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 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, 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”
- 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 Trexes 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
- All the fossil record proves is that something died
- petrification takes places much faster than evolution claims, perhaps only a year.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” — Charles Darwin
“How could it be proved that something could not possibly have been formed by a process specified no more fully than as a process of ‘numerous, successive, slight modifications’? And why should the critic [of evolution] have to prove any such thing? The burden is on Darwin and his defenders to demonstrate that at least some complex organs we find in nature really can possibly be formed in this way, that is, by some specific, fully articulated series of slight modifications.” – Richard Koons, University of Texas
Okay, it’s time to look at the eye. This is one of those areas that Evolution has a hard time with. As I’ve mentioned, the theory maintains it probably evolved from a couple of bumps, or from dark spots on the skin.
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, no, as I’ve already shown.
- What evolutionary advantage could be demonstrated by the two dark spots on the outer skin or membrane? There has to be a demonstrated advantage for the animal to pass that information on.
- what was the next step, and what evolutionary advantage was added? Was it the softening of the skin at that spot? An enlarging of the dark spot,s perhaps? or the development of the gelatinous material that would eventually become the eye interior, or the unseeing lense of the eye? It can’t have been an eye with no lense, as this would have been exceedingly painful. Try this – jab your thumbs in your eyes a little. Tell me if that hurts. Next, go rinse your injured eyes with salt water, since Evolution maintains that the earliest living creatures evolved in the ocean. Ouch! If it’s painful to the host animal, there’s no need for the eye to have developed, as it was not an evolutionary advantage.
- Remember, I’m being generous here with the intermediate stage theory – I’m only asking for 50 intermediary stages. We know that “Survival of the fittest/adaptability” demands there must be a demonstrated advantage in the one host animal over the others that permitted him to see. Science apparently has never paused to think about the development of the eye over 50 generations of the host animal, and what possible advantage the slow development of blind eyes incapable of sight would add to the host animal?
The only way that the eye makes sense would be for them to have suddenly appeared. And by Darwin’s admission, if that’s the case, his theory breaks down.
So. The Trilobite. One of the “Earliest fully formed animals”. An index fossil. Why, that’s a Cambrian index fossil, right? What about the trilobite’s eye? If Darwin’s theory is correct, then it should be a rudimentary eye. Well, it’s not. The Trilobite has a complex and well developed eye, more complex than most fish. If anything then, the eye would have by Darwin’s theory devolved to its current state – which contradicts the whole theory, as a strong, well developed eye would be a survival advantage, and would have then favored any animal trying to survive in dark, murky waters.
Kent Hovind also reports an animal very similar to the Trilobite, the Unipod is alive today. It’s so similar in appearance that it must be actually older than the Trilobite, according to evolution. Why? The shell is on one part, not three. And yet it has survived for “seventy… million… years….” (if you believe evolution – or 6,000 years if you believe your Bible).
“Wait! What about Hugh Ross? He believes the Bible, and he says the world is billions of years old…”
No, Hugh Ross does not believe the Bible. The Bible teaches six literal days, and Hugh Ross tries to twist that to fit your scientific theories, because he either does not believe the Bible, or has very little faith… and does not believe the Bible. The Bible claims the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5 (KJV)
Hard to interpret that to mean anything else.
“That’s why I don’t believe the Bible! It’s so stupid to believe the world was created in six days!!!”
We’re getting there. But I’ve already proved the universe must be much younger than “millions of years old”. Indeed, the evidence does point to a universe less than ten thousand years old. We covered that on the posts on stellar evolution.
So, the fossil record not only shows no transitory species, but it also shows only fully formed eyes, no vestigial eyes.
Either had no need for eyes, so God never gave them to them… or it’s atrophy – depending on the species. There are some fish in the ocean with no eyes – and thousands more species of fish that have eyes. God gave some fish eyes, and some fish no eyes. In any case, cave fish are more a poster child for devolution than for evolution.
And if the lack of light are any criteria for this, then we must then ask – what about the cave species that do have eyes?” If the lack of light did not cause them to have a need to evolve eyes… what advantage then would it give for those that did? And what about creatures at the bottom of the ocean that have eyes, but no sunlight gets down that far? The ones that crawl on the ocean floor would then have no eyes, right? Well, some have eyes, and some don’t. Most do.
The eye creates all kinds of problems for evolution. And you read Charlie Darwin’s words – if an organ can be demonstrated to form without a myriad of successive slight improvements, then his entire theory is trash. We just proved that the eye had to develop fully formed.
Or the heart. If an animal had blood, but nothing to pump it, it dies. Pure logic. A heart with no blood dies. In anything more complicated than a single celled animal, they usually have some form of respiration – which requires a blood stream to carry the oxygen – bloodstream, which requires a heart to pump and a respiratory system to allow the blood to carry oxygen, and a heart to pump it.
Which developed first? Respiratory system, heart, or blood? How did one work without the other? What were the fifty rudimentary stages of each? Show me in the fossil record which animals were able to survive with the first or second elementary stages of respiration.
“oh, that’s fish… they breathe water….” right. they breathe. It’s an example of a fully formed respiratory system. Not one of the fifty rudimentary stages. And remember, I’m only asking for fifty. Darwin’s theory would require hundreds. “numerous, successive, slight modifications…” is what his theory calls for. Ad Absurdum Reducto is what this argument is called – by taking Darwin at his word, and reducing it back to the first 5 successive stages, the beings could not have survived long enough to reproduce, thus passing those advantages on to the next generations.
You might want to try breathing yourself. You’re not looking so good right now.
Let me explain it further. Lungs had to develop. And you made matters more complicated, by placing the first living things in the ocean. Now they have to evolve further, and develop a way to strain the oxygen from the water, and gill slits. The circulatory system had to develop. The brain had to develop. The heart had to develop. The body had to develop a system to take in nutrition, process it, and excrete wastes.
When we begin examining the argument in depth, you begin to come to a nasty conclusion – this shows unmistakeable evidence of not only Intelligent Design, but also the spontaneous appearance of fully formed life forms – just like the supposed fossil record supposedly demonstrates in the Cambrian explosion!
“Hey, wait! There are 26 places on the earth where the fossil record matches the geologic column!”
for the most part. And there’s 50,000 places on earth or more which do not. Your theory does not account for the vast majority of places not matching the geologic column. Mine does. And the fact that 26 places out of 50,000 (how many cities and towns on earth are there? I just guessed 50,000 – but then again, there could be 50,000 cities and towns in the United States alone!) do match it statistically should be considered an aberration. You get better odds rolling dice.
It’s not looking very good for evolution right now. As Darwin said, his theory has absolutely broken down.
- 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)