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.
- The odds of a complete DNA-RNA strand and the correct m-RNA, Amino Acids, s-RNA etc. arising by chance is 10 to the 600th power – far beyond the level mathematicians dismiss as impossible.
- The odds of dropping 200 decks of cards and having them all land in order by suite are roughly comparable to the odds of DNA-RNA arising by chance.
Yesterday, I typed out the number (well, actually, I wrote 1,000,000 then highlighted and copied & pasted the zeros until I reached 100, then copied that and pasted six times – hopefully I did it right!) showing the statistical odds against DNA-RNA arising by chance, from a single lightning strike. It’s many times beyond the number where mathematicians just dismiss something as impossible.
Okay, let’s talk chromosomes. The implication of the boast of science is that Man is the top of the Evolutionary heap, the “top of the food chain.” Well, I don’t know about that… sharks eat humans. Worms eat humans if we just lie on the ground motionless for days without moving. Bugs eat humans. Ants in Africa are reputed to eat everything in their path, including people. Shall I go on?
Evolution claims that human beings are the most highly evolved creatures. We have 46 chromosomes, placing us high on the evolutionary list, correct? Well, here’s a list of some animals in order of chromosomes.
1. Shrimp (254)
2. Crayfish (100)
3. goldfish (94)
4. chicken (78)
5. horse (66)
6. Human (46)
It seems that on the evolutionary scale, humans rank below most other animals. At least we score above the mouse (40).
And if evolution is a proven fact… why is it that we see fossil records of animals which our tests suppose to be trillions of years old, if the tests are accurate (which they aren’t, by the way…) – and these animals are identical to the ones today? Except maybe bigger???
Kent Hovind used to joke that the tobacco plant has more chromosomes than a human being does. And he usually followed it up with, “from the smell of it, some of you are evolving even now!”
Always good for a laugh, that guy.
From the chromosome point of view, the pinnacle of evolution is the shrimp! Which apparently some people eat with drawn butter (what exactly is that, anyway? Sorry, I think shrimp are repulsive to eat. Fried clams, now those I can eat, thanks to a youth spent in New England!).
To point out that something is the top of the evolutionary food chain because it eats all the other things is a fallacious argument. Which is why I’m not attacking it in kind. And I could ridicule it easily (and would probably be very funny to do so)! However, I’m trying to use logical arguments, and not resort to any of the dishonest thinking arguments.
I’ll point out the error of that argument and move on.
To my knowledge, it is not the “Who eats who” argument that most scientists use to prove mankind’s higher evolutionary stage, it was the chromosome argument – which is cited by those whose specialty is not in chromosomes. I’m sure biologists are forever pulling astronomers aside and cautioning them, “You gotta stop using that argument! It’s flawed to the core!”
In reality, it is school textbooks making both arguments. And they are doing so incorrectly.
Here’s a brief list of some animals we have fossil records of. And alleged dates of how old the fossil remains are . Termite [30 million years] Coelacanth fish [60-80 million years] Ant, Nothomyrmecia macrops [100 million years] Tuatara lizard [200 million years] and the Crayfish [220 million years]. Darn those crayfish! They keep ruining everything for evolution!
These are all unchanged. If Evolution was a fact, wouldn’t we see evidence of this in these so-called ‘primitive’ animals?
We’ve barely begun to examine Evolution, and it’s breaking down fast.
- 21. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 7 (biblescienceguy.wordpress.com)