- There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
- There is something greater than myself
- That something set up those absolute moral standards.
- That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
- If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
- If it was created, it had a creation.
- If it had a creation, it had a creator.
- If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
- A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
- There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
- If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
- It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
- The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theory also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
- Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
- There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
- radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
- Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great
- The laws of thermodynamics prevent the Big Bang or Evolution for that matter to be valid science
- Gambler’s Ruin decrees that sooner or later the gambler loses – so the Big Bang and Evolution should have degenerated into chaos and death long before life arose.
- Space is a vacuum. Prior to the creation of the universe, there was nothing to slow down particles once accelerated. After the Big Bang, all the subatomic particles should have just kept flinging on into space… forever.
- There was nothing to cause the subatomic particles to form atoms and molecules. Still no satisfactory explanation from Science how this happened.
- Gas is too nebulous and lacks sufficient weight and mass to start the attraction of elements to one another, and would not have compacted into ultra-dense objects to become stars.
- We lack discovery of any active proto-stars or stage 1 stars, required for the theory of the birth of stars.
- We lack any organizing external force to cause any of the elements to change into heavy metals such as Uranium necessary to cause the star to explode from compacting.
- If the first and second laws of Thermodynamics prevent all of this from “Just happening”, what external force caused it to happen?
- Compacting gasses requires some external force.
- Gas is composed of elements very low on the periodic table. It has VERY little weight, and almost no mass.
- Science truly has no way to explain stars, solar systems and galaxies.
- Science has conflicting theories about how planets formed, all of which lack evidence
- We should be crowded with plutoids and planets if the Universe is as old as Evolutionists claim – and yet we’re not.
The last point no doubt will be hotly contested if any New Atheists find this blog. And yet, when you look at what scientists feared when they put the first man in space in the 1950’s… they worried about the entry into space being roughly like trying to dash across a field that is being fired on by a hundred machine guns. The worries? The amount of debris tossed out by the sun according to the theories, should have been forming small bits of debris in the slow, eventual process of compacting into a million little plutoids, that someday might grow into a beautiful swan! …er, I meant planet.
Well, if you’re going to have a fairy tale, you need a swan, a knight or a prince, and some kind of ogre or troll, I suppose.
NASA found out that while there’s some debris in space, it was nowhere as much as was expected. And much of it was extremely small. Good thing, because a grain of sand flying at a thousand miles an hour can mess up your whole day if it hits your head.
So what does this tell us? That the material cast off by the sun did not form into masses, and that it apparently either started tossing off material just a few thousand years ago, OR….
(say it with me…)
the universe is only a few thousand years old.
This is the Achilles heel of the evolutionist. Everything is possible if it happened millions of years ago. Remember how a fairy tale for adults starts…
“millions of years ago”…
So, in case you missed the last few entries, we’re up to the creation of the planets. The theories for some reason say the earth had no atmosphere when it was first created. The textbooks say “the earth was created, and had no air. And The rocks absorbed it all.”
Huh? Now, wait. If the earth had no air, what was left for the rocks to absorb?
The theory is that passing oxygen and nitrogen molecules would be trapped by the earth’s gravity.
Well, I suppose they think they need to explain how we got an atmosphere. Okay, sure.
My theory says it was there from the beginning. I’ve got as much proof as you do.
The rocks absorbing the non-existent air – I have no idea. Whatevah. If it makes you sleep better at night… It’s a silly theory, I think.
At an Evolutionary morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, one scientist addressed everyone present, and demanded a simple question. “Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true?”
The only answer he got after several minutes of silence was one person spoke up. “I know only one thing. It ought not to be taught in High School.”
It is taught in High School – and earlier. I can remember being taught about Evolution in second grade. Yes, second grade. I was seven years old. And my 2nd grade teacher taught me about Evolution as if it was fact. As if it was proven.
Let’s see if I can sum it up. Big bang, swirling debris, coalescing, gravity and mass caused stars to form, planets. Mass caused wandering gas molecules to form an atmosphere. Lightning hits a warm little pond of nutrients, and amoeba (single celled primitive animals) accidentally form. They multiply, and over a billion years, become worms, fish, insects. The first amphibian crawls on land, and becomes simple reptiles, who evolve into dinosaurs. A comet hits the earth, all life dies, it starts over again, but this time its mammals and birds. Primitive rats begin to climb trees for food, become sloths or some similar animals, become old world apes, and some common ancestor named Lucy fosters the birth of early man, who eventually becomes us, after 2 million years, a hiccup in time, they tell us. A brief moment.
That’s what you were taught, right? Okay, now for the facts.
None of this is proven. Much of it relies on speculation and conjecture without any evidence whatsoever, passed off as proven fact. Much of the so-called fossil evidence for evolution is actually plaster. Yup. It’s true. If you were to go to THE Fossil display of a Cro-Magnon man and start beating it with a hammer, you’d discover that much of it is plaster. And only a couple of bones. There is entire species of “ancient man” who were “reconstructed” from a single tooth. In one or two cases, the tooth has been identified as belonging to a pig, not a human. Yet to this day these “fossil evidences” are presented as factual evidence supporting evolution.
“We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth’s surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it.”—*Steven Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” in Natural History, February 1978.
Gould’s quote reveals that the actual evidence of the earth closely follows the Biblical record – “But that’s just wrong!” so they have to play with their “Millions of years” theory to create disbelief in it.
So, what’s their theory?
One point five Billion years ago… or Three billion years ago… or Five Billion Years Ago (I’ve heard in my lifetime all three)… on our little planet, somehow absolute chance created a “warm little pond” of essential nutrients. Some unknown external force somehow energized one of the bits in the warm little pond, which became a living cell. The usual theory is a bolt of lightning.
Somehow, the warm little pond just happened to have all the right nutrients nearby this single cell that this cell could consume, giving it enough matter to reproduce by fission.
Problems with this scenario:
- Charles Darwin did not have the benefits of modern science, which discovered DNA fifty years ago. We now understand that it takes over 20 million peptides and molecular chains to form a single DNA strand. And the entire DNA of an amoeba is so radically complex… that the thought of this occurring from a random single bolt of lightning is laughable. It’s about as probable as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional, fueled Boeing 747 out of scrap parts.
- The Amoeba having the ability by chance to consume the nutrients in this pond… also needed the DNA coding and ability to digest those nutrients… and then the DNA coding to allow it to reproduce itself.
- If it only contained the coding to reproduce, but not consume or digest… the amoeba would have starved, and life could never have happened.
- If it had only the ability to consume, but not digest or reproduce… it would have burst. And life could never have happened.
- If it had only the ability to digest, but not consume or reproduce, it would have starved…and life could never have happened.
- If The Amoeba had existed in a puddle of ammonia…it would have fried. And life could never have happened.
- Where did the random elements come into play that just happened to make this warm little pond? It seemed to me that lightning would have had to strike the pond billions of times, over and over again, for trillions of years, to even make one of the defective Amoeba without the other two abilities! This despite the fact we know the odds of probability of lightning hitting the same spot ten times in ten minutes. We’re postulating lightning hitting the same pond once per second every second for trillions of years… even to get a simple binding of one millionth of a DNA chain! And…Wouldn’t all of this lightning have destroyed the first peptide as it formed? Try it… take a strand of living DNA and place it in briny water… and zap it with a million volts. Examine the result. You have just invented the french fry.
- Scientists (Stanley Miller and others in 1953) attempted to replicate the warm little pond in the laboratory. They were not able to get even a single peptide to form during the length of the entire experiment – let alone any living cells. The entire experiment yielded nothing but grant money and a lot of questions.
- Darwin states in his “Origin of Species” book that Evolution is the product of environment, mutation, and adaptation. So, if a life form finds its environment now threatening, that it will adapt, mutate and evolve. This also means that the environment must be so threatening that the organism must evolve or perish. So… why are there still Amoeba if the environment was so threatening? Why are there still Crayfish today ?
If you begin to examine the “Warm little pond” theory in light of modern science… you begin to understand how utterly devoid of scientific fact Evolution is. The Theory of Evolution has long since been exploded.
Supposing that our warm little pond amoeba does manage to become alive… and reproduce… immediately we see that the little amoeba’s would have reproduced… eaten all the nutrients (see the previous arguments about what an amazing miracle it would be that this stagnant little pond would have had all the right nutrients)… and all promptly starved to death, and stopped reproducing. It’s a pond, right? Well, no. Apparently, scientists quickly realized that the “warm little pond” theory was silly, and expanded it to either becoming a stagnant ocean (which… wouldn’t be stagnant, would it?) or an atmosphere rich in nutrients – kind of a soup-like fog. Which they’ve never been able to re-create in any laboratory experiment. Inability to demonstrate a theory in the laboratory means it is disproved, so the entire “warm little pond” theory is…disproved.
The scientist will hasten to tell you that the amoeba would have evolved into higher life forms. The usual films and books show the amoebas becoming fish.
The scientists tell you this would have taken several million years for a single cell animal like an amoeba to become a colony of cells, to worms and worm like beings, to mollusks, to starfish-like creatures & urchins…to fish…to whales (which apparently once were reptiles! Making whales the only animal to have been fish, reptile and mammal in its history ), etc.
Miller used an oxygen free environment when he did his experiment, and featured traps to immediately capture any material created. As Vance Ferrell humorously commented, the ocean must have had MILLIONS of these little traps, as the waves and tides would have dispersed this material before it could magically evolve further.
Miller also used a series of toxic chemicals, which are not present in stagnant ponds (the original supposition by Darwin), nor in oceans. Why no oxygen? Because he knew it would have a catastrophic effect on the experiment.
Translation – he KNEW it could not happen on the Earth. Life does exist on the earth. So, life could not have arisen as stated in either Miller’s experiment, the current theory, or even Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s “Warm little pond” was abandoned by scientists early on, for the obvious problems stated above.
“we’re in love with the theory, but the facts keep ruining things.” should be the motto of the scientists.
Go back to the amoeba argument above. You’re telling me that an Amoeba just happened to evolve the complicated DNA coding needed to do any ONE of the four requirements i placed above? I’m most certainly not an experts in uni-cellular animals, and I have little in the understanding of what other miraculous codings would be needed. Suffice it to say, I think it’s a lot more complicated than Darwin theorized, sitting back in his easy chair.
Now, don’t tell me I’m the first person on the face of the earth to ask these questions. I’m sure someone has raised these difficulties before!
It points to design, not accident.
“You’re so stupid – Intelligent Design is the playground of second-rate scientists. It’s not published in any of the journals, and none of the higher institutions feature scientists that teach it!”
You’re right. The journals refuse to publish the articles, and blacklist any researchers who attempt it. The higher institutions fire anyone who dares to suggest there’s validity to Intelligent Design.
Kind of hard to have Intelligent Design taught at Berkeley when you fire them for teaching it, or refuse to hire them on those grounds.
It’s like dismissing the Republican Party, because few Hollywood actors are Republicans. Same deal – if you let your politics be known, you don’t get the acting jobs.
Getting back on subject – try it. Get the funding. Repeat Miller’s experiment using an oxygen atmosphere and in seawater. Go ahead. Give it a try. You’re going to get NOTHING.
There were problems, however. Scientists were never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins began to seem not a small step or couple of steps, but a great, perhaps impassable, divide.
The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment, however, came in the 1970’s, when scientists began to conclude that the Earth’s early atmosphere was nothing like the mixture of gasses used by Miller and Urey. Instead of being what scientists call a “reducing,” or hydrogen-rich environment, the Earth’s early atmosphere probably consisted of gasses released by volcanoes. Today there is a near consensus among geochemists on this point. But put those volcanic gasses in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and the experiment doesn’t work – in other words, no “building blocks” of life.
What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact? By and large, they ignore it and continue to use the Miller-Urey experiment to convince students that scientists have demonstrated an important first step in the origin of life. (Jonathan Wells, Survival of the Fakest, The American Spectator Dec. 2000)
The goop that Miller created – it had both right and left-handed amino acids. only left-handed can be used for living things. Miller and Urey also did not use seawater, or water from a stagnant pond, which was the nucleus of Darwin’s daydream. Miller used repeated bursts and sparkings of electricity. I don’t know exactly what the voltage was.
To duplicate the theory,
- it needs to be in a oxygen-sulphur atmosphere, because that’s what evolutionists insist on.
- it needs to be a single burst of lightning HITTING the pond – because that’s the theory. So the amperage and voltage needs to be the equivalent of lightning, and not merely 200 volts.
- It needs to be a stagnant pond (duplicated of course for the laboratory). I’ll be generous and say you can run the test in a second group using seawater.
- it needs to have no special traps to catch or strain out the “living” material. Let’s make this believable. You say your theory is right, so PROVE it!
Go ahead. I’ll wait. You can leave a comment in the comment box below telling me how your experiment failed, and that you’re going on to collect a Nobel peace prize for science because hey, you’re doing GREAT things for science by dismantling outmoded and long-disproven theories that are still being taught to schoolkids.
Did I make you mad? Hey, how badly do you want that Nobel prize? You want to make a name for yourself, right? Be spoken of like Sagan or Dawkins or even Hawking, and be able to not only get grants after only a two-week application, but also to get the PUBLISHING bonus – your name so famous you can write a book and see it get on the bestseller’s list almost immediately! C’mon, you know you want that kind of acclaim! Disprove Evolution and I guarantee you’ll get…
Anyway, any scientist who does it, I will personally buy you a Defined King James Bible and mail it to you at my cost (sorry, no many thousands of dollars prizes here – I work a day job and go to seminary at night).
Let’s redo the Miller-Urey experiments! If you found that other famous experiments were flawed, you’d publish that, right? You’d redo them, right? What if you found an error in Einstein’s Eclipse experiment? You’d redo it, right? Why not Miller-Urey?
- The Case Against Evolution (scientistsforjesus.wordpress.com)