A (0:10)

Is the theory of evolution scientific fact? Or is it an idiotic fairy tale promoted by brain damaged people who would rather believe the impossible than acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural creator? We'll discuss that on this week's episode of the Faith by Reason podcast. Welcome to the podcast. The website behind it all is faithbyreason.net there you will find the blog, our archives, tons of information, our social media links, and this very podcast. And as you can tell from my intro statement, we will be talking about evolution. And as you can also tell, I have absolutely no bias one way or the other about evolution. We are actually on the series of what's the point? What's the point of existence? What is the meaning of life? And we know that there is a first cause of existence. And that first cause will be germane to understanding and getting an answer to the question of what's the point of existence? And we know that that first cause is God. And we have been talking in the last couple podcasts about how the first cause caused existence. We've been talking about creation. A couple of podcasts ago, we talked about the physics of creation and we showed not only is it possible for the universe to have been spoken into existence, but that based on quantum theory, it's the only possibility that has any validity. And in the last podcast, we looked at what the Bible says about creation. So in this podcast and in the next, I am, because I'm such a generous, magnanimous person, I am going to give the democratic response, going to give the opposing view to supernatural creation. And that is the secular position of evolution. And we all know that evolution is completely true, right? I mean, it is scientific fact. It has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Everyone knows it, Everyone believes it. You see it everywhere. It's in our school books, it's on television, it's on radio, it's in our magazines. It is taken for granted that evolution is the way we got here. It's the way the universe came into existence. It's the way you and I came into existence by random chance. Evolution, all by chance. That's how it happened, right? Of course. Everyone knows that it's true. And if you don't believe in evolution, well, then you're just nothing more than a knuckle dragon backwards hillbilly who probably has three teeth in his whole head. And you only have a third grade education and you farm manure for a living and you probably got your pinky toe bitten off by a squirrel in a hunting accident. And you probably think that Women should no longer have the right to vote and black people should still be slaves. And you probably voted for Donald Trump or even worse, you're probably one of them there fundamentalist Christians who believes there's a magic man in the sky who grants wishes and judges you. But is that really true? Well, not the part about having three teeth. I mean the part about evolution being proven fact and scientifically accurate. Well, the answer to both of those questions is a resounding no. Evolution has not been proven. That's why it's called the theory of evolution. When something is proven in science, it's called a law. We have the law of gravity because gravity has been proven. We have the laws of thermodynamics. We have the laws of conservation of angular momentum. We have all kinds of scientific laws, and they are laws because they've been proven. There is no law of evolution because evolution hasn't been proven. Evolution is a theory, and a horrible, horrible, horrible theory at that. Evolution is not scientifically accurate. Not even close. And we will dive into that in this podcast. And just so that we are clear, I want to give an objective definition of what science is. In today's culture, we have a very subjective definition of science. What we see as science is. Well, the working definition of science in our current culture is whatever someone who calls himself a scientist says it is. If you call yourself a scientist and you say that XYZ is science, then we all accept it culturally as science. Think about any magazine article you've read or anything you've seen on TV and say, well, scientists say X. Well, okay, then X must be science. Well, that's not objective. That's subjective. It's not actually a sound definition. What it really is is something called scientism. And scientism is a philosophy that's based on the consensus, again, of people who call themselves scientists. But what I want to use is the objective definition of science. And what's the objective definition? Science is a tool. Science is a tool for understanding truth. That's all it is. No more, no less. That's why it tickles and annoys me when I hear the idea, when people purporting the idea of a war between theological faith and science. There's no war between faith and science because you can't have a war against a tool. That's all science is. It is a tool for helping us understand truth. And the scientific tool that we're going to use to examine evolution is empiricism. Empirical science. What is empirical science? Well, empirical science simply states that something is empirically, scientifically true if it can be observed in nature or if it can be reproduced in a controlled or laboratory setting. If it meets those two criteria, one of those two criteria, then it's empirically, scientifically true. If it does not, then it is not scientifically true. And I can tell you right off the bat that evolution does not meet either of those criteria, not by a long shot. And one final caveat. I would not be using God or the Bible to disprove evolution. I'm not going to say evolution is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong. I don't need to. Evolution is such a horrible theory that all you have to do to disprove it is look at it. All you have to do is look at what evolution says about itself, and it falls apart quite easily. So I will not be mentioning God or Bible throughout the rest of this podcast. So let's dive right in. What does evolution say about itself? Well, what's the evolutionary summary theory? Well, we know we have the creation summary theory. It's. Excuse me, a summary statement. In Genesis 1:1, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That is the summary statement of creation. And again, that'll be the last time I use the Bible in this podcast. What is a summary statement of evolution? Well, it goes like this. Once upon a time, there was nothing, and then somehow nothing exploded, creating all the energy and matter in the universe. And then 100 trillion beneficial accidents all happened in a row, resulting in everything we see, hear, taste, touch, and feel, and life as we know it. The end. Now, to be fair, evolutionists don't really believe that nothing exploded. They believe that all of the potential matter and energy of the universe was all contained in a subatomic particle that existed at the beginning of the universe. And they call that particle, ironically, the God particle. And apparently this is the subatomic particle that exploded, and all that potential energy was released and it became all the energy and matter of the universe. Problem is, where'd this God particle come from? Well, scientists say it always existed. Well, that's kind of a problem because we know that the universe is finite. Nothing has always existed. And if it did always exist, then the second law of thermodynamics, which we talked about a few podcasts ago, which would mean that all of that potential energy would have dissipated and there would be no energy to cause the explosion. So it's impossible for this God particle to exist yet. And still they're still looking for it. I mean, if you take a look at the big experiment happening over on the Franco Swiss border over in Europe, the CERN experiment, where they have this $17 billion large hadron collider where they're smashing protons against each other trying to recreate this God particle, which they haven't done. Which means it's not empirical because no one's ever seen this God particle and no one's ever been able to reproduce it. And I kind of think the whole CERN thing is a bad idea. Because if they were able to recreate this particle that allegedly caused the universe and it exploded, wouldn't it destroy this current universe and start a whole new one? That would ruin your Sunday. But I'm not too concerned about it because there's no such thing as a God particle. It doesn't exist. It's impossible according to the laws of physics and logic. But you know what, Because I'm such a generous guy, I'm just going to ignore that impossibility. But how did they, how did they say it existed? Well, what they do, what scientists do is they use the uncertainty aspects of quantum physics as their straw horse. They say, well, you know, even though it doesn't seem to conform to the laws of physics as we know them, once you get down to the quantum level, physics gets a little bit fuzzy. And somewhere in that fuzziness is how this God particle could exist and explode. Well folks, that's not science, that's faith. You're believing, you're taking that belief based on faith. That's not science, it's religion. But again, since I'm generous, I'm just going to let it go and presume that even though it's impossible, somehow this non existent God particle exploded and created everything. So what do we have now? We have this big explosion. There's tons of energy out there in the universe. It's just expanding and going further and faster. And over billions of years it starts to cool down. Oh, by the way, it's a good point to stop and talk about the whole billions of years aspect. You see, everything in evolution takes a really, really long time. It takes millions and billions of years to have every step along the evolutionary ladder. Why? Because they rely on random chance. Nothing is directed. There's no intelligence. Everything that's ever happened in the universe has happened by accident. Problem is, we don't, we can't observe beneficial accidents. I've never had one. I mean not, not that many times in a row. I can maybe think of a beneficial accident where, let's say I trip over something in my house. And I fall down. And as I'm on the ground, I look over and I see under the couch something I lost. Well, okay, that's a beneficial accident. But what's the likelihood that the next four, five, or six accidents I have will also be beneficial? Highly unlikely. Let's look at something as simple as a coin toss. You have a quarter, you toss it in the air. Probability is 50. 50. That's the randomness. 50%. Half the time you're going to get heads. Half the time you're going to get tails. What evolutionists will want you to believe is that if you flip that coin 100 times, you're going to get heads 100 times. Well, that's extremely unlikely. I mean, try it. You'll be spending days and weeks flipping that coin, trying, trying to get to 100 straight heads. It's not going to happen. But what evolutionists say is, oh, yeah, in the short term, it couldn't happen. But if you flip that coin for a billion years, sooner or later you would get 100 heads in a row. Well, so that's why they keep using time, because they have no other way to get around. Well, that's their way of trying to get around empiricism is by throwing a bunch of years at it. So keep that in mind as we go along. So the universe explodes. All the energy is out there. Then over billions of years, it starts to cool down, and we start to get all the elements on the periodic table, and some of this energy starts to coalesce and spin and coalesce more until it becomes the nuclear furnaces we call stars. And so we have tons of stars out there. When you have a big old cluster of stars spinning around a large source of energy in the middle, you have what we call a galaxy. Then one day, after billions of years, you had a nondescript galaxy called the Milky Way, and. And on the edge of that nondescript galaxy, you had a nondescript little average star forming that we call our sun. And spinning around that sun, we have planets. Now, I'm not going to get into how the planets came to be. There's a bunch of different theories about it. I was going to talk about it, but it's not really germane and it would take up too much time from the podcast, but suffice it to say that on the third planet from this sun, we have the planet we call Earth. But this early Earth was not like the beautiful blue rock that we know and love today. No, this early Earth was just a big old molten Ball of lava circling the sun in this chaotic galaxy. And there were all types of asteroids and meteors and comets flying around and crashing into this big old lava rock Earth. And the meteors and asteroids, they're made of rock and metal. And they allege, according to evolutionists, that's the reason why we have all the different elements on the Earth and different metals. And some of them sank to the core of the Earth and those metals became the genesis of our magnetic field and all that good stuff. And then you had comets crashing to the Earth too. Comets are different. Comets are not rock and they're not metal. They're actually ice and dust. They're big, dirty snowballs. So what would happen when these big snowballs crashed into the molten Earth? Well, they would evaporate. It's too hot. They would evaporate into steam. But over billions of years of these snowballs crashing into the Earth and steam forming, the Earth is, is covered with a big cloud of steam and that starts to cool the Earth. And over millions of years of the Earth cooling, these steam clouds started to condense. And what happens when clouds condense? Well, it starts to rain. So it rains on the Earth for millions of years. And over all that time, the Earth is covered by an ocean. And now you have what we call a water cycle. A water cycle is when you have the cycle of water evaporating from the oceans, turning into clouds. The clouds cool and condense and rain and the rain comes back down to the ocean. That's the stable water cycle. And as any scientist will tell you, in order to have life, you've got to have water and you got to have a stable water cycle. Now, this is a good place to stop and talk about the uniqueness of the Earth, that stable water cycle. The Earth is in the perfect position to have that stable water cycle. It's the perfect distance from the sun. If the Earth was a little closer or a little further from the sun, we wouldn't have that stable water cycle. If it was a little closer to the Earth, it would be too warm to have the water cycle. The clouds would never condense in the rain. It would be too warm for that. If it was just a little bit further from the sun, then it would be too cold to have a stable water cycle. Enough water wouldn't. Enough steam wouldn't evaporate from the ocean to create a stable water cycle. So the Earth is the exact right place in the distance to the sun in order to have a stable water cycle. But that's just one of the Many things that makes the Earth uniquely fine tuned to support life. The Earth is the perfect size. If the Earth was a little bit bigger, it would have too much gravity and it would trap the wrong kinds of gases in our atmosphere and it would make life impossible. If the Earth was a little smaller, it wouldn't have enough gravity to hold a stable atmosphere. Look at the planet Mars for an example. Mars is a little bit smaller than the Earth, but because it has less gravity, it can't hold an atmosphere. You can look at the oxygen level of the Earth. If the oxygen level right now 21% of the atmosphere is oxygen. If oxygen was a little more, let's say 25%, well, fires would erupt spontaneously because fire speed on oxygen. If it was a little less, say 15%, well, it wouldn't be enough oxygen in the air for us to breathe. That would be bad. The thickness of the Earth's crust is perfect. If the Earth's crust was too thick, then too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it was thinner, then there would be too much volcanic and tectonic activity, too many earthquakes to make life possible. The axis of the Earth, the Earth has a 23 degree axis. It's tilted just right for us to have seasons. If the Earth's tilt was a little more or a little less, the surface temperature would be too extreme, either too hot or too cold to support life. The Moon, the distance and size of the Moon. If the Moon was a little bigger or a little smaller, the tidal effect would be either too much or too little to support life. If there's reflectivity and refractivity, if those were a little more or less, life would be impossible. There are lots of ways. There's actually 122 different ways that the Earth is fine tuned to support life. And if any of those 122 aspects were off by just a little bit, life would be impossible. So we need all of them. If 80 of them were optimal and the rest were not, well, you wouldn't have less life on Earth. You would have no life. So you need all of these things in order to support life on Earth. There are so many of these things that scientists have given a name to it. They call it the anthropic principle. They say it's the way that by random chance, the Earth is just seemingly fine tuned for life. Well, if it's random chance, let's put some probability to it. And someone much smarter than me did that man named Hugh Ross, a master physicist, calculated the odds of any planet in the universe by random chance having all, not even all of them, just 100 of them. 122. What are the odds of one planet having just 100 of those aspects that the Earth has? Well, scientists have estimated that there are in the universe. The number of planets is 10 to the 22nd. That's a 1 followed by 22 zeros. Huge number. I mean a trillion is 1 followed by 12 zeros. This is 1 followed by 22 zeros. That's how many planets there are in the universe. The odds of one of those according to Dr. Ross is one chance in one in 10 to the 38th. That's a one followed by 138 zeros. Those are the odds. Big problem with that. It is readily agreed upon in science that anything with worse chance than 1 in 10 to the 50th is considered scientifically impossible. Not unlikely, not improbable, impossible. And what was the number Dr. Ross came up with? 10 to the 138th. Pretty. Pretty much bigger than 10 to the 50th. What does that mean? That means it is impossible for any planet in the universe to have all these attributes by random chance. Impossible. But since I am such a wonderful generous person, I'm just going to ignore that possibility and keep going with our evolutionary study. But I just have to say this is why I find it so funny whenever I see one of these reports that come out every now and then about how scientists have found an Earth like planet about out there somewhere in the galaxy, in the universe that might contain life. Because it's roughly the size of our Earth orbiting a star roughly the size of our sun and roughly the same distance. Folks, roughly isn't going to cut it. It has to be exact and it's impossible to have that exactness. Alright, anyway, let's, let's move on. So we have the early Earth covered in oceans. So how did life begin? Well, according to evolutionists, the, the early atmosphere of the Earth was the atmosphere had methane and sulfur and ammonia and water vapor and carbon dioxide. And in the atmosphere there were storms going on all the time, very intense storms. And there were tons of lightning strikes happening. And the lightning would strike the atmosphere with all these different gases in it. And it would be the catalyst for a chemical reaction that would form amino acids. Amino acids are one of the basic building blocks of organic life. There are tons of amino acids, 22 of them are vital for organic life. So you had these amino acids form in the sky when the lightning strikes and these amino acids would fall down into the ocean. And over millions of years of these lightning strikes happening and these amino acids falling into the ocean, the oceans were teeming with amino acids, with the organic building blocks of life. And over millions of years, there are just. They're swimming around and bumping into each other and having a big old amino acid rave party. And eventually they start linking up. Chemical bonds form between the amino acids. So one amino acid becomes 2, which becomes 3, then 4, then 5, then 6. Then you have a long chain of amino acids. Well, then you can get protein, because protein is a long chain of amino acids and protein. Proteins are the basic building block of organic life. That's what all of our cells are made of. And all the cells of every living thing, they're made of proteins. So now you have all these proteins coming together. And eventually these proteins differentiate each other and start reacting with each other. And then by random chance, over millions of years, they eventually form the first simple cell. And now we have life. We have life. And that simplest cell is a bacteria. Bacteria is the simplest form of life that we know of. And that bacteria is. It can reproduce itself. It can take in nutrients and excrete waste, and it can copy itself. It is the first life form. And now we have life. And now that bacteria begins to mutate and evolve over millions of years. By random chance, that single cell bacteria becomes multi celled, and we start to get some of the simplest multi celled microscopic organisms, Protozoans and amoebas and things like that. And they start mutating by random chance over millions of years, and they become even more complex. And they become things like algae on the plant side. And the algae becomes kelp, and the kelp becomes grass, and grass becomes shrubs and trees. And now you have all the plant life on the animal side. The protozoans and the amoebas become things like insects and fish. And again. And then the fish learn to breathe outside. By random chance. They learn how to breathe air. And they become amphibians. And the amphibians become reptiles, and the reptiles become birds, birds and mammals. And the mammals become lemurs and other types of primates. And those primates become larger primates, like monkeys and apes. And the apes become man. And then you have man sitting there on his couch with his Xbox, watching the Kardashians. And here we are, life as we know it. Mankind. Yay. That's how evolution says it happened. But is that scientifically accurate? Empirically, no. Not by a long shot. Let's examine every step along the way. And See if any of it matches up with empirical science. So let's go back to the early Earth's atmosphere and all those gases floating around and lightning striking them and amino acids forming. Well, believe it or not, that part actually is empirical, sort of. A famous experiment was done called the Miller Urey Experiment. Back in the 1930s. A scientist named Stanley Miller decides to replicate the. The early atmosphere of the Earth and the early conditions. So he gets a container, fills it full of the gases that were allegedly on the Earth that time. And in the bottom of the container puts water. And then to simulate lightning strikes, he passes a spark through the atmosphere. And he does that for a week. And after he does it for the first week, he finds nothing. Nothing forms that's usable. So he tweaks the experiment a little bit, which means he used intelligence, which is actually the antithesis of evolution. Random chance. But never mind, we'll forget that. He tweaked his experiment and he did it again. Passed the lightning in a different way. He made his contraption a little bit different, and he passed the. I'm sorry, not the lightning, the spark, through the gases again. And after about a week, he noticed a reddish goo at the bottom of the container. And he examined it, and sure enough, he found some amino acids. He actually found two of the 22amino acids that are necessary for organic life. So, yay, evolution is true, right? Well, there was a bit of a problem. He did produce some amino acids, but that was less than 5% of the goo. What was the rest of the goo? Well, Most of it, 85% of it was tar. You know what tar is? It's the stuff that you patch your roof with, and it's the stuff that roads are made out of, not really conducive to organic life. And the rest of it were some other chemical acids. He would have died in about an hour. It was that deadly tar is toxic to life. So if the Miller experiments were true and were a true representation of the early Earth, you would basically have a sea, a primordial sea, full of tar and a few trace amino acids that could never, ever form life because they're toxic tar, and those acids that were formed are toxic to life. But you know what? Once again, I'm such a great person, so generous, we're just going to ignore that and assume that somehow, even though it can be empirically proven, the lightning strikes just made amino acids and nothing else. So now you've got amino acids in the sky, in the atmosphere. Here's a question. Was there oxygen in that early atmosphere. It's a binary question. Either there was or there wasn't. Let's say there was oxygen in the atmosphere. Well, that would be a problem because if there was oxygen in the atmosphere, it would immediately oxidize the amino acids when they formed. Amino acids are not terribly. They're pretty fragile. They're not terribly hardy molecules. They would be instantly oxidized. We know about oxidation because if you read any of the health news, the big thing is antioxidants, and they're there to stop free radicals. Free radicals destroy molecules. If the, if the atmosphere had oxygen in it, it would instantly destroy those amino acids. So obviously the atmosphere did not have oxygen in it. Right? Well, there's another problem. If it didn't have oxygen, then there would be no ozone effect. Ozone is a molecule of three oxygen atoms, and that ozone effect is what blocks the ultraviolet radiation of the sun from hitting the earth. Ultraviolet radiations are really, really bad for living things. They destroy them very, very quickly. They would have destroyed the amino acids immediately. You know, the ozone layer was a really big thing about, you know, 20 plus years ago in atmospheric science and in environmental science. But I guess it's kind of taking a back seat in the new, most politically active environmental science is global warming or climate change or whatever they're deciding to call it this week. So the whole ozone layer thing is kind of taking the back seat, but it's very, very important. Important to us. It's actually provable that ultraviolet radiation harms us as opposed to the whole global climate change thing, which is still quite debatable. Nevertheless, without oxygen, ultraviolet radiation would instantly destroy the amino acids. So no matter whether the atmosphere did or did not have oxygen, the amino acids couldn't survive. But you know what, let's ignore that impossibility, too. I will assume that somehow the amino acids were able to exist in an atmosphere that did and didn't have oxygen in it. At the same time, even though that's a contradiction, I'll just pretend that for the sake of evolution, contradictions can suddenly exist. So now we have these amino acids and they fall into the ocean. And now you've got, over millions of years, the ocean's teeming with it. You have the organic soup, as scientists call it, of amino acids in the ocean, and they're bumping into each other and having the big old amino acid party, and they start linking together and forming bonds. Now here's a little 10th grade chemistry for you, something you should have learned in high school. And that is whenever two Molecules bond together. There is always a byproduct. They always give up something, either a molecule or a few atoms and whatever. So they bond together. And there's a byproduct. Usually it's a smaller amount of another piece of material. And whatever that byproduct is, if you want to break apart that bond, what you do is you simply reintroduce the molecule or substance that was given off that byproduct and that breaks the bond. You reintroduce it to the bond and it breaks the bond. Chemically speaking, 10th grade chemistry molecules tend to want to break apart more so than they want to bond. So when two amino acids join together, what's their byproduct? Well, their byproduct is a little familiar molecule called H2O, otherwise known as water. So water is the solvent of amino acid bonds. Now, when these amino acids form in the sky, what do they fall into? They fall into the ocean for $100. What's the ocean made of? Ding, ding, ding. The ocean's made of water. So you have these amino acids falling into a gigantic pool of their own solvent. What does that mean? I think you're starting to catch on here. That means amino acids can never form bonds. Long chain strings of bonding amino acids because they're in their own solvent. As soon as they form together, they will break apart because there's water everywhere. They are in a pool of their own solvent. Amino acids could never, ever, ever, ever form long chains of bonding in water because water is. Dissolves amino acid bonds. Impossible. But you know what? I'm going to ignore that, too. I'm just going to ignore yet another impossibility and say that somehow, even though they're in a pool of their own solvent, amino acids are still able to bond together and form proteins. And that's what we have. We have a long string of amino acids in their proteins. Well, that's not quite true. Yes, proteins are a long chain of amino acids, but. But proteins are very complex. They're actually. They're a matrix of amino acids. And they're actually, for lack of a better term, kind of bent and twisted in a way to form a certain matrix that are specific to the protein and it's extremely complex. So complex that it's extraordinarily unlikely that they could form by accident. How unlikely? Well, a scientist much smarter than me decided to calculate the odds of a single protein forming by random chance. His name is Hubert Jaggi. He is a physicist and information scientist. In fact, he's considered the Preeminent information scientist in his field. Look him up on Google. He calculates the probability of a single protein, just one protein called cytochrome C, forming by random chance. What are the odds? The odds of it forming by random chance? One chance in two to the 75th. That's the number two with 75 zeros after it. Remember a little earlier we said that anything that had a chance that's worse than one in 10 to the 50th is scientifically impossible. This is one chance in two to the 75th. That's quite a bit bigger than two to the 50th. What does that mean? That means that the odds of a single protein molecule forming by random chance are beyond impossible. Oh, but wait, it gets worse yet. You have one protein, but in order to form that simple life, that simplest bacteria, the simplest living cell imaginable, the simplest single cell possible, you need 2000 different proteins. They make up the bacteria. What are the chances of those 2,000 individual proteins forming by nothing more than random chance? Well, another man, much smarter than me looked at the odds of it. His name is Sir Fred Hoyle. Yes, he's a Sir Fred Hoyle. He was knighted by her Majesty the Queen. He is a world renowned or he was. He's passed away. He was a world renowned astronomer and he calculated the odds. The chances of the two of the 2,000 proteins that make up a bacteria forming by random chance is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th. That is a 1 with 40,000 zeroes after it. And remember, anything that has less than a chance of 1 in 10 to the 50th is considered impossible. And that's not even to get the bacteria. That's just to get the proteins that are needed to make up the bacteria. Well, what are the odds of an actual bacteria, the simplest living cell, forming by random chance? Well, another man, much smarter than me calculated those odds. His name is Howard Morowitz. He is a Yale University chemist and he calculates the odds. And the odds of a single bacteria forming by random chance is 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth. That is a 1 with 100 billion zeros after it. Folks. Evolution is impossible. Not unlikely, not improbable, impossible based on science. Oh, but what about the billions of years? I mean, surely, you know, these odds are a little out there. They're kind of crazy. But what if you had billions of years for this to happen? Well, let's look at that. How many billions of years are there in the universe? I won't even talk about Earth. Earth is supposedly 4 billion years old. I'll give you a handicap and say, and just take all the time in the universe. How many billions of years are in the universe? Well, scientists estimate that the universe is between 14 and 15 billion years old. And I'll round up and use a 15 billion year old figure. How many seconds are that? How many seconds are in 15 billion years? 10 to the 17th one, followed by 17 zeros. 10 to the 17th is much smaller than the numbers we've been talking about. That means if you took, for every second in the universe, if you tried once every second, for every second the universe has ever existed and tried to have a single protein form, you wouldn't be close. 10 to the 17th is way smaller than 2 to the 75th. Well, but that's just on Earth. What about the other planets out there? There's tons of material out there, so surely life could have evolved. It could have spontaneously come into existence someplace else in the universe. Right? Well, let's look at all the matter in the universe. Scientists have estimated the amount of atoms in the universe. The number of atoms in the universe, according to scientists is 10 to the 80th. That's the number of atoms in the universe. That is still way less than 2 to the 75th or, and certainly 10 to the 40,000th and 10 to the 100 billionth. But what if you put them all together? What if you tried, what if you took every atom in the universe and tried once every second that the universe has existed to make it happen? What if you multiplied the two? Well, when you multiply numbers with exponents, you just, you add the exponents. So if you multiply 10 to the 17th times 10 to the 80th, the seconds in the universe multiplied by the number of atoms in the universe, well, you just come to 10 to the 97th. Still way too small of a number to deal with.2 to the 75th and 10 to the 40,010 to the 100 billionth. Folks, evolution is impossible. There is not enough time, there is not enough matter in the entire universe to even get one bloody protein. How on earth could you get to life? You can't. It's impossible. Not improbable, not unlikely. Utterly, completely, unimaginably impossible. Impossible to magnitudes we can't even imagine. We don't have the words to describe how ludicrous this theory is. We don't have the words in the English language or any language that I know of that can adequately describe how ridiculous it is for something to have one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth when impossible is 10 to the 50th. So why do people believe this nonsense? Why is it the dominant worldview of our culture? Why do scientists who should know better believe in this ludicrous nonsense? Well, the truth is most high level scientists don't. They keep it on the down low. But the high level scientists don't. Now lower level scientists do. And when I say lower level, I mean folks who are teaching in the grade school and high school level. And I'm not disparaging them, they have a tough job. I wouldn't want to try to teach these brats. I know what I was like when I was in school and I wouldn't want to deal with people like me either. But the truth is they're not high level science. If they were high level, they'd be working at the university research level or in a private institution. And this lower level scientists, they just, they do what they're told. They believe what they read in journals and in seminars. And those journals and seminars are basically designed to tote the party line. And the party line is that evolution is true. But high level scientists behind closed doors don't really believe in this nonsense. And some of them have actually been honest enough to admit it. I'll give you a few examples. Francis Crick of Watson Crick fame, he's a man who discovered DNA. High level scientist, pretty bright guy. Give you a quote from him from the journal called Life Itself Its Origin and Nature of 1981, page 88. And I, an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears to be, appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. Francis Crick. Let me cite a couple of the guys I've cited earlier. Hubert Yawke in the Journal of Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992, page 284. I quote, the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non living matter is simply a matter of faith and is based entirely on ideology. Wow, that sounds like religion, doesn't it? Let's go with one more guy, Sir Fred Hoyle. He's the one who calculated the probability of the 2000 bacteria. I'm sorry, the 2000 proteins needed to create a bacteria. He said in the journal Nature, Volume 294, page 105, published in 1981. And I quote, the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one in a number with. Is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it. And by the way, that's not completely accurate. That's. That's not for life to exist. That's just for the building blocks of life to exist. Let me continue the quote. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. If the beginning of life were not random, then they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence. Interesting. Now, some of you might be thinking, oh, well, you're just quoting Christian scientists. Not their religion of Christian Science, but scientists who happen to be Christians. No, I'm not. As far as I know, Francis Crick is not a Christian. There's no evidence that he's a Christian. Hubert Yaqui is an admitted agnostic. He doesn't believe in God. He doesn't know what created the universe, but he doesn't believe that God did it. Sir, Fred Hoyle is certainly not a Christian. Not only is he not a Christian, he's an atheist. Not just any atheist. He is a virulent atheist. He hates God, he hates Christianity, he hates Christians, and he especially hates Christians like me who keep citing his work in our ministry. So if real scientists don't believe in evolution, what do they believe? Well. Well, in the case of Fred Hoyle and a lot of others, they believe in something that's only slightly less ludicrous than evolution. And I say slightly because it at least acknowledges intelligence. They believe in something called panspermia. What is panspermia? Panspermia is the idea that life didn't originate on Earth because that's impossible. It originated someplace else in the universe and it was brought here by. We're talking aliens, folks. They believe that aliens came to Earth and the seed of the Earth with their genetic material. I don't know how that. How they did that didn't sound, you know, very nice. But somehow they see the Earth with. With their genetic material. Sounds kind of nasty. And then life evolved from there. I mean, it's very popular. It's becoming very popular in culture. You look at shows like the Ancient Aliens series on History Channel. We always have that one guy. I don't know what nationality he is. He has. He's brown skin, has some crazy hair. He's always on that. He's always talking about the ancient aliens. Like way back in our history, these aliens visited us and they either started the human race through experiments or they seeded the Earth with. With their seed or whatever. And that's how it evolved. There was a movie A few years ago wasn't a very good movie called Prometheus, which was supposedly a prequel to the Alien system series from the 70s and 80s. And it wasn't a good movie. But the point is, the very first scene in the movie, you have this tall white skinned alien on the primordial earth. He drinks some fluid which dissolves him into his component pieces and he falls into a river. And that's how the Earth was seated. And we're apparently the progeny of this alien. That's what the movie says. But it's becoming more, more and more prevalent in popular culture. So life didn't originate on Earth. Scientists believe we were actually seeded by aliens from the planet Xenon 12. But of course that begs the question, how did Life begin on Xenon 12? Well, because aliens from the planet Herculon 15 seeded Xenon 12 and that's how they came to be. Well, okay, well how did life begin on Herculon 15? Well, aliens from the planet Hyperion 52 seeded them. Well, okay, where did life come from there? Well, they were seeded by other aliens who seeded from other aliens and so forth and so on. They're just basically passing the buck. Panspermia is passing the buck. We don't know how life began here, so we'll just say it happened someplace else and they brought it here. But the problem is there is no infinite regression. The universe is finite. It had to beginning, it had a beginning. So at some point you had to have gotten to a situation where life had to have evolved from non life somehow. And how do scientists deal with that? Well, they say we don't know how it happened, but we can only assume that whenever life originally started on the first planet some billions of years ago, the conditions were such that life was, that the spontaneous generation of life was possible. We don't know how, but we just assume it must have happened somehow. Folks, that's called faith. And anything you believe by faith is your religion. Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is a religious philosophy. And the high priests of that religious philosophy are the people we called scientists. And their priesthood is called scientism. Getting back to what we talked about earlier in the podcast, that's where we are with these things. So now we know what these scientists believe. But why do they believe it? Why do they believe something so ridiculous when the alternative makes so much more sense? If everything, if chance is impossible, then it had to have been predetermined intelligence. And that predetermined intelligence has to be greater than some Alien from some planet somewhere we've never heard of and can never prove. Why do scientists believe it? Well, another honest scientist actually gave us the answer to that, or at least gave us an answer to it. And I believe his answer is the. You know, behind closed doors, the prevalent position of high level scientists. His name is Dr. George Wald. Very bright guy, won the Nobel prize in the 1950s. And he has a very interesting quote that I'll read to you. This is from the magazine Scientific American, very well known magazine, Very, very legitimate. Not the National Enquirer or TMZ. An article called the Origin of Life. May 1954. George Wald, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, says when it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities, Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago. He's talking about Louis Pasteur and the Pasteur experiments. Look it up on Google. You should remember from school. Anyway, continuing the quote, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds. Therefore, we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance. Let me paraphrase that again. We know that evolution is impossible. We scientists know it is. We know it's been disproven many times over. And we also know that the only other possibility is that there was a supernatural creator. We know that, but we don't want to accept it. Not on scientific grounds, but on philosophical grounds. We don't want to accept it on philosophical grounds. Therefore, we choose intentionally to believe what we know is impossible. Folks, that is the working definition of religious brain damage. And we'll talk about that in detail when I get to religion and how it damages your brain. But this is an example of it. This is how religion damages your brain. You intentionally choose to believe what you know is not true because it makes you feel better. They don't like God, so instead of believing in him, they choose intentionally choose to believe what they know is impossible and they are intentionally damaging their brains. Wow. So evolution isn't science. We know that, that's abundantly clear. Evolution is a religious philosophy. And what is that philosophy? Well, we're going to start talking about that in the next podcast. And I know I've gone over and I apologize for that, but I didn't want to short shirt this. And I really wanted to give you everything you needed to respond to evolutionists, to respond to atheists, and I wanted to give something for all the atheists who happen to be listening. And I know you're out there. I wanted to give you something to chew on. Your religion is impossible. You believe in something that is impossible and the people who are teaching it to you know it's impossible. They are damaging their brains and they're intentionally damaging yours. So deal with that. So we're going to deal with the philosophy of Darwinian evolution, the philosophy of Darwinism, and we're going to deal with the question of why this nonsense, this ludicrous science, which isn't science, why this ludicrous philosophy is the dominant part of our world culture, why it dominates culture. And there are two reasons. I'll give you a little spoiler reason number one is what I just gave with Dr. Wald. He says they just want to. They don't want to believe in God, so they choose to believe the impossible. The other reason that it dominates is because of Christians. Because we Christians, especially here in the west, are too lazy, too ignorant and too cowardly to stand up and confront them. We have the high ground. There's no need for us to bow down and embrace stupid stuff like theistic evolution, which is the current way the Catholic Church is dealing with the question of evolution. They believe in theistic evidence, evolution, which is stupid. We'll talk about that next week. But we don't have to. We have the high ground. Our creation narrative actually jibes with physics on the quantum level. Theirs does not jibe with any part of science whatsoever. We have the high ground, but we've given it up voluntarily because of laziness, stupidity, cowardice and ignorance. It's our fault. Alright, enough of that preaching. Thanks for listening. I appreciate you listening. Please send me your comments. I'm sure they'll be great and very colorful. I look forward to to getting them. Please subscribe to the podcast, subscribe to the blog, follow me on social media and I will talk to you next week. It.