7. Scientific theory verses fact.

Let’s first clarify the difference between a theory and a fact. When it comes to science, a theory isn’t just a thought where we imagine something. When people think of the word theory, they are often thinking in the terms, “I have a theory.” But in science that doesn’t qualify as a theory. Something isn’t a scientific theory until it has enough strong evidence to back it up and make it a reasonable assumption. Evolution doesn’t qualify as a theory.

A theory can never be proven. It never becomes a fact; however, scientific theories are supported by facts. A scientific theory is a generally accepted explanation of a scientific concept. For an example I will use Electro-magnetic Theory. There are several areas of study and varying terms for this theory, but for the sake of clarity, I’ll stick to the well known terminology. There are many facts we know about this concept, but we will never reach a final conclusion. It began as a hypothesis – or an educated guess. Experimentation led to failures, successes and breakthroughs. As the concepts developed, a wider understanding was born and the theory is now a field of study.

Even though the theory cannot be proven, it can be expanded and built upon. For example, the first breakthrough was electro-magnetic current. Then the electron magnet, followed by magnetic propulsion; a motor; electric engines; circuits; circuit boards, conductors, super-conductors and so on. At each level technology is built on top of previous knowledge. The process is never a fact, but many facts are discovered and support the theory. Errors in the theory often are not discovered until several generations of breakthroughs later. Calculating a magnetic field for a motor does not require the same level of precision as an MRI used in hospitals. During development of new technology, an error may be discovered that requires the researcher to go back several generations of technology, find the error and then go back to research. Sometimes an error will take a scientist back to the drawing board and even revolutionize a field of study. The farther technology advances, the more precision is required. So a theory is never complete. It is built upon and expanded as it reaches new heights. 

In this sense, evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position. Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the assumption. Evolutionists do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated. It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out. The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support its foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted.

Examples of selective facts

Dating methods

Most people do not realize it, but nearly 90% of dating results point to a young earth. However, evolution rejects the 90% and only acknowledges the 10%. In one year, 21,000 carbon14 specimens were submitted and 19,000 were rejected. Only 2,000 were considered accurate by evolutionist. Why?

It is not just Carbon14 dating that has this problem, but all dating methods are screened through the evolutionary crosscheck. Dating is measured by circular logic. A fossil is dated by the geological layer in which it is found. The geological layer is dated by the fossils found within it. This produces a fail-proof system of crosschecking dates. The system is designed to hide inaccuracies. The geological layer is a theoretical layer modeled in the mid-1800s. Many fatal blows have been dealt to this process, but evolution has not let go of it. Polystrate trees pose a serious threat to this dating method. Polystrate trees are fossilized trees that are standing erect through many layers of the geological column. For a detailed look at the evidence for and against, visit the page ‘Polystrate Trees‘.

It is impossible for these trees to have stood for the hundreds of thousand and often millions of years that these layers supposedly represent. Consider how a layer of strata is formed. Even evolutionary science agrees that layers of strata are formed by catastrophic events such as floods and volcanic eruptions. If each layer of strata represents an event, these dead trees would have survived through hundreds or thousands of events without falling, decaying or being destroyed. Somehow today it is rare to find a dead tree that has survived 5 years – and these trees are well down the road to decay. Believing that polystrate trees found all over the globe buried deep within the strata occurred by slow layering is quite a leap of faith.

One rebuttal that is often used as ‘evidence’ for the creation of polystrate trees are tidal marshes. The forests bordering these marshlands are slowly being buried by sediment and it is therefore argued that these could one day become polystrate trees. There are two major flaws with this example. 1. These trees are still alive. When they die, they will decay and become part of the marshland soil. Evolutionists point to the living trees to show they are being slowly covered, but there are know dead trees that have any hope of being fossilized. They die and disappear just as all the trees before them have done. 2. Polystrate trees often have fossils in the layers surrounding them. In the marshlands, there are no fossils. When a creature dies, it decays and is lost forever. How will slowly covering a living tree create a fossilized tree and how will it create fossilized fish, birds and other animals? It can’t. However, with a crafty argument and a lot of imagination people can be convinced that this is evidence. Unfortunately for evolution, fictitious scenarios – not science – is the only evidence available.

Another fatal blow was dealt in 1979 when the ‘extinct’ Coelacanth was found alive and well living off the coast of Madagascar. This fish was once an index fossil. Index fossils are extinct animals that are ‘known’ to have only lived during certain periods of time. Therefore, since the dates of their existence are supposedly known, they are then used to determine the age of the other fossils found within their same layer. The Coelacanth supposedly died out hundreds of millions of years ago. When its fossils are found in a layer of strata, the date of extinction is used to determine the minimum age of the other fossils within the same layer. If this creature that was once used as evidence for evolution is still alive, what does this tell us about the accuracy of dating layers by index fossils?

Dating methods for a specimen is only accepted if it falls within the date range determined by the layer or index fossils within the layer. Scientists confirm this dating crosscheck in the Journal of Geological Society of Australia:

Williams, I. S., W. Compston, B. W. Chapell, and T. Shirahase, Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 22, no. 4 (1975). p 502
“The internal consistency demonstrated above is not a sufficient test of the accuracy of the age determinations; they must also be consistent within any age constraints placed on intrusion by fossils in the country rocks.”

In a nutshell, they are admitting that the specimen itself is not accurately dated, so evolution puts constraints that place it within the age of fossils and rocks that have already been dated. What happens when dates don’t match up? Evolutionist L. R. Stieff explains how they get dates to agree:

L. R. Stieff, “Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages,” United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 414-E (1963), p. E1.

“The most reasonable age can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations.

“In an effort to evaluate a discordant age sequence, therefore, the data are adjusted in one of several ways until the lead-uranium and lead-lead ages are in agreement.”

Here Stieff has acknowledged that the data is manipulated until the results are in agreement. Is this intellectual honesty? Why is all the evidence filtered through the evolutionary crosschecks? Is the system to date fossils designed to prevent failure and only support the evolution model? We have all heard evolution supporters herald the accuracy of various dating methods, but in reality there is no such thing as accuracy. Multiple dating methods are used and manipulated until the predetermined conclusion is matched. The dating that agrees with the presupposed age becomes the method that is used.

What happens if none of the dates yield results that support evolution? 90% of dating does not support the evolution model. So what do evolutionists do with the rest of the evidence? R. L. Mauger of the University of Wyoming explains:

(University of Wyoming) Contributions to Geology, vol.. 15, no. 1 (Winter 1977), pp. 17-41. p 37
“In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.”

We should ask ourselves, why is this evidence excluded without an explanation?

Why are 10% of the results considered more credible than the other 90%?

What happens when there is no way to reconcile observable science with evolution? We see many examples where inexplicable gaps are filled in with assumptions. When this happens, the assumptions are treated as fact without verifiable evidence. An example of this is ‘dark matter’.

Dark Matter

According to evolution, our galaxy is between 4.5 and 5 billion years old. However, an interesting problem has been added to the equation since the discovery of dwarf galaxies. It is amusing that the farther technology advances, the more assumptions must be added to support evolution. Dwarf galaxies are smaller galaxies with a faster rotation. The problem with dwarf galaxies is that the faster rotation does not fit the old universe model of the Big Bang theory. The dwarf galaxy’s rotation would have caused them to disperse in 1/150th of the supposed age of the universe. To solve the problem, evolution sought for an out. Remember, the evolution model is based on the presupposition that the beginning is a fact. Anything that contradicts the starting point collapses the whole model. Updating the model is never an option. Therefore Dark Matter was invented.

Dark matter is a theoretical force that has a gravitational effect on galaxies and prevents them from dispersing. However, the invention of dark matter created a new problem. If it prevented dwarf galaxies from dispersing, it would have the same effect on larger galaxies. This would also contradict the evolution model. To solve this problem, the theory was updated to include cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Cold dark matter slows down the dispersion of stars in dwarf galaxies without slowing down their rotation. Hot dark matter travels at or near the speed of light, thus allowing larger galaxies to stay within the evolution model. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for dark matter and its only purpose is to constrain the observable science so that it fits evolution. It cannot be tested, proved or disproven. The reason scientists believe dark matter exists is that it must exist in order for the Big Bang to be true.

University of Hertfordshire Astronomy defines dark matter this way:

Dark matter. Hypothetical matter which is postulated to exist in the universe in vast quantities. It is difficult to detect because it is either non luminous or possessed of a very low luminosity . Dark matter is thought to exist because of its gravitational effects in the universe; specifically within galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Within a spiral galaxy, the stars move as if large quantities of matter, which cannot be seen, exist around the disc of the galaxy. Within clusters of galaxies, the individual galaxies move as if ten times as much matter exists than can be seen in the stars and the emission nebulae. Dark matter may come in two principle types: the first is baryonic matter. This is matter such as makes up the luminous portions of the universe. The atoms of the familiar chemical elements are simply bound into intrinsically low luminosity objects such as planets , brown dwarfs and black holes . If the matter is not in this form, then the second type is dark matter which is thought to exist in the form of the exotic particles. These are predicted by certain Grand Unified Theories . Two sub-classifications of exotic dark matter exist; cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Hot dark matter is composed of particles such as neutrinos . They are called hot because they travel at (or very close to) the speed of light. Neutrinos are a prime candidate, although there is still uncertainty over whether they have any mass. If neutrinos do not have mass, they cannot provide the gravity necessary to act as the dark matter. Cold dark matter is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). These particles are possessed of relatively large masses, travel relatively slowly and interact only weakly with ‘normal’ baryonic material. Hence, they are difficult to detect. Although many experiments have been undertaken to detect neutrino masses and WIMPs, no conclusive evidence has yet been found and the search for what the constituents are in dark matter goes on.

It is interesting how this explanation implies that it is a fact while admitting that it has never been observed. They first say it is difficult to detect and then say there is no evidence ‘yet’. When evolution’s back is against the wall, scientists push the facts as far out of reach as possible. Some even claim that aliens introduced bacteria via a rocket. This doesn’t answer the origin of life, it only attempts to entrap creationists by trying to make them prove there isn’t life out in space. Notice the theory of dark matter is not based on observable science and there is no evidence to support it. Even so, you find more and more evolutionists claiming that it is a verifiable fact. Scientific America posted an article claiming that 90% of the universe was composed of dark matter. Here is an excerpt from this article:

Based on 50 years of accumulated observations of the motions of galaxies and the expansion of the universe, most astronomers believe that as much as 90 percent of the stuff constituting the universe may be objects or particles that cannot be seen. In other words, most of the universe’s matter does not radiate–it provides no glow that we can detect in the electromagnetic spectrum. First posited some 60 years ago by astronomer Fritz Zwicky, this so-called missing matter was believed to reside within clusters of galaxies. Nowadays we prefer to call the missing mass “dark matter,” for it is the light, not the matter, that is missing.

Let’s take a critical look at this claim. It completely depends on the power of persuasion to establish the evolutionary position. On the surface, they appear to be presenting evidence, but a closer look reveals that they are basing the ‘fact of dark matter’ on pure conjecture. This paragraph establishes authority based on ‘50 years of accumulated observations’. No facts are presented. What was observed? The universe expanding. That is clear. It is how the universe is expanding that created the problem for evolution.

Also notice that the implication that science has observed that 90% of the universe is dark matter is based solely on the statement, ‘most scientists believe’. Belief means nothing if there is no supporting evidence. It is the faith of evolutionists that is presented as evidence for evolution. They ‘believe’ it exists, though it has never been seen, measured or detected. If matter can’t be seen, measured or detected, what rational basis can they base their assumptions on? Where did the concept of dark matter come from? It was imagined and invented for the sole purpose of keeping galaxies within the box of evolution. It is now being heralded as a known fact based solely on the claims that ‘most scientists believe it’.

Observable science points away from dark matter, not toward it. In 1972, NASA launched the exploratory space probe Pioneer 10. Its primary mission was to reach Jupiter to photograph the planet, surrounding moons and gather data to send back to earth. It was considered a risky adventure to even reach Jupiter. When it reached Jupiter in 1973, the effect of the planet had an unforeseen effect on Pioneer 10. The large planet’s gravity caused Pioneer 10 to gain a greater amount of speed, which propelled it farther out into space. Jupiter is approximately 360,000,000 miles from earth and Pioneer 10 was only designed to make this journey. However, with the increased speed, Pioneer has now gone over 6 billion miles past the Sun. What is even more remarkable is that Pioneer 10 only has an 8-watt radio transmitter. From 6 billion miles away, this tiny transmitter still reaches the earth in a little over 9 hours.

What does this have to do with dark matter? It adds another piece to the puzzle. If dark matter makes up 90% of the galaxy, shouldn’t this probe have encountered it in its 6 Billion mile journey? After all, one of the functions of Pioneer 10 was to measure the magnetic fields, radiation belts, atmosphere and other data from the planet Jupiter. Pioneer 10 has not encountered dark matter. Dark matter also has not slowed down the flight of this probe. It also has not hindered the transmission back to earth. An 8-watt transmitter is compared to the power of a nightlight. It does not give off much energy. Unlike a star, it does not take much interference to block the signal of an 8-watt radio. Yet dark matter supposedly has enough substance to affect entire galaxies.

Is it possible that dark matter may not exist?

Why does dark matter exist only where it fits evolution’s interest but does not interfere in any other way?

Could blind faith actually be masquerading as invisible matter?

Evolution is a faith based belief system. The more science discovers, the more faith is required to hold to the evolution god. He does not exist and has no attributes that give him power, yet he is worshipped by the majority of the world. This statement will enrage most evolutionists I realize, but I can support this claim by the testimonies of evolution scientists, researchers and educators. Evolution is not called a god. Instead, science is reshaped and redefined to mean ‘god’. In the next section, I will examine these testimonies with the hope to remove the veil so that people can choose which god they will serve. If someone wants evolution, they have that choice. My goal is to make it an educated choice.

Eddie Snipes
2001

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *