It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn't even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. "natural selection") explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.
Darwin, in other words, did not study the "reproduction of rocks" because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.
Thus, the "Theory of Evolution" utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from. How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can't "evolve" life forms from dead rocks, after all... unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.
So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.
Evolution as a theory of the origin of life is a FAITH, not science
According to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge. Their beliefs can never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated. "Scientific truth" is true because they say it is, and the faith-based belief that evolution explains the origins of life cannot be questioned either.
Yet question it we will! So let's see how this goes: The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.
According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of -- gravity, electromagnetism, etc. -- came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).
The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. "Give me one miracle," they're fond of saying, "and we can explain everything that follows."
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.
And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang -- where no life existed -- and today, life must have appeared.
Scientists believe in magic
Again, if you ask most scientists about the origins of life, they will blindly and dutifully answer "evolution!" Yet without life already existing, there is nothing to evolve. So where did LIFE come from?
Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that's their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because "magic" is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.
So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all. Magic does. Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the Big Bang suddenly happened without cause: it's all done by magic! (I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)
All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.
Atheism, soullessness and permanent death
Conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their worldview. That's because nearly all of them are devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality. According to their own explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.
The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually "alive" in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.
The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it's actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.
Their faith-based beliefs are always described as "facts" while they proclaim other people's beliefs are "delusions." You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.
The vaccine faith test
As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: "Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?"
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!" In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn't compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.
It's like asking a devout Christian whether there might be no God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that it cannot be processed.
You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, "Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?"
After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, "Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe."
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of "mercury," a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.
Ask the doctor, "Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?"
The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered "safe" regardless of the level of mercury it contains. Thus, by merely asking a few direct questions, you can easily get an honest doctor to shatter their own false belief about vaccines -- a belief based on the faith-driven delusion that there is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine (no matter what it contains).
If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in "Scientism." Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate "facts" anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?
All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise. This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are "interfering with their medications" and not the other way around. The drugs are assumed to have originated from a higher order, as if they emanate from a place of sacred, divine status: Big Pharma!
Many scientists are incapable of recognizing their own logical fallacies
Many scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems. They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.
When scientists talk about evolution, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of Scientism requires no proof, only faith. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of Scientism.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042613_Theory_of_Evolution_contradictions_scientific_thinking.html#ixzz2iT0wusM5