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.
- The argument of “top of the food chain” is flawed.
- There are many animals with more chromosomes than human beings, including shrimp and crayfish. At least we have more than a mouse.
- the various methods of carbon dating an object make a number of assumptions, some of which have already been proven inaccurate, as far back as 1930
- The various methods of carbon dating an object fail to take many variables into account that can skew the results greatly.
Let’s just say that you’re a scientist, digging around in the dirt. You find a human skeleton, fossilized. The skeleton is incredibly tall. You bring it to the museum that’s co-sponsoring your dig. “hey, look at this? This is a twelve foot tall man!” The museum congratulates you and puts the skeleton on display.
What happens next?
The museum director gets fired. Why? You found something that is not explained in the current theories, and the museum director never fired you as a result.
It’s the ugly spector over science. Anyone uncovering proof of anything that calls evolution into question, or proves any other theory other than the accepted scientific models currently proposed, gets fired or censored.
I can hear the disbelief, but the above scenario indeed happened. Why? Giants are mentioned in the Bible. Don’t you dare find a skeleton of a human being taller than 8 feet.
Which is silly, because I’m under six feet tall. If I ignore the very existance of anyone taller than me, I’m ignoring a lot of people. We know that a man lived to be almost 9 feet tall. If someone lived to be 9’4″, then it’s not impossible to be 9’5″. To dismiss someone as being as tall as Og of Bashan is ludicrous. We dismiss people being story book height because, well, believing in a 40 foot tall man is a little ludicrous.
How can I say that? We’ve never found remains of a 38 foot tall man. But to dismiss Og, at possibly 12 to 14 feet tall, when we’ve found skeletal remains of men at 10 feet… kind of silly. And again, to dismiss the bones of a 10 foot tall man when we know a man reached 9 feet would be like me ignoring anyone who is taller than six feet. “I don’t believe they exist.”
Am I saying museums hide evidence? Yes. Absolutely. Or refuse to accept them or purchase them.
Any theory which questions accepted scientific models is mocked, met with derision, and gets academic consequences. Your theories no longer get scholarly review. You’re stonewalled, met with silence. Articles are rejected for publication, and any peer review gets inexplicable delays.
This is well documented. If you’re curious, put on your deerstalker cap and look into it. Start contacting any scientist who advocates Intelligent Design, and start asking questions. You’ll find a repeated pattern of behaviour.
Which means, there are doubtless countless more scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, but keep silent. Why? “I can’t risk my job.”
All the propaganda you’ve learned about science being about discovery, and the joy of research is a lie. It’s all about grant money, and there’s agendas.
Don’t believe me? what about any person back in the early 2000’s who questioned global warming? Until an email turned up that revealed the entire thing was an inconvenient lie, and suddenly “Global climate change” suddenly dropped off the words of polite society. Well, guess what? Even though the news broke the entire thing was a lie, it’s being advocated again. But people have been conditioned (brainwashed) to believe in it, so nobody questions it.
Look into it. Start questioning that what you’ve been told about science may not be the whole and complete truth.
We laugh about the scientists who believed in spontaneous generation. They honestly advocated a theory that if you left clothes lying in the corner of a house and didn’t pick them up for a long time, mice would spontaneously generate eventually.
This was before Darwin. That’s why they were quick to seize on his theory (which wasn’t his – he actually published someone elses’ work and pocketed the money from it) – Evolution fit the preconceived scientific models of spontaneous generation. Except now they add the phrase, “once upon a time, there was a swan…”
Okay, they say “millions of years ago…” same thing. It’s a fairy tale.
So, are scientists today advocating Darwin? Yes. They present a united front on that issue. What are they presenting in their papers for peer review?
Spontaneous generation. Yup. We’re back to the very theory they dismiss rightly as silly. The name is now “punctuated equilibrium”, but it’s the same thing. And the catch phrases they toss around like “Gambler’s Ruin” and the “Red Queen” also gets its nickname, “happy monsters.”
There was a children’s book in the 1970’s, where a triceratops dinosaur hatched from a chicken’s egg. That’s one of the current theories now. I guess some scientist really loved old “Ezekiel” as a kid, because that’s what they’re presenting now.
Problem: There should be billions of transitory lifeforms between Tyrannosaurus and the pelican. Problem: None exist. And it’s not because nobody’s been looking! They’ve been searching pretty consistently for the last 120 years.
We’re not looking for a single missing link, we’re looking for millions of missing links. Some scientists have despaired of the search, as we continue to turn up bone after bone of established species, but no transitory evidence has been found. So many are switching to “Happy monsters” as their explanation. In other words, a dinosaur from a chicken’s egg.
Well, that explains everything, except you’d need a pink one and a blue one to hatch from two separate chickens, both fairly close to one another. The odds of one such accident is astronomical. The odds of two even higher. The odds of them happening close to one another drastically raises the odds to the point beyond “vanishing” statistically. It does your theory no good if one triceratops hatches in Utah, and another in Beijing. You get no little triceratopses unless one buys a plane ticket.
And we’re stuck with the fact that mutations usually are the result of something being lost or subtracted from the genetic code, and not added. Mutations do not pass on traits. They usually aren’t “happy monsters”. Most mutations end up dying early, after tragic and unhappy lives. Two headed turtles are a good example. The two heads make it much harder to pull their heads inside the shell. And after all the two headed turtles that get photographed, you’d think they’d have passed that genetic trait on, and by now we’d have an entire species of two headed turtles.
Answer – they’re mutations. They don’t pass on that coding to their offspring, if they live that long. Most don’t live that long. I fail to see how long bones coming off a T-rex’s back and his losing teeth over “millions of years” make for improvement. I mean, put a T rex and a pelican in a room and let them fight it out. Which one is the fittest? Answer: I’m guessing the 3 foot tall pelican can easily beat the 16 foot tall t-rex. That’s what evolutionists are advocating.
Scientists are convinced now that the T-rex ate whatever he wanted. Dead, alive, all the same. Well, any 5 year old could have told them that!!! So the issue in their minds would be dwindling food resource. So getting smaller makes sense. Losing teeth does not. And he’d have lost his teeth becoming a pelican. And in reality, the smaller t-rex’s wouldn’t have fared better and finding prey than the bigger ones. The bigger ones would simply have eaten the smaller ones if food resources ran out. And besides, that contradicts the belief of other scientists of the “killer meteor”.
I’ll just point out one more thing – my favorite, unlike Hovind, is not the Tyrannosaur (although if Hovind’s theory that the dragons of the Bible really were t-rex’s it notches them up a bit in my book), but rather Allosaurus. Also known as Antromedus, smaller yes, but faster and probably more aggressive. Smaller usually means more aggressive in carnivores. Well, I like to believe that – I’m smaller myself. And as you can see, I’m pretty tenacious.
Did Allosaurus become a chicken? Doubt it.
Here’s an experiment. Get an artist to draw about fifty transitory stages between T-rex or Allosaurus and the pelican. Go ahead. If you make it Allosaurus, I’ll even host it on my blog! 😉
By the time you look at stage six or so, you’ll dismiss the theory as stupid. the awkward front legs becoming wings make them even more ineffective. The change in head shape means T-Rex would have had a LOT of trouble biting and chewing meat. And suddenly you’re placing T-rex in the ocean eating fish. mighty big fish, I’m guessing. Right at the shore.
Think about it.
The concept of transitory stages makes the whole thing silly. And Evolutionists are fond of pointing to the END RESULT – without considering all the intermediary stages (which by their theory, they’d be stuck with useless half-developed wings over millions of years). Evolution does not consider the end in mind – evolution according to Darwin and millions of scientists is that “hey, you’ve got a couple of bumps on your back, it’s working well, let’s favor this and pass this information on to succeeding generations.”
That’s a major issue or three, so I’ll deal with that tomorrow.
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 1 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 2 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 3 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 4 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)