Atheism & Evolution Answered 18


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 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.
  • 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 pulmonary 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 Shepherd) 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.

Boy, I tell ya… you can’t set a bowl of Jelly Bellies in front of me. I don’t care how full I get, I’ll just keep snacking on that sugary goodness! I’m actually a little queasy right now, and the only reason I stopped was because… well, the bowl’s empty.

I can hear ten thousand Evolutionists saying, “Amen, brother!” It’s like Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. Ya just can’t stop until it’s empty. Well, I’ve gotten enough willpower to stop halfway through, put it up, and pull it out the next day and finish it. How? By getting full on Jelly Bellies, and realizing that if I save it, I’ll have more tomorrow.

I’m actually running out of stuff to talk about, since i’ve devastated all the major arguments for Evolution. I’m probably not going to make it to 30 days on this subject! So, I’ll quickly move on to the Grand Canyon.

Years ago, a guide for the Grand Canyon wrote a book, and got the gift shop to sell it. His contention was the Grand Canyon was full of evidence for God creating it. Atheists got mad, and had the book pulled. Rumor has it the guide was fired as well, but I haven’t been able to find evidence one way or another.

Supposedly the Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years by the Colorado River.

Impossible.

Why? The entrance to the Grand Canyon is at 1800 feet above the river. The cliff edges rise upwards. Read that sentence again. They rise upwards, gently, for a thousand feet. Now, it doesn’t matter if it’s only a 3% grade. Water doesn’t run uphill.

Atheists and Evolutionists all claim the river ran uphill for millions of years to carve out the canyon. Okay. Sure. Set up a terrain where the water runs uphill by itself at a 3% grade for a thousand foot climb in elevation. Prove it to me. You’re the scientists. I’m just the stupid Bible Fundamentalist, right?

“Well, I can do it using irrigation and aquaducts…”

Nope. Gotta be under its own power like the Colorado River. No Aquaducts. Just terrain going uphill for a thousand foot change in elevation. Go ahead.

“It’s impossible!!”

So tell me how I know you’re not convinced yet?

It goes back to my very first contention. There is an absolute Moral authority in the Universe. All of science points to an origin, a creator. He’s the designer of the absolute moral code.

If you acknowledge Him, you have to acknowledge there is a moral code. A law of God, if you will.

I’ll return to this point in a minute. Let’s finish with the Grand Canyon. What made it then?

Really simple. 4,400 years ago, there was a flood. The higher elevations of the Grand Canyon filled up with water, and eventually, at some point in that year of the waters sloshing back and forth from the pulls of the tides all across the earth, plus quakes (doubtless a lot of seismic disturbances during that year)… At some point the weakest area of the canyon gave way… and the flood carved the canyon out in a manner of minutes.

“wait! There’s all those layers visible from the ice age, and from the various layers of dirt and stone laid down…”

Nope. Those are layers of the levels of the flood going down as the waters receded. That happened much faster than did the theory you have. After all, where’s the erosion between the rock layers? It’s far more consistent with a flood decreasing and receding. after all, as Kent Hovind points out, “You’d think it’d rain a few times in a million years.” There should be heavy erosion between the layers in your theory.

Here’s the point – about 4,500 years ago, God looked out on the early world, and was grieved He’d made mankind. So He ordered Noah to build a boat. Noah did so. Noah also preached for 120 years, telling people that God was going to execute vengeance on the world. nobody listened – the way you’re ignoring this.

Millions drowned, while Noah and family sat safely inside the Ark. There was room, and any of them could have dashed inside the Ark prior to the rains.

The Walt Brown theory has a comet or meteor striking the earth, smashing through a layer of water or ice that surrounded the earth at its beginning.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:7-8 (KJV)

It wasn’t a gentle rain, with the sewers backing up, until people drowned. It was a devastating deluge of torrential downpours as the water canopy shattered, and descended to the earth. A quick look at the writings of Freeman Dyson would show the water canopy would be MASSIVE amounts of water!

“Wait! That would have generated massive amounts of heat!!!”

Yup. The Hebrew word for the flood is Mevushal, meaning “boiling”.

However, this is counteracted by the waters in the deep – see Genesis 1:7. The waters under the firmament were released when the comet or meteorite struck the earth along an abyssal fault (well, at that time, exposed). The theory places it somewhere near Iceland where it hit. The Earth separated along the seams like a Baseball splitting open.

The waters falling from the sky were met with geysers of water erupting. Now, I use the word Geyser in its non-Icelanding form, as the Geysers were heated springs, volcanic on nature. These geysers, however, would be cool water released under pressure, and would to a certain extent have counteracted the creation of heat from the rain.

I’ll leave it for you to calculate. In the meantime, think about what Noah, over in the Middle East, would have heard as the flood waters rose. The screaming, the pounding on the outside of the Ark, the pleading. The thumps and screams fading off. Then silence eventually. And that would have been the worst of all – knowing that millions just drowned, who scoffed and ignored the message of mercy and salvation, until it was too late.

The Ark for us came 2,000 years ago, to Galilee. In the town of Nazareth, a man lived who was perfect in every way, sinless. God in Human flesh, born of a virgin. He paid the penalty for sin, the breaking of God’s moral code, His holy laws. Jesus kept the laws perfectly, and then took on himself the penalties of our sins.

Little wonder that after Noah left the ark a year later, he got himself good and drunk.

Advertisements

Atheism & Evolution Answered 17


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 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, 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 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 living 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 pulmonary 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.

The last one needs repeating. If I have 50,000 test questions to answer, and I only answer 26, my parents would accuse me of not doing my homework. “I answered 26 questions!!!” See how far that answer gets you in college, where hopefully you’re worried about your GPA.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”” Dr. David Berlinski, mathematician & philosopher of science, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC).

“There is no missing link… the whole chain is missing.” Kent Hovind

Here we get into the kinds verses species argument. This was one of those “make a person think” moments, when someone made some comment once in front of me talking about “species”. “What’s a species?” I asked. “Give me a definition.”

The person hesitated. Now, a more knowledgeable person could have something about “Families”, “phylum”, “Orders” etc. I would have challenged that as well, so that wouldn’t have saved you at all.

A Coyote, a Wolf, and a German Shepherd all are a kind. That’s the Biblical explanation. Show a chart of the three next to an elephant, and ask a 5 year old to pick out out which one is a different kind. They get it. Scientists don’t. Which means it took an awful lot of expensive education to get that confused!

Science says a Coyote, a wolf and a German Shepherd all had a common ancestor. Yup. They did.

Wow, did I shock you by agreeing with you???

Well, hang on to your hats. They all evolved in the true sense of the word from a common ancestor. It was a dog.

“That’s not evolution, you idiot! That’s breeding!!!”

Call it what you like. Divergence within a kind is the only demonstrable form of evolution there is. Watch.

When Scientists go to prove any of the seven definitions of evolution, where do they turn?

“uhhhh…”

That’s right. They turn to existing animals. “The evolution of the dog!!!” the magazine cover screams. And they show a picture of a household pet and a wolf. That’s not macro-evolution (the change from rodent to dog), that’s micro-evolution (the change from wolf to Beagle).

There’s no proof of the former (and there should be millions more fossils of that transition), and so scientists always turn to the latter. “See how similar they are? Look at the evidence they used to be rats!!!”

Um… no. There’s more differences than similarities between dog and rat. So scientists try to posit a rodent like creature that they lack fossils for. Me, I could point to the Griffin as proof of the evolution of the lion and the bear from a common ancestor.

“there’s no such thing as a griffin!”

Well, then point to a living animal, or a fossil remains of these thousands of transitory rat-dogs! (Should I call them Rogs to avoid confusion and a lot of typing???) I know the contention, that it was a mini capybara kind of animal. Basically, a toothless rat. I mean, I see the resemblance superficially. They have four legs, canid-type head, fur… wag the tail I’m sure. I’m sure your Rog even played fetch, and rolled on it’s owner’s clothes, and jumped in his easy chair every time “primitive man” got up to change the channel.

“you’re being silly.”

No sillier than the theory. The point is, minor divergence within a kind is demonstrable. Transition from one kind to another is not demonstrable.

And that’s the major flaw within the THEORY of Evolution! It’s not science. Science is something observable and demonstrable. There’s no demonstrable or observable proof in Evolution.

“It happens slowly, that’s why we can’t observe it!”

You’re right! It happens so slowly, it doesn’t even happen at all!

There are school textbooks claiming evolution is a fact which everyone believes, except for a few “religious Fundamentalists”. Well, that’s two objections at once. Evolution is not a fact, as I just demonstrated and you just observed. And as for a “few Religious fundamentalists”, the statistics show 48% of Americans are unconvinced about Evolution, despite your best efforts for over 170 years.

If 200 million people believe something that isn’t true, it doesn’t change the fact it’s not true. It just means 200 million people believe something that’s wrong.

The facts are, there should be many more millions of fossils of the transitory species. We don’t have them. They’re missing. which brings us back to the Kent Hovind quote, which he really should have sold as T-shirts (Eric, are you reading this?): “There’s no missing link – the whole chain is missing!” Really. Eric Hovind should be selling this on t-shirts, coffee mugs, Bible Covers, etc.

Let me guess – the T-Rex fossils got hungry and ate the other fossils, right?

I’m having a hard time taking a theory seriously that has no proof, is not observable or demonstrable, and indeed suffers from the fact that there’s scientific laws (not theories) that disprove it! I spent the first 14 posts dealing exclusively with science, almost not mentioning the Bible at all. Compare my pages on Jehovah’s Witnesses and Roman Catholicism, and you’ll see I relied heavily on the Bible.

Why haven’t I used the Bible much? It’s simple. You won’t listen to it until I can utterly destroy evolution. I’ve got to say, a lot of you Atheists would make AMAZING Christians!

Why?

You have enormous amounts of faith, willing to believe in something for which there’s no proof whatsoever, and a lot of you are zealous about defending your beliefs and proselytizing others to your faith. You zealously watch your Discovery and Nat Geo channels, and read Dawkins and Hawking with a fervor.

Don’t you dare become idle pew sitters once I get you saved! What you did for Satan you can most certainly do for God!

Here’s the point – you will believe in God one day. Please make it now, and not at the Great White Throne! Because you will someday have to answer to a most Holy God, and bend the knee before Him, and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. You can do it now, willingly, or you can be forced to do it at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Since I know most Atheists are Biblically illiterate (that’s okay – sadly, many Christians are too), let me explain – the Great White Throne judgment happens at the very end of time.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15 (KJV)

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:31-46 (KJV)

Notice, those not written in the lamb’s book of life go into the lake of fire forever.

7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! 8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Matthew 18:7-9 (KJV)

Anything that keeps you from being saved, get rid of it. Because if you read these blog posts and refuse the invitation of Jesus Christ, you’re going to suffer for all eternity. And I guarantee you’ll remember these words… FOREVER.

Think about this. Carefully. don’t dismiss it out of hand, because you’ll regret it…forever.

Atheism & Evolution Answered 16


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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

“cave fish…”

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.

“uhhhh….”

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 15


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 14


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.
  • 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 any 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.

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 any 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. So, only whales evolved? Well, no the theory for whales are “either/or”, not “this one is stage 52, and this one is stage 84.”

Why? Because they know as soon as they do that, guys like myself and Hovind and Comfort will begin asking things like, “Okay, where’s stages 53 through 83? Where’s stages 1 through 51???”

They got nothing.

Our next issue is this – the Pre-Cambrian explosion.

Almost all the life forms we see at once appearing, fully formed. There were no transitory forms between amoeba, to insects, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, t mammals, to rodents, to apes, to man. They appeared all at once.

“Wait! The geologic column…”

Exists only in textbooks. Dinosaur graveyards reveal only that – animals like Protoceratops all gathered together as they died. An elephants graveyard? Or the gradual drifting and sinking of masses of drowned animals from a universal flood.

Well, if there was a universal flood, this would result in the tides mixing all the bones together of many of the animals that had huddled together as the catastrophe had began. do animals huddle together in cases of emergency?

Yes.

Are the bones of all the animals mixed in many of these dinosaur burial grounds? Yes.

Sedimentary rocks, sometimes deep ones even down to the Cambrian, are in an unconsolidated state. That is, they have not been pressed together into solid rocks. Yet if these stones had been lying under millions of tons of overrock for millions of years, they would long ago have consolidated. – Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Cruncher, page 690

The geologic column is often mixed and confused all over the world. In other words, it rarely follows the patterns of Cretaceous, Triassic, Jurassic, etc. The layers are often confused and mixed.

One probable explanation for the “Geologic column” is something that is observable, and demonstrable – the very definition of science and law. What is that?

the layers are probably nothing more than different kinds of objects settling as the flood grew higher. sand would settle on earth, which settles on clay, which settles on gravel, on pea rock, on larger rock, on rock strata.

Kent Hovind also has possible explanations for the different layers explaining the geologic column and fossils… Most Dinosaurs didn’t swim well, and drowned immediately. the Mammals were more mobile, and took a few days or weeks to finally drown. Birds could fly for days before getting exhausted and collapsing into the rising floods and drowning. Notice how that fits the evolutionary models?

Returning to the Cambrian explosion, the theories for evolution call for slow, gradual changes over millions of years. That’s not what the Cambrian explosion demonstrates.

Valentine and his colleagues found that “it has not proven possible to trace transitions” between the phyla, and the evidence points to a Cambrian “explosion” that “was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned” (Excerpt B, pp. 281, 294). The authors concluded that “the metazoan explosion is real; it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record” (Excerpt B, p. 318). The Discovery Institute, The Cambrian Explosion

We have major problems with the entire Evolution theory, in that all the laws of nature fight against it, and all they have now is a theory. It’s a great theory! Alas, many many problems with it.

No problem! If your theory falls apart, get a new one! The only thing you must do now, is quit teaching the old one!!!

 

Atheism & Evolution Answered 13


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 12


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.