Why Are Mass Media Suddenly Talking Seriously About UFOs? The End of the Evolution Theory Era?

[Ogner]

Why has the topic of UFOs suddenly gained traction in mass media? Is this the end of the theory of evolution?
It’s quite simple. Public opinion polls have shown that no one believes in the unscientific “theory of evolution” anymore. Darwin is suffering a crushing defeat. And this is despite the fact that evolutionist scientists are paid enormous sums, given millions of dollars for research to prove the “theory of evolution”—yet they can’t do it, even with all that money. The transnational shadow government has mandated the study of “evolution theory” in school curriculums worldwide, leveraging unprecedented administrative resources to push their atheistic propaganda. But even that hasn’t worked.

Truth has a quality—it’s convincing. Any creationist scientist, armed with pure enthusiasm, can dismantle the “theory of evolution” to smithereens. Just take a few names that come to mind: Stephen Meyer, Dr. James Tour, Dr. John Lennox, Ken Ham. They don’t need millions to make their case.
And now, even atheists are admitting that life couldn’t have arisen by chance.
Even Richard Dawkins—British ethologist, zoologist, science popularizer, atheist, humanist, and critic of Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity—acknowledges the following:
For life to emerge, a self-replicating molecule is necessary.  

Richard Dawkins believes life could not have arisen by chance.  

Biochemistry shows signs of design, pointing to the existence of a higher intelligence.  

Biochemistry and molecular biology suggest the creation of a system by a higher mind.  

Information and codes cannot emerge naturally.  

Dawkins speculates that aliens might have created life on Earth.

Voilà! That’s it! Now, the extraterrestrial origin of life will become the main theory for atheists.
This was inevitable. The “theory of evolution” might have held water in the 19th century, or at most until the first half of the 20th century—before the discovery of DNA, before we understood the incredible complexity of the living cell, before we grasped the intricacies of biochemistry. Before we realized the fine-tuning of the Solar System and that the complex programming code of DNA was written to match this fine-tuning. In other words, the micro-world is precisely calibrated to align with the fine-tuning of the macro-world. Everything is interconnected and exquisitely balanced. Today, even atheists don’t believe in the “theory of evolution.”

 

[Sparks]

13 hours ago, Ogner said:

 Today, even atheists don’t believe in the “theory of evolution.”

I enjoyed your post, Ogner.  We are on the same side of the evolution debate, but you may have never run into the theistic evolution crowd who believe in "evolutionary creationism."  There are a few diehards here who think that way, and anything you can prove that evolution cannot handle, these people will claim God made possible.  The rest of your arguments will simply be denied. 

Heads up! 

[angels4u]

Ken Ham is very interesting,this Bible verse was posted on his yt site :

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools"Romans 1:22

[Ogner]

12 hours ago, Sparks said:

I enjoyed your post, Ogner.  We are on the same side of the evolution debate, but you may have never run into the theistic evolution crowd who believe in "evolutionary creationism."  There are a few diehards here who think that way, and anything you can prove that evolution cannot handle, these people will claim God made possible.  The rest of your arguments will simply be denied. 

Heads up! 

Glad to find a like-minded person in the evolution debate. I’ve had experience discussing with proponents of 'evolutionary creationism,' and after long debates, I’ve accumulated questions they’ve never managed to answer properly. I agree that they’re harder to argue with because they acknowledge life as God’s creation—a foundation stronger than 'it just happened by chance.' But beyond that, their reasoning, though built on solid ground, is full of pure speculation.

I’d like to start a thread on this forum to engage with local 'evolutionary creationists.' Maybe they’ll surprise me? 

[Ogner]

10 hours ago, angels4u said:

Ken Ham is very interesting,this Bible verse was posted on his yt site :

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools"Romans 1:22

I like him too. I’ve been following his YouTube channel with interest.

[Tristen]

On 3/23/2025 at 7:31 PM, Ogner said:

Why has the topic of UFOs suddenly gained traction in mass media? Is this the end of the theory of evolution?
It’s quite simple. Public opinion polls have shown that no one believes in the unscientific “theory of evolution” anymore. Darwin is suffering a crushing defeat. And this is despite the fact that evolutionist scientists are paid enormous sums, given millions of dollars for research to prove the “theory of evolution”—yet they can’t do it, even with all that money. The transnational shadow government has mandated the study of “evolution theory” in school curriculums worldwide, leveraging unprecedented administrative resources to push their atheistic propaganda. But even that hasn’t worked.

Truth has a quality—it’s convincing. Any creationist scientist, armed with pure enthusiasm, can dismantle the “theory of evolution” to smithereens. Just take a few names that come to mind: Stephen Meyer, Dr. James Tour, Dr. John Lennox, Ken Ham. They don’t need millions to make their case.
And now, even atheists are admitting that life couldn’t have arisen by chance.
Even Richard Dawkins—British ethologist, zoologist, science popularizer, atheist, humanist, and critic of Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity—acknowledges the following:
For life to emerge, a self-replicating molecule is necessary.  

Richard Dawkins believes life could not have arisen by chance.  

Biochemistry shows signs of design, pointing to the existence of a higher intelligence.  

Biochemistry and molecular biology suggest the creation of a system by a higher mind.  

Information and codes cannot emerge naturally.  

Dawkins speculates that aliens might have created life on Earth.

Voilà! That’s it! Now, the extraterrestrial origin of life will become the main theory for atheists.
This was inevitable. The “theory of evolution” might have held water in the 19th century, or at most until the first half of the 20th century—before the discovery of DNA, before we understood the incredible complexity of the living cell, before we grasped the intricacies of biochemistry. Before we realized the fine-tuning of the Solar System and that the complex programming code of DNA was written to match this fine-tuning. In other words, the micro-world is precisely calibrated to align with the fine-tuning of the macro-world. Everything is interconnected and exquisitely balanced. Today, even atheists don’t believe in the “theory of evolution.”

 

i would caution against using the absolutist mathematic term "proof/prove". Science does not "prove" things - i.e. science does not (can-not) generate absolute confidence (certainty) in any claim. Many misuse the term "proof" to exaggerate confidence in claims beyond what is scientifically (logically) possible. "Proof" is therefore an invalid standard against which to hold any scientific claim.

The Scientific Method can be used to generate mathematical confidence in hypotheses about current, natural phenomena. It is thus a very robust method when applied correctly.

However, when investigating the past, one must deviate away from the Scientific Method - to the far less robust modelling method. Modelling methods can only produce anecdotal confidence. Both the secular narrative of history and Young-earth creationism are valid arguments - given their respective faith presuppositions. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Both are logically unfalsifiable.

As such, a Christian is free to trust the Genesis narrative of history without any intellectual (or scientific) compromise.

Nevertheless, neither side will ever be able to unequivocally, scientifically "dismantle" the opposing position (at-least, not without a time machine). That is simply the logical nature of things. We can provide alternative narratives and counter-arguments - but anything beyond that is rhetorical bluster. Rhetorical bluster is a common strategy of proponents of the secular narrative - but we who hold the truth should endeavor to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

 

 

.

[Ogner]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

i would caution against using the absolutist mathematic term "proof/prove". Science does not "prove" things - i.e. science does not (can-not) generate absolute confidence (certainty) in any claim. Many misuse the term "proof" to exaggerate confidence in claims beyond what is scientifically (logically) possible. "Proof" is therefore an invalid standard against which to hold any scientific claim.

The Scientific Method can be used to generate mathematical confidence in hypotheses about current, natural phenomena. It is thus a very robust method when applied correctly.

However, when investigating the past, one must deviate away from the Scientific Method - to the far less robust modelling method. Modelling methods can only produce anecdotal confidence. Both the secular narrative of history and Young-earth creationism are valid arguments - given their respective faith presuppositions. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Both are logically unfalsifiable.

As such, a Christian is free to trust the Genesis narrative of history without any intellectual (or scientific) compromise.

Nevertheless, neither side will ever be able to unequivocally, scientifically "dismantle" the opposing position (at-least, not without a time machine). That is simply the logical nature of things. We can provide alternative narratives and counter-arguments - but anything beyond that is rhetorical bluster. Rhetorical bluster is a common strategy of proponents of the secular narrative - but we who hold the truth should endeavor to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

 

 

.

I fully agree with your perspective. It really comes down to where a person stands. If someone simply wants to contemplate the beauty of God’s creation, take joy in it, and not get bogged down in debates — that’s a beautiful choice, perhaps even the most peaceful one. In that case, it’s probably best to steer clear of evolutionists entirely, since their theory, at first glance, often feels like a collection of guesses, sometimes bordering on fairy tales — just look at their latest "multiverse" notion, for example. On the other hand, I personally find it engaging at times to interact with evolutionists. Truth be told, it’s less about arguing with them and more about critically examining their claims, often using the very framework of their own evolutionary theory. And what’s fascinating is that, in the end, their theory tends to fall apart under scrutiny, even when judged by its own standards.

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, Ogner said:

Truth be told, it’s less about arguing with them and more about critically examining their claim

This is well said.

My concern is with Young-earth creationists who advance rhetorical arguments rather than rational arguments - because I think we have the stronger rational arguments. I therefore consider rhetorical arguments to be time-wasting distractions (which is why they are so popular with proponents of the secular narrative).

For example, you said, "it’s probably best to steer clear of evolutionists entirely, since their theory, at first glance, often feels like a collection of guesses, sometimes bordering on fairy tales" - which is an implied denigration of the method they use to draw their conclusions. That is, the statement is a rhetorical invitation to dismiss the opposition as spouting mere "fairy tales".

However, in reality, both sides are merely asking how history might have unfolded to produce the current universe - given their respective faith assumptions (i.e. for creationists - that the Bible is true, and for secularists - that no god has participated in the unfolding of history). Since neither side can go back in time to make the requisite observations, the conclusions of both sides can be equally labelled "guesses", stories, speculations etc. (investigators like to call them 'models'). That is simply the logical nature (and limitation) of historical modelling.

It is the want of secularists to pretend their position is, by default, intellectually superior. We, however, should be mindful to reign-in the influence of our biases - so as to be more objectively critical in our analysis.

 

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is well said.

My concern is with Young-earth creationists who advance rhetorical arguments rather than rational arguments - because I think we have the stronger rational arguments. I therefore consider rhetorical arguments to be time-wasting distractions (which is why they are so popular with proponents of the secular narrative).

Shalom, @Tristen.

Have you ever just LISTENED to the Young-earth creationists' arguments with an open mind? I would HIGHLY SUGGEST that one listen to Ken Ham discussing the word translated as "day" (the Hebrew word "yowm") and how CHRISTIANS will not commit to the biblical worldview, but will RESIST it in favor of the more popular secular worldview and will use 2 Peter 3:8, "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years...," as though it proved that the days of Genesis 1 were more than just 24-hour days.

See, in order to accept the secular worldview, one must have long ages of time, but the Bible doesn't give us these required long periods of time. Instead, the biblical worldview shows that the earth was created in six, literal, 24-hour days, just as Genesis 1 tells us. The statement that "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years..." used as an argument for very long days, conveniently ignores the second half of that verse, "... and a thousand years as one day," which then negates the long-day theory.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

For example, you said, "it’s probably best to steer clear of evolutionists entirely, since their theory, at first glance, often feels like a collection of guesses, sometimes bordering on fairy tales" - which is an implied denigration of the method they use to draw their conclusions. That is, the statement is a rhetorical invitation to dismiss the opposition as spouting mere "fairy tales".

However, in reality, both sides are merely asking how history might have unfolded to produce the current universe - given their respective faith assumptions (i.e. for creationists - that the Bible is true, and for secularists - that no god has participated in the unfolding of history). Since neither side can go back in time to make the requisite observations, the conclusions of both sides can be equally labelled "guesses", stories, speculations etc. (investigators like to call them 'models'). That is simply the logical nature (and limitation) of historical modelling.

OR, one can STAND UP to secularists, learn a few truths - both from the Bible and from REAL science - observation and experimentation - and show that the secularist worldview is the REAL "fairy tale." As you said, "neither side can go back in time to make the requisite observations"; therefore, it is IMPERATIVE to accept the TESTIMONY given to us from the One who was THERE from the beginning! He WAS there when He created it all, and HIS Word was the record.

Furthermore, it is important to understand HOW the secularists make faulty assumptions; for instance, the interpretations they make from radioactive dating methods, where they PURPOSELY ignore the limitations to which such radioactive dating methods are susceptible, especially when the errors are in their favor. 

Also, the creation model must also be augmented with the Genesis Flood, which had to be a global event that lasted for a YEAR, the aftermath lasting for decades afterward!

Some passages from the Bible APPEAR to be about the Creation; but, most, like Psalm 104, are actually about the REFORMING of the earth after the Flood.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

It is the want of secularists to pretend their position is, by default, intellectually superior. We, however, should be mindful to reign-in the influence of our biases - so as to be more objectively critical in our analysis.

OR, to learn HOW to support our "biases" with fact. And, eye-witness testimony IS fact. One could get into the Hebrew of the text and see what the Scriptures say from the Hebrew point of view and understand that we have MORE than just a "bias" about what we are reading. It's NOT written as a "fairy-tale," nor is it written as poetry or fiction. It is written from the perspective of a historian, listing the details of what He experienced. It's actual HISTORY, not a "story" or a "legend." 

The real value of modern science is the wealth of archaeological evidence that comes to the table. However, their humanistic, secular worldview is ignorant - they IGNORE the history given to us in favor of their own narrative. But, they've been consistently wrong in that narrative, BECAUSE they REFUSE to believe the truths that could influencce how they READ that evidence. They fail to see how THEY'VE become the "church rejecting the evidence from Galileo!"

[Retrobyter]

18 hours ago, Ogner said:

I fully agree with your perspective. It really comes down to where a person stands. If someone simply wants to contemplate the beauty of God’s creation, take joy in it, and not get bogged down in debates — that’s a beautiful choice, perhaps even the most peaceful one. In that case, it’s probably best to steer clear of evolutionists entirely, since their theory, at first glance, often feels like a collection of guesses, sometimes bordering on fairy tales — just look at their latest "multiverse" notion, for example. On the other hand, I personally find it engaging at times to interact with evolutionists. Truth be told, it’s less about arguing with them and more about critically examining their claims, often using the very framework of their own evolutionary theory. And what’s fascinating is that, in the end, their theory tends to fall apart under scrutiny, even when judged by its own standards.

Shalom, @Ogner.

Regarding "their latest 'multiverse' notion," This all stems back to "Schrodinger's cat" philosophy, which was introduced in 1935.

See, we human beings have an imagination, and that imagination is both our greatest strength and our greatest Achilles' heel! We are strong with it because it gives us the dreams of a better world that give rise to real inventions to make those dreams a reality, but it also makes us susceptible to the errors we make in philosophy and "logical" deduction.

For those who are unfamiliar with the story reading along,

"Schrödinger's cat

A cat imagined as being enclosed in a box with a radioactive source and a poison that will be released when the source (unpredictably) emits radiation, the cat being considered (according to quantum mechanics) to be simultaneously both dead and alive until the box is opened and the cat observed: the talk promises to demystify all the secrets of quantum physics, including Schrödinger's cat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and parallel universes. 

"The concept was described by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. He conceived of it as a thought experiment to illustrate (or ridicule) a theory, associated with Niels Bohr, according to which the quantum state of a particle could not be known until an observation was made; prior to that it had to be described physically in terms of all possible states."

However, biblically, this whole scenario has a significant problem: WE have a whole TREE of possibilities of what COULD happen, but God said,

Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV)

9 "Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure'":

So, from HIS perspective, there is only ONE possibility for the future! He already KNOWS whether "the cat is alive or dead!" In fact, He "DECLARED" it since the beginning! And, at NO time does He consider the cat to be "simultaneously both dead and alive." Therefore, there is NO such thing as a "multiverse!" God sees the ONE path that time, and the choices we make along the way, will take!