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 theorry 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 neccessary 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, 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 comparible 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. Embarassingly, 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 developement 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.
- By Darwin’s own admission, his theory relies on progressive, slight modifications over a large period of time to create organs – or his theory breaks down.
- The respiratory, circulatory and pulminary systems are all interrelated – how did this evolve? The absence of one causes the host animal to die.
- How could an animal live with only one of the first five stages of any of those systems?
- What advantage would the host animal gain from having a rudimentary heart, but no blood or oxygen?
- What advantage was passed onto the host animal from the first elementary five stages of the development of the eye? There must be a demonstrable advantage for the host animal to pass on that genetic code.
- The Trilobite, supposedly one of the first animals, had an incredibly sophisticated eye – no rudimentary eye can be seen.
- There are only 26 places on earth where the fossil record for the most part resembles the geologic column. There are over 50,000 that do not.
- Evolution has no proof of cross-kind divergence (rodent to dog), but rather, turns to inter-kind breeding (Wolf to German Sherpherd) to prove its theory
- There is no missing link – there should be millions of missing links. The whole chain is missing.
- Science is observable and demonstrable. Evolution is neither.
- The Grand Canyon bears evidence of having been created in a universal flood, only a few thousand years ago.
- There have been quite a few “Early Man” finds that later were revealed to be hoaxes, simply monkeys of one kind or another, actual human remains, or even in one case a pig.
- These same hoaxes or errors often remain in textbooks long after being disproved
Coming at long last to the end of this presentation of Atheism and Evolution.
Most certainly I did not say all there is to say. And I may perhaps revisit this topic in perhaps 18 months or so, and add to it. The focus of my ministry is not a creationist ministry – I leave the advanced arguments to people much better suited, such as Lawrence Smart, or Vance Ferrell, or Kent Hovind.
At least I don’t believe that’s the main focus of this ministry. That’s up to the Lord. But I’ve got many other things to deal with, as I’ve said before.
The long bullet list of points I’ve raised (you know, the one you just skipped over) shows I’ve done some major damage to the theories of evolution (I say theories, because Cosmology is one form of evolution, and I started with that because, well, as I pointed out, one of the forums of atheism was Star Trek, and they advocated the approach I used – and it’s also the approach Sagan used).
Now I know, the ardent believer in SCIENCE will stedfastly hold to their beliefs. It’s just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses I’ve dealt with – many will read what I write and move on, still believing in that which I’ve exposed.
No problem. Good luck. Be aware you may have to explain someday why you did not believe.
And yes! I’m coming right out and saying, I’m trying to get you converted. I think I made that clear right from the start!
For those of you who are ready to accept the fact that Science has misled and indeed even lied to you (uh… peppered moths, anyone?), I’m here to help.
Because the Lord perished on the cross for you, dying and taking your punishment on Himself. All you have to do is accept it. Free of charge.
What’s it going to hurt you?
Absolutely free. Nothing you need to do to earn your salvation. I think that’s what bothers people the most. If I gave you a million things you had to do, like Buddhism does, it seems to satisfy the human nature.
But that’s man’s way, not God’s.
You owe it to yourself to investigate Christianity with an honest, open mind, and a willingness to accept it if it turns out to be correct. Josh McDowell will be the first to tell you, he set out to DISPROVE it. He ended up believing. He’s not the only one.
Remember, you have the rest of your life to make a choice. How long is that? I don’t know. Neither do you.
I’d choose right now.
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 10 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 12 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 14 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 16 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 17 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 15 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 13 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 9 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 8 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answerd 11 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)