Evolution: The Impossible Theory
Scientific reasons why evolution and the Big Bang Theory cannot be true.
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are now taught as fact by our scientists and teachers. Textbooks are filled with why evolution is real, and never mentions the possibility of any other methods of creation. Intelligent Design is not even given a fair chance and quickly discredited by any scientists just because it involves a God.
“Proof” of Evolution
Scientists continue to find “proof” for evolution and the Big Bang because that is what they are looking for. They try to find facts that will support their theory and then twist whatever evidence they have to make it support evolution. One example of this is that they use homologous parts as proof for evolution. This is not a reasonable argument to make in favor of evolution. Men and women both have nipples but this has not led scientists to conclude that men used to breast feed their children. In the same way, two things with similar features does not mean they were once used for the same purpose or that they had a common ancestor. Yet, they still use homologous parts to prove evolution. They say that because whales have bones in their fins that resemble limbs, then that must mean they must have had limbs earlier on. Unless you were trying to find proof for evolution, all you would determine from this is that whale’s fins are similarly designed as that of limbs.
via: http://images.stanzapub.com/readers/2009/08/04/whaleancestors3_1.gif
The Impossibilites of Evolution
Not only is there not any real proof of evolution or the Big Bang, both of them are impossible. The Big Bang Theory involves a massive explosion of gases that created everything we once have (prior to evolution). There are two problems with this theory. The first is this: where did those gases that were part of the explosion come from? Without a God creating them the only possible answer is spontaneous generation or an eternal universe. The idea of an eternal universe is much like what Christians believe about God, that it has always been around. An eternal universe is not possible because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that usable energy is constantly being turned into non-usable energy. This means two things: 1) There was a point in time when all the energy was usable and 2) Eventually all the usable energy will be used up. So the universe cannot be eternal or we would have a never ending supply of energy and if it was eternal then all the energy would have been used up sometime in the infinite past and would have resulted in “heat death”. So, the only possible solution is spontaneous generation and this has never been observed and pretty much proven impossible. The next problem with The Big Bang Theory is that after the explosion there was more mass, matter, and energy than before the explosion. The problem here is that the Laws of Conservation tell us that neither mass, matter, or energy can ever be lost or gained. The Big Bang Theory violates all three of these laws and is therefore impossible.
Evolution is also impossible once you hit a certain point. We all know that Micro-Evolution or Natural Selection is a truth of nature. We can observe animals changing and adapting on a small scale, but at a certain point evolution can go no further. Our DNA encodes for each and every characteristic we have. Random mutations and differences in our DNA are what causes us to have different characteristics. While these mutations can result in some pretty drastic changes, they have never been observed to result in completely new characteristics. Without the DNA for feathers then there is no mutation that could result in feathers. Without the DNA for scales there is no mutation that could result in scales. Without the DNA for gills there is no mutation that could result in gills. If there were mutations that could result in these things we would see diseases where non-feathered things grew feathers, non-scaled organisms grew scales, etc. Evolutionists might fight back and say that these are a result of many small changes over time, but how can you sort of have feathers, sort of have eyes, sort of have scales? Furthermore, we have never seen non-intelligent things become intelligent. What sort of change in DNA could cause something to think? It has never been seen and never will be seen because such a mutation is not possible. Non-living things will never become intelligent or living no matter how much time you give them. Evolution on a large scale, or Macro-Evolution has not only never been observed, it isn’t even possible.
via: http://images.stanzapub.com/readers/2009/08/04/explosmevolutiontshirt_1.jpg
Many atheists have told me that they would happily look into a theory that was better than the one already put in place. As shown there are many flaws with the current theory, but none for Intelligent Design, so why isn’t it looked in to? Why is the current theory taught as fact if ID has no flaws, but Evolution and the Big Bang do? I think it’s time that ID gets some more respect among scientists and is at least looked into.
Liked it
45 Responses to “Evolution: The Impossible Theory”
On August 4, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Here’s another uneducated Christian hick who has no idea what he’s talking about.
On August 4, 2009 at 2:44 pm
It bothers me when people call Christians uneducated but are unable to refute any of the evidence given. It seems to me that you are just following whatever scientists tell you and not thinking for yourself and I hate that anybody would do that. I respect people’s opinions if they have made them themselves, which is why I provided this information; in order to allow people to see the theory currently provided is impossible.
On August 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm
my blog : http://scientific-ramblings.blogspot.com/
Hi your posting mixes up 2 distinct items , Big Bang and Evolution .
Firstly evolutionary theory in a weird way to cause some food for thought [ as you dont seem to want to believe the big picture of evoltionary theory ] .
Lets look at some trivial aspects of human nature .
Why do we need to urinate when going from hot to cold environments . So far as ID is concerned … n o reason whatsoever. As far as evolution is concerned , lots . The time when Stone Ageman [ do they exist in ID?-- hope so or you are throwing out loads of evidence to the contrary] went from hot to cold was either leaving a cave or starting to cross water . The first : this would seriously help clan hygiene , the second would be to really dilute any scent and thus reduce the chance of being lunch .
Why , when a male is away from his female mate for a few days , does he masturbate the day or morning prior . So far as ID – no reason… Evolution though , says that he is getting rid of stale stuff and priming with new for better chance of conception [ if you're a female - ask a good friend- a little known aspect of male life ]
Theres more of this subject in the above blog, but just thought I’d put in a new aspect of evolutionary theory [ its taught at one of the CAmbridge colleges [ I found out later], but I rediscovered this particular wheel one day
Secondly Big Bang . Yes I believe you are correct in this regard . For the First Law of Thermodynamics to hold [ and why shouldn't it ?] , matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed so for a HUGE amount to come into existence and promptly blow itself into smithereeens is frankly mindboggling , and seems outrageous .
I think I’m in a world minority of 1 for the theory below. Its detailed on the blog so im giving a summary here also [ and the weirder aspects are new so not going to even mention them here ] .
OK . Assumptions [ the universe started and the Laws of Thermo hold good ] . The second part of the theory shows how the universe started . Before this point the mass has to be zero by definition
After the start… the mass of the Universe is zero . consequently there exists a ‘mass’ [ with negative energy] equal tothe entire positive mass of the Universe .
Thus as we know matter exists , there has to be a configuration whereby astable particle exists , and the negative [say]bits are blown away . As this must involve several positive and some negative bits inside it , it could be unlikely to occur . For it to happen , there must be a maelstrom of creation/destruction going on [ confirmed by quantummechanics bythe way] . Thus a method of creating matter is possible . So loads of this production is going on , and sooner or later by gravity [ the negative bits must have negative gravity or wouldnt be totallynegative ] they are going to coallesce , and with time are going to sweep HUGE portions of space to make some gigantic snowballs , a long way apart , but are going to be attracted to each other . With time the cceleration is going to reach relativistic velocities. When they hit . BANG. I dont believe big bang started time either for that reason …
The second part of the theory isnt really relevant , nor the 3rd so isnt shown here .
On August 4, 2009 at 5:02 pm
FAIL
On August 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Keith Darley: Thanks for the comment and happy to see that you can at least elaborate on what you believe. Anyhow, the examples you gave of instinct of certain things don’t really seem to support evolution. I need to pee when I get warmer, not colder, so this would have meant I peed on myself outside the water and in the cave where I slept. And on masturbation, I think its more of a sexual urge, not an attempt to get new, good stuff ready, because I think either way it will be almost as effective.
As for your theory, I’m not quite sure if I understand, but it seems that mass would still have to be created. This is a scientific impossibility unless you have a supernatural being who is able to break the scientific laws set in place (God).
On August 4, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Honestly, you would be taken much more seriously if you demonstrated that you had a clue about the subjects you are trying to debunk. Your description of the Big Bang is laughably wrong, and your apparent ignorance of the current models for pre-Big-Bang universes, basic principles of quantum mechanics and relativity, and even basic astronomy only makes it funnier.
The same, broadly, applies to your mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory. Come on: using male nipples and whale limbs to disprove it? You simply do not know what you are talking about. Oh well, it was a comic relief.
On August 5, 2009 at 7:47 am
Where is the evidence to support intelligent design? All I have ever heard is people trying to punch holes in evolution (usually very weak ones) and using that as evidence for intelligent design. Also who created the god that created the big bang or the complete universe? Wasn’t it a bunch of people who lived thousands of years ago who would have considered electricity and automobiles and airplanes “magic”? As time goes on we understand more and more about how our world works. People dedicate their entire lives to this understanding and our world is better for it. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but keep in mind that sometimes keeping to your beliefs means that you are doing the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the real world.
On August 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Thanks for the comment Rocky. I realize that there is no direct evidence to support ID, except for the stories and testimonies of all the Christians across the world. Almost any Christian can tell you that they have either experienced change by God, felt God’s presence, head from God, or seen miracles performed by God. This is probably the only real way of proving God other than trying it yourself. And as for who created God: there was no creator of God, he is omnipresent meaning he has always existed. God is outside of time and has never not existed, which is the only solution to how life started without the use of spontaneous generation. But the point I was trying to make is that all the time spent and research done by scientists is geared toward evolution, something that isn’t even possible. There are no problems with ID (unless you don’t believe God is real) so it at least deserves to be researched and considered more heavily. I definitely believe that some people stick their heads in the ground and ignore the facts, and people that believe in evolution and the Big Bang are some of them. They disregard the blatant impossibilities of evolution and just try to pretend the problems of it don’t exist.
On August 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Jorg: I hope you aren’t saying that the Big Bang Theory doesn’t break the Laws of Conservation, because it certainly does. And I never tried to use whale limbs or male nipples to disprove evolution, you clearly don’t understand what I was writing about. I was using these as examples of how the arguments of people who believe in evolution don’t hold up.
On August 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Thank you for your response JTskater812. These are clearly the words of a patient and considerate individual. I will confess that I am not a Christian for one simple reason. I feel that there is far too much contradiction in any religion for it to be believed blindly. I don’t disagree with people who feel they have experienced god and that god has a presence in their lives. I do disagree with the practice of using scripture an indicator of how the world really works. The bible (Old Testament) speaks of religious men conquering magi. If we were in those times we would have all be considered magi with our modern technology. Does this mean we are all sinners and enemies of god for using a cell phone or driving a car? The bible is an explanation of the world for those who did not understand what was happening around them. Intelligent design is another one of those explanations. Just because evolution is real, doesn’t mean god isn’t. It just means the men who wrote the bible had no better way of explaining the world around them. I am presently studying to earn my master’s degree in microbiology and have an undergraduate degree in theology. I am a very spiritual person and would encourage everyone to consider one point: Your religion should not close your mind, it should enrich your life. Science is real, there is no reason to deny that in order to preserve a religious belief. One more point to consider: The Catholic Church put together the bible we all read today. Even they have acknowledged the validity of evolution. They say that it is the work of god, but it is real.
On August 5, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Jtskater812, Where is your integrity? You simply cannot argue against something that you do not understand. Those who argue from an agenda reveal themselves usually within the first few statements and thereby demean not only their argument but moreover lose the respect of anyone objectively interested. With your argument you lost me in the title. “The Impossible Theory?” come on, do you actually think anyone is going to take you seriously when you start by claiming to be omnipotent? You’re not capable of making a mistake? You know?! How do you know? Well, you start with the claim that intelligent design wasn’t given a fair chance? Of course it has been given a fair chance, intelligent design just doesn’t deliver the goods with neither evidence nor reason. We gave you an opportunity, but yet again intelligent design doesn’t explain, it always Argues Against (as you so demonstrate) anything that contradicts your bible. One thing I think everyone should reconsider, is that Evolution isn’t a theory, it’s a Phenomena. For example: the sky is blue – an observable phenomena. That blue is knocked out of the spectrum as light travels through the atmosphere, or that god painted the sky with water colors, are each theories. So, Natural Selection is the Theory that explains Evolution: how species change over time to become different distinct species. More seriously though, you have no relationship to reality. In order to be powerful in life, make things happen, make a difference, you have to know what is so. For instance, It makes a big difference that an organism has healthy functioning eyeballs when making a living on the surface of Mother Earth. Not only to locate prey for nourishment, but also to prevent becoming another predator’s lunch, and therefore keep on keeping on. When eyes evolved, it gave those organisms an advantage because they could see what is so – the contribution was the ability for that organism to interpret reality more realistically, more quickly. That was an advantage. It’s ability to interpret, operated at a higher level of integrity than methods used to interpret by organisms that didn’t have eyes, and so blind organisms eventually became extinct. You too, Jtskater812 have no relationship with reality, which is why you have no integrity.
On August 6, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Thanks for the comment frank, but you are being a little rash. Saying that I have no integrity? I don’t understand your reasoning for saying that, but that is not important. I never claimed to be omnipotent. That is absolutely ridiculous. The title does not imply that I know everything and am never wrong, it says what I am discussing in what I wrote, which is that there are problems with evolution and the Big Bang that make them impossible. Calling evolution a phenomena and giving an example that Christians don’t even believe in does not make you correct. And I’m glad that you used the example of eyes. How could something form eyes through a random mutation? What mutation would result in such a HUGE new addition to the thought process allowing things to view the world around them. Not only would eyes have to develop, the brain would have to take an enormous leap just to interpret the data it was given. What random mutation could result in something so complex? It could not be the result of many small changes because your brain can either see the world around you using eyes or it can’t, so according to you there must be a mutation that would result in this. So I ask you, what change in a string of DNA could result in such a drastic change?
On August 6, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Rocky, thanks again for the comment. I will tell you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be completely true. I believe in the God of the Bible because by following what it teaches me I have been changed by it. I have also experienced the God of the Bible in many different ways. Anyhow, as far as I know the only time the Bible refers to people conquering magi is when they are opposing God or trying to outdo God. So if we went back in time with our technology, then I don’t believe they would have tried to defeat us unless we claimed that our god, who was not God, had made our technology or we claimed to be greater than God.
On August 7, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Who’s God? Did he write the Bible? I doubt it. If he did, who wrote the Gita? the Koran? I don’t know whether there’s a god or not, but I do know there’s not real proof that he exists. Statements without proof don’t belong in science and certainly don’t belong on a scientific website. If we are to accept statements without proof we might just as well be state that the tooth fairy exists. Your subject is theology, not science. If you say, ‘God is a scientific fact.’ you must have a theory of his existence. You must state how and why he exists and where he came from.
On the other side of the coin, there is no evidence that he doesn’t exist either. But as science is all about collecting data and processing it into workable models of reality; so that still doesn’t bring God into the realm of science. The same thing can be said about the tooth fairy.
Statements about Evolution saying ‘it’s only a theory,’ are never uttered by scientists because a scientific theory is as close to fact as you can get. To say such a thing is to have no idea what a scientific theory is.
Evolution is true. It is the only logical explanation for living structures that occur throughout Earth’s entire biology. Humans have five fingers because the fish that crawled out of the sea had five bony fin rays. We have a vertebral column that is poorly designed for upright walking because those very same fish brought that with them too. Don’t get me started on air breathing whales (that also have finger bones) and flightless birds.
On August 7, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Thanks for the comment Ian. To start off with, the article I wrote is not about the scientific proof of God. It is about the scientific proof of why evolution is impossible. And I don’t believe I ever used the statement “it’s only a theory”. But a theory is not as close as fact as it can get, a law is. A scientific law is what we can test and observe to be true, while a theory requires people to fill in the information we cannot observe or test anymore using the facts given. Two people given the same facts can come up with two different conclusions. It usually depends on what you expect to find when you look at these facts that determines what you derive from the facts given to you. If you start with an evolutionary world view you can find facts that can support evolution, but if you start with a Christian world view you can find facts that support a God. The objective of this article was to show the flaws in the current theories to prove that they cannot be true.
On August 8, 2009 at 2:07 am
Jtskater812, thanks for all your calm, insightful responses to each comment.
First, there are often two conversations that arise in an ID vs Evolution discussion: the existence of God and the existence of a Creator. One may believe they are the same being, but that is not necessarily the case and so these two discussions must be noted as distinct. Both questions are meaningful, but only the latter is relevant to the universal origin debate.
Now let me be the first to actually address your points directly, and as you are: a lay person with access to the internet.
“Big Bang can’t happen because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.” But the laws of thermodynamics are, like every other scientific concept, based upon observations of the universe as we know it. Who knows what the universe was like at its inception? Furthermore, the laws of thermodynamics pertain to isolated systems, and it is not clear that the universe is such, even if the 3 laws could be said to apply to a universe the size of the tiniest particle.
But really you’re asking “Where does science claim all the particles in the universe came from?” The answer is, science is not in the business of claiming to know that. Science is the study of nature and the BBT is merely a model for how, once matter did form, it got into its current state (by expanding). Want to say God created the initial conditions? Fine. But why bother claiming to know something that is by definition outside the realm of our observable reality? That’d be like assuming you know what happens when you die despite no one ever coming back…
“At a certain point evolution doesn’t happen anymore.” What point is that? At the genus level? The kingdom level? Where? Our taxonomic system for distinguishing between one life form and another is based entirely upon human interpretation of differences and similarities in characteristics. There’s lots of room for variation and overlap in each classification, and we are constantly being forced to create new species for newly discovered lifeforms. In short, it’s humans who make the distinction between forms of life, based on their characteristics, and so it’s impossible to say there’s a certain line in the sand which nature never crosses from one group to another. You don’t really think that every mutation over the course of the next billion years is going to fall by the wayside, leaving all life on this planet exactly as it is today, do you?
Finally, I think what angers many of those who disagree with you is that you have a wealth of answers from very well-informed sources at your fingertips on the internet, and you seem to have chosen to ignore that resource. If you have any further arguments against Evolutionary Theory, head over to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI300. I bet you will find an answer that makes sense. Peace.
On August 8, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Hello, I decided to encourage you in your writing my friend, Atheists know that God exists, they don’t reject God because of lack of evidence,despite what they may claim. Creation testifies of God, after all he created it. Jesus revealed the real reason some people reject God.
They reject God because they love darkness rather than Light, no other reason. They come up with alternatives to the truth of God because to admit He exists and that he’s in control would require they humble themselves to His Eternal Authority
On August 8, 2009 at 9:43 pm
The Big Bang Theory is taught as fact because the fast it’s a theory is in it’s name. It’s the most logical theory for the birth of everything we know, it’s also the most backed with extensive amounts of evidence, compared to a theory such as one that came from the bible. Might I add that the bible is a publication wrote up from scrolls found in a cave?
Yes there is proof (evidence) of Evolution and the Big Bang, so before you start copy and pasting random quotes from other websites please research what your writing about.
On August 8, 2009 at 11:24 pm
John factorial, I appreciate the comment. I agree with your statement about there being a God and a creator as being two different arguments, however I believe that God is the creator. Anyways, on the subject of the Law of Thermodynamics, as you said laws are what we can observe to be true. We have to be willing to believe that these laws remain stable unless there is a reason for them not to, or else we could not draw any conclusions from our past. If these laws could change then we would not know if there was even gravity in our past, but we have to trust that the Laws we have in place are unchanging.
Science is not in the business of explaining where the first matter came from because it can’t. There are only two possible explanations. A creator that did not have to be created himself or spontaneous generation. This is the reason I believe that there must be a creator.
I didn’t specify a certain point because as you said the system we have in place is one we created. There can be overlap, but the line is that if we don’t have the DNA to encode for a gene then that gene cannot be mutated. Life will change over time but not on the scale of macro-evolution.
Finally, trust me, I have definitely read arguments from websites in favor of evolution, but the “proof” they give is never really proof. The information we have now could either point to God or evolution just depending on the way you look at it, but I know the correct answer is God because I have experienced him myself.
On August 8, 2009 at 11:26 pm
JohnKing, thanks for the comment. I agree that some people may choose to not believe in God simply because they do not want to, but there are other reasons. The media and science today shows as fact that God is not responsible or existent, so it is easy to just believe what you are told and trust that God isn’t real.
On August 8, 2009 at 11:29 pm
George, thanks for the comment. I am perfectly aware that the Bible was translated from scrolls. This in no way disproves its validity. Anyhow, I didn’t copy and paste from any websites and I did do research on this subject. I looked into what atheists had to say about creation and evolution and then tried to see if I could figure out ways that God is responsible. Through the research I have done and the experiences I have had, I have no doubt that God is real.
On August 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm
“but I know the correct answer is God because I have experienced him myself.”
According to you, someone who claims to have “experienced” god must be correct. Well, someone who believes in a a god which directly contradicts your fundamental beliefs must have an equally valid argument too, correct? The point is, you may not use something as subjective as faith to judge scientific theory, because it is untestable, and holds significance to no one but yourself. A faithful Christian and an equally faithful Hindu cannot both be correct because they believe in contradictory doctrines, and along with that, neither person’s faith may be considered more correct than the other’s. So where do you get off, saying that your faith is correct, and the billions of people with equally strong, and equally opposite faith, are wrong?
On August 9, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“Hello, I decided to encourage you in your writing my friend, Atheists know that God exists, they don’t reject God because of lack of evidence,despite what they may claim. Creation testifies of God, after all he created it. Jesus revealed the real reason some people reject God.
They reject God because they love darkness rather than Light, no other reason. They come up with alternatives to the truth of God because to admit He exists and that he’s in control would require they humble themselves to His Eternal Authority”
I’m an atheist. You are correct. I don’t care about evidence. My charitable actions mean nothing. I want nothing more than to cause destruction and seek darkness. I murder, I steal, I lie, and I wish to destroy all life. You have caught me.
Never in my life have I heard something so irrational.
On August 10, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Thanks for the comment Adam. I realize that my faith in God is not reason for somebody else to believe in God for exactly the reason you gave, other people have faith in other gods. My point was that I am 100% positive that God is real because I have experienced him. I know that unless you experience God yourself then this means nothing to you, which is why I try to give scientific reasons for God. You cannot scientifically prove God’s existence indefinitely, because we cannot see God, so one way of proving God is by showing that God is the only way life is possible. That was the aim of this article; to show that the theory we have and are using is not possible. I know this does not mean that ID is automatically correct, but I don’t believe there is any way life as we know it could exist without a God according to the scientific observations we can make.
On August 11, 2009 at 7:06 am
To all the evolutionist out there if man came from the sea, why would man not at least be able to still breathe in water. if evolution helped make man smarter, would you not think that he would still want to live in the water at times? (amphibious)
What about the plant life? Did plant life evolve too (or just the moving living things evolve)?
Were the senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing) that living beings have, evolve or did beings always have these senses?
If all the living beings had completely NO senses at all, would everything just be matters of mass, as there would be nothing to sense otherwise? (remember, NO sight, feel, smell, taste, hearing).
Alot of theories take the senses into account. The most famous of these theories is E=mc2 (c, being the speed of light) Yet if the big bang happened where was the light to be able to square it?
The light would have been a product/energy of the big bang theory so light could not be squared as there was no light to start with. So then possibly the theory could be E=m2 (m2 being matter and anti-matter)
Another one of the senses comes into play for other calculations, the speed of sound. Would this exist if every being could not hear? (before you say you can feel the vibrations produced from sound, yes, then it would be the speed of vibration not sound).
You only feel the vibration due to the sense of touch/feel.
Alot of humans will say that everything in life is about balance in everyday life, even the heart rate when viewed electronically goes up, down, yet when we cease to live the heartrate flatlines (the perfect balance)?
On August 13, 2009 at 6:32 am
article fail. i hope it’s ignorance and not intentionality in it.
i have only two topics for you to read about (from several thousands): human chromosone and retroviruses. after that i’m curious if you’re still willing to launch into “phylosophical” speculations and ask “why isn’t it looked in to”
On August 14, 2009 at 7:22 am
sorry to all and please excuse my arrogance on this subject.
I am just chasing answers to questions i have
as i do not know everything and have no teacher to teach me.
On August 17, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Dear Adam, are you calling Jesus “irrational”? Because FYI He’s the one that said that the reason so many reject God is because they love darkness, that was John’s point.
By the way,You bragging of your “charitable works” shows little about you, it’s not just the actions that matter my friend, it’s your motives as well.
On August 17, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Dear Adam,Despite the fact that you claim to be an atheist it is obvious to me that you do know God’s laws given that you acknowledge killing,theft,and lying are all acts of rebellion against God. Everyone INNATELY knows right from wrong, God’s Laws are on everyone’s hearts, your conscience testifies of God, there are people that claim to be atheists, but in reality there are no real atheists.
On August 17, 2009 at 10:34 pm
P.S. to Adam, in regards to John’s statements and your rebuttles, even if you haven’t ever killed a person,vanity is equally a sin (and thus darkness)
Atheism is rooted in human vanity, “secular humanism” is nothing but the celebrating of human narcissism.
On August 18, 2009 at 8:40 am
dear JRD. i tried to post a reply but i assume i was censored due to some links included.
since images do more than words, you could look 4mins to some capuccins (keywords “monkey cooperation and fairness” for youtube) and you’ll find out that you’re not so different compared to them, even if the poor monkeys are damned atheists.
going deeper, you’ll see that god laws are more than on everyone’s heart: they are even in bacteria’s heart. read about bacterial cooperation and you’ll see that the human ethics is not so human and not so ethic. and since bacteria have no heart it must be that either the “knowing right from wrong” is shaped by evolution or bacterial conscience testifies the inexistence of the christian god.
and at last, seeing yourself as a special project, the center of the creation and made by the image of god seems to me more vanitous and narcissistic than any “secular humanism” you so much despise. i just hope it’s ignorrance in your case too.
repeating myself, i recommend you too to read about human chromosome (concentrating more on the human chromosome 2) and retrovirues (HERVs especially).
On August 20, 2009 at 6:05 pm
John, thanks for the comment. Bacteria cooperation in no way shows that they have morals or ethics. It is what they are doing to survive. Just because they cooperate to survive doesn’t mean they have morals. Humans don’t just cooperate to survive. We give to people that will never give back to us, we help people that may never return the favor, we refrain from doing certain things because they are ethically wrong not because it would hurt our survival chances. Humans are completely different. We have emotions, morals, and feelings; bacteria don’t. And human chromosome 2 doesn’t prove anything about evolution. In fact I have another article on this very subject: http://scienceray.com/biology/chromosome-two-fusion-no-proof-for-evolution/
On August 21, 2009 at 7:28 am
humans are completly different? do you know for sure that elephants don’t have emotions, morals and feelings?
unfortunatelly your article about the fusion of the chromosomes says absolutely nothing, just some generic considerations based on belief (i.e. with no arguments).
i find especially hilarious that straw man phrase: “Cats and pigs both have 19 pairs or 38 chromosomes. But do pigs and cats look like the same animal to you?”.
On August 22, 2009 at 12:23 pm
John: The article was meant to be easy to understand and that statement was just to show the obvious problems with the theory that humans MUST have descended from apes just because we have a fused chromosome. That article does not prove that it is impossible for us to descend from apes, only that the fact we have a fused chromosome cannot result in the assumption that we descended from apes.
On August 24, 2009 at 12:26 pm
imagine an alternative scenario based upon your ramblings in that article:
—-
* ME: your DNA matches ~50% person A and ~50% person B. if they would be your natural parents, that would be the case. being a believer in god and design as told in the bible, this worries me a bit, so i decided to do some research. so i say: either god created you from dust making your DNA match exactly theirs or actually both your parents looked exactly like you and your DNA matches 100% with both parents.
* Jtskater812: w t f???
* ME: just because your DNA matches A and B this doesn’t prove that they are your natural parents. however, what i said previously doesn’t mean that they can’t be your parents, only that the fact you have that similiarity cannot result in the assumption that they are your parents. actually it’s so flawed in logic just to be easy to understand and to show the obvious problem with the “giving birth” theory, that humans MUST have descended from their parents just because their DNA match.
—-
now, what you’re claiming is very close to my joke above.
i hope you see what’s the value of your article you’ve wrote “just to show the obvious problems”.
on a more serious note, obviously there is no such thing such 100% probability (and if you don’t know it yet, here’s a thing to worry you and do some research about it), but there’s a difference between 99.99% and a randomly chosen belief.
On August 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm
John, either you are confused or you severely mistyped your joke, because I didn’t claim anything along those lines in either of my articles. My chromosome 2 fusion article shows that the fusion in chromosome 2 cannot result in the assumption that humans must evolve from apes. In this article I explain the impossibilities of evolution. I do not say that we cannot prove we descended from apes and then reverse and say that we must have descended from apes which is what you do in your joke. And what are you referring to as having 99.99% probability?
On September 8, 2009 at 7:56 am
1.the big bang is just the expansion of the universe with a date.
2.if evolution’s false, why do whales have hind legs, ostriches wings, lungfish lungs, humnans appendixes, etc.?
On September 8, 2009 at 8:06 am
oh, and john king, you are not giving god any credit, i could say, ”creationists know evolution is true, but don’t want to admit it,” and say that proves evolution. i am an atheist because i let logic and reason overcome faith and belief.
On September 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Avi, thanks for the comment. Whales may have “hind legs” because they may have been used at one time as sexual claspers. This would mean that this feature was used at one time but is not necessary anymore, but it does not mean that they evolved from things with legs. Ostrich wings “are used in courtship displays for securing a mate, they shield young birds from the intense desert sun, they enable very quick lateral maneuvers when running at speeds up to 40 mph, and two of their wing digits terminate in fiercely sharp claws that are used in defense”. The lungfish is simply an example of an amphibian, which can breathe air and water. Unless taken from an evolutionary view this does not suggest evolution of lungs or gills. Human appendixes are thought to possibly help fight diseases more effectively as more research has been done on it.
On September 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm
It’s so ironic that the only argument evolutionists can give are:
1. “You’re ignorant of evolution and the big bang” or the always highly intellectual and mature “stupid Christian”. It’s the blatant arrogance evolutionists display that strip them of respect. If no civilized debate can be held then the debate should not even be had. As much as I love the always original “FAIL” or “you’re stupid everyone knows evolution is true” it’s petty and redundant.
2. Use stale out dated arguments that have no validity. Before you can throw out a “proof” or evolution and the big bang make sure it is really a “proof”. Not only is it one-sided but most of the time the “proofs” are significantly flawed or have already been proven incorrect. No amount of copy-pasting from talkorigins or Richard Dawkins website is going to help your case. Expand the realm of thinking beyond what your high school text book said. Wholeheartedly research both arguments with a non biased out look then present your case.
Now take evolution from the unbiased point of view:
Variation is observed. (Key word being observed – Examine definition of “Science”) This is referred to as Microevolution. Realize that the evolution portion can be misleading and could easily be replaced with Microvariation. We observe microevolution in organisms every day as difference in skin color or size.
Now macroevolution is the assumed “phenomenon” (as Frank Dominguez stated it to be) in which these small changes adding up over time to become a larger more significant change. However this is only an assumption. It’s not observed. It’s not seen in nature today. Contrary to common belief it’s a hypothesis and a metaphysical research program. Taking one scientific fact and trying to impose it to fit another. The “evidence” used to back it up is seen to be more baseless theories or twisted discoveries of desperate scientists clinging to a dead and decaying theory. The history of fabricated and falsified “proofs” in the evolution time line does not support it authenticity. Fake missing links are still used to back this theory even though some have been dubbed a frauds for over 100 years. Now for a theory that is absolute “fact” should be overflowing with undisputed cold hard scientific evidence, but its not. This theory is a mold that fits the land scape. Discoveries are bent and twisted to conform to the evolutionary model. This is not a debate between religion and science. This is a debate between two opposing views of life. Two scientists can observe the same evidence and come to completely opposing conclusions.
Think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
On September 21, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Aaron, thanks for the comment. I could not agree more. You have said exactly what I have tried to say with much better depth and wording.
On October 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm
OMG this should be taken off this site, using mens nipples as an example you clearly have not done your homework. maybe try out google and you’ll see simple explanations and proof, debunking everything you have said. PS the definition of evidence is “stand as proof of” and the definition of proof says “any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something”. oh yes and while you’re googling evidence for evolution and big bang, all the while becoming enlightened. You should check out just exactly what testing a hypothesis entail’s.
On October 7, 2009 at 5:25 pm
read this guys method of understanding why this is rubbish http://relijournal.com/christianity/god-vs-evolution-a-bizzar-choice/
On October 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm
This was a very interesting debate to read. I learned a lot of things. I still think that Creation is more logical than Evolution. I believe Jesus died for me so I could be saved. I have FAITH, that God exist. The only evidence I can think of is the world that we live in. I take a look around at all of these wonderful things that God created. Plants, animals, the inventions of man, and the fact that we are able to sit here today and debate our beliefs. You may describe me as a stupid dumb uneducated inbred hick, that has no understanding of science. But even if you are to say these things about me, then understand this. God loves you, I love you.
God bless you all.
On November 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm
You are a stupid dumb uneducated inbred hick, that has no understanding of science.
Post Comment