The evolutionary dead end of the earliest species
The need for strategic pathways
If there is an ancient, neutral cell (LUCA), it will become, for example, the cat family (Felidae), comprising 41 species, if the strategic path leading to the cat family is followed to the end by the process of natural selection. At the same time, there is a completely different strategic path that leads to other species, e.g. the Canidae family of dogs (36 living species). The earliest ancestor of the wolf is Hesperocyon, and the path leading to it is also a strategic path. Then there are elephant species, which belong to the Elephantidae family (three species), which is also a completely different strategic route, and as many taxonomic families exist (thousands), and their species, there must be as many different strategic routes, each leading to a different species. There are approximately 8.7 million different species of living creatures in the world.
The breeding subjects cannot be mixed, because this would disrupt the development process and prevent the desired external and internal characteristics of the breed from developing. This type of breeding strategy can be clearly seen in artificial breeding, where the subjects to be bred are consciously selected in order to achieve better breeding specimens.
How many different types and strengths of selection pressure are needed for a species population to develop? As many different types of selection pressure supporting different strategic paths are needed as there are species, and this pressure must be maintained until the desired species population develops. All living creatures must be the result of species-specific evolution!
Can natural selection create species-specific characteristics? Does biological evolution have any strategic concept or species formation objective beyond ensuring that those best adapted to the environment survive at the expense of those poorly adapted? Does natural selection consciously engage in this process of selection and elimination?
Behind every species specificity there must be a controlled selection mechanism, and every existing species has its own species specificity, so at some point nature must have had to start this species specificity. But was it really capable of doing so?
What does Charles Darwin write in his autobiography about the workings of natural selection? "... there is no more design in the workings of natural selection than there is in the direction in which the wind blows." What did Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same thing? "Natural selection is a blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan the consequences, because it has no purpose... biological evolution is essentially a random wandering through the field of genetic possibilities." This is in stark contrast to the purposeful process of human animal husbandry and plant breeding.
How does this blind process lead to the creation of "the gradual change of inherited traits from generation to generation"? What kind of inherited traits are you talking about?
"Evolution is the process by which the genetic or inheritable characteristics of a population change over a long period of time."
Where does it get the populations whose "genetic or heritable characteristics" can change? Does evolution already have the populations in which it can exert its influence?
In other words: Evolution is the process by which the genetic or heritable characteristics of, for example, a wild, stray dog population change over a long period of time. They become German shepherds, boxers, vizslas, Great Danes, Rottweilers, greyhounds, dachshunds, etc. What causes them to become so many different breeds (approx. 400)? Is it the aimless wandering of a blind watchmaker, carried out within the realm of genetic possibilities? Is it like the blowing of the wind? Or is it all the result of a conscious selection and breeding process?
There is a parallel between the varietal character and the species character in terms of specificity.
Just as a breed derived from a species has specific characteristics (external and internal properties), every existing species also has specific characteristics.
Does the reproduction of free-roaming dogs based on their ability to adapt to their environment (i.e., selection of the most adaptable) result in any dog breeds with specific characteristics (e.g., German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, etc.)? If not (!), because this would require selection based on desirable characteristics, then how did that ancient cell (LUCA, the alleged common ancestor of all living creatures, to which the entire biological world is traced back according to Darwin's idea, how did it result in so many taxonomic families and special species when natural selection has no other means than selecting those that are best adapted to the environment over those that are poorly adapted?
Has nature blindly achieved what artificial human breeding cannot: by mating dogs that roamed the wild and were best adapted to their environment, creating different dog breeds with different characteristics? Did experts breed the Holstein-Friesian breed, which provides the best milk yield and makes the best use of the food sources provided by the given environment, from the cows that were best adapted to their environment?
If the Holstein-Friesian breed was created on the basis of a search for species specificity, then what is Darwin's theory of evolution doing in the arena of scientifically proven mechanisms of the origin of biological living world without the ability to search for species specificity? It has no place there!
[Natural selection does not create new traits, but acts on genetic variations that already exist within a population, favoring individuals with traits that promote survival and reproduction in a given environment. This must also be true at the cellular level. However, new species require new traits, so natural selection does not have a program to create a previously non-existent species from an imaginary common ancestor, let alone millions of new species. In evolutionary theory, natural selection is credited with precisely this ability.]
In order for the genetic or inheritable characteristics of a population to change over a long period of time, there must be a population of a given species belonging to a particular family, such as dogs, cats, elephants, etc., whose adaptation can cause variability within that species. /Evolution can be defined as the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. A population is a group of individuals of the same species living in a given place and time, forming a reproductive community./
The first specimens of species belonging to different families must therefore be created separately with specific parameters and anatomical features characteristic of that species (which do not develop on their own without guidance), in which genetic or inheritable characteristics can then change over a long period of time—up to a certain limit. As we read in the Bible:
"Then God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves with the water, according to their kinds, and every winged creature after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas; and let fowl multiply on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind. And it was so. So God created the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every beast that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over all the earth, and over all the "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:21-27)
A dog remains a dog, a cat remains a cat, an elephant remains an elephant, all reproduce within their own family according to their sex, preserving their unique identity. This reflects the biological concept of species differentiation and reproductive isolation.
“The Evolution of Living Things on Earth – Test Questions/Tasks
1. What is the meaning of evolution?
Evolution is a process that takes place over millions of years, during which living things slowly change and adapt to their environment.
Note: For example, in cold climates, they grow thick fur, or in dry seasons, those with stronger beaks survive, see e.g. the finches of Darwin’s time.
2. Who was Charles Darwin and what was his role in developing the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin was a British naturalist who proposed the theory of natural selection, which is the central mechanism of evolution.
Note: Natural selection favors the best adapted, but the development of varietal characteristics has nothing to do with this, especially since natural selection cannot develop varietal characteristics from an imaginary common ancestor /LUCA/, because…
„there is no more plan in the operation of natural selection than there is in the direction in which the wind blows. … Natural selection is a blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan the consequences, because it has no goal... biological evolution is essentially a random wandering through the field of genetic possibilities."
Blind wandering and the set of traits characteristic of a specific species follow from each other in the same way that the best-adapted cows crossbreed to produce a Holstein-Friesian cow. Or rather, they don't result at all!
3. Which process is key to the evolution of living things?
Natural selection is a key process in the evolution of organisms.
Note: Natural selection can select the best adapted individuals when suitable subjects for selection already exist, but it cannot create them in order to select them later. How does selection create its subjects when they do not exist?
If someone wants to explain the appearance of living beings by selection, then he presupposes the existence of those whose origin he wants to explain by selection. A hoe cannot create the land that I want to hoe afterwards. So the hoe cannot precede the land, just as natural selection cannot precede its subjects from which it selects, but can only work with the available raw materials.
4. What is natural selection?
Natural selection is a process by which individuals better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.
Note: The presence of individuals adapted to their environment is necessary in advance so that the more adapted individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce later.
5. What are mutations and how do they affect the evolutionary process? Mutations are random changes in DNA sequence. They are the primary source of genetic variation that contributes to evolution.
Note: Mutations may contribute to microevolutionary processes, but blind mutations in an ancient cell cannot ensure species specificity, because this requires a series of mutations that build on and complement each other, leading to the species, which cannot happen without guidance.
Mutation rates are generally very low, and existing biological systems make extraordinary efforts to keep them as low as possible, mainly because many mutational effects are deleterious. Random mutations produce only small changes, and these small changes are always anatomically disadvantageous to the species until they lead to optimal adaptation to changing conditions.
A single mutation can have a significant effect, but in many cases evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many small mutations. However, the situation is different in the initial formation of biological systems, where small changes based on random mutations do not follow any strategic path in terms of utility, so mutations that turn out to be useful do not create a species that did not exist before.
Although beneficial mutations do occur, they are relatively rare. The vast majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful. The idea that every living thing owes its existence to one beneficial mutation, in addition to many harmful or neutral ones, is complete nonsense. A series of beneficial mutations that strive for species specificity from the very beginning sounds different, but such things only happen in fairy tales!
The biggest mistake is to believe that no species originated under the guidance of the initial, flawless DNA program, in which no mutations had yet occurred. Evolutionary biology cannot deal with this statement, although this is the essence of the whole thing. The flawless code does not convey any message, does not direct the program to be implemented, only some of the copying errors in the flawless code can do this?
Does meaningful speech not create communication, only stuttering can? This is a ridiculous claim. Just as the idea that the entire biological world arose from the undirected, barely measurable benefits of genetic copying errors.
No slices of cake were served to the guests at the confectionery, only after the confectioner punched the middle of the cake with his fist did a few bite-sized pieces splash onto some of the guests' plates. The rest landed on the guests' clothes, the table, and the chairs. Well, even these small pieces can be satisfying to eat, but you need a lot of them. Many small mutations go a long way, while the pastry chef heads for the exit after being kicked out of the pastry shop.
6. What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?
Microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically changes in the gene pool within a species), while macroevolution refers to larger evolutionary changes, such as the extinction of species or the emergence of new species.
Note: New species cannot arise from nothing (from the reproduction of ancient cells) because the cells from which species originate still exist today as the same cells and do not transform into different species. If there is nothing to steer them towards a certain species type, they remain at the level of their own cells, which are characteristic of them.
For example, if sponges are a key step in the evolution of multicellularity, demonstrating the transition from single-celled organisms to a more complex, organized structure, if they have transitioned to a more complex, organized structure, then how did they transition if they are still the same sponges?! If wooden-wheeled carts, automobiles, and electric cars are different stages of evolutionary development, all three means of transportation represent separate types, not one evolved from the other.
To say, “Sponges, as among the simplest and oldest multicellular animal lineages, provide valuable insights into the evolutionary development of animal cells. Their unique cellular structure and developmental processes may provide clues to the origin of key cell types and developmental mechanisms found in more complex animals” is like saying that wooden-wheeled carts serve as models for studying the emergence of more advanced automobiles.
The fact that each has a wheel does not prove that one evolved from the other, but that they were designed and manufactured according to the same basic principles. Sponges are for studying sponges, if they exist as sponges.
Cystic acne can develop into furuncles, but if it develops into one, the pimple disappears and is replaced by a pus-filled lump caused by bacterial infection, the carbuncle. The fact that sponges remained sponges proves that they were not transitional, because they did not transform into others, but remained sponges.
That sponges represent a key step in the evolution of multicellularity is no more than the role assigned to them by evolutionary biology. Similarly, amphibians do not represent any transition, because they represent their own type and remain amphibians.
7. What fossil evidence proves evolution? Fossils are the petrified remains of organisms that lived long ago. They provide powerful evidence for evolution by providing a physical record of the species that have existed throughout Earth's history.
Note: A fossil in itself does not prove any evolution, but rather a representative of a type of living being. A handprint also proves only a person who once lived, and to perceive it as an evolutionary stage is a matter of perspective.
If living things had developed blindly, through evolution, natural selection would have produced a lot of defective fossils, just as a painter would have to build up a finished portrait bit by bit from an initial sketch. Then he would have to perfect it by introducing more details. A learner driver also makes many mistakes while learning to drive, and his gradual improvement in driving skills can be documented. As for fossils, most of them are fossils of fully viable living things. Does the theory of evolution mean that living things are fully viable at all stages of development?
Do legs, wings, eyes, complete joint, nerve, circulatory, etc. networks develop immediately in a given living being? If undeveloped functions and organs never existed in nature, why do they exist in conscious design and manufacturing? If bringing them to market is fatal here, why not there? Or are all organs always optimally developed? Why is that not the same as creation, which is the result of engineering work bringing finished products to market?
Any organ that is perfected through development but is imperfect due to its immaturity during its developmental stages is not competitive. Since the organ is not fully functional, it cannot perform its intended role as efficiently or effectively as a mature organ. Due to its lack of full functionality, it is "uncompetitive" in the sense that it cannot compete with fully developed organs of the same quality.
A good example of this is the immune system of a newborn baby. Although the immune system is structurally present from birth, it takes time to develop the full range of antibodies and immune responses needed to combat a wide range of pathogens. Therefore, although the immune system of a newborn is present, it is immature and not as competitive against disease as that of an adult. They are more susceptible to infections because their immune system is not yet fully developed.
How could that creature in transition wait millions of years for its mammary glands to gradually develop? And how did it feed its young in the meantime? But even more importantly, how was it able to successfully reproduce and thus survive with imperfect, newly developing, inevitably flawed, transitional, incompatible reproductive organs that were incapable of fulfilling their function?
How can a normal thinking person imagine that vestigial reproductive organs are capable of producing offspring that are capable of survival? You can get by with vestigial squirrel wings, but with a vestigial uterus? At best, you'll end up in the biological morgue! If reproductive organs perfectly suited for reproduction were created instantly, where is the gradual evolution that took place over millions of years? Where are the fossils of the millions of organisms that were destroyed by harmful mutations?
Real science draws the conclusion: reproductive organs had to be perfect right away, not perfected over millions of years through genetic blunders (mutations), otherwise living things would have become extinct. How were they able to bridge the millions of years with imperfect organs and imperfect individuals until evolution experimented with the perfect/functional solution for them? Spiders have web weaving. Fish that supposedly conquered the land have lungs. Snakes have special poisonous teeth.
Venomous snakes have evolved mechanisms to prevent their own venom from harming them. Snakes produce venom in their venom glands, and the venom is delivered to their prey through channels in their fangs. How did they not poison themselves during blind evolution? Was the venom gland separate from the bloodstream? And how did they survive while this system evolved? Or is it not blind evolution at all, but the product of intelligent genetic programming?! From an evolutionary perspective, this is a mystery that has no proper answer. The fact that it evolved on its own is not an answer, but an circumvention of the answer.
Who would entrust the repair of their dishwasher to a blind electrician who has just started learning the trade? Or which artificial kidney treatment would an evolutionary biologist with kidney disease choose? Where the machine is in the early stages of development, where advanced experiments are underway to assemble the machine, or where they are already working with a finished, tested machine? If obviously the latter, why do you think nature would have allowed itself the luxury of experimenting with living organisms to assemble toxins and set them up in a functional system?
The evolutionist's eyes see, but the evolutionist herself is blind to see the differences between the watchmaker wandering blindly in the field of genetic possibilities and the intelligent Master Designer who created and set in motion the life processes through genetic programming in the field of biological life.
And speaking of eyesight. If the eye supposedly evolved in several areas and in several ways, then didn't the other vital organs of the organism that developed the eye evolve in the same way, bit by bit, at the same time as the eye? How can an organism that is just beginning to develop survive? How can the eye be separated from the developmental process that affects the entire organism?
A Hungarian doctor writes about the human hand as “a complex, perfect ‘engineering construction’, a biomechanical structure that is perfectly suited to its function.” /Surgeon Dr. Zoltán Kökény – Patika advertising magazine/ Does anyone think that even though evolution blindly designed the structure of the hand, it was perfectly suited to playing the piano and performing vital functions during its long evolution?
The
same in the automotive industry:
In the latest series of Euro NCAP tests, three cars lost stars in the important test due to structural and construction problems. The 4.5-meter, two-row Chery Tiggo 7 and the 4.72-meter, three-row Chery Tiggo 8 fell short of the maximum rating due to the same problem. In the first test round, the curtain airbag did not deploy properly, not providing sufficient protection for the heads of children traveling in the back. Chery identified the cause of the defect and, in principle, fixed it, but in the repeated crash test, the airbag unit separated from the roof frame.
A similarly trivial, but fundamental design flaw prevented the Hyundai Inster from earning five stars: in a side impact, the driver's door latch was released, meaning there was nothing to stop the door from opening and potentially injuring the driver. Presumably, both automakers will redesign the affected units and fix the problem in the future (and hopefully, in the case of cars already sold, it will be resolved during a recall). This is what Ford engineers did when the Tourneo Courier received a dismal three stars in its very first crash test in 2024, because Euro NCAP rated the rear passenger's head protection as poor in a side impact.
There are no experimental organisms, no fossils of failed subjects, yet, mostly due to harmful mutations, there should be a mass of barely or semi-developed organisms if blind evolutionary development is true. Nature cannot hide its faulty constructions, so there must be traces of them! Where are the partially or completely preserved specimens of the failed fossils that natural selection has discarded?
If complex functions often evolve gradually, with intermediate stages that are not necessarily optimized for their current function, how could they have been optimized for their function in the past? Intermediate stages in the evolution of complex functions that do not provide optimal functioning are a disadvantage, not an advantage, to the organism's survival, and such can easily become targets of natural selection.
This is the difference between natural and artificial selection, natural selection unconsciously filters out less viable individuals, while artificial selection consciously breeds individuals with better abilities.
[Of course, the occurrence of individual cases where fossils of organisms suffering from various diseases may show distorted anatomical patterns, e.g. arthritis and the like, cannot be ruled out, but these do not indicate shortcomings in the laws of evolutionary development.
"Textbooks and various educational books still depict the Neanderthal man with a strongly bent posture, and this is how he lives in our imagination. This idea was essentially created based on a single find.
This find consists of the remains of an elderly man who lived in France and was the subject of extensive research. We now know that this man, aged 40-50, suffered from severe arthritis. It is a bold undertaking to infer posture from the deformed bones of a seriously ill person.
Anthropologists have shown by comparative studies of numerous Neanderthal skulls that the aforementioned “old man” represents an extreme variant. Today, numerous new findings and comparative study results are available that speak against the bent posture of the Neanderthal.” /The Posture of the Ancient Man, Szabad Föld scientific section: 1 October 1983, p. 17/
8. What does the term “survival of the fittest” mean?
“Survival of the fittest” is a concept in natural selection that states that the best-adapted organisms in a population are more likely to survive and reproduce.
Note: If this concept is not suitable for the development of a species from scratch, then the concept of Darwinian evolution is in reality unviable.
9. How does the environment affect the evolution of species? Environment has a significant impact on evolution. Through natural selection, a species adapts to the conditions of its environment.
Note: Adaptation is evident. However, what defeats the macroevolutionary hypothesis of Darwinian evolution is that behind the imaginary process there is no permanent, unidirectional selection pressure that forces macroevolution, species structures programmed with completely new genetic information. There never has been and never will be.
Because if the selection pressure is very high /the need for survival/, say if the environment becomes extremely cold, and the given population cannot solve this by increasing fur /or some related change/ within its own lifetime, then it becomes extinct. /See e.g. mammoths. Masses of species can disappear due to natural disasters (meteorite impact, glaciation, warming, drying, human actions)./
Evolution only works until it reaches the species boundary, and in the meantime the byproducts of the transformation are discarded by natural selection. Therefore, all evolutionary change falls into the category of microevolution within a lifetime. In short: selection pressure + adaptation within a lifetime = survival. Furthermore, all Darwinian speculation belongs to the realm of fantasy and has no real scientific basis.
Ultimately, where we came from is where we are going, that's where we belong. If we are not created in the image of God, then we are creations of corrupt matter that has appropriated biological existence for its own selfish amusement.
10. What are some examples of evolutionary adaptations?
Evolutionary adaptations can be physical or behavioral changes that help species survive in their environment. Examples include the long neck of a giraffe and the ability of some animals to camouflage.
Note: The same goes for a thick beak or a thick coat, or for bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics due to their mutation, etc. But that does not cause the development of a species from a neutral, ancestral cell /LUCA/ that has a long neck or is able to camouflage itself. These are the subjects of an already existing species type that show variability, which have flexibly adapted to changes in the environment within their genetically determined possibilities.
Human Development / Evolution
As described in previous chapters, fossil evidence suggests that the evolutionary history of humans began in Africa, and numerous findings also indicate lifestyle and appearance ……
Note: This statement is a prime example of how evolutionary theory does not reflect reality, as it does not take into account the failure of initial species-specific evolution from ancestral cells.
The Evolution of CellsCells also changed during evolution. The first cells to appear on Earth had a simple structure. During evolution, single-celled and later multi-celled organisms developed, ……
Note: These cells still exist today, proving that they have not evolved into any kind of evolutionary ladder, as evolutionists claim.
Simple cells, especially prokaryotic cells such as bacteria and archaea, still exist today. They are not relics of the past, but a thriving and diverse group of organisms that represent a significant portion of life on Earth. ‘Simple’ (though extremely complex) cells have not disappeared and continue to play vital roles in various ecosystems.
Even the simplest cells contain complex, nanoscale mechanical structures that act like microrobots, enabling a variety of cellular functions. These “cellular microrobots” are essential for processes such as cell movement, division, and interactions with the environment. The simplest cell contains a design and technology that surpasses human science and demonstrates greater intelligence than humans!
Part of the theory is that some cells evolved into more complex eukaryotic cells. According to this, all complex multicellular organisms, such as plants, animals, and fungi, are built from eukaryotic cells. But for these to develop into different organisms, a strategic developmental path is needed from start to finish, which blind evolution cannot achieve because it cannot maintain the direction of development and the precise dosage of the necessary selection pressure. This requires a conscious control mechanism, which natural selection does not have.
The fact that eukaryotic cells are the basis of complex life and the building blocks of all the multicellular organisms around us, including humans, is not proof that they evolved from them. Just as every literary work contains the letters of the ABC of a given language, it is not proof that the letters evolved into literary works, especially not spontaneously.
Similarly, one of the main pieces of evidence for the common origin of living things would be that the genetic code is uniform throughout the living world, which means that even with the most ancient living things, bacteria, we share 20-30 percent of our genetic information-carrying material. On this basis, all the musical works in the world should also be related, because they were created based on the same musical notation system.
Just as there are composers behind musical works, the genetic code is a similar tool in the hands of the great genetic artist, the Creator. Blind processes cannot do this. And there are blind processes behind evolution. The origin of intelligent events cannot be an unintelligent force.
Why does evolution create legs if it doesn't know what walking means?
Why does it create eyes if it doesn't know what seeing means?
Why does it create a reproductive organ if it doesn't know what reproduction means?
If it doesn't know the function, why does it create an organ that performs a function?
And why does it create life out of the inanimate if it doesn't even know what life is? Even science itself doesn't know!
Organization makes it possible for matter to carry life
Life becomes lifeless again at the end of its formation. Why not right at the beginning? Then it would spare itself this futile journey.
If “Organization makes matter alive.” /Eörs Szathmári, evolutionary biologist/, then even after its organization /the death of a living being/ it should be able to organize itself from inanimate to living, but it cannot. And if it cannot, then it could not have known in the beginning. So the idea that matter/organization makes matter alive does not hold. Because the loss of life in the form of material organization, degradation, is permanently lost and is not reorganized.
Matter can be reorganized into life if life is not the result of material organization, but of the organizer that was able to organize matter to carry life. The organizer must therefore be above the material organization.
If the parts of a vacuum cleaner are not vacuum cleaners in themselves, but rather their complex organization is a vacuum cleaner, that is not proof that the parts of the vacuum cleaner organized themselves into a vacuum cleaner. It would require a conscious mind that was able to assemble the parts in such a way that the vacuum cleaner could perform the function of vacuuming.
If engineering doesn't develop something that engineers have no idea what it is, then why would evolution, wandering blindly through the field of genetic possibilities, develop anything that it has no idea what it is?! Even DNA itself, the blueprint of living things?
[DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is actually the blueprint of biological organisms, because it carries the genetic information that determines the structure and functioning of the organism.]
If the car develops the tools to be able to freely drive wherever it wants, then matter will also develop everything it can use to build the entire living and non-living world. But that is not as obvious as many people think.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Planck (the founder of quantum mechanics, who, along with Albert Einstein, laid the foundations of modern physics) says that matter is a derivative of consciousness: "As a man who has devoted his entire 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 that 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)/
A wooden boomerang /a curved stick/ can still be created spontaneously, but if the name of its owner is engraved on it, then the complexity of the boomerang is not explained by its material components. So there must be someone who creates it.
If the complex universe does not build itself, does not fine-tune itself, does not maintain itself, then its material components do not explain the universe, that is, its origin can only be a spiritual entity, because if not, then any other complex object can explain itself, even a boomerang with a name. Does this thesis work? Not really!
Darwinian evolution is a product of fantasy used by the scientific elite to make the impossible seem plausible to the gullible.
Animal kinship has, so to speak, brought tangible benefits in the fields of health, treatment, diagnostics, and healthy living, from which it follows that by studying mice we can improve the human condition. But this is only progress at the microevolutionary level.
On a large scale, in the long run, the theory of evolution dictates that everyone should live according to their own individual values and interests. It is precisely Darwinian evolution that is the reason why the masses of people live godlessly, soullessly, indulging in their pleasures. Corruption and crime have flooded the entire world. Because the evolutionary worldview has declared God dead.
"At present humanity is lost. We don’t know what we are doing here. God is dead." /John Stewart: The Evolutionary Worldview and its Implications for Humanity - https://www.evolutionarymanifesto.com/OverviewEW.pdf
“...the Universe and life are meaningless. That's what science tells us…” /Jerry Coyne Jerry Coyne, Professor of Biology, (2012), “The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate,” Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./
The Darwinian ideal of biological existence and the message of man's animal origin led to this:
“This is now our planet, run by humankind for humankind. We’ve not just ruined it. We’ve destroyed it.” – Sir David Attenborough - https://www.theceomagazine.com/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/attenborough-witness-statement/
But God has a purpose for the planet he created and for obedient mankind. The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee that the wonderful future promised in the Bible will be completely realized.
The feast of the nations on Zion
„And the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples on this mountain a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wine strained clear. And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God /JHVH/ will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.” (Isaiah 25:6-8)
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain comes down, and the snow, from heaven, and does not return there, but actually waters the earth and makes it bring forth and sprout, and seed is given to the sower and bread to the eater, so my word that goes out from my mouth will be. It will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish that which I please, and it will have certain success in the place for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:9-11)
- - -
Megjegyzések
Megjegyzés küldése