Evolution Issues: The Hawking Denial

Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation." -- Chris Matyszczyk, "Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God," CNET (September 26, 2014).

The last I checked "science" involves determinations made through repetition which produce the same results.

In the case of "God," we know we are here and we are alive. Further, "science" tell us (and rightly so) life can only come from preexisting life. In other words, something dead does not produce something alive.

It happens every day one way (life comes from something/someone already alive) and it never happens on any day the other way (life resulting from non-life).

Therefore, based on the scientific evidence presented to us every single day of our lives, and in no other way to the contrary, "life" must be eternal since it is here now and life can only come from preexisting or already existing life.

That this eternal life which must exist (because life exists) is also clearly intelligent is easy to show based on every single thing we can observe. Everything has structure, purpose, and design, from a cell to a human.

How, then, does one come to the conclusion as does Hawking, "God" (eternal, intelligent life) does not exist?

Answer: By imagining billions of years during which already existing matter is set in motion by a “Big Bang” in which "accidents" happen randomly to already existing (but non-living) matter.

For Hawking/evolutionists, non-living matter must also be eternal since nothing cannot produce something; yet, unlike an eternal, intelligent God, non-living eternal matter cannot, under any known condition or according to any presented experiment, produce life on its own. This is true and it will remain true no matter how many comets, asteroids, volcanoes, earthquakes, lightning or anything else you add to the mix, all of which tends to destroy not create, if anything.

None of these things, and certainly not “nothing,” could close up a cell wall, and this after making sure all of the cell parts are in place, working, and reproducing. And what about seeds and plants? How did instructions for plants get to be inside seeds?

The theory of evolution is now really nothing more than science fiction, a theory which in no way compares with the evidence on the side of God's existence. There is not an evolutionist alive on this planet who can defend its assumptions against the clear, repeated facts of real scientific study and thought. The only thing an evolutionist can do is assume premises and from these assumed premises conclude exactly as many scientists have assumed; in other words they are arguing circularly from conclusion to premise, not from premise to conclusion.

I can show by science, by repeated, daily experiment exactly where life comes from 100% of the time, and also where it does not come from 100% of the time. Hawking cannot show anything demonstrating evolution’s critical premise, namely, how life comes from non-life, let alone how so much life develops with so much utility.

"God" is not only based on the best available evidence, scientific evidence, it is clearly the only real explanation for why we are here and for why everything is as it is: Someone put everything together and someone set in motion the reproductive cycles which keep life going. That "someone" is eternal, intelligent life, or whom many call "God," and still others call "Jah" or "Jaho(h)-ah."

Evolution Issues: Spider Fangs

Spiders have many incredible features, not the least of which is the strength and design of its web, and all of which indicate intelligence and intention, not accidental mutation.
Consider just one of the spider's features: Fangs.

Spider fangs clearly show a design perfectly suited for its capture/kill ability which helps control insect population and ensure the spider's own survival. Further on the evident design of spider fangs, here is a quote from a recent article about spider fangs:

The hollow, conical shape of the spiders' fangs gives them nearly optimal stiffness per unit volume — a measure of their resistance to deformation — making them ideally suited for piercing prey. The fangs are a composite of protein and chitin, a carbohydrate molecule found in the shells of many insects and crustaceans, whose microscopic structure is well suited for its purpose, the results suggest.--Tanya Lewis, "Why Spider Fangs Are Nature's Perfect Needles," LiveScience (May 27, 2014).

In fact, and as the above article goes on to suggest, spider fangs are so perfect they "might inspire scientists to develop better injection needles and other medical devices." So what we humans can or have made so far, with all of our technology and experience, still does not equate to what a spider's fangs can do.So while the writer also repeatedly describes spider fangs as something which "evolved in nature," everything about spider fangs indicates just the opposite, namely, an intelligent, intentional design.
Accidents like spider fangs do not happen; they do not evolve from non-fangs or from something which is not already made to be what it is. In fact, the last mutation I saw, other than in recent (fantasy) X-Men movies, was about as useful as a wet towel coming out of the pool. Consider, for example, this description of a physical mutation (with underlining added):

Despite recent progress in defining the ciliome, the genetic basis for many cases of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) remains elusive. We evaluated five children from two unrelated, consanguineous Palestinian families who had PCD with typical clinical features, reduced nasal nitric oxide concentrations, and absent dynein arms. Linkage analyses revealed a single common homozygous region on chromosome 8 and one candidate was conserved in organisms with motile cilia. Sequencing revealed a single novel mutation in LRRC6 (Leucine-rich repeat containing protein 6) that fit the model of autosomal recessive genetic transmission, leading to a change of a highly conserved amino acid from aspartic acid to histidine (Asp146His). LRRC6 was localized to the cytoplasm and was up-regulated during ciliogenesis in human airway epithelial cells in a Foxj1-dependent fashion. Nasal epithelial cells isolated from affected individuals and shRNA-mediated silencing in human airway epithelial cells, showed reduced LRRC6 expression, absent dynein arms, and slowed cilia beat frequency. Dynein arm proteins were either absent or mislocalized to the cytoplasm in airway epithelial cells from a primary ciliary dyskinesia subject. These findings suggest that LRRC6 plays a role in dynein arm assembly or trafficking and when mutated leads to primary ciliary dyskinesia with laterality defects.--Struan Frederick Airth Grant, Ed., "LRRC6 Mutation Causes Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia with Dyneim Arm Defects," PLoS One. 2013; 8(3): e59436, published online Mar 19, 2013.

In other words, mutations are defects, not indications of progress or advancement within a species, but usually signs of degeneration and loss of optimal performance; mutations never, ever lead to the development of a brand new species or a different family type of creature when they do occur, neither do they lead to a better-developed feature (such as spider fangs) of an existing creature like spiders. Therefore, describing something so perfect as spider fangs for what a spider does to survive and to better its environment as having unintelligently "evolved" is nonsense; it has no scientific basis, at all.Yet, we humans design things similar to spider fangs (for example, injection needles), showing such devices are often the product of intelligent, intentional design.
Of course, even our intelligence cannot (yet) match that which we see in the spider's fangs; hence, we see the interest in Ms. Lewis' article to copy or to replicate as best as we can what it is spider fangs can do. That alone should tell us there is someone behind the design and the purpose of spider fangs, indeed, behind it should tell us the same thing about every single living creature since they all have similarly designed, well-suited features which allow them to survive, to thrive, and to contribute to its environment.
Intelligent design is scientific, as is the belief life only comes from preexisting life and, therefore, scientifically, "life" must be considered eternal.
How so?
Because intelligent design and life coming only from preexisting life both happen all the time, every single day, for everyone to see. New things are intelligently designed by humans and life continues to only come from preexisting life, in the case of every known life form, with no exceptions, other than those proposed by science apart from any actual evidence,but which propositions often provide evidence against the very conclusions they advance in the name of science. Spider fangs are just one example of this.

Evolution Issues: 'The Key to Life on Earth'

According to Leslie Baehr ("Scientists Unravel One Of The Keys To Life On Earth — And It's Right Beneath Your Feet," Business Insider [April 6, 2014]), "Scientists are constantly on a mission to untangle how Earth alone among the planets was able to evolve complex life."
In fact, it can be (and regularly is) shown the key to life on earth has nothing to do with accidental conditions as are alleged to have evolved according to this article and the study on which it relies, for no known or currently demonstrable example of any accidental conditions ever results in the formation of new life and, by the way, laboratory experiments are never accidentally set up; they are put in place, exactly as the earth would have to have been set up in order for life to have been placed within it.
This means the idea of the evolution of complex (or even simple) life forms from accidental conditions (as plate tectonics and other earth conditions are often, wrongly alleged to be) cannot be considered scientific, according to any known or demonstrable example.
Since, "Earth alone among the planets" is not now nor has it ever been "able to evolve complex life" (because "complex [or simple] life" cannot evolve from non-life), then life can only have come from pre-existing "complex [or simple] life," that is, according to every single known and observed example of new life which always, without exception, proceeds from earlier forms of similar life.
Therefore, the key to life on earth must be from life outside of the earth since, again, life can only come from already-existing life, not from non-life, nor from water, nor from giant plates of sediment. But life can be given to sediment, just as we see described in the creation of Adam in Eden: He was made from the dirt, and he/we return to the dirt when we die. Our return point shows our origin, at least physically, just as our life today shows where our life came from in the past.
Our flesh is our physical form, but the life we actually have (that which leaves us when we die) is life from another life since, again, scientifically, according to what we observe every single day and what we know has occurred with life in all times past, life can only come from pre-existing life. Life cannot result from something which is not already alive.
So-called "scientists" know this, yet they continue to call things like amino acids "building blocks of life" when, in fact, they are merely building blocks of material, or matter, like protein. Yet, protein is present is a dead body; it is the life which is gone, no matter how many amino acids remain. So life is not 'built' from nor does it result from amino acids.
When "scientists" actually accept the most obvious scientific fact of all scientific facts, namely, life can only come from pre-existing life, which is demonstrated every single day in every single reproductive way, then they will not only realize what/who is the source or origin of life, they will also (hopefully) realize "life" is eternal, or it has always been, since it is here now.
That is why it makes sense and it is entirely scientific for God to be considered eternal, because if he exists (and all forms and functions of life show that he does) then he is the source of life and life, scientifically, must be eternal in order for life to be present today (which it is).
It's as simple as that, and there is no need to look anywhere else for 'the key to life on earth.'
This is why it is correct to say the idea of the evolution of life from accidental conditions, conditions which themselves are believed to be from the equally random formation of planets and their cores and their surface conditions, or from unintelligent, non-intentional life is more like science fiction than anything remotely resembling something truly scientific.
That is why it is also true and correct to say the key to life on earth is life outside of the earth, which life was at some point put into the earth once the earth was made ready for it.--See Genesis Chapter 1.
For additional information about the origin of life from pre-existing life, see my article, "The Origin of Life Is Life (or Something or Someone Already Alive)" (January 13, 2010, Watching the Ministry).

The "Sharpest Rule"

The fourth update letter for my pending work, The "Sharpest Rule": A Review and Restatement of Greek's Most Tragic Rule is now available for reading or download here on the Elihu Books Topic Index, and also on the Elihu Books and Media page next to the publication image.

In my fourth publication update letter dated March 9, 2014, there is another exception to Sharp's rule, to the Sharper rule, and a further example of the Sharpest rule from the writings of Josephus, from his Jewish Antiquities 2.117. Also, there is a revised, shortened form of the Sharpest rule presented in light of this exception and based my present draft of the "Sharpest Rule," which is pending publication.

The revised form of the Sharpest rule is as follows:

When reading or when translating ancient Greek, if the Greek understanding is expressed with two or more substantives (= nouns, pronouns, or other terms used as nouns), if they are separated by the conjunction kai (“and”), and if only the first substantive has the article and all substantives connected by kai are in grammatical agreement with the first term, whether they are common, personal substantives or even if they are proper substantives or terms with fixed significance for one or more well-known persons, the reader/translator must first determine the significance of the involved substantives rather than use syntax alone to determine to how many subjects the substantives apply.

As I write in my March 9, 2014, update letter, Jah willing I will be able to publish my book on this subject in the near future. If not, then I am confident the Sharpest rule and many examples which show its importance in use over and against Sharp’s rule and even the Sharper rule are already apparent from my update letters to this point, as well as from my other writings on this subject. 

For more on these update letters and my other writings on Sharp's rule, the Sharper rule, and the Sharpest rule, see the Elihu Books Topical Index under "S."

Evolution Issues: American Belief Opinion Poll

Using a survey of 1,983 adults in all 50 states from March 21 to April 8, 2013, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project showed about 1/3 of Americans reject the belief in evolution, apparently as it is commonly taught in public schools and elsewhere in "science" settings, though the frequently unqualified use of "evolution" in the article makes it difficult to account for some of the ideas mentioned or to explain just what it is some of those polled really believe.

When it comes to the poll's results, I thought it would be closer to 2/3+ who would reject the idea as far as it concerns unintelligent evolution being the origin of life or the cause of new, functional species of life, not to mention seeds and plants and a whole lot of trees, birds, insects, and other functional, living things obviously designed for life on this earth, versus randomly forming on their own which, given the amount of time to date, would have resulted in billions of unfit life forms surrounded by some viable mutations which continue functioning/living, etc. 

Yet, that's not what we see, at all.

Though this poll leaves a good deal out of what is involved in such a question, it does describe the belief of some non-evolutionists as involving "a supreme being [who] guided the evolution of living things."

Is that supposed to mean such a being "guided" triggers like lightning, comets, or volcanic eruptions to stimulate cell growth or mutation when, in fact, such things only destroy and never, ever have they been shown to create new life or to evolve existing life? If so, then that is not what many non-evolutionists actually believe.

If by "guided" it is meant many who reject traditional evolution theories like Darwinism believe a Creator or intelligent being(s) designed and caused life on earth to come about and to evolve through the processes of reproduction and growth within each species, then that is something I find many more people are embracing than ever before, and it is what many have taught and believed long before anyone ever considered adding evolution (as understood by Darwin and by others) to the mix of ideas about the origin of life and the existence of so many varied and wonderful creatures, all in one planet!

Everything has a purpose, and random mutations would not be batting 100% in terms of fitness or purpose in this earth if they were all unintelligently evolved, guided, or produced.

Further, no one I know and who also believes in a Creator or in intelligent creation of life as we know it rejects the idea we can "evolve" in the sense of change within a species over time. That's obviously a part of the design of fleshly creatures, which is why we can exercise and grow new tissue in response to demands placed upon us. But that is not the same thing at all as mutating a hyena into a whale!

Evolutions actually believe such things as a whale originating from a land animal like a hyena in part due to the whale's ability to breathe air, which has to be explained somehow, if not by a Creator, since life originally came from the sea, meaning (if evolution as taught in schools is true) evolution not only somehow produced a whale from cells in the ocean but the ocean’s cells first evolved into a land animal (like a hyena) but then re(de)-evolved into a sea creature, one able to breathe air, only now with no legs and with a new tail and a blow-hole all in a perfect shape able to travel the deep blue seas!

Chance mutation? If so, then it is not only one of such highly unlikely chances which would have to have resulted, but billions of them, as many as there are different life forms now and in times past.

It is for these and for many, many other reasons people like me have and will continue to reject biological evolution as the cause of life or as the cause of the existence of new species over time. There is, in fact, not one scientific experiment which has shown anything occurring that is at all like what many evolutionists claim, since all such experiments are in fact, not random or accidental but "guided" by beings "supreme" to their experiments, namely, the intelligent scientists who arranged and conducted the experiment(s) in the first place, whether or not they realize and accept they are causal members in the chain of events leading to their lab results.