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 reduplicates 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, Amoni 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”
- we have no “fossil record” showing transitory phases between any one kind of animal and another, when we should see thousands of transitory fossils between T-rex and bird, and anyn other kind of animal and any other. Embarrassingly, we’ve got nothing except conjecture for two animals whom we have only a couple of bones from, and whom scientists posit as two intermediary stages for whales.
- the slow development of wings on the T-rex would have made it impossible for him to evolve, as eventually the transitory stages would have killed by starvation all T-rexes that reached the midway point.
- There’s no need to T-rex to have evolved smaller if he’d developed suddenly wings and flight.
- Animals do not evolve smaller. they end up that way temporarily if they are deprived sufficient food during development.
- A catastrophe would have been too quick for the T-rex to begin a slow, gradual evolution to bird.
- All the fossil record proves is that these animals died.
- The Cambrian Explosion refutes the theory of evolution, in that all the lving beings on earth appeared at once, fully formed, with no transitory forms
- The Geologic Column is not consistent worldwide, and often does not conform to the theory
- The geologic column is far more consistent with a worldwide flood than with the “Billions of years/slow gradual rise and change of life” model that science likes to portray
Well, so far, after only two weeks, Atheism and Evolution is having a lot of problems. The universe is here and no way to explain it, life is here and no way to explain it. Science’s own laws have done more to disprove their theories than anything else! I’ve simply had to look up their own facts and theories, and refute them! At least with Roman Catholics, I had to open the Bible!!!
Fossils. What do fossils mean?
Something died. And it petrified. That’s about it.
How does something petrify? Through the absorbing of minerals through the layers of bone tissue before decay can destroy the bones.
What’s the easiest way to petrify something? bury it in loose minerals. How about a flood, with large amounts of silt and minerals descending on the bones as the flesh slowly decays in the water? Yup. That does it.
When’s the Bible say there was a massive flood? About 4,400 years ago.
“Wait just a cotton candy eatin’ minute!”
I know what you’re about to say. “Petrification takes over a million years”, right? Let’s do some science. Take some water with high mineral content, and drop some acorns in it. How long to petrify them?
Well, about a year or so. Hovind used to have quite the collection at dinosaur Adventure Land – petrified acorns, pickles, and other objects.
A petrified boot has been found. The foot was still in it. Yup, boot. That’s not a two thousand year old sandal, but a modern boot, made in the 1950’s. I’m assuming the person it belongs to would probably like it back…
How about a petrified dog? Yes, they found one. Inside a tree. Dog was turned to stone. Yup. i’m guessing a mineral rich soil around the tree, absorbed it. The dog climbed in the tree, and got stuck. After dying (poor little doggie! That’s really sad, when you think about it!), he turned to stone. From being in the tree.
OK. So now what does that do to the forecasting methods of, “dinosaur bones lay out for over a million years, gradually getting covered with soil. It then absorbed the minerals from the soil, and over millions of years petrified them…” to, well, hundreds of DAYS.
It’s a lot easier to postulate dinosaur bones lasting say, two hundred days than one million years! How long does it take to completely reduce a body to dust, including bones? I’m guessing after a few thousand years? Do bones decay away? Well, apparently they do. Exposed to the elements for millions of years… it quickly becomes inconceivable that ANY dinosaur skeleton could remain in the same area after millions of years in the open. Let alone still be undeteriorated!
Two undred or three hundred days… that explains a lot more.
I’m sure the world has at least a year or three left. Get some mineralized soil and some mineralized water, and place bones it it to see if they fossilize, and how long??? Don’t forget to do a scientific survey, and make sure you have control groups on it, bones in regular water and regular earth, in sand, in various weather conditions, and see how long it takes for ANY of them to fossilize.
I’m sure some uncomfortable results will arise. Like… fossils. Don’t forget to duplicate the acorn experiment as well! Plastic bucket, water, acorns, in a basement. Go ahead. Let me know next year. i’d love a fossilized acorn.
See, this is SCIENCE!!! You TEST things, EXAMINE them. Have you… tested the Bible and Christianity to see if they’re correct, in an unbiased test? I’m not sure how you’d do it – but hey, you’re the scientists…
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 2 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 3 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 4 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 5 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 6 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 7 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 8 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 9 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 10 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)