The Evolution Deceit
11. Why Does The Fact That The Earth Is Four Billion Years Old Not Support The Theory Of Evolution?
Evolutionists base their scenarios on natural effects and chance. One of the concepts they most shelter behind while doing so is that of "considerable time." For instance, the German scientist Ernst Haeckel, who supported Darwin, claimed that a living cell could originate from simple mud. With the realisation in the twentieth century of how complex the living cell actually is, the silliness of that claim became apparent, but evolutionists continued to mask the truth with the "considerable time" concept.
By doing this, they are trying to free themselves from the problem by plunging it into a quandary instead of answering the question of how life could have come about by chance. By giving the impression that the passage of a long period of time could be useful from the point of view of the emergence of life and increase in variety, they present time as something that is always beneficial. For example, the Turkish evolutionist Professor Yaman Örs says: "If you want to test the theory of evolution, place an appropriate mixture into water, wait a few million years, and you will see that some cells emerge."52
This claim is utterly illogical. There is no evidence to suggest that such a thing could happen. The idea that animate matter could emerge from inanimate is actually a superstition dating back to the Middle Ages. At that time, people assumed that the sudden appearance of some living things was the result of "spontaneous generation." According to this belief, people considered that geese emerged from trees, lambs from watermelons, and even tadpoles from patches of water formed in clouds, falling to Earth as rain. In the 1600s, people began to believe that mice could be born in a mixture of wheat and a dirty piece of cloth, and that flies formed when dead flies were mixed with honey.
However, the Italian scientist Francesco Redi, proved that mice did not form in a mixture of wheat and a dirty piece of cloth, nor living flies from a mixture of dead flies and honey. These living things did not originate from those lifeless substances, they merely used them as vehicles. For example, a living fly would deposit its eggs on a dead one, and a short while later a number of new flies would emerge. In other words, life emerged from life, not inanimate matter. In the nineteenth century, French scientist Louis Pasteur proved that germs did not come from inanimate matter, too. This law, that "life only comes from life," is one of the bases of modern biology.
The fact that the peculiar claims we have been discussing above were actually believed may be excused on the grounds of the lack of knowledge of seventeenth century scientists, bearing in mind the conditions at the time.
Nowadays, however, at a time when science and technology have progressed so far, and the fact that life cannot emerge from inanimate matter has been demonstrated by experiment and observation, it is really surprising that evolutionists such as Yaman Örs should still be defending such a claim.
Modern scientists have demonstrated many times that it is impossible for that claim to actually happen. They have carried out controlled experiments in the most advanced laboratories, reproducing the conditions at the time when life first emerged, but these have all been in vain.
When phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, oxygen, iron, and carbon atoms, which are all essential for life, are brought together, all that emerges is a mass of inanimate matter. Evolutionists, however, suggest that a mass of atoms came together and organised themselves, over time, in the ideal proportions, at the appropriate time and place, and with all the necessary links between them. They further claim that as a result of the perfect organization of these inanimate atoms, and the fact that all these processes went ahead undisturbed, there duly emerged human beings capable of seeing, hearing, speaking, feeling, laughing, rejoicing, suffering, feeling pain and joy, laughing, loving, feeling compassion, perceiving musical rhythms, enjoying food, founding civilisations, and carrying out scientific research.
However, it is perfectly clear that even if all the conditions evolutionists insist on are realised, and even if millions of years are allowed to pass, such an experiment will be doomed to failure.
Evolutionists try to conceal this fact, however, with deceptive explanations such as "All things are possible with time." The invalidity of this claim, which is based on introducing an element of bluff into science, is also obvious. This invalidity can be quite clearly seen when the subject is considered from different points of view. In one simple example, let us consider when the passing of time is useful, and when it is harmful. Imagine, if you will, a wooden boat on the seashore, and a captain who at first maintains that boat, repairing, cleaning, and painting it. As long as the captain takes an interest in it, the boat will become ever more attractive, safe, and well-maintained.
Then let us imagine that the boat is left abandoned. This time, the effects of the sun, rain, wind, sand, and storms will cause the boat to decay, age, and eventually become unusable.
The only difference between these two scenarios is that in the former there is an intelligent, knowledgeable, and powerful intervention. The passing of time can only bring benefits with it when it is controlled by an intelligent force. If it is not, time has destructive effects, not constructive ones. In fact, this is a scientific law. The law of entropy, known as the "Second Law of Thermodynamics," states that all systems in the universe tend directly towards disorder, dispersion, and decay when left to themselves and to natural conditions.
This fact demonstrates that the long life of the Earth is a factor that destroys knowledge and order and increases chaos—the exact opposite of what evolutionists claim. The emergence of an ordered system based on knowledge can only be the product of an intelligent intervention.
When the proponents of evolution relate the fairy tale of the transformation of one species into another, they take refuge in the idea of it happening "over a long period of time." In that way, they propose that things somehow happened in the past which have never been confirmed by any experiment or observation. However, everything in the world and in the universe happens in accordance with fixed laws. These do not change over time. For example, things fall to Earth because of the force of gravity. They do not start to fall upwards with the passage of time. Neither will they do so even if trillions of years go by. Lizard offspring are always lizards. That is because the genetic information to be passed on is always that of a lizard, and no supplementary information can be added to it with natural causes. Information may diminish, or even decay, but it is quite impossible for anything to be added to it. That, in turn, is because the adding of information to a system requires knowledgeable and intelligent external intervention and control. Nature itself does not possess such properties.
Repetitions that occur over time, and the fact that they take place often, change nothing. Even if trillions of years are allowed to go by, a bird will never hatch out of a lizard's egg. A long lizard may, or a short one—a stronger one or a weaker one—but it will always be a lizard. A different species will never emerge. The concept of "a considerable time" is a deception designed to take the matter out of the realm of experiment and observation. It makes no difference whether 4 billion years go by, or 40, or even 400. That is because there is no natural law or tendency to make the impossibilities described in the theory of evolution actually possible.
Footnotes47 Evrim Kuramı Konferansı, İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi, 3 Haziran 1998