A Common Theme

This post will continue looking at the gems found in Hans Kung’s book, The Beginning of All Things. This work really isn’t out of date as it was published in 2007 and in the time between then and now nothing has been published to alter these gems.

If there had been everybody would have known about the discoveries. The recent discovery of the supposed God Particle doesn’t change any of these gems that I am about to quote. In fact, it has not been verified as the God Particle and I highly doubt it ever will be.

The quotes will be recorded here in the order they appear in Dr. Kung’s book

#1. There is still no explanation of what caused this concentration of matter into galaxies (pg. 11)

This is a very difficult question for the Big Bang theorists to answer. The Big Bang used to be described as an explosion, now it is given a more generic term, catastrophe, in order to allow some leeway for scientists to conjure up some theory to explain the order we see in the universe.

It would be too obvious to state that explosions do not bring about order and control. We all know that explosions, and by extension catastrophes, bring about disorder and chaos and that it takes someone with great cognitive powers and organizational skills to return the aftermath back to some sense of order and control.

Dr. Kung states on pg. 13 that “This whole event was determined by gravity.” well the problem with that idea is that gravity does not display any cognitive powers or organizational skills. If it did have those abilities then why are comets, asteroids and meteors flying freely through the universe causing panic and some destruction?

The last word I have on gravity is that scientists haven’t figured it out yet. They still can’t understand how gravity can hold something in place yet allow movement by those objects being held in place.

The kicker is, no matter what theory scientists decide upon as their answer to the formation of the universe, they will never be able to verify those ideas. The universe and galaxies already exist and no one has seen one formation of either  so they can’t say that this process is continuing. Nor can they answer the question, why did it happen only once?

We say once, because the Bible says God created once so if the scientists are correct, why is the Big Bang held to only an equal occurrence as the Biblical record? If science is correct, we should be able to see many of these catastrophes taking place or find record of them. So far, any evidence points to only one event and that evidence doesn’t point to any catastrophe.

#2. Energy cannot be produced from nothing (55)

Many unbelievers ask the question, where did God come from? The actual question should be, where did the materials the secular scientists claim were in existence at the time of the great catastrophe (Big Bang) come from?

If that material always existed, then why is it so hard for unbelievers to conceive of an always existing God? Doesn’t take much to change from always existing inanimate objects to an animate and always living God but most do not want to or even try to make the change in thinking.

Just prior to that quote and in the same paragraph and page, Dr. Kung mentions the ‘centuries-long vain efforts of scientists to construct a ‘perpetuum mobile’, a machine constantly in motion without the introduction of energy.”

The problem is even if such a machine were invented it would only support the words quoted above. That machine came from a force of energy and given energy by something that already existed. The scientists used energy and gave the machine energy and they existed before the machine and use reason and logic to construct such a machine.

To falsify the quote and prove it wrong, secular scientists would have to scour the universe until they found such a machine already in existence. All the secular scientists have done is shown that their supposed material for their great catastrophe had to be created by some intelligent, rational, logical being. It could not always exist nor just come into existence out of nothing. The secular scientists would not be able to prove or provide evidence to the contrary.

In other words, they are making a strong case for God and his creative act.

#3.No information generating process has so far been discovered (pg. 72)

The whole crux of the theory of evolution depends upon the discovery of such a mechanism. Their whole theory is about information generating yet the evolutionist cannot point to anything that does as they claim. Even Richard Dawkins has failed to point to this mechanism which is pretty good evidence that the processes of evolution and natural selection do not exist and never had a hand in life development.

If the theory of evolution were true, this would most likely be the easiest and most simplest discovery of all. There would be no mystery to it for it would have to be in existence for the process of evolution to work and it should be right at the core of all living species’ genetic construction.

Yet, they find nothing. They find nothing because the origin and development of life did not take place as they claim and preach. One would think that after almost 200 years of modern scientific searching and research they would have found this mechanism but they haven’t.

Talk about beating a dead horse. Most people would have given up after the first 50 years of fruitless searching. In fact, most people would have given up long ago because their failure to replicate one claimed historical  transition at any stage of the supposed transition.

It is easy to take fully developed species and combine them with fully developed chemicals, etc., and then claim evolution is true but it is another matter to actually replicate a claimed transition from scratch. When evolutionists do the latter, then they will have evidence for their theory but as it stands, they do not have any evidence for they are merely cheating.

#4. The Bible and science agree on at least one thing: at the beginning of the history of our planet there was no life. (pg. 129)

Dr. Kung is wrong here as the Bible and science do not agree on this point. Now if he said human life the statement would be correct; but he didn’t. He simply said life and science doesn’t believe any life form existed prior to the beginning of the history of the planet and the Bible says there were many–angels, demons, satan, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, cherubs and so on

Life did exist prior to the beginning of the history of this planet and the universe whether people choose to accept and believe this fact is another story.

#5. (A) We do not know for certain how life first arose from the inanimate. (B) We do not know for certain what precise events introduced biogenesis. (C) But we do know one thing: however this transition to life is explained in detail, it rests on biochemical regularities and thus on self-organization of matter, the molecule. (pg. 137)

I put the capital letters in the quote for clarity. (A)- Yes we do know how life first arose. It wasn’t from an inanimate object or molecule but from God’s creative act. It is up to the people to believe and accept this fact or disbelieve and reject it. That is the simple choice man has. Since Dr. Kung used the word ‘inanimate’ we know that secular scientists are looking for answers in the wrong places.

Why? Simply because the true sense of the  theory of evolution has no on or off switch. It should be replicating its feat over and over as there is nothing worldly that could stop it from repeating itself.

Yet, like the Big Bang theory, the theory of evolution is trying to explain what already exists in an alternative form from the biblical record. Why would the process of evolution be limited to only one direct attempt at development?

There was only one creation thus there can only be one direction for the theory of evolution. If evolution were true it would not have any limitations on how to develop life. Evolutionists use the similarity of genetics to claim that there was a common ancestor but the ignore the fact that almost all species have to live in the same environment thus similarity is required.

Genetic similarity does not provide evidence for a common ancestor and the evolutionary scientist cannot verify that a common ancestor actually lived let alone transitioned as they claimed. They do not have it and it is still not replicating its original work thus there is no evidence for the evolutionary process.

Genetic similarity provides evidence that God created as he said. Since almost all species had to live in the same environment, they needed similar genetics and organs to live their lives. We see God’s planning and rational and logical thinking in genetic similarity.

(B)- Yes we do know what introduced biogenesis–God and his power. God knew that a form of reproduction was necessary to maintain and continue life on this planet thus he created sex. Almost all species participate in this act in order to maintain life on earth but in true evolutionary thought, sex would not be needed as the process would continue to use a common ancestor to transition into other life forms.

There is no reason for the process of evolution  to stop replicating via transition and go to the sex act to reproduce but evolutionists say it did because they have to explain the existence of sex and reproduction.

Evolutionists are going about this backwards and since they can’t accept God’s explanation, they are left with a huge problem to solve and a big void to fill. They will not be able to verify one thing they claim but that doesn’t stop them from producing irrational and illogical theories to provide some plausibility and credibility to their alternative ideas.

(C)-“self-organization”. That is like saying a car has to self-organize its construction long before it is a car and long before it knows what a car is. Where does this ability to ‘self-organize’ come from? At what stage does the transitioning molecules obtain this ability?

It is a poor, irrational and illogical explanation that produces far more questions than it can answer. I have yet to see anything, partially constructed self-organize and take over its development so why would life forms be any different?

In other words, we do not see this ability anywhere in history or in any scientific experiment. The molecules and bacteria scientists use are all fully developed so they cannot pinpoint to any part of the process that produces this process nor can they guarantee that the life form will actually live long enough to reach that stage of development.

It just doesn’t work. But that is the story of the theory of evolution. No matter how hard the evolutionary scientist works and explains, they can’t prove their theory is true let alone works.

The quotes provide the common theme for the alternatives of the biblical record and it starts with ‘we haven’t found…’ because life did not originate as the evolutionist claims. They won’t find anything because it doesn’t exist in the form they want it to exist. They have to stretch and alter what God did to make their theory sound good but when one closely examines the theory, they will find that it won’t work as claimed.

It won’t work because God designed everything to work together in a certain way and veering from that design means instant death. Evolution doesn’t develop life, it destroys it.