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 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.
- 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.
- Science once advocated “Spontaneous generation”, invented to explain the appearance of mice in clothing left in a corner. Science has returned to that theory.
- The major error of spontaneous generation is that you’d need two “happy monsters” appearing at roughly the same narrow window of time, and very close to one another geographically. The odds against this are now multiplied so drastically they fall far below the “Vanishing point” of probability.
- mutations are usually the result of something lost or corrupted in the genetic code (or the random repeating of existing code, such as a sixth finger), and not added.
- There are no historic examples of any mutations adding something to their genetic code and passing them on down to successive generations.
- most mutations are hazardous to the host, and usually result in their early death
- DNA-RNA is locked like a combination lock, and makes evolution and “adaptation”/”natural selection” impossible
- Evolutionists rarely consider the hundreds of transitory stages required to deviate from one species to another.
- The steps of transitory change from T-Rex to Pelican creates so many difficulties for survival as to contradict “adaptation”/”natural selection”
Let’s talk about the transitory stages. Supposedly things like wings and eyes happened because of bumps or dark spots on the skin. Okay perhaps such a thing happened. Why would that coding get passed down (impossible for it to happen, but whatever…) from one generation to another? There’s no advantage selection wise for a trilobite to “evolve” eyes from a dark spot. A dark spot is a dark spot. There’s no advantage to it.
Here’s Dean’s Law of Advantage and Selection: Advocating natural selection by looking at the final result is advocation of Intelligent Design. I’m guessing no evolutionist will ever cite it in a paper.
A pair of bumps on the back of the T-rex would not be an advantage. Remember the theory is that some beneficial mutation would be favored by natural selection, as it gives an advantage. The T-Rex spontaneously growing wings in one generation, a miraculous leap from “no wings” to “full wings” would be amazingly beneficial.
Great. A flying T-rex. That’s all we need. The T-rex could cross continents to search for food. There’d be no need to “devolve”, which is what those scientists who believe he became the pelican are advocating. For the t-rex to get smaller and begin skimming the surface of the ocean, trying to get mere mouthfuls of fish is a giant step backwards for a mighty eating machine, something that would eat just about anything he wanted – now reduced to hoping for fish on the surface of the water.
This is not survival of the fittest. Remember, the larger t-rex would have eaten the smaller ones as food dwindled. The postulating of all t-rex’s getting smaller and smaller at the same time is something that violates the “survival of the fittest”.
It’s also the phenomenon called “Wag the dog.” Animals and people do not evolve smaller as food supplies dwindle in a catastrophe. We’ve either got to dismiss the killer meteor theory, or accept it now. What are you going to choose?
Next, animals and people do not evolve or adapt smaller in answer to dwindling food. Animals and humans end up smaller from lack of proper nutrition during early growth years. Isn’t that evolution?
Nope. Give their kids or grandkids more than enough proper nutrition, and they reach their full potential as they get older. And end up taller than mom and dad.
That settled, we now lose the reason T-rex would get smaller. It wouldn’t be from evolution. If it happened, it would be from lack of nutrition.
“whatever. He still gets smaller, right?”
Yes, going from 16 feet tall to perhaps 14. I mean, a human male would go from a possible 5’9″ to perhaps 5’4″ if raised in a nutrition poor environment. He wouldn’t end up two feet tall from generations of bad nutrition. Instead, other factors begin to occur, such as the effects of scurvy on the skeleton.
Dean’s Second law of Advantage and Selection: “change comes from genetics and DNA markers, not from external factors such as environment.”
So the theory of T-rex getting small, perhaps two to three feet tall disappears now as impossible. So evolution from the T-rex to a Pelican becomes now impossible from this “Happy monster” theory.
And again, the T-rex would have had to pass on those genes now. This would involve NEW INFORMATION, as there’s nothing in existing genetics for a T-rex to have wings. No reason for the pelvis to flip around – indeed, the very doing so over several generations would create a weakened condition in the T-rex, leading to the death of any in the transitory stage through inability to chase prey. T-rex’s that starve don’t get to pass on their information to a next generation.
Again, the “just happened” theory contradicts the theories of “Natural selection”, “Adaptation” and “Advantage”. It then leaves only one possible solution – a designer.
And we’re back to intelligent Design. Which means there is no evolution, and every species is designed to be what it is.
Some evolutionists, when confronted with this issue, end up retreating to an extra-terrestrial explanation. Sorry, that just borrows your problem from somewhere else. You’re foisting the problem on the astronomers. “Sorry, it’s their department now.” It completely ignores the fact that if it can’t be explained on earth, it’s not going to be explained on Vulcan by pointy eared men.
Transitory life forms. We now enter our second objection for this. Lack of ANY fossil remains that confirm the transitory stages between T-rex and the pelican… or the T-rex and anything ELSE, for that matter.
We should have hundreds of fossil remains, showing either the development of wings on a t-rex, or the adaptation of those useless front arms into wings. We should see the gradual creep backward of the arms. We should see thousands of transitory forms, fossil remains of ten thousand failed adaptations.
We got nothing. We’ve got skeletons of T-rex’s. We’ve even got a few complete ones, to my knowledge – although I’ll research that and report the results later.
We have ZERO fossils, showing evolutionary change to the T-Rex. Indeed, Rexy’s still are amazingly… T-Rex!
One of the single biggest lies told to schoolkids is that the fossil record bears evidence for evolution. Indeed, all the “fossil record” proves is that… things died. You can’t prove from any T-rex skeleton that any other T-rex was physically descended from them! for all we know, there may have been fertility issues, and Dinosaur Placement Agencies assisting T-rex’s in adopting Mayosaurs, or the orphaned Velociraptor, or Carnosaur. Gwangi himself could have been a fosteree’!
Just a note – I had a Gwangi coloring book when I was a child (talk about indoctrination!). To this day, I’ve never seen more than two minutes of the movie. Probably better off that way! I’d hate to have my fond childhood memories destroyed by the ugly fact of a really bad movie!
So, the “fossil record” proves nothing more than… these animals died. And their bones petrified. We’ll deal with petrification soon. That’s another sacred cow that dies hard in the science community. Yes, things petrify! How long does it take? That’s another issue entirely.
“Oddly enough, the dinosaurs are often displayed in museums as an outstanding proof of evolution,— when, in fact, they are no proof at all! (1) They were all non-evolving, distinct species, and (2) their sudden disappearance from our planet cannot be explained by evolutionary theories.” Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Cruncher, pg. 666-667
- 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)
- 21. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 7 (biblescienceguy.wordpress.com)