It’s been over three years, and evolution still has not gotten the ‘proof’ some claim will come

Notice the following about evolution that was posted just over three years ago:

NEW YORK — Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/richard-leakey-evolution-debate_n_1548766.html

Here is one point for each of the lines above, plus a final statement:

Richard Leakey was right that the skepticism on this subject will be over within the next 30 years as presuming that Jesus returns by then, no foolish anti-creationist arguments will continue.
While Richard Leakey may be an atheist, last year, the famous former-atheist Richard Dawkins, has realized that there could be a God (see Famous Atheist Actually an Agnostic). Perhaps there is hope for Richard Leakey too.
Evolutionists, beginning with Charles Darwin, have claimed since the 19th century that the fossil records would finally prove their theory (which is not really a theory, but an inaccurate model). They know they have insufficient proof and continue to hope that some how, some day, they will have real proof. But alas, they still do not. Richard Leakey’s admission really means that evolutionists realize that they have insufficient proof.
It has been two years and the ‘evolutionary debate’ continues. Why? Because the evolutionist continue to overlook the facts of science which eliminate evolution as a valid explanation for the beginning of life.

Notice also something that someone recently sent to me (after-the-fact):

State cancels Darwin Days events after Intelligent Design group asks to be included

KRQE News 13 – Feb 27, 2015

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) – Not everyone embraces Darwinian evolution as a flawless science.

So when two former Sandia Labs engineers saw that the taxpayer-funded New Mexico Museum of Natural History was sponsoring a “Darwin Days” event, it raised a red flag.

It wasn’t that the Darwin Days event was happening. It was that the lectures, which spanned two days in February 2014, didn’t include any other viewpoints.

“It’s a very controversial issue, there’s a tremendous body of evidence against Darwinian evolution and we think people should be aware of that,” said James Campbell, a retired engineer with a Ph.D. with physics. …

No Darwin Days 2015

DCA says they have since changed their policies so staff are diligent to “clearly distinguish State events from private events.”

The Museum didn’t hold a Darwin Days event this year. It’s not what Campbell and Edenburn wanted.

“By cancelling Darwin Day, they have basically said, they will not be giving both sides of the story,” Edenburn said.

DCA told News 13 Darwin Days was not included in the Museum’s 2015 roster of events because of “workload and staffing issues.”

Campbell believes there are other factors involved.

“I think they just really don’t want those topics covered,” he said. http://krqe.com/2015/02/27/state-cancels-darwin-days-events-after-other-groups-ask-to-be-included/

As a scientist, I have long known that proponents of evolution treat the subject more like a religious view than a scientific theory. This is somewhat also what the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed revealed (see Ben Stein’s Expelled).

Which was?

Scientists who challenge too many claims associated with evolution are shunned by many academic institutions, as there is a tremendous amount of pressure at most “leading” academic institutions to squelch research that is not in support of evolution because it will affect their beliefs. Thus, many in the academic world accept, essentially like a false religion, that since many of their friends and colleagues believe the evolutionary nonsense, that it must have been proven true. But it has not been.

While species variation is something that God programmed in His creation, evolution, as the explanation for the origin of life, is unscientific and false. It also requires students to accept a belief that violates other known laws of biological science.

Actually it is impossible for the non-living to become alive as it violates the scientifically accepted law of bio-genesis (life only comes from life). But what if we allow the impossibility of spontaneous primitive life to have occurred?

The primitive life would have to die. Part of the reason for this is that even a single-cell is so complex, and so full of various biological subsystems, that scientists have learned that many systems are essentially necessary for life to exist or continue. Science recognizes that living organisms must be self-contained, eat, digest, and reproduce to continue to exist.

Spontaneously alive lined-up amino acids (with other substances coincidentally there) would die because:

1) All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism. Living organism must be somewhat self-contained.
2) All living organisms need nourishment and direction. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus to provide direction, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with ability to determine what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.
3) Proteins cannot survive without DNA and DNA cannot exist without proteins, hence there is no way both happened at the same time.
4) Even if the cell had all the above, it would die, because there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated a digestive system in order to utilize the food.
5) Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this article discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated an ability to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.

Proteins cannot of themselves reproduce–they need DNA. “DNA cannot exist without proteins, and proteins cannot exist without DNA” (Pietzsch J. Understanding the RNAissance. c. 2003. http://www.nature.com/horizon/rna/background/understanding.html viewed 05/05/12). DNA can basically do nothing of itself, it needs proteins.

Does any scientifically rational person actually believe that they randomly developed and got together at the same time for life as we know it to exist without Divine intervention?

The answer should be obvious. No, unless they will overlook the facts.

It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29). The idea of an ‘intelligent design’ by a Spirit being is the only explanation that does not defy scientifically provable knowledge–for all other explanations result in something that must die out.

By the way, God apparently expects humans to realize that He exists through various aspects of His creation. Notice:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

Thus since life could not have randomly sprung forth, eaten, and reproduced, only a different type of entity (God) could have caused it to begin.

Evolution has led to the intentional ignorance of appropriate scientific methods. It became a religion for many in the 19th century, and remains one for many today.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Is There Another View of Evolution? and another titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Were the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long? Here is a link to a sermon: Genesis, ‘Prehistoric man,’ and the Gap theory. Here is a link to a related article in Spanish: ¿Cuán vieja es la Tierra? ¿Cuán largos fueron los Días de la Creación? ¿Teoría de la brecha?
Did Angels Marry Human Women? Many insist this is so and also that this mating caused giants to be born. Did this come from the ‘Book of Enoch’? What does Genesis 6:4 really mean? A related video is also available: Did Angels Marry Women and Produce Giants?
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient? Here is a biblical article which answers what many really wonder about it.