best roads cannot even pick out Hungary, let alone 9 Paprika Street in the village of Vilmány in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County!]

Let the Animal Husbandry Engineer breed any new quality animal variety /e.g. Holstein-Friesian cows/ by selecting only the healthy cow individuals available for breeding, the ones most able to adapt to the habitat. Would he be successful? Go ahead, show us! Yet mainstream science claims that the selection of the most adaptable individuals occurred according to breed characteristics, and according to as many breed characteristics as there are species, i.e. millions.

Because if a group of scientists had to breed a previously non-existent species from a single cell that did not belong to any species, they would also have to select the subjects for breeding on the basis of the species. After all, the selection of the most viable rootstocks is only sufficient to breed the most viable ones, which do not provide any anatomical or trait parameters that are different from the initial base. Instead, it always produces the same thing, always reinforces the same thing.

The taxi on the best roads will stay on the best roads, but Hungary, in it Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county, in it the village of Vilmány and in it the house at 9 Paprika utca will never be selected. However, the species characteristics of every biological organism are like a certain point on the map that is different from the others.

In addition, what does Charles Darwin write in his autobiography about how natural selection works, what will come out of that? “... there is no more design in the operation of natural selection than in the direction in which the wind blows”. What did Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same thing? “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan for consequences, because it has no purpose... biological evolution is essentially random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities.”

Darwinian evolution builds millions of organisms from one or more cells, so it creates the selection of traits through environmental pressure without a breeding program. In a constantly changing environment, where does it get the millions of environmental selection pressures necessary to bring millions of not yet fully developed organisms participating in the evolutionary process to full development?

So we are not talking about the inheritance of the better qualities of a single organism, but about the development of all the better qualities of millions of organisms from a given initial organism/cell that did not exist before!

This means that no matter how many types of living beings begin to develop, a selection pressure of the appropriate subject, intensity and direction must be applied to that living being, which must be continuously maintained until a living being capable of independent life, reproduction and adaptation to the given organic and inorganic living conditions develops, typical of that species.

Since organisms are different, selection pressures must also be different, which means that what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other /in artificial selection this is quite obvious, since different organisms are not bred on the same niche, but the pairings are determined by separate goals: favourable weight, speed, productivity, etc./ which is quite obvious and evidential!

So, if we contrast the millions of variations in selection pressures with the millions of alleged branching evolutions of organisms that require a particular line of evolution,, what will come out of that?

According to Darwin, spontaneously acting selection pressures evolved everything as necessary /to support the creation of the living organisms best adapted to a given environment/ by slow, continuous, stepwise formation over an extremely long period of time. Spontaneous breeding, so to speak, without any purpose or plan [Lack of a Designer]. So what about head-on collisions?

When an evolving organism is confronted with selection forces that are completely opposite to the effects it had previously been subjected to, how did it continue its evolutionary line towards becoming more complex along its spontaneously initiated, otherwise purposeless, path?

In artificial selection, an intelligently controlled strategic process is supervised by breeders, while in natural selection, a random process is generated by absolutely uncontrolled alternating natural forces and directions. And supposedly, the same thing is created in both, a living being with a qualitatively better anatomy and properties. Of which there are millions, and millions of types, with completely different life and reproductive functions.

The living world consists of millions of different organisms, all of which fit into their environment with absolute precision. How can this extremely diverse, contradictory, uncoordinated environmental selection pressure be created, since each organism must be individually matched with the appropriate selection pressure?! For the development of millions of organisms, as many directed selection pressures as are needed for successful development must be applied. What directs the direction of the selection pressure to the necessary extent – chance?

The principle of artificial selection could not be followed or imitated by the intelligence of natural selection, to constantly exert unidirectional selection pressure to ensure the complex structure of millions of living things. Instead, it obviously crossed their developmental paths with constant environmental changes. So this continuous improvement on the imaginary family tree of evolution is just a pseudoscientific fantasy.

Regardless, the miniature prehistoric creature that emerged from who knows where supposedly climped forward from the stem cell to the human, as if pulled by a string. Except that this is not the merit of natural selection, but of evolutionists catching the end of the string.

Natural selection essentially promotes a process of purification and quality maintenance in a given range, while the subjects involved in the process adapt to changing natural conditions by exploiting their particular gene sequence. That is the extent of its assigned task.

From then on, the claim that the reproduction of the most adapted organisms provides a strategic path for the spontaneous development of millions of species and types of biological life has lost credibility.

The fact is that the survival of the most viable individuals is not the same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution of the species! It is a biological law of nature, therefore it is necessary in artificial breeding to consciously select the subjects for further breeding, merely selecting the healthiest, most viable ones is not enough!

The biological evolution paradigm manipulates variability /intraspecies variation/ based on and exploiting the genetically programmed adaptability of current species to prove the Darwinian view of the evolution of organisms from some unknown origin.

But this is an impossible undertaking, Darwinism failed from the very beginning, yet it is being forced into official curricula and media organs.

The Darwinian program was of high quality, only the definition of quality fell victim to inflation.

Removing Darwinism from the public consciousness

- Evolution is popular because it explains most things, not because all of its explanations are correct. Its fans don't care about the misconceptions.-

The test of the concept pudding is eating it. So let's see what they have served society:

According to the theory of evolution, which has gained ground in biology…

- Why did it gain ground? Not by presenting evidence, but because those who represent this worldview dominate the scientific world, and behind their rise, the rejection of creation is essential to their success, so that they can reap the rewards for their discoveries. They pocket prizes for the tiny detail of the great whole of Creation that has been deciphered by human intelligence, while they label the great whole, filled with an astonishing amount of intelligence, as spontaneous generation, is dubbed self-evolving.

On Earth, the different types of plants, animals, and other living things are derived from other, pre-existing types, …

Where do the existing types come from, and where do the other types come from, since other types cannot develop from the most adaptable living beings, because other types represent a different species characteristic, and natural selection cannot select for them, but only for the most adaptable within its own type.

Therefore, the existing types must be created so that their most adaptable descendants maintain the type of that species. This is exactly what we see in nature.

and that discernible differences are due to the modifications of successive generations…

Then distinguishable differences could not have arisen at the beginning, because, as he says, successive generations are needed, or rather their modifications. Subsequent modification cannot create the biological basis in which the modification subsequently takes place.

Life began with inorganic molecules,...

This is a statement completely under the influence of atheistic self-hypnosis, since the scientists themselves have seen that this virtual /only theoretical, as a possibility/ molecular acrobatics has no relevance to the origin of life.

„In fact, as Miller’s experiments showed, it’s not difficult to create amino acids. The far bigger challenge is to create nucleic acids – the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life lies in the origin of these “replicators”, molecules that can make copies of themselves. ... “Even if you can make amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soup conditions, it has little if any bearing on the origin of life.” /Scientists complete a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origin of life/  - https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life

Those who have not yet faced the problem of the origin of life, might like to read the technical literature on the subject, both to understand and to acknowledge that it is not a scientific problem! Every where and every attempt has failed. Life cannot even be defined, let alone how it came into being.

Abiogenesis is a failed theory and science has no tools to crack this hard nut! -https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html- https://cdn.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.pdf

“Life does not arise from physical existence consisting of matter-energy, and cannot be reduced to matter-energy. Life itself does not involve any fundamental particles of physics. Life interacts with physical existence, but it is a different form of existence. There are no known causal effects for the emergence of life, and thus no known ways to create life from non-life… life does not arise from non-life; it is reproduced from life." /Eighteen Distinctive Characteristics of Life - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123176/

Then on what basis do you make such a remark: "Life began with inorganic molecules…"

Because it travels with a worldview, and at the same time, those who hold the same worldview are interested in making it true, in order to force this worldview down the throats of society. So this is a propaganda text, a PR activity, a good reputation, an image. [PR is an abbreviation for: informational activity carried out in front of the public in order to create a positive image.]

In essence, the claim that life originated from inorganic molecules is disinformation /consciously distorted information that does not correspond to the truth/.

Yet they regularly bombard the public consciousness to make the spontaneous generation of life seem real to the layman. See for example:

“Scientists have found the ”strongest evidence yet“ for life on a distant planet.” - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39jj9vkr34o

and with the help of nature it became viable living beings, from simple molecules to modern man…

Life is not about nature, it is about spirit. Nothing proves this better than the fact that when someone receives a letter, there must be spirit /life/ behind it. Or have you ever received a letter from a dead person?

Life forms are controlled by spirit, biological life functions are controlled by genetics, words and sentences are controlled by thought information. But words and sentences by themselves say nothing. If you don't believe me, listen to a 900-page dictionary in the dark between four walls to see what it says. But don't reveal the reason for your listening, or they'll look at you strangely.

[By the way, there is a spirit world, spirits also live in a kind of spiritual way, which science cannot approach. When the Reiki master tells you things about you that are your most hidden secrets, he is drawing information from the spirit world that he can perceive because he has acquired this ability through initiation.

The shamans of the natural peoples can establish contact with the spirit world through the same initiation, which you have no idea about, because these dimensions do not fit into the materialistic-evolutionary worldview. But this is not a privilege but a disability!]

It is an undeniable fact that organisms have changed or evolved throughout the history of life on earth…

One species cannot evolve into another species because the individuals best suited to the environment strengthen their own species by displaying a certain level of variability, but to evolve into another species requires a strategic transformation according to the type. And nature selects for the best adaptability within a given species, not for type.

Nature cannot select for specialised traits and anatomical characteristics, especially in the long run, and it cannot immediately transform a subject into some other species. And the need for viability links it to the species in which it can show the best survivability. If it is in water, then to that, if it is on land, then to that, and if it is in the air, then to that. It is not by chance that the earthworm hides back in the ground and does not want to climb a tree, even though there is a better view of what is happening in the poultry yard.

Natural selection is a simple mechanism that causes populations of organisms to change gradually over time...

In the case where it is able to carry out species selection. But because it selects for the most best, the claim is discredited. What he say applies to artificial selection, where gradual changes in populations of organisms are induced /qualitative transformations/ over time. See for example the breeding of the Holstein-Friesian cow, etc.

There is a huge difference between changes /variation, variability/ occurring within a given species, and changes occurring in relation to change/transformation into another species. Mixing the two is conscious manipulation!

The processes of natural selection work slowly, over generations…

The point is not in slowness or speed, but in following a strategic path, which is lacking in natural selection.

And again. Because what did Charles Darwin write in his autobiography about the workings of natural selection, what will come out of that?

“ ... there is no more design in the operation of natural selection than in the direction in which the wind blows”. What did Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same thing? “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan for consequences, because it has no purpose... biological evolution is essentially random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities.”

Slow or fast operation is completely irrelevant if the process is driven by wind turbulence. Wandering blindly leads to the same thing, sooner or later to the abyss.

That the wanderings of adventurers led to the development of man is claimed of who set off blindly with a white cane in any race, and then when they reach the finish line have no idea where they have ended up.

Those organisms that were able to adapt survived the ordeal, and those that were not, perished…

This is evident, but where did these organisms come from, how did they have the ability to adapt when they originally did not have it. And before they acquired the ability to adapt, how did they survive? Did nature wait until it developed for them? It did not cull them until then.

It is a beautiful thing that the many vagaries of nature have adapted to such a beautiful tale. And it is also beautiful that people adapt to such beautiful tales.

Therefore, evolution can be understood as the gradual change in the characteristic features of a species (genetic variation),…

The story begins there, that there are species and their characteristic features. If evolution begins with change, then evolution has nothing to do with what the change takes place in. Sorry.

The Darwinian view is that the original genetic, flawless base /intelligent DNA code base/ was insufficient to create species populations, but that from the accumulation of their mutational errors, unintelligent natural forces were able to create them.

To put it simply, this means that the head chef of the five-star restaurant was unable to prepare a multi-course menu, but the untrained kitchen staff, who were also poor at peeling potatoes, created it. If that's not scientific schizophrenia, what is!?

If the entire biological world that exists today is the result of selection from genetic variations / errors/, then what was created from the flawless initial genetic base? How did the unchanged state before genetic variation get into the genetic code if it is exactly the deviation from it that is the engine of evolution! If variation is the point, how can variation initially cause the original invariance from which it subsequently deviates?

Since when is evolutionary change a response to the origin in which evolutionary change occurs? Where did the first subjects of the initial organisms capable of evolution come from, which could not have been created by evolution, because then evolution would have created its own capability by evolution?! Where do the abilities come from, through which the alleged evolution takes place? How could evolution ensure this, when it itself depends on their existence?

which is brought about by the need to adapt to situations and the environment through natural selection…

All living things have a genetic programme for this, if they did not, they could not adapt or survive.

Some of these characteristics may give an individual an advantage over other individuals, which they can then pass on to their offspring…

An advantage is an advantage within the species in which it arises, and not an advantage in a change that is realized only in the emergence of some new species. A change that does not strengthen its own species is a weakening or completely neutral change.

The theory of evolution is one of the most influential concepts in modern science…

It is influential because it represents for many a liberation from certain moral constraints, which appeals to most people who love pleasure without limits.

The Bible's morality is obsolete for those who adapt their own to the occasion.

As for the concept, we agree. The meaning of the concept is: a way of understanding, a system of views; a conception, a vision, an idea. So, a kind of worldview based on spontaneous development, which shows a subjective aversion to the personal origin of that background intelligence, which is otherwise obvious to intelligent thinking, that is, that matter is a derivative of consciousness:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the purest science, the study of matter, I can say this much as a result of my research into atoms: matter as such does not exist! All matter arises and exists only because of a force which sets the particles of the atom in vibration and holds together this smallest solar system of the atom. Behind this force we must assume the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit. This mind is the matrix of all matter." /Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech in Florence, Italy (1944) (in the Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)/

Ample evidence, observation and testable hypothesis support…

Well, if they are set up that way, then certainly. But if you scratch the surface, there is very thin ice underneath that mainstream science treads on!

allowing for the prediction of outcomes, changes, and effects…

In the realm of so-called micro-evolution, certainly. But this has nothing to do with the evolutionary philosophy based on life spontaneously arising from the inanimate, leading from the imaginary last common ancestor through a phylogenetic tree in which the most survivable individuals have specialised into species traits, while wandering blindly through the field of genetic possibilities amid the various changing winds.

Despite supposedly wandering blindly for millions of years, each species consciously and precisely adapts to its environment. But wandering is more typical of evolutionary biologists, who wander from one explanation to another, and then come back to the same place, looking for another explanation when the previous ones don't quite work. At least as far as the basics are concerned.

Ethical behavior is a necessary consequence of man's superior intellectual abilities, which are traits directly promoted by natural selection…

As for ethical behavior, it can easily be realized in a world war, while in everyday life, not a few people believe that superior intellectual abilities are found in corruption and ordinary crime. Just look at the current state of the world and the statistics in this regard.

One of the main problems with the evolutionary view of morality is that it undermines the idea of objective moral truths, according to which there is no ultimate truth in morality about whether an action is right or wrong…

This is precisely the point, and the cause of all problems, that man is unwilling to accept and adhere to higher ethical standards than himself in all circumstances. Because, on the one hand, he is subject to abuses, and on the other hand, it is he who reserves the right, if his interests so require, to abuse his free will for his own benefit.

According to its defenders, however, this is precisely its value, when the development of society develops norms of behavior that can be followed by everyone…

Then again, what the evolution of society means to whom is another question, because what is good for some is bad for others and vice versa. The human race leads a self-destructive life because it is unwilling to change, unwilling to confess its sins, unwilling to respect and honour the truth at all costs.

And that atheists would be at the forefront of this decent life is highly questionable. Even the greatest atheist's moral anthem is destroyed by the pitiful atheist car thief, who refutes the atheistic rhetoric that is presented as authentic with his actions. This happens a thousand times a day. All of this is part of the atheist liberal way of life. So much for now about the authenticity of atheism and so-called evolution.

Atheism as a moral offense

As human beings, we are social animals. Our sociality is the result of evolution, not choice. Natural selection has equipped us with nervous systems which are peculiarly sensitive to the emotional status of our fellows… Our ethics can be based neither upon fictions concerning the nature of humankind nor upon fake reports concerning the desires of the deities. Our ethics must be firmly planted in the soil of scientific self-knowledge. They must be improvable and adaptable.” /American atheist: Ethics Without Gods - https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/

If ethics cannot be based on a fiction about the nature (or even the origin) of humanity, then forget about evolution as an explanation for the origin of sociality, because if natural selection had been left to shape the nervous system, it would be a mirror image of what drove it:

" ... in the operation of natural selection, there is no more design than which way the wind blows"... Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan for consequences, because it has no purpose... biological evolution is essentially random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities."

Blindness, aimlessness, wandering, and the complexity of the human nervous system, classified as a social animal, are two separate dimensions, and to someone who assumes one leads to the other, a tornado will remind him of the metropolis it created. If the statement cannot be taken seriously, then its maker certainly cannot. It passes for an opinion, but not quickly enough.

Morality becomes public the moment it becomes obligatory for all people, just like traffic regulations. Most accidents happen precisely because traffic rules are overridden by recalcitrant drivers who drive according to their own interests.

Atheists think and make decisions according to their own self-interest, not for the benefit of society, but for their own benefit, without even considering each other.

Why does the atheist deny the existence of God? So that he does not have to deny the right to his own sovereign conception of life, and so that he can abuse it whenever and wherever he wants, as his own individual interest demands. While this abuse in his eyes is the exercise of natural rights, since he also determines for himself the extent of the difference between the two.

Moreover, they are even arrogant when they express their absolutely characteristic position:

"I am content with the decision to be an atheist because I feel smarter and freer because no one is guiding my choices... God has worked a miracle" seems an unpretentious, primitive and lazy solution. That someone who operates with such solutions wants to impose moral obligations on me, on everyone, I really reject... Don't threaten an atheist with "going to hell" because they don't believe that. It's like threatening an adult that Santa Claus won't bring them a present for Christmas."

It is clear that he is driven by completely subjective, individual motivations, and that he is not at all interested in the consequences of this basic position for society as a whole. While the essence of the traffic order is precisely that it serves the safety of society as a whole.

Adherence to the sovereignty of atheistic thought is in the individual's own interest, and therefore insists on this freedom and rejects any moral order that is the result of a transcendent spirituality. Behind the rejection of the gods lies, in fact, a rejection of the moral order for all, formulated in such a primitive way:

“The concept of God and the concept of Santa Claus share the status of ‘unreal’ because there is no evidence for either.” /Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 103./

And since when is the lack of evidence proof that there is no evidence? Since when has atheistic blindness been proof that nature has beaten humanity with blindness, which they try to compensate for with what science considers its own tool: the white cane.

What they touch with it is there, what they cannot touch with it is not. And where is the clear thinking, the impartial conclusion, the sacred prostration before intelligence, its recognition above all else?

And perhaps in the order of the universe and the durability of its functional operation, one cannot discover the higher intelligence of which “human systematization and thinking are only a faint reflection.” /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild. - C. Seeling edition, Zurich-Stuttgart-Wien 1953. 21.1/

This is not discovered by those who have no intention of discovering it, so the solution to the formula is to be sought in the motive, not in the imaginary Santa Claus, which is only a pathetic excuse for atheistic babbling.

An accounting of atheist arguments, real or perceived

Some atheists have come to the intellectual conclusion that the science of evolution is quite strong, and Christians they know have aggressively resisted even asking questions about religion.

Among other reasons, they list the following, which invites them into the atheist camp:

- Once I realised I was an atheist, I didn't have to do anything. No church, no praying, no begging for forgiveness. There are no rules. I live my life without worrying about whether or not I'm adhering to certain aspects of the faith. I can just be.

It's kind of like what we read about in the evolutionary form of natural selection: “blindly wandering in a field of genetic possibilities.” And who wouldn't want to wander blindly through a jungle of freely chosen pleasures? The atheist certainly would, that's why he chose this way of life.

- My lack of religious belief empowers me. Instead of following a restrictive religion, I now see myself as an integral part of the entire universe. I am made of the same stuff as the stars, not suddenly put together by magic, and therefore composed of particles as old as the universe itself. It is an incredibly profound realization.

Are you trying to figure out where you came from and where you are going? Astronomy will give you the answer, won't it?Well, it certainly won't. If the paint and the spray paint can tell us where the Mona Lisa's smile came from, then so can astronomy.

“We are all made of the stuff of stars” - Carl Sagan is an atheist astronomer. Of course, like any painting, it is made of the stuff of paint molecules.

Science says we come from stardust, which is the equivalent of saying that Mona Lisa's smile on canvas came from paint molecules.

The elements were created in dying stars. Please, what is created by itself in an aluminum smelter that is accidentally incorporated as a component into, say, an airplane? Tell me something specific.

- A sense of equality and unity. People are all the same, regardless of faith, skin color, nationality, or any other superficial difference. We and all life on our planet have the same origin, in a soupy primordial mixture millions of years ago. It is a feeling that brings a warm smile, a sense of well-being, and a wonderful sense of belonging.

It's a wonderful feeling, but it bears no relation to reality! The feeling of church intimacy has united atheists. They say that faith belongs in the temple, while their faith outside the temple /more so their gullibility/ surpasses that of the worshippers!

- Freedom from doctrine. I follow the natural human moral imperative to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," without attributing morality to any particular religious injunction or acting out of fear of reprisal. And I do not have to adjust my conscience to accommodate the unpleasant aspects of a religion with which I disagree.

If you follow the natural human moral imperative, you are following the teachings of Jesus, through whom God created humanity. (Matthew 7:12; 19:4) And what is it about religion that you disagree with?

Romans 13:9-10 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no evil to a neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

He that obeyeth these things obeyeth God. And whoever decides for himself what is good and what is bad for him is not obeying God, but the instigator of the Garden of Eden, Satan.

- Ignorance is bliss. Science answers many fundamental questions and is constantly searching for more. The vast gap in our knowledge is incredibly exciting, full of wonder, and allows my imagination to run wild without having to invent supernatural answers.

The atheist has no idea what supernatural means.

Supernatural phenomena abound in the universe and in the everyday world around us, which science cannot detect, but which the scientist should detect, at least according to his or her individual intelligence.

According to the basic position, if an existing entity-creation, biological or other complexity does not automatically follow from the material components that build it, then there must necessarily be a supernatural cause behind it, see e.g. matter /see Max Planck's earlier quote/, life, prose and musical works written by letters or scores, computer programs, the genetic code of DNA, etc., which if they existed naturally would build themselves from their own components. But they cannot build themselves.

That is why the statement that life is a self-organizing and self-learning natural movement of matter, which creates an organization that adapts to and functions in the environment, is false.

A wall clock, the hands of which move in a circle and show the passage of time based on fixed numbers, obviously fulfills the purpose that justifies its existence. Therefore, the clock itself has a supernatural existence, it would be natural if its parts could build themselves by themselves.

The existence of the wall clock is therefore a supernatural phenomenon. If it breaks down, it is a natural state, because the force of gravity will not make it work. But if it does work, it goes beyond any self-evident physical process.

Applied science which cannot detect such and similar supernatural phenomena approachable by intelligence is not in a position to be the sole and absolute means or guarantee of knowing the truth in the eyes of society!

In an interview about his new book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins said, “The great war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and the supernatural.” /Gary Wolf, “The Church of Infidels,” Wired (November 2006): 182-193, p. 186./

In The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly states that everything supernatural is under attack: “I attack God, all gods, everything and everyone that is supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been invented or will be invented.” /Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (The God Delusion) (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p. 36./

If anyone didn't know that Richard Dawkins is a staunch enemy of all clocks supernatural, now you do!

- Self-catering. I am my own boss. Atheism has no rules, no centre, no spokesman. No referral service or counsellors. It does not exist as an organisation. Whatever is created by the individual and its interpretation is entirely up to me.

Go atheists! It is a sincere profession of faith, but offers no guarantee of ultimate success. The only guarantee is to adhere to the guiding standard declared by the transcendent power directing the universe and measure everything against it. Then you cannot be mistaken about anything, because in obedience to it everything and everyone will fulfil its purpose of existence. Guidelines that stray far from it are absolutely unreliable and are breeding grounds for various chaos philosophies and inevitable failures.

- I ask for evidence before faith, which is not an unreasonable request. Atheism for me means accepting what is proven and being completely open to what is not. I do not believe that God exists, but I am very willing to be proven wrong about his existence, just as I am about the existence of the aforementioned Santa Claus, unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns, and the Tooth Fairy.

The atheist's openness to belief in God, if genuine, requires him to personally investigate the truth, because what is presented to him by official bodies is self-interested PR propaganda. And this applies not only to the world, but to Christianity as well. It is no coincidence that man is called upon.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Examine everything, and whatever is good, keep.

The biggest problem is that neither the average person nor the average Christian can do this. They are satisfied with the explanations that are put before them. As a layman, he makes the most basic and important decisions that affect his own life.

Here's the most important question that will fundamentally affect your eternal life: Who is the object of true worship, the One whom we have the privilege to worship and pray to?

Is it Jehovah God, the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son, or both, or a trinity God, or Allah, or Buddha, or Shiva, etc., or the tooth-fairy god of the atheists? If you don't know the right answer, you are an idolater.

Because if you don't believe in God, you will worship people, objects, professions: footballers, food, travel destinations, women or men, science or your career, etc. You will definitely worship someone or something, because that is human nature. He seeks the object of his worship.

[American Football USA - Baseball; 1. Kansas City Chiefs; 2. Buffalo Bills; 3. Baltimore Ravens; 4. Houston Texans; 5. Los Angeles Chargers... ]

As the best-known hedonist-prophet who condemned himself to blindness recommends: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." /Richard Dawkins' UK bus campaign 2008-2009, London/

If you love the true God, you will learn the Christian law of love! But if you do not know God, and even reject him, you may serve the god of arms and become a supporter of the military killing machine. You cannot be indifferent to worship because you are either doing it right or wrong. And you will be judged accordingly before the judgment seat of Christ!

2Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive his reward or punishment for what he has done, whether good or bad, in his earthly life.

- Long-term comfort. I know what happens after death. My body will decompose or be cremated, and my remains will once again become objects of the universe. I don’t worry about heaven or hell, the afterlife or purgatory. The acceptance that life ends when I die is incredibly powerful and comforting. What could be more exciting than knowing that one day I will return to the universe from which I – and we all – came? - Source: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/au/entry/10-reasons-i-am-an-atheist_au_5cd34ef8e4b0ce845d7f3126

You are completely wrong, which is both convenient and comforting to you. Well, then let's see what you will miss out on, what existing perspective you are unaware of, which is the essence of true life, why man was created in the first place, and which gives real meaning to man's life!

Invitation to eternal life

„And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let him who hears say, Come! And let him who is thirsty come; and let him who wishes take the water of life freely.”

(Revelation 22:17)

As scales fall from the eyes of the blind, so the cataract falls from the eyes of the atheist when he finally encounters the truth conveyed by Jesus Christ.

God's original intention was for eternal life on the paradise earth, for man to live there free from disease and death. Nor was there originally any need for an evolution in which the most viable survive and the rest perish in immense suffering, chasing each other, devouring each other alive or dead. The breakdown of the balance of nature was caused by man's rebellion against God, for God thereby confronted man with the consequences of his actions. The wages of sin is death and the consequence of disobedience is suffering.

The answer to why there is so much suffering in the world is that it is not God who rules the world, nor does divine morality guard the social order, but rather those who have rebelled against God. World society is subject to the spirit of rebellion, atheism being the specific embodiment of this, in which self-interest and the stronger representation of power prevail – for thousands of years now.

[The abuse of church and religious power is the same category, in which people were maimed, burned alive, or boiled alive in a cauldron in the name of God, see e.g. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQu9wX12sow]

But divine grace prevails where it is obeyed through the redemptive death of Jesus Christ - in contrast to those who disobey God.

Ephesians 2:1-2 And you also [made alive], who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience;

When a person comes to God, he accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, accepts the sin-cleansing power of Christ's shed blood, and from then on lives according to the law of Christ, the main part of which is love, respect and support for God and neighbour. From then on, everyone who thinks likewise and follows the same way of life becomes his friend and spiritual brother.

According to the Bible, Jesus Christ will return in royal power and will bring an end to this present world system. /The main features of the prophecies about this are contained in the 24th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, supplemented by several other prophecies./

What is presented to atheists in Christianity, namely that the good go to heaven, is a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Hebrews 2:5 For it was not to angels that he subjected the inhabited earth to come /oikumené, inhabited earth, globe, world/, of which we are speaking…

Hebrews 2:16 For it is evident that he did not embrace angels, but he embraced the seed of Abraham

When we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven, also on earth” (Matthew 6:10),

we are praying for the coming of a government that is identical to Abraham's spiritual seed/descendants, the saints of Christ called to reign as kings in heaven.

All others who remain standing at the judgment day of Christ will live in Christ’s thousand-year earthly paradise free from sickness, hunger, pain, and death, as the prophet Isaiah was inspired to foretell the conditions there. /See 9:6-7; 65:17-25/

This is how Adam and Eve's descendants will get back the eternal life that Adam and Eve gambled away for themselves and their descendants.

The main teaching of the Bible is the redemption and salvation of mankind. Yet the EVANGELIUS /Good News of Christ/ is the object of ridicule, scorn and belittlement in the academic world, and is widely embraced and trumpeted by advocates of atheism. See e.g. [Pat Condell: Your Faith is A Joke – video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk

Why are you an atheist?

The atheist advocate is no longer interested in the fact that there are answers to the questions he raises, because he has already decided his worldview in advance, and what he has read in the Bible or taken from others is just enough to turn it against God.

Why are you an atheist? Because you have adopted that thinking and found true comfort in it. Biblical contexts, background information, historical data are of no interest to you. Because you are not the man who goes out and sells all he has to buy the land where the treasure is hidden (Matthew 13:44-46).

You are not the man who will be God's partner in building the new world of paradise. Because your whole being is embodied in protest, contempt and indifference. You are unfit for eternal life, the very thought of which is far from you.

But this is not God's will, but the imprint of your innermost being, your spiritual world. You chose this, because you do have free will and you use it for this. Yet it is God's will that you be obedient and gain eternal life!

1 Timothy 2:4 Who - God - desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

I have tried to report on the True Treasure, which cannot be missed by accident. But no one will lose it by chance, but only those who consciously refuse it. If you have read this writing, you will presumably know what you are missing. For a few pleasurable moments of your own choosing, you give up the pleasures of eternity, which are freely available to all by divine grace.

The Testimony of Ruth

There is a beautiful testimony of faith in the book of Ruth that goes like this:

„Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.” Then they lifted up their voices and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.

And she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, there I will die, and there I will be buried. Whatsoever the Lord shall do unto me, let death be the only thing that shall separate me from thee." (The book of Ruth 1:12-17)

You know, such deep attachment is that which comes from the pure heart of a person. This is the kind of sincere love that God treasures. Are you that committed to your own atheism? I hardly think that the extent of your commitment goes beyond your momentary self-interest.

God has no personal interest in punishing or rewarding. What He does, He does out of love and unwavering loyalty to the truth:

"Who is like the Lord our God, who dwells on high, but stoops down to look down on heaven and earth? He lifts up the destitute from the dust, He lifts up the poor from the mud, to give him a place among princes, among the princes of his people. The childless woman shall dwell in her house, as a mother rejoicing over her sons." (Psalms 113:5-9)

"Listen, heavens, let me speak! Let the earth hear the words of my mouth! Let my teaching drip like rain, let my words fall like dew, like a shower on the weak grass, and like sprinkling on the lawn. For I will declare the name of the Lord: praise ye our God. Rock! His work is perfect, for all his ways are truth! God is faithful and not deceitful; He is just and upright" (Deuteronomy 32:1-4).

What you do and how you live is in harmony with what is in your heart. You will change when your heart is filled with an unquenchable thirst for truth, honesty, and love. So strive to awaken in your heart a desire for the true life that only God can satisfy.

Psalm 139:23-24 Search me, O God, and know my heart. Try me, and know my thoughts. And see if I have any way of evil, and guide me in the way of eternity.

Proverbs 4:23; 10:22 More than all things that are feared, guard your heart, for out of it all life proceeds... Jehovah's blessing is that which makes you rich, and he will not add to it pain.

- - - - 

connection - ogocse@proton.me