Ovi -
we cover every issue
Apopseis magazine  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
Stop violence against women
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
What Evolutionists Won't Tell You - Trade Secrets of Paleontologists
by Jack Wellman
2010-04-18 09:23:43
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
A logical beginning point to ask whether a theory is indeed true is to ask the experts in the field of that same theory, morguefile.comfossil_400because it is by empirical knowledge that scientific theories and hypothesis are confirmed. And it is the business of science to move forward and continually modify or eliminate particular scientific theories or axioms that have been either conclusively proven true or false. Evolution can not pass the Scientific Method, which uses empirical evidence to conclusively prove or test a theory to establish it as fact or to have it become a scientific law. The test of whether something is scientific fact or law is through the Scientific Method, as follows:1

1. Observable. The act of seeing with the human eye the phenomena in question.

2. Falsifiable. The ability to setup a test or experiment to determine the validity of the

3. Repeatable. Any experiment must be repeatable to be valid and produce data that can
be accepted.

4. Null hypothesis. Statistical analysis of the data to fall within a given acceptable range
that makes the data of use and value. This allows further predictions based on the
model used in the experiment.

5. Laws of operation. The laws of science (physics, chemistry etc.) must apply to both the
phenomena and the thesis.
What prevents the theory of evolution from ever becoming an established fact or law is that it can not pass the Scientific Method. Clearly, theories and scientific laws are not the same thing. Take a look at Newton’s Three Laws of Gravity. Newton’s theories of gravity became law because they could validated and verified by the Scientific Method, something that the theory of evolution can never be established by.
Newton's First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia) states: “Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform speed in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces acting on it.” You can prove this by experiment, observation, measurement, and it repeatable. It can be falsified.
Newton's Second Law of Motion says: “The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and is inversely proportional to its mass. The direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the applied net force“. This can also be established as a fact or a scientific law by observation, repeatability, and measurement.
Newton's Third Law of Motion (Law of Action-Reaction) is: “Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.” Again, you can test this to be true in experiments. Evolution can not be tested; it can not be repeated, measured, observed or falsified.
The lack of fossil evidence has been the paleontologists trade secret. What was envisaged by Charles Darwin, was a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibian which living partly in the sea and partly on land and then on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans. Herein lies the problem; there is no fossil evidence of this process at all, anywhere.
The Curator of the invertebrates department at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge, who was also the adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is a vigorous supporter of evolution. Dr. Eldredge openly admits that the traditional evolutionary view is not supported by the fossil record. He say, "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," as he writes, “It seems never to happen. Fastidious collecting of fossils, from the bottom upward, up sheer cliff faces, zigzags, minor oscillations…all showing the same results. That life forms all appear, fully formed, complete in body parts, at their first discovery”.2 "When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution“.2
Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959. )
"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. (Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)
Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, it is no surprise that A. Lunn summed it up saying, "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen."3 Evolution is no omniscient scientist axiomatic truth. It remains both empirically and evidentially, inconclusively proven.
There is more than ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor George Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."4 Does that sound like objective, rational science? It sounds like it requires a great deal of faith.
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, once said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."5 The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. They can only postulate a theory.
There is general consensus in the scientific community that matter did not exist 14 billion years ago. We have evidence from the background radiation and other tests, for example, that the sky is dark at night, that at that time there was said to be a “Big Bang.” Prior to that, there was no matter. It seems ironic that the term “big bang” came from Hoyle who maintained till his death that we had a steady state universe, even though no scientist accepts the eternal state of matter, today. So the belief that matter is eternal must come from some outdated concepts. Knowing this, the new Biology textbooks state that “The General Theory of Evolution (macroevolution) states that matter is eternal” while general scientific consensus is that it isn’t.1
Entropy is an example of energy being used up and then running out. It is defined as “when a system's energy is defined as the sum of its ‘useful’ energy (energy that can be used, for example, to push a piston), and its "useless energy" (that energy which cannot be used to do external work), then entropy may be visualized as the ‘stray’ or ‘lost’ energy whose magnitude over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the system and is a measure of the disorder of a system.6
Belief in a theory is theology, not science. It is faith-based. . Science works by observing phenomena, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis. If the test fails, a new hypothesis is constructed. It is time to speak openly and honesty about this theory. A theory that by scientific definitions and standards, can never be proven conclusively.
If you read any dictionary’s definition of the word “theory”, you will likely not find more subjective terms and descriptions given to describe a single word in the entire dictionary. Notice all of the subjective terms that Webster uses to define the word theory: General principle “drawn from” any body of facts; is “plausible” or scientifically “acceptable”; “general principle” offered to explain observed facts; “hypotheses“; “guess“; “abstract thought” [my favorite].7 These are very effervescent and ambiguous terms, unlike law, axiom or scientific fact. It is not a know-so fact, it is a hope-so theory.
Evolution’s best definition: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen."3
1. This is from the Helen Curtis (Macmillan Publishing) book Biology used for the past 28 years as the standard text for AP biology in high school and Bio 101 & 102 in most colleges and universities.
2. Eldredge, Niles. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995. Wiley Publisher: Wiley. New York. p. 95.
3. Huse, Dr. Scott. The Collapse of Evolution. Publisher: Baker Books, New York; 3rd edition November 1, 1997.
4. Professor George Wald of Harvard University quoted in Life: How did it get here? Scientific American Magazine. 1985, p. 51. Reference: Scientific American. August, 1954, p. 46.
5. Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe. Basic Books,1988, p 5.
6. Entropy. Web. April 13, 2010 Accessed April 13, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
7. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Publishing Co. New York, 1984. p. 708.
Originally from: http://jobshopesolutions.com/index.php

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2010-04-18 14:44:54
“Belief in a theory is theology, not science. It is faith-based.”
Indeed, Jack. When Thomas Khun came out with his book on scientific revolutions in the early sixties, what irked the scientists who believe that truth is to be found in science and not in metaphysics or theology, was the idea expressed in that book that even science has an implied philosophy and belief system at its foundations, whether or not scientists recognize it. When science began with the ancient Greeks there was a belief system in place and it was nothing but this: that the human mind is so constituted that it is able to search for and find the truth and even contemplate Truth. Without that belief system (which cannot be empirically proven) no science would have begun and developed.

Seth2010-04-19 07:13:15
No doubt that it takes more faith to believe that the universe and we all came out of nothingness that to believe there was a cause. I don't have that much faith to believe in the former. Great points.

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi