Main page | Jari's writings

Main focus on imaginary perceptions



People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie



This text focuses on perceptions, specifically, regarding the initial stages of the universe and life. Often when people are under the impression that creation never happened and that the Bible is not historically accurate, they likely never think about their relationship with God, eternal life, and how they could receive it. They are often quick to reject these thoughts, because they don’t fit into their worldview, and they don’t think the Bible can be considered historically reliable.

However, if the Bible is true and creation did happen, these people are relying on false information. The possibility of being misled should be taken into consideration, because anyone can be mistaken, and even the Bible talks about how Satan deceives people. This comes apparent from the following passages:


- (2 Cor 4:3,4) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.


This text goes over the initial stages of the universe and life. It is commonplace for the media to present one specific view as the scientific one: naturalistic/atheistic view. The general understanding is that the universe came about by itself from nothing ca. 13,8 billion years ago, life began by itself, and that all species stem from the same original cell. People are reluctant to the idea that God is the creator of everything, and especially skeptical of creation having taken place less than 10 000 years ago. The latter is usually met with contemptuous and disdainful attitudes.

Why am I writing about this matter? Because I find these naturalistic theories, which concern the beginning of the universe, life and species transformations (molecule-to-man theory), unconvincing. Back when I was an atheist and a believer of evolution, I sincerely believed in these theories, but at the time I was rather unaware of their shortcomings. Now, I consider the same naturalistic views on the initial stages of the universe and life to be lies, fiction and fairytales. It is not entirely credible for the world to exert itself into existence out of nothingness, or the Sun and planets to be formed of the same gas cloud, or for life to begin by itself. We can, of course, see beautifully crafted films on TV about these imaginary processes and how they supposedly progressed, but these films are merely based on imagination. In my opinion these films are a representation of naturalistic stories, which have no direct evidence to back them up.

Hence, I ask a few simple questions below. They should be easy to answer if we only pertain to science and retain a scientific view of the world. Well-reasoned answers to these questions should be given if creation, and specifically creation less than 10,000 years ago, is considered unscientific.


How did everything come about from a pinhead sized space or from emptiness? Big Bang is a good starting point for discussion, when addressing people’s perceptions, because people tend to have this idea that the universe exerted itself into existence from nothingness in the Big Bang. It is believed this miraculous event took place approximately 13,8 billion years ago.

My first question is, how did all the material things come from a space as small as a pinhead (the idea of a pinhead-sized space has been presented in many scientific publications), or from emptiness, and all by themselves. Has any scientist ever witnessed non-existence/emptiness transforming into a rock, metal, water, or anything else that exists? If they have no practical evidence to back up their claims – emptiness turning into material things by itself – can we call them scientific claims anymore?

Logically thinking, the idea of a space the size of a pinhead generating the whole world is rather absurd. It goes against every practical observation. No one has ever witnessed rocks, cliffs, street signs or any other lifeless material to appear out of nothingness. Why would the universe, which is exponentially larger than anything else in this world, be an exception? Why should it be the only thing that is able to appear from emptiness by itself, when nothing else does the same? This theory goes against any logic and the laws of natural science, which make it seem like sheer fiction. Scientists abandon real science and their wisdom, when they hold on to these kinds of theories.

Everyone can imagine this supposed phenomenon and theory by taking a small pinhead and waiting for it to turn into planets, stars, cliffs, birds, fish, the sea, elephants, trees, flowers, strawberries, or for it to turn into anything else that exists. Who would expect to experience something like that? Who would think that the pinhead is going to transform into a more complex object? I am certain the pinhead will remain the same, expect if some external force were to change it. Surely, it is not foolish of us to reject such a theory.


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)


If the Big Bang is true, why isn’t expansion detected? As stated, people have the idea that the world came about by itself in the Big Bang from emptiness. This is believed to have taken place 13,8 billion years ago. Expansion of the universe is considered as evidence.

In fact, no one has ever directly detected the expansion of the universe. On the contrary, when we look at space, it appears to be the same as it was ten years ago or decades ago when we were younger. Similarly, the Dipper constellations and other constellations, which were known to earlier humans as well, appear the same as they were millennia ago. No expansion seems to be happening.

I will bring forth some comments relating to the matter. They help to understand how weak the basis for the Big Bang theory is, and how there is no direct evidence for expansion. Instead, scientists have used discordant red shift observations as evidence, which many established astronomers have placed under question. They doubt this evidence for many reasons, such as because neighboring galaxies that are interconnected can have completely different red shift values. This should not be possible if their expansion rate is the same.


The mystic nature of dark energy has led some critical researchers to question, whether it could be an illusion. That is, no one has ever detected the expansion of the universe. We can only measure the properties of light and, especially, the redshift of light transmitted by far away objects. [Kari Enqvist in the book Kaikki evoluutiosta], p. 40)


I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the red shift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only issue that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)


The fact that many well-known cosmologists question the Big Bang, goes to show how impossible it seems. They have noticed that observations contradict the theory. It is universally agreed that the universe has a point of beginning, but when people refuse to believe in God’s creation, they end up in an impasse, when trying to find other explanations for the beginning. We can confidently question and abandon the idea of a Big Bang:


New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)


As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)


There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelisti [nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)


How were the galaxies formed? When it comes to the beginning of the universe, we also associate the birth of galaxies with it, since they should have formed sometime after the Big Bang. Some publications give us the understanding that this mystery has also been solved, like the Big Bang. They let us believe it is a proven fact, which should not be questioned. Many truly are under the impression and believe that celestial bodies formed themselves without God.

This is where scientists struggle, however. They don’t have a clear vision of the initial stages of the universe, which is natural of course, because no one was there to witness it happen. The birth of celestial bodies is still a mystery, despite some people claiming otherwise. The birth of galaxies is considered especially puzzling. There is no proper evidence, as the following quotations will show:


I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)


It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109)


Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)


What about the birth of stars? Scientists also struggle in this department too, and the formation of the first stars is considered especially problematic. That is, the first stars are presumed to have formed in a collapse of a gas cloud, but these kinds of clouds are too hot and scattered to be able to collapse even today. The subsequent comments will refer to the unstable nature of star formation theories:


Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Lainattu Marcus Chownin artikkelista [Cited from Marcus Chown’s article] Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)


“Not all nebulas in the Milky Way can constantly form stars all the time. Most times the nebula is puzzled by, what it needs to do next. Actually, it is the astrophysicists, who are puzzled here. We know that the nebula would want to implode due to its own weight to form one or more stars. But the rotation of the nebula and the vortical movement inside the nebula are fighting against this faith. So does also the normal pressure of gas, which we read about in our chemistry class in high school. Magnetic fields of the galaxies are also fighting against imploding: they infiltrate a nebula and clutch onto any freely moving particles that are charged, thus restricting the chance of the nebula to counter its own gravitation. The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born.” (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)


How were the Solar System and earth formed? Just as it is difficult to find a naturalistic explanation to the existence of our universe and galaxies in it, it is also difficult to account for the Solar System, earth and their beginning. Issues underlying in the birth theories of our Solar System are so vast that according to some scientists the whole Solar System should not even exist. The differing composition of the Sun and the planets poses a real issue, which remains unsolved. It is much easier to believe in creation by God, than the Sun and planets having caused their own existence. These theories of self-caused existence are lying on a weak foundation.


Firstly, we notice that the matter detaching from our Sun, is not at all capable of forming such planets that are known to us. The composition of the matter would be utterly wrong. Another thing in this contrast is that the Sun is normal [as a celestial body], but the earth is strange. The gas between stars, and most of the stars, consists of the same matter as the Sun, but not the earth. It must be understood that looking from a cosmological perspective – the room, where you are sitting right now, is made out of wrong materials. You are the rarity, a cosmological composer’s complilation. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951)


Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)


All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)


What about the birth of life? There is one particular perception relating to the beginning of life. Many are under the impression that the mystery of life’s offset is somehow solved, and that life began by itself in some warm pool of water or in the sea.

However, this is yet another perception that has a lack of scientific evidence. People believe it is true, when in fact, it has no practical evidence to support it. Growing research in the field has proven the subject matter to be all the more difficult. Naturalistic theory gives dead matter these supernatural qualities, which they definitely don’t have. That is why it is so odd that they would deny the miracles of the Bible, while at the same time they believe in fictional theories, where dead matter itself brings about life. They believe in miracles without a miracle maker, which seems rather illogical.

Many scientists have acknowledged the issue and its magnitude. They don’t have the answers to how life began. They admit life on earth has had a beginning, but they have found themselves in a dead-end, because they refuse to acknowledge God’s creation. Some relating comments are provided below:


I believe that we should go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this thought is ostracized by physicists and, actually, by me as well, but we should not reject it only if empirical data supports it and we don’t like that. (H. Lipson, ” A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)


Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)


Experimentation of over 30 years in the field of chemistry and molecule evolution has introduced the monumental nature of the issue with the beginning of life, rather than a solution for it. Nowadays practically only these theories and experiments and them leading to dead ends is discussed or the lack of knowledge is admitted (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)


As we try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions.” (Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University) (2)


The following quotation also refers to the subject. It is about an interview with Stanley Miller in his later age. He became famous for his experiments regarding the beginning of life. J. Morgan talks about 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. (3)


What we know for sure at the moment, is that all life is dependent on previous life. There are no exceptions to the rule. Therefore, if the current generation exists only because of the previous one, where did the very first generation come from? How did they come to be, when there was no life before them, and since it is generally agreed that life on earth has had a beginning? (Limited time of the Sun sets specific limits to life. The Sun hasn’t infinitely warmed our earth, because otherwise it would have run out of its energy resources.) Isn’t this a clear indication that the first generation must have come to this world in some other way than the generations after them? If scientists cannot prove life generating itself from dead matter, wouldn’t the most logical option left be that there is an external source responsible for the first life on earth, and that this external source is God? This is the most rational conclusion we can make from all this. The problem is that people don’t want to accept God as the creator and give Him the glory. That is why they try to rely on other alternative and 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.


Do real cases of species transformations exist? It is commonly believed that all current species stem from one shared original cell, which formed in the sea or some body of water. This notion called evolution is one of the major reasons why people doubt the credibility of the Bible and the existence of God. This theory was popularized mainly through Charles Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species.

Can species transformations be real? Has any evolutionist ever witnessed a species transform into another? It has been over 150 years since Darwin’s theory was published, but the fact remains that no one has been able to prove species transformations up to this day. If Someone had done it, I doubt it would have gone unmentioned in the papers and the media. Yet, there hasn’t been any sign of such news ever. Variation does occur within basic kinds (the resistance of bacteria, dark and light peppered moths...), but it doesn’t transform them into another species.

Mutation experiments have also confirmed the permanence of species. These kinds of experiments have tested fruit flies and bacteria for over a century, and the results indicate that no new species will emerge. Fruit flies and bacteria used in the experiments still remain the same species and they have not transformed into another. Mutation experiments – and breeding – rather prove that there are certain limits to variation that cannot be crossed, and that variation cannot generate wholly new species.

In regard to this, the author of “Darwin Retried” (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33) has talked about a well-known geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt and his research. This established researcher noted that even a thousand mutations in one individual cannot bring about a new species, because the changes are so slight. This shows that mutations cannot be the leading force of species transformations, despite the general assumption:


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 was accurate and the idea of species transformation was real, we should be noticing gradual development from simple to complex in fossils. This idea, however, contradicts fossil records. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, who is perhaps one of the most distinguished fossil researchers, and his friend Niles Eldredge have stated that there aren’t signs of gradual development in fossils. Basically, what this means is that the most crucial evidence that could prove evolution, is missing. If the fossils don’t carry any signs of gradual development, evolution cannot simply be true. This is the case regardless of how much time would have been available for evolution to take place. Evidence is supportive of the idea that species have been separate from the beginning, as stated in 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. (...) (4)


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. (5)


Richard Dawkins, well-known for his atheism, has also admitted that fossils don’t seem to carry signs of gradual development, even though in the next comment he appeals to the lack of fossil records the way Darwin used to in his time. However, this is a fairly poor argument, because the sheer number of fossils (over a hundred million) that have been dug up from the ground already. If we cannot detect gradual development in such a sample size, there is hardly any trace of it in any possible fossils that are still under ground.


Richard Dawkins: Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change. - - For example, strata from the Cambrian period from 600 million years ago are the oldest strata that contain fossils from most of the vertebrate phyla. On top of that, many of them are already quite far developed. Because there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared on these strata from thin air… Regardless of their school of thought, all the evolutionists agree that in this area there is a huge gap in the fossil discoveries.  (6)


In order to clear this matter, we are going to look at some additional comments. Fossil researchers admit that there is no evidence of species transformations visible in fossils. There are no signs of gradual development from one species to another, instead it seems that species have been separate and complex from the beginning. This finding favors the creation model rather than the idea of species transformations.


None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [7])


Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (8)


No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)


Can millions and billions of years be true? As noted, atheist scientists often have an arrogant approach towards creation and the idea that it happened less than 10 000 years ago. Instead, they believe the universe exerted itself into existence ca. 13,8 billion years ago, life began by itself in the form of an original cell ca. 3-4 billion years ago, and that other life-forms appeared on the planet throughout the course of hundreds of millions of years.

How can atheists know all this? Well, they don’t. If the Big Bang is merely a man-made concept, since nothing can exert itself into existence, we can forget about the number 13,8 billion straight away. The same goes for the beginning of life. Rock-like dead matter simply does not change into a living creature. It can change from solid to liquid and from liquid to gas, but it cannot begin to live. Such a phenomenon has never been witnessed; therefore, we can abandon any ideas of life beginning by itself 3-4 billion years ago.

What about other life-forms’ appearance on earth and life’s existence on earth for hundreds of millions of years? That is, evolutionists presume that a simple original cell transformed into our current complex forms over periods of millions of years. It is believed there was first unicellular life in the sea, then multicellular life, fish, frogs, reptiles and lastly birds and mammals. Presumably, new and new species appeared on earth on the course of millions of years. We can often find it written in books that some species lived tens or hundreds of years ago. For example, it is believed dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

  But as stated, there is no reason to believe that the current species originate from the sama stem cell. Thus, the assumption that species appeared on Earth at different times can also be questioned. No one can know when he takes fossils in his hand, what age they are. Anyone can try this. The fossilis themselves have no patches of their age or when they became extinct. This is true for dinosaur fossils, trilobites, and other fossils.


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. (9)


It would seem that all fossils are roughly the same age, and that different species have lived around the same time. It is not necessary that there are millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years between the appearance of different species.

Another important finding is that fossils from all different time periods have contained radiocarbon, even the Cambrian fossils, dinosaurs and coal layers, as well as, oil deposits. Furthermore, dinosaurs have been found to contain DNA, whose half-life is only found to be 512 years (information about half-life was reported in news called: DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat [the limit for DNA’s preservation revealed – aspiration to clone dinosaurs falls through]; > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012).

What does all this mean? When the half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there should not be any remaining in fossils that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Similarly, DNA shouldn’t stay preserved in ancient fossils, because its half-life is even shorter than that of radiocarbon. Yet, radiocarbon can be found in fossils of all ages and DNA in dinosaurs. This shows that fossils go back only to a few millennia. Another indication of their fairly young age is that some of them, such as dinosaur fossils, have contained proteins, which only stay preserved for only some 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. (10)


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. (11)


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. (12)

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: 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.  (13)


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. (14) 


How did hydrogen gas turn into a rational and feeling human?


- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.


If we take another look at the initial stages, we’ll see that the naturalistic account describes the universe largely consisting of hydrogen in the beginning. It is presumed that it formed sometime after the Big Bang.

This leads me to ask a very simple question. If the universe was comprised of hydrogen, how did that hydrogen generate oceans, fish, birds, humans, flowers, trees, butterflies, lions, strawberries, and all other wonders of nature? Has it ever been proven by scientists that hydrogen has the ability to change into complex life-forms? Does hydrogen still work this way currently, i.e., did it generate humans and all the other life-forms? But isn’t it a known fact that this is not how hydrogen works? Instead, what we do know, is that substances can only change from solid to liquid and from liquid to gas in different temperatures. But life-forms do not come about during the process.

It is as problematic to claim lifeless matter like hydrogen or rocks could be the source of human traits, such as, joy, laughter, sorrow and sadness, hope, fear, humor, love, infatuation, sexual attraction, hate, anger, and the senses with which we experience the world: sight, smell, taste, and hearing. How could a lifeless and impersonal rock generate such qualities, which it doesn’t have? Wouldn’t it be easier to believe that the former traits come from a personal God, who originally created humans in his image, as the Bible says (Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)? People abandon their sense of real wisdom in pursuit to believe in naturalistic explanations.


- (Rom 1:20-23) 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:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.


How perceptions affect moral. Our discussion on the beginning of the universe and life has led us to see, where naturalistic theories struggle. They cannot explain the following issues, for example. The Book of Genesis offers much more rational explanations to all these issues.


• The Big Bang. It is absurd to assume that our world and life sprung from a tiny space. It is equally absurd to believe that elephants, trees, humans, fish, oceans, the Sun, mosquitoes, birds, flowers, and everything else came from nothingness or that they appeared from a space the size of a pinhead by themselves.

• The birth of galaxies poses yet another problem. Such a phenomenon has never been witnessed.

• The birth of the Solar System and the earth troubles us due to the Sun and planets’ complete dissimilar consistency, for example. No one has been able to explain how these celestial bodies could have come about by themselves thus far.

• Life’s appearance is still an unsolved problem.

• Species transformations are still undetected (molecule-to-man theory). Several well-known paleontologists have acknowledged this fact.

• Because fossils, such as dinosaur fossils, still contain radiocarbon, DNA and proteins, they must only be thousands of years old. Millions and billions of years no longer seem feasible.

• Naturalistic theories cannot explain how emotions and senses could originate from hydrogen gas or lifeless rock-like matter.


What difference does it make if we reject God as the creator, seen as it has been the common trend these days? For one, we can see a change in morality. If we don’t believe that God is our creator, we are also often reluctant to believe that He defined the law and that He is the judge who determines right from wrong and will eventually decide everyone’s faith.

Therefore, people of today support the following views and approaches, because they have this idea that God doesn’t exist and that there is no creator or higher law. They usually justify their opinions on the following matters with love.


• Abortion. It is often claimed that it is better for a child not to be born into difficult circumstances. That is supposedly a good reason to kill a baby.

• Euthanasia is also seen as an act of love in ending one’s suffering. People don’t take into consideration that pain medication today is very advanced, and it can alleviate most of the physical pain.

In the Nazi-Germany, before Jewish people were killed, euthanasia was taken into practice. It was instilled into people’s minds through propaganda films.

• Extramarital affairs have been justified by love. This happened in late 1960s, when the so-called sexual revolution was spreading throughout society due to media.

The issue with extramarital affairs is that people who are not yet committed to each other might have children. This is not a good arrangement for a child, because the parents won’t have a home ready for the child with both of his or her parents.

• Homosexual relations are also justified with love.


Why are these approaches accepted in modern society and why don’t people seem to mind them? Probably, because Christian teaching has been abandoned completely in the Western world. Evolution and liberal theology have replaced people’s faith in the existence of God, and the belief He is the creator and judge. People are under the impression that scientific evidence has completely refuted the biblical worldview, and that fundamental Christian teachings don’t apply to us anymore.

We have replaced our Christian values with an atheist humanist worldview, where people can define right and wrong. This is supposedly in the hands of people, and not God, who has announced Himself through His Son Jesus Christ and His appointed disciples. This trend of atheist humanist worldview, which leads us further from Christian faith, is the major cause for a shift in morality in the Western world. The more we deviate from Christian beliefs, the more changes we’ll see in morality.

But should we believe these atheistic claims that there is no God, creator or judge? Wouldn’t it be a great mistake if God did exist after all, and He was the one to judge us?  That is, we’ve seen the lack of basis in atheistic theories on the beginning of the universe and life, which is why we should consider other possibilities. We should be careful about what we think of God’s existence and His role as the creator and judge. We can get a clear understanding of judgement from the following passages, e.g.:


- (Rom 14:10,12) But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nothing your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.


- (Hebr 9:27) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:


- (Rev 20:12-15) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


This is a great place to shift our attention to the sin of man and our relationship with God. That is if God does exist and we are eternal beings, our first priority should be finding a connection to God and receiving forgiveness of sins. No one should miss out on this crucial factor because of misconceptions and lies.

What happens when a person sees their faults and sins and understands, how they have acted against God? Is there hope for them? What is the Bible teaching here?

As a matter of fact, forgiveness of sins is the core message of the Bible and the New Testament. That is, the New Testament clearly announces that we can receive forgiveness for our sins, because God has loved us and appeared through His Son Jesus Christ. God was in the Christ and He atoned the world through Himself. God’s motive behind this was His love for us:


- (2 Cor 5:19,20) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be you reconciled to God.


- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


- (Rom 5:8) But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


Our next question is, how to receive forgiveness for one’s sins, how to receive a place in the kingdom of God, and what is our role in achieving all this. Is there a clear answer?

The answer remains; unrepentant wrongdoers will not receive forgiveness for their sins and won’t receive salvation, whereas, people who have genuine remorse and a will to turn to God, can have all their sins forgiven and receive a place in heaven. It is that simple.

   One example of this is the allegory that Jesus gave of the prodigal son. It is a story of a man who was forgiven, although he had turned his back on his father. The Bible says that when the man repented, turned to his father again and confessed his wrongdoings, his father gave him mercy and welcomed him back home. You too can turn to God and let His good will guide you forward.


- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.


- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Moreover, the most important aspect of all; we all must turn to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, in order to receive salvation and enter God’s kingdom. Only surrendering ourselves to Him, can we get home to our God.


- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.


- (John 6:67-69) Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.


- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.


What if we reject God’s grace and Jesus? What if we show no interest in Him and our future life? Are there any consequences? Will it affect our eternity?

The answer is that in that case, we need to be responsible for our own sins. We must atone our sins in eternal damnation – a place that has no way out. We would turn our backs on the only chance to be saved and live in God’s paradise. That is why we shouldn’t turn our backs on the grace of God. Let yourself be saved by God today, so you wouldn’t have to regret your choices later. It is the best decision you could ever make.


My friend, if you are damned, it is not because of your sins, but because you have not received mercy that God offers to you through Jesus. That is why it is fair. If you reject Jesus, what can God do? You then dismiss your only hope of salvation. (15)


The prayer of salvation. Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.






1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), s. 122

2. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. 5 2004,  cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

3. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

4. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

5. 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

6. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

7. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.

8. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

9. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278

10. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192

11. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194


13. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p .146

14. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111

15. Oswald J. Smith: Maa johon kaipaan, p. 89




More on this topic:

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory.

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?














Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!


More on this topic:

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory.

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?