The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so">
An open letter to Skepsis ry
The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so
This text contains a letter I sent to the Skepsis association. A radio program I happened to hear from Yle Puhe caused me to write this letter. The program interviewed representatives of Skepsis, who famously posed as representatives of a scientific worldview. Because of this worldview they have abandoned creationism; the idea of creation by God less than 10 000 years ago. And they speak highly of Darwin’s theory, for example.
Why do I write about this? It’s because I don’t find naturalistic theories about the early stages of the world, beginning of life on its own, and about species transformations (molecule-to-man theory) credible. When I used to be an atheist and believed in evolution, I sincerely took these theories to heart, but at the time I wasn’t really aware of any weaknesses these theories might have. Now, I consider these same naturalistic views about the early stages of our universe and life as lies, stories, and as fairytales. It is rather unconvincing that the world could exert itself into existence from nothingness, that the Sun and the planets would have formed from the same cloud of gas, or that life could begin by itself. We can, of course, see beautifully made films about these things on TV and explanations on how everything is assumed to have occurred, but all these films are based on sheer imagination. In my opinion they represent naturalistic stories, which lack direct scientific evidence.
In any case, underneath you can find the letter I sent to the representatives of Skepsis Ry. I can see that they also rely on the same lies, stories and fairytales that I used believe in:
I happened to hear a program from Yle Puhe, which interviewed the representatives of Skepsis association (I cannot recall their names). They expressed their opinions on different topics, such as creationism, by which they usually mean the idea that God created everything less than 10 000 years ago. The representatives of Skepsis considered this notion unscientific.
Why do I write about this? It’s because I used to be an atheist and evolutionist and I used to believe in evolution (particularly in the form of evolution that all species descend from the same original cell) and in millions and billions of years, but as of now, I find these things to be stories, fairytales and lies. That is, I disagree with the representatives of Skepsis and these days I think differently to what I used to.
I have a few simple questions for the people of Skepsis, but they don’t have to answer them. To my understanding the representatives of Skepsis consider the following as science; the world appearing from nothing by itself ca. 13,8 billion years ago, life beginning by itself and all species descending from the same original cell. They certainly don’t believe that God created everything less than 10 000 years ago, as they don’t seem to believe that anything was created by God.
So, I ask a few simple questions. They should be easy to answer if the representatives of Skepsis have a scientific worldview to back them up and they stick to it. They should be able to provide well grounded answers to these questions if they think creation, and specifically, that it happened less than 10 000 years ago, are not scientific.
How can anything come out of nothing? My first question is, how can anything appear from nothing, as is presumed to have occurred in the Big Bang? Have the representatives of Skepsis ever witnessed nothingness or non-existent to turn into a rock, metal, water or into anything else that exists? If they don’t have any practical evidence for this – non-existent transforming into material things by itself –, can their view be addressed as scientific anymore? Lifeless things, such as rocks, cliffs, bikes, planes, or any other objects don’t just appear from nothingness. Why would the universe, which is immensely larger than anything else, be an exception? This theory goes completely against the laws of nature and logic. Everything having appeared from nothingness rather represents a superstitious view, which lacks all practical evidence.
Everyone can imagine this by taking a small rock into their hand and then waiting for it to turn itself into planets, stars, cliffs, birds, fish, oceans, elephants, trees, flowers, strawberries, and into anything else that exists. Who would you expect to witness something like that? I’m quite certain we’d be wise to forget such theories.
Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (1)
How did life begin by itself? Representatives of Skepsis deny creation by God and that He would have created all life on our earth only thousands of years ago. They consider this an unscientific view.
We can present a simple question for the representatives of Skepsis, however: How do you scientifically prove life beginning by itself on this earth without God? That is, no scientist has ever been able to prove so. The more we have studied this, the more difficult it has become for us to explain the beginning of life as self-caused. What we currently know for sure, is that life can only create life.
The following quotation relates to the matter. It’s from an interview with Stanley Miller during his late years. He has become famous for his experiments related to the beginning of life. J. Morgan says the following in the interview:
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (2)
Accordingly, what we know for sure today, is that all current life is dependent on previous life. No one has found any exceptions to this rule. Therefore, if all current generations depend on previous generations in terms of life, what can we say about the first generation? If the representatives of Skepsis and no one else cannot scientifically prove the self-caused beginning of life, wouldn’t the most logical option in that case be that the earth has an external source, which is God? This is the most rational conclusion we can make. The problem is people don’t want to accept God as the creator and give Him the glory, and this also applies to the representatives of Skepsis. That is why they rely on other, and most likely, false explanations.
- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.
- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Have we witnessed species transformations? Representatives of Skepsis believe in evolution, which entails the idea of all current species stemming from the same original cell.
Have they ever seen any species turn into another, however? It has been nearly 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s theory, but isn’t it true, nonetheless, that no one has been able to prove species transformations during all this time? If it had been detected, it would have been plastered all over the media and on the pages of every magazine. However, nothing of the sort has been mentioned anywhere over the last years or before that. Variation does occur within basic kinds (resistance in bacteria, dark and light peppered moths…), but that doesn’t make them a whole other species.
Are the people representing Skepsis also aware of the results of mutation experiments? These experiments have been conducted for over a century on fruit flies and bacteria, and through those experiments we have been able to see that no new species have emerged. Fruit flies and bacteria did not turn into other species, because they are still fruit flies and bacteria. The author of “Darwin Retried” book (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33) talked about a famous geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt, and his studies. This well-known researcher stated that even thousand mutations in one individual could not generate a new species, because the changes are so slight. This shows how mutations can’t lead development, despite people assuming so:
After having observed mutations in the banana flies for many years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly minuscule that even if a thousand mutations were to be combined in one individual, a new species would not be created.
What about species transformations in the past? If Darwin’s theory were true and the advocates of Skepsis were right, we should see gradual development from a simple form to our current complex structures in fossils. The theory, however, is contradictory with the fossil records. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, who is possibly the most well-known fossil researcher in the world, and his friend Niles Eldredge have denied that fossils would carry any signs of gradual development. Basically, these observations mean that the most crucial evidence is missing from the past to account for evolution. If the fossils don’t carry any signs of gradual development, in that case, evolution cannot be true. This is applicable regardless of time, even if there would have been millions of years. The evidence favors the notion of species having been separate from the beginning, as is posed by the creation model:
Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (3)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (4)
Has there been life on earth for hundreds of millions of years? As already stated, the representatives of Skepsis don’t consider the notion of everything being created less than 10 000 years ago by God as scientific. Instead, they believe the world exerted itself into existence ca. 13,8 billion years ago and that life began by itself ca. 3-4 billion years ago.
How can these people know all this? They can’t. If the Big Bang is merely a story and a fairytale, because nothing can appear out of emptiness, we can forget all about the 13,8 billion years. The same goes for the beginning of life. Rock-like lifeless matter doesn’t just turn itself into a living being. This has not been witnessed to ever have occurred; therefore, we can also dismiss the idea of life having begun by itself 3-4 billion years ago.
What about the appearance of other life forms on this planet? Evolutionists assume that a simple original cell transformed into the current forms over hundreds of millions of years. First there was unicellular life in the oceans, then multicellular life, fish, frogs, reptiles, and lastly, birds and mammals. But as already mentioned, neither fossils nor the current forms carry any signs of species transforming into other species. There are no grounds for believing that our current species would stem from the same shared original cell. Thus, we have a reason to question the assumption that species would have appeared on the planet at different periods. No one can know the age of fossils just by looking at them. They don’t come with tags telling their age or when they went extinct.
There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science. (5)
All fossils might, therefore, be around the same age and different species might have co-existed on the planet. There doesn’t need to be millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years between their appearance on earth.
It’s also an important discovery that fossils from all eras have contained radiocarbon, even the Cambrian fossils, coalbeds and oil deposits. What does all that mean? Because the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there shouldn’t be any left in fossils that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Yet, it appears in fossils from all different age categories. This shows that fossils can only be some thousands of years old.
Another interesting fact is that apart from radiocarbon, DNA and proteins have also been found from dinosaur remains. DNA has also been recovered from “200 million-year-old” fish scales and insects trapped in amber. What makes these findings so intriguing, is the fact that the half-life of DNA is only 521 years [as reported by Yle news (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13 Oct, 2012) in an article called ”DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi” (“the rear limit for DNA’s preservation time uncovered”)] and that after 10 000 years there shouldn’t be any remaining (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). Similarly, proteins shouldn’t stay preserved in the nature for many thousand years.
In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (6)
However, in the 1950s-70s authorities were cautious towards the estimates from radiocarbon dating. This was due to the discovery of 14C isotope remaining almost in all of the dated samples (over 15,000 samples) that were published in the Radiocarbon magazine by the year 1970. The obtained measurements were thought to be implausible, because there were many millions of years old fossils among the samples. The fossils’ age was determined according to an index fossil –chart, which had been considered reliable. (7)
It is not common for fossils that are thought to be very old to get a carbon-14 dating, because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that all of it has practically decayed in under 100,000 years.
In 2012 during August a group of German scientists in the convention for geophysicists reported carbon-14 dating measurements, which were made from many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the measurements, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! The presentation can be seen in written form on YouTube. (8)
How were the measurements received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The measurements can be found here: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. This incident tells us, the impact of naturalistic paradigm. It is nearly impossible to be able to publish measurements conflicting it in the science community dictated by naturalism. It is more likely that pigs fly. (9)
If the observations regarding proteins, such as albumin, collagen, osteocalcin, and DNA, that have been separated from dinosaur bones are true – and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefulness – the bones must (based on these results) date back to 40,000- to 50,000 years at most, as this is the highest possible preserving time in nature for such materials. (10)
Did people live before dinosaurs? As previously discussed, the people representing Skepsis are under the impression that different life-forms have appeared gradually on this earth and that humans were the last to appear. They believe in this idea, despite not having any real evidence for species transformations, and despite the fact that remains of radiocarbon, proteins and DNA on fossils, which have been assumed to be age old, prove that in actuality those creatures only lived thousands of years ago. There are absolutely no grounds to believing they are millions of years old. They might have co-existed on the planet, but on different ecological niches, similarly to how there are separate ecological niches today (sea life, coastal life, life on land, swamps, highlands and mountains). Moreover, some species, such as dinosaurs and trilobites, have gone extinct, in the same way as species go extinct today.
There are also remarkable findings relating to humans. The common understanding has been that the modern human appeared after hundreds of millions of years of development had taken place and long after dinosaurs. The fact is, however, that items belonging to humans and even human fossils have been found from layers, which have been deemed as “age old”. A golden chain, iron pod, and other items that have belonged to humans and human fossils have been recovered from “300 million-year-old” coal layers. (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). ). Erich A. von Frange has listed more objects and human remains found from coal in his book Time Upside Down (1981).
Another major issue with millions of years is that human footprints have been found from dinosaur strata. Humans’ stone tools have also been found from the same strata as dinosaur remains. (Michael Brandt: Vergessene Arhäologie, 2011). Moreover, there are images of dragons, which share a striking resemblance to dinosaurs, on cave paintings, carvings and drawings (images can be found, e.g., here https://www.biokemia.fi/Dinosauruslegendat.htm).
However, there are some discoveries suggesting that humans might have existed on the planet way before dinosaurs. The history of humans, therefore, must be much older than the history of these extinct animals, at least 150 million years older. This is the conclusion we are forced to make if we apply the table of geologic time and the millions of years it entails into these findings.
The following quotations illustrate the point. They describe how tracks clearly made by humans were found from strata, which have been categorized as age old. These kinds of discoveries indicate how the foundation for the table of geologic time, which was compiled in the 19th century, is wrong. If we look at these findings through that table, it seems humans must have lived 65-300 million years ago, or else we should measure the age of these strata only in thousand years. Surely, the latter option is more accurate, because no one thinks people could have lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.
Many known scientific facts evoke serious doubts towards geological deformational history of rock units and towards geological periods. One such example could be the discovery of coeval traces of humans and dinosaurs in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and in other areas of United States. These traces appear in a wide area and they are usually revealed after floods or after earthmoving constructions have taken place. Trustworthy paleontologists have carefully examined them and confirmed their authenticity, and they cannot be passed as fraud. Furthermore, images of dinosaurs drawn by humans have been found on the walls of caves and canyons in Arizona and the in former region of Rhodesia. (11)
Human-like prints on rock are a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old – but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?
What is this animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had human-like feet?
(...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.
A few men from the Kentucky mountains recently visited Professor Burroughs. They took him into their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)
These footprints are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)
But even the boldest estimations regarding the appearance of man on the Earth refer to a million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)
Such is the mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)
If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)
Can the advocates for Skepsis be considered scientific? When I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist, I had absolutely no idea about any shortcomings in the evolution theory or the issues related to the beginning of the universe and life. I had adopted these atheistic views without a doubt. I thought I was scientific and rational, although I had not familiarized myself with the shortcomings of these theories, and how they were contradictory with practical observations. The theory has no evidence for nothingness having the ability to generate something, life being able to begin by itself, or for the molecule-to-man theory. Furthermore, hundreds of practical observations contradict the table of geologic time and the millions of years associated with it.
Why do the advocates for Skepsis and evolutionists disregard practical scientific observations? The way I see it is that we live in an imaginary world, where imagination controls the human mind. People don’t really think about these things, because it has been instilled in their minds that the molecule-to-man theory is confirmed and that all the issues related to the beginning of the universe and life are solved. People adopt these notions without asking questions, as did I back in my day.
It is important to emphasize that these theories have nothing to do with science, because they cannot be proved (creation is also unprovable afterwards). Instead, they are naturalistic beliefs about the past, similarly to theism, which contrariwise believes that God created everything. Naturalistic worldview and the evolution perspective also affect how these people react to observations that seem to contradict their views. They often reject such data. Matti Leisola, a scientist and a former evolutionist, talks about the observations he has made about the science world. These quotations show how conceptions can control human minds, even when there would not be any proper grounds for those conceptions:
I was surprised that an internationally known biochemist approved of the evolution theory without ever having given more thought towards it. Our conversation about the topic continued the same year in Switzerland and later in Finland. I have discussed the same issue with hundreds of scientist colleagues from all over the world, and I have yet to find a person, who would have properly familiarized themself with the basics of evolutionary theory. I often come across the following claim: “The whole science community believes that the evolution theory undoubtedly holds true.” The truth of the matter is completely different; only a small section of the science community has seriously thought about it. They have adopted evolution as part of the Western science education. (12)
I have held a discussion relating to the beginning of life and first species for over forty years inside the science community and outside it. Nearly all of the hundreds of researchers that I know admit in private conversations that science does not hold explanations for the origin of genetic code, proteins, cell membrane, metabolism function, control system, or for the origin of basic structures of cells and biology (macroevolution), as professor Harold admits. Despite all that, the only acceptable creation theory of our time is the naturalistic evolution. (13)
1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122
2. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley
3. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
4. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in book Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution
5. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, citation from A.M Rehnwinkel: Flood, p. 267, 278
6. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192
7. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194
9. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146
10. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111
11. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24
12. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 187
13. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 36
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!