So far, we’ve examined:
- 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 periodics 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.
- According to evolutionists, the earth had no air when the planet was first created, and the rocks absorbed it. (Huh?)
- most so-called fossil evidence is actually plaster. Many exhibits are constructed from a few actual bones. One species of “primitive man” was constructed from a single tooth, which turned out to be… from a pig. Oops.
- The Schoolbooks still present a long time between the creation of the Earth, and the origin of life – but Gould wrote that the evidence shows that life arose on Earth “as soon as it cooled enough to support it.”
- A simple display of logic blows huge holes in the theory of Evolution – any living thing that spontaneously was created would have to have a way to take in nutrition, process that nutrition, excrete wastes, and duplicate itself. The odds against that rise so phenomenally high that it has to be discarded as impossible.
- The Miller-Urey experiments were deliberately conducted in a way to produce favorable results – and still produced nothing more than amino acids that could not have supported life, and were insufficient in number to have sustained life.
- Scientists are now convinced that all of the parameters used by Miller-Urey were incorrect.
- If science is still going to champion Miller-Urey, they need to redo the experiment with the correct parameters.
- I will buy and mail a King James Bible at my own expense to any scientist who replicates the Miller-Urey experiments with the correct parameters, for helping to disprove evolution.
DNA. Chromosomes. Amino acids. Let’s talk about these building blocks of life.
Amoeba are single celled animals. Despite this, they are incredibly complex. I’m not kidding when I say that the study of DNA and RNA has led several scientists to embrace Intelligent Design.
I’m going to go so far as to describe DNA as a combination lock, with literally billions of combinations. It starts from 4 bits of information – A, T, G & C. Four times four is sixteen, so there’s sixteen combinations, right? No, you have to exponentiate. Remember that from Seventh Grade? That’s 4 to the 4th power. 64 combinations.
You’ve got pairing involved, which now makes it 64 to the 64 power…and when you start looking at the possible repeatings of the various combinations, throughout the long DNA strand (six feet long, and the entire DNA of a human being which I understand if unwrapped could reach from here to the moon six times)… wow. The mind boggles.
Okay, now let’s examine the warm little pond theory again. Lightning hits the warm little pond, and floating bits of junk somehow become all left-handed blocks of Amino Acids, and a massively long string of DNA is created. Not just one, but enough to program a living being. The DNA strand is matched in groups of 4, incredibly organized, all blocks agreeing in their matchings, and all is coiled in a subcellular level. And all block combinations agreeing throughout the chain.
Kind of like dropping 200 decks of cards from a five story parking garage, and having them all line up in order by suite. Accidentally. The first time you drop them.
Hey, I know – let’s get a real mathematician to calculate both odds. I don’t have the right kind of calculator program to do it on my computer, and as I pointed out before, I’m a theoretics guy. C’mon, math whizzes! Surely one of you must find this blog! Leave the information below and tell me how close I am on my comparison. I think the DNA scenario is far more complicated than the playing card one, myself.
The experts who calculate statistics all have a “background noise” point, where they dismiss any event as being simply impossible, I think the number was 1 in 50 million. Correct me, statistics guys. What’s the number?
And of the two numbers, which is higher?
I’m going to tell you very plainly, the odds against the Warm Little Pond (or its counterpart the Warm Big Ocean) is WAY BEYOND background noise. In other words, far past the number that statistics people dismiss an event as being impossible.
Okay, let’s take it a step further. Let’s go ahead and ignore the face that the DNA couldn’t possibly arise by chance. How do you compact this six foot long chain inside a tiny little cell?
God chose a helix shape, where the chain literally hooks together. Any other shape wouldn’t have worked. Okay, we now have our first number multiplied to the 4th power.
for the Evolutionary theory to work, “survival of the fittest”, it would have to have happened over… and over… and over… and over… each time the living thing dying because it wasn’t created correctly by accident, until one finally would be created – BY ACCIDENT – that was correct in every way, to survive as a unicellular animal.
Mathematicians? What’s the odds? If the FIRST theory was beyond “vanishing point” or “background noise” or whichever phrase you prefer to use… how far beyond it is THIS scenario? I would say that whatever our initial odds, they’ve now progressed to the exponentiation of itself. If it was 1 in 400 billion, it’s now 1 in 1 trillion, 600 billion.
It takes FAR MORE FAITH to be an Atheist than to be a Christian.
Here’s a quote on the complexities of the relationship between DNA, it’s matching RNA group, and the amino acids (which must all be left-handed for use by living creatures)…
“The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nucleotides) for the RNA (after first synthesizing the sub-units for each nucleotide, which include the individual bases and the ribose). The cell must synthesize the sub-units, or amino acids, which are eventually polymerized to form the protein. Each amino acid must be activated by an enzyme specific for that amino acid. Each amino acid is then combined with another type of RNA, known as soluble RNA or s-RNA.
“There is a specific s-RNA for each individual amino acid. There is yet another type of RNA known as ribosomal RNA. Under the influence of the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are assembled into units known as polyribosomes. Under the direction of the message contained in the messenger RNA while it is in contact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form a protein. Other enzymes and key molecules are required for this.
“During all of this, the complex energy-producing apparatus of the cell is used to furnish the energy required for the many syntheses.”—Duane T. Gish, “DNA: Its History and Potential, “in W.E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 312.
Um… wow. And all this arose by accident. Really.
What kind of idiots do you take the layman for? Any non-science type who reads this post is going to summarily dismiss any chance whatsoever of this arising by accident from a single burst of lightning in a stagnant pond, or even a stagnant ocean, which is currently the theory (how does an ocean stagnate???).
I’m going to repeat myself, and the math whizzes will back me up on this.
There is NO CHANCE of anything this complex arising by accident.
Yes, I’m confrontational about it. Educators lied to me as a child. Scientists lied to me all my life. And if I’d never found the truth and found Jesus Christ, I’d have gone to Hell trusting in you! And it would be zero comfort to me to have you there in the Lake of Fire with me!
“Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore,each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.
“A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1000 links could exist in 4×10 1000 different forms.
“Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4 1000 is equivalent to 10 600 . Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.”—*Frank Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.
DNA is a locked code. Not only is it utterly complicated, beyond our ability to study or comprehend right now – it’s beyond our ability to change. The change of the DNA-RNA-Amino Acid code cannot be done. And if we were to try it, which combinations are fatal? Know that before submitting to any testing. Here’s how they’d find out, if this were done on human subjects. They’d take combination 151 and look to see how you did. “oh, he died. #151 doesn’t work.”
If they tried every combination on human beings, it would require every human being that has ever lived to proceed partway down the possible combinations.
And Science tries to tell you this happened by chance.
- The Case Against Evolution (scientistsforjesus.wordpress.com)