One of the more popular shows on television in the past few years has been CSI, Crime Scene Investigations. The storyline is similar each week. It starts off with a gruesome murder scene, and you follow along with the detectives, as they try to fit together the random clues, to solve the mystery, and put the perpetrator behind bars.
In sixty brief minutes, The good guy wins, and the bad guy loses.
But life is usually not that cut and dried. I was called to jury duty a couple years ago, and had to sit through a three day trial. It wouldn’t have been so bad if the defendant was up for some sort of traffic offense, or other misdemeanor. No, this guy was accused of a felony, and was facing 6 years in prison. As the jury and I listened to the testimony of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, the innocence of the accused, became readily apparent quite early. When we were finally released to deliberate, we took a grand total of 60 seconds to render our verdict of not guilty. But that night, as I laid in bed, I couldn’t help but mull over and over in my mind, the vicious misrepresentation that the prosecutor made of the defendant. Her portrayal was completely inaccurate, and one sided. It was a true character assassination. Some say that she was just doing her job. She’s a prosecutor, so she prosecutes. That’s not true. Her job is to find the truth, not a guilty verdict.
But you have been summoned to jury duty.
The case of life you are assigned to deliberate is labeled, Creation versus Evolution.
Oddly, Creationism is the defendant. The crime, is religion.
The Accuser, the prosecutor, is Scientism.
Notice that I said scientism, not science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of truth. Scientism, on the other hand, is science, with an agenda. An atheistic agenda. What’s on trial, is Truth.
So the prosecutor initiates their attack. They start at the beginning, the beginning of life, they call it, abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the theory that bacterial life formed in earth’s oceans, all by itself from non-living chemicals, about 3.5 billion years ago. That’s an interesting theory founded on wishful thinking, not evidence. Chemicals may form natural bonds, but there’s no indication that they have any motivation whatsoever to form life.
Plus you have the issue of irreducible complexity. That’s based on the fact that all of the organs within a bacterial cell are essential. The cell cannot survive without all the organs performing their individual necessary functions. So how did all the organs appear, all by themselves, inside a complex cell membrane. They didn’t. It’s not even remotely possible.
Not to mention the fact that abiogenesis defies the second law of thermodynamics, Entropy. Entropy is a law of physics, that causes everything in the universe to wind down, from complexity to simplicity. But the Darwinian evolutionists say, that life appeared out of nowhere, all by itself, and, for some reason, it’s the only thing that defies the power of entropy. Because they have no evidence whatsoever, the prosecution presents several animations, depicting the process of abiogenesis. But if abiogenesis is a factual event that commonly occurs in nature, why not present a legitimate real-time video of the actual process? Because, it’s a fairy tale, and therefore, it is rendered in their only option, animation. And since they don't have any actual evidence, they just make things up, out of whole cloth. The animations are fun, entertaining, and quite deceptive.
But you have another major problem with abiogenesis occurring in the thermal vents of the deep sea. Because water is a solvent. The chemical properties of water, would prevent the chemical bonding necessary to facilitate their chemical fantasy. Water, presents a biological dichotomy, because all life needs water, but water prevents the natural formation of chemical bonding. So abiogenesis ends up being just another false accusation of the prosecutor, void of any scientific evidence.
But their list of unscientific accusations, goes on and on. The Big Bang is another good example. Like abiogenesis defies entropy, the big Bang defies more than just science, it defies logic. Science says you cannot get something, from nothing. We can re-arrange atoms and molecules to form new chemicals, but we cannot create atoms and molecules, from nothing. All effects need a cause. If the Big bang is the effect, what is the cause? They don’t know. Keep in mind, it’s not just something they will figure out later. What they are pushing, like abiogenesis, is impossible. Time, matter, space and energy, as well as all the laws of physics, did not happen by chance. That’s called magic, and magic is not science, magic is myth and superstition. We want evidence!
But what about evolution itself. The prosecutor insists that time, chance, random mutations and natural selection, caused man to evolve from bacteria, which mysteriously formed, all by itself, from a rock. But the reality is, that there is no mechanism, in time, chance, mutations or natural selection, to cause an ant, to morph into an elephant. So the fairy tale of evolution, is based on the faulty foundation of undocumented abiogenesis, which is built on the error of the uncaused Big Bang, held together by the vacuous claims of atheism.
But what if the prosecutor somehow managed to get the judge, to not allow the defendant to testify? Would that be fair? Of course not. But that is exactly what we see happening with Creationism in our school system. The prosecutor, or in this case, the school system, backed up by the courts, have issued a gag order against the creationists. They erroneously claim that Creationism is not science, it is religion, and because of the separation of church and state, it cannot be allowed to testify. Because scientism and atheism cannot defend evolution with evidence, they resort to litigation, to violate your freedom of speech, and your children’s right to hear both sides.
That’s why the atheistic teacher’s unions hate home school, they want to monopolize the narrative. But I don’t believe in Creationism because of religion, I believe in Creationism, because of the evidence. But the prosecution wants to force you to render a verdict, on conjecture. Conjecture is making an assumption, before you hear all the evidence.
But how can you render a verdict, if the accused is not allowed to testify and present evidence? The atheists believe that their job is to get a guilty verdict out of you. Not true. The job of true science, is simply to find the Truth. The so-called evidence of the prosecution, is actually just hearsay, which is just someone’s unsubstantiated opinion.
So before you make your decision, make sure you have heard all the evidence. More in-depth evidence can be obtained by clicking on the links in the description box below.
Remember, there’s a lot at stake here, your eternal destiny is on the line! Hear both sides, and embrace the evidence of truth!