6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)

[mo.mentum]

Hi

Many of you know me not. But heck, if you ever have a heated debate with an atheist, here's some arguments you can use.

1- An important aspect of atheism in the 19th and early 20th century was the supposition that the Universe was infinite and eternal. Everyone thought that the Universe was stationary and unchaning. However, this was proven to be blatantly wrong, by SCIENCE. Edwin Hubble discovered that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. More recent research has confirmed the idea of the Big Bang. Which means that the Universe had a beginning. If it has a beginning, it is not eternal, nor did it come into existence out of its own will.

2- The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion. But try to blow up a mountain and let me know if a perfectly ordered appartment building comes out of it. Physics has discovered that this "explosion" was highly controlled and designed. It's so perfect, that, if the rate of expansion of the Universe was 1 billionth billionth of a degree smaller, it would have grown, and if it were bigger it would've spread out too much. (that's a 0 followed by 18 zeros, talk about PRECISE)

3- The Anthropic principle is an another cool feature of the Universe. Atheists believe in a random Universe. Everything came into being by chance. For the first time since the 1970’s, scientists have begun to recognize the fact that the whole physical balance of the universe is adjusted delicately in favor of human life. With the advance of research, it has been discovered that the physical, chemical and biological laws of the universe, basic forces such as gravity and electro-magnetism, the structure of atoms and elements are all ordered exactly as they have to be for human life. Scientists have called this extraordinary design the “anthropic principle”. That is, every aspect of the universe is designed with a view to human life.

(ask me if you want to know more about the delicate balances in the Universe)

4- With Quantum Physics, or the study of the very very smallest subatomic particles and their interactions, we see an order that is mind boggling. It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, the basis of matter is energy, that matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy, which in turn forms the basis of matter. The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning. Science may be approaching the realization that the entire universe is an expression of information, wisdom, an idea, just as atoms are tangible expressions of something as ethereal as energy. I can go on for hours on this topic alone...

5- Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not). All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment. You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage. That is proposterous. [see my other posts for more info against EViLUTION]

6- Most significant has been the exposure of Freud’s views of religion as entirely fallacious. Ironically enough, scientific research in psychology over the past twenty-five years has demonstrated that, far from being a neurosis or source of neuroses as Freud and his disciples claimed, religious belief is one of the most consistent correlates of overall mental health and happiness. Study after study has shown a powerful relationship between religious belief and practice, on the one hand, and healthy behaviors with regard to such problems as suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, depression, even, perhaps surprisingly, levels of sexual satisfaction in marriage, on the other. In short, the empirical data run exactly contrary to the supposedly “scientific” consensus of the psychotherapeutic profession.

An atheist denies God, just as Satan openly rebels against God. Satan fears God, knows God exists, but of out of spite and jealousy drives away from giving Thanks to Our Lord. Many poeple are this way, even when they see the Signs that have been made obvious to mankind.

We cannot know God directly, but He surely shows us His Might and Power in His creation. Science will bring about a post-atheist revolution in the coming decades.

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.

Ask me more!!!

.M

 

[Arikay]

Hello,

1-
"An important aspect of atheism in the 19th and early 20th century was the supposition that the Universe was infinite and eternal."

Nope sorry, Not an important aspect of Atheism.

"If it has a beginning, it is not eternal, nor did it come into existence out of its own will."

And you can say that because? Yes it could have come into existance with out any Inteligent designer or it could have, we Do Not Know, nor can science even take a stab at that currently.

2-
"The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion."

Only by its largest opponent along time ago, (an Athiest I believe) and Creationists.
Its Not an "explosion."

" It's so perfect, that, if the rate of expansion of the Universe was 1 billionth billionth of a degree smaller, it would have grown, and if it were bigger it would've spread out too much. (that's a 0 followed by 18 zeros, talk about PRECISE)"

Really, maybe you could cite some info here.

3-
"Atheists believe in a random Universe."

Nope sorry, Not atheism. Some or Many Atheists may believe that, but it is Not part of Atheism.

"For the first time since the 1970’s, scientists have begun to recognize the fact that the whole physical balance of the universe is adjusted delicately in favor of human life."

Reminds me of a quote by Douglas Adams, To paraphrase it, a Puddle fills a hole, the puddle fits the hole so well, it figures the hole must have been designed for it. Was it?
Of course, an interesting aspect is that if the universe hadnt happend as it did, We may not be here to discuse how the universe didnt fit us, so its kinda a given.

"4- ..."

Not sure the point of this as far as "disproving atheism"

"5- Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not). All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment. You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage. That is proposterous. [see my other posts for more info against EViLUTION]"

This suggests to me that you dont quite understand what Evolution is.
If you want to learn, we have a huge forum about it.
Macro Evolution has been observed, and Evolution has actually been used to accidentally "evolve" a radio on a circuit board.

However, Evolution Does Not Equal Atheism.

One can believe in God and Creation and Accept Evolution, this is often called Theistic Evolution. It is the Theory of Evolution, however the person is stating that they are also a Theist. We have quite a few christian Evolutionists on the forum here that would agree.

[snip]
.M

 

[Arikay]

A question for you, can you give me the Definition of Atheism?

Along the same line, can you give me a basic definition of Evolution?

 

[mo.mentum]

A question for you, can you give me the Definition of Atheism?

Along the same line, can you give me a basic definition of Evolution?

Funny Maybe i should've mentioned i study Anthropology and Social Darwinism.

Atheism: the belief that the universe and all that is in it came to be independantly and that there is no superior power or might that originated it.

Evolution: the unscientific belief that all life has originated from a single living cell, that came to be on its own. Through mechanisms such as mutation and natural selection, that one life form acquired new traits and "evolved" into a more complex life form.

Now, evolution was disproved duing Darwin's days, but the social implications it had, made it stick for a while, but not for long. Why? Here's a sample:

- Mechanism1: Natural Selection: this mechanism says that evolution happens when living things adapt to their environment and slowly develop the skills and organs needed to survive. THis is pure fantasy.
With the discovery of genetics, we now know that a living thing cannot acquire new traits! These ideas of darwin were based on Lamarque's views, not scientific fact. They thought that if, within a family, you kept cutting of the arms of the children, a few generations down the line, they would have no arms to begin with.

Also, natural selection does nothing to bring new "organs" to an animal, it only serves to remove the weak, sick and old elements within a species, not to change it into another.

- Mechanism2: Mutation: this mechanism was proposed once the laws of genetics put mechanism1 to the ground. This mechanism is supposed to cause minute changes in the DNA code, some of which might be favorable. However, all experiments conducting using mutations have all yieled distastrous effects to living tissue. Instead of adding new information to the DNA code, mutation actually destroys the perfect code that is already there. Does a coherent book write itself?

You have to realize how complex the DNA code really is to see these arguments. I've studied biology for a while and i was surprised myself.

- Darwin included 2 interesting chapters in his book about Evoultion. one called "Problems on Theory" in which he listed some things that might disprove his theory. And the other one is "Instincts" which he called a "threat" to his whole ideas. (Lets not forget, Darwin was an _AMATEUR NATURALIST_ not a real scientist.)

In problems on theory, he was counting on the young field of paleontology to find intermediary species in the fosssil record. no such thing has ever been found. and he stated that this would break apart his theory. he listed a bunch of other things but ive ranted enough on this subject.

I have lots more to disprove evolution. Ask me more precise questions. there's too much to share.

 

[Mephster]

Yeah, Mo's "proofs" are really not proofs. Not that, perhaps, he couldn't make them more proof-like, mind you. But as they stand, they deduce no conclusion.

Atheism: As a definition, I'd like to suggest J Mackie or B. Russell's positions. I think they are probably the standard atheist positions. And, of course, atheists (mature and thoughtful ones) are usually interested in critical thinking, and few accept (from what I've read) a completely random universe.

 

[Arikay]

"Atheism: the belief that the universe and all that is in it came to be independantly and that there is no superior power or might that originated it."

An interesting if Long definition, a quicker one would be,
The Lack of belief in God or Gods (Deity). No more, No less.

So, unlike what you stated, Atheists Do Not believe the universe is Random.

"Evolution: the unscientific belief that all life has originated from a single living cell, that came to be on its own. Through mechanisms such as mutation and natural selection, that one life form acquired new traits and "evolved" into a more complex life form."

Almost but not quite.
Where the Beginings of Life came from are Not part of Evolution. Nor does evolution say that animals will eolve into more "complex" life forms.
You also left out Genetic Drift as a Mechinism.

"Now, evolution was disproved duing Darwin's days"

Since you say you have studied, may I ask you to back this claim up?

"- Mechanism1: Natural Selection: this mechanism says that evolution happens when living things adapt to their environment and slowly develop the skills and organs needed to survive. THis is pure fantasy."

Its also Not Natural Selection.

A Basic Definition of Natural Selection is that the Animals with Traits that allow them to surive long enough and well enough to produce offspring will spread their traits. Animals with traits that hinder (or do not help it compared to others of its species) from procreating will die off and the traits will go with them. So Natural Selections favors animals that are More adapted to the Environment.

It is often called Survival of the Fittest. Although this is not quite accurate as its not just survival, but survival to a successfull procreation (successfull meaning the offspring can go on to procreate themselves).

"With the discovery of genetics, we now know that a living thing cannot acquire new traits! These ideas of darwin were based on Lamarque's views, not scientific fact."

Again, since you say you have studied this I will ask that you back up the claim that No new traits can come around.
A quick question would be where did the trait of Nylon eating come from in a little bug friend, if it did not develop?

"They thought that if, within a family, you kept cutting of the arms of the children, a few generations down the line, they would have no arms to begin with."

And they discovered it was wrong, which is why that is Not part of Evolution, nor does it have anything to do with Natural selection.

"Also, natural selection does nothing to bring new "organs" to an animal, it only serves to remove the weak, sick and old elements within a species, not to change it into another."

Hmm, again, back up your claim.

"- Mechanism2: Mutation: this mechanism was proposed once the laws of genetics put mechanism1 to the ground."

Can you again back up your claim?

"This mechanism is supposed to cause minute changes in the DNA code, some of which might be favorable. However, all experiments conducting using mutations have all yieled distastrous effects to living tissue."

Very interesting, I will be sure to tell those that have Genetics that has made them imune to HIV (or is it AIDS, I cant remember) that they arent imune because Mutation cant create Favorable changes.
Another common example is Sickle Cell Animia, which can protect against Malaria.
Or how about our Nylon Eating friends, if their ability to Eat Nylon isnt from a mutation, where did it come from?

"Does a coherent book write itself?"

If we can find a natural mechanism that writes Coherent books. Otherwise this is what is called a "strawman" argument, as it is not a good example of Evolution.

"to find intermediary species in the fosssil record. no such thing has ever been found."

Really? Ive seen many.

Can you back up your claim that none have been found?

"I have lots more to disprove evolution. Ask me more precise questions. there's too much to share. "

So far, it doesnt seem to good, maybe an open mind would be better than a confident one.

[Snipped]

 

[Philosoft]

Can't. Help. Myself.

Many of you know me not. But heck, if you ever have a heated debate with an atheist, here's some arguments you can use.

If you'd like to be laughed at.

1- An important aspect of atheism in the 19th and early 20th century was the supposition that the Universe was infinite and eternal.

No, this was an important aspect of cosmology. Atheism doesn't care.

Everyone thought that the Universe was stationary and unchaning. However, this was proven to be blatantly wrong, by SCIENCE. Edwin Hubble discovered that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. More recent research has confirmed the idea of the Big Bang. Which means that the Universe had a beginning. If it has a beginning, it is not eternal, nor did it come into existence out of its own will.

Fine. By the by, "beginning" /= created by an eternal, infinite disembodied consciousness.

2- The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion.

By those who have not the slightest clue what the Big Bang was.

Physics has discovered that this "explosion" was highly controlled and designed.

"Physics" has discovered no such thing.

It's so perfect, that, if the rate of expansion of the Universe was 1 billionth billionth of a degree smaller, it would have grown, and if it were bigger it would've spread out too much. (that's a 0 followed by 18 zeros, talk about PRECISE)

Read thee some Hawking, please.

3- The Anthropic principle is an another cool feature of the Universe.

The anthropic principle, of which there are two, is not a "feature of the universe."

Atheists believe in a random Universe. Everything came into being by chance.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and otherwise, wrong.

For the first time since the 1970’s, scientists have begun to recognize the fact that the whole physical balance of the universe is adjusted delicately in favor of human life.

Nonsense. The universe was designed for Helicobacter Pylori. Perfectly adapted to its environment, no natural predators.

With the advance of research, it has been discovered that the physical, chemical and biological laws of the universe, basic forces such as gravity and electro-magnetism, the structure of atoms and elements are all ordered exactly as they have to be for human life. Scientists have called this extraordinary design the “anthropic principle”. That is, every aspect of the universe is designed with a view to human life.

I say again, read. some. Hawking.

(ask me if you want to know more about the delicate balances in the Universe)

Dr. Hawking?

With Quantum Physics, or the study of the very very smallest subatomic particles and their interactions, we see an order that is mind boggling. It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, the basis of matter is energy, that matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy, which in turn forms the basis of matter. The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning. Science may be approaching the realization that the entire universe is an expression of information, wisdom, an idea, just as atoms are tangible expressions of something as ethereal as energy. I can go on for hours on this topic alone...

Presumably because you have made all this up yourself.

Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not).

Hey now, you have no right to prejudge the results of the lab experiments until our million years is up.

All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment.

Brilliant observation. What environment are humans "specifically adapted" to?

You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage. That is proposterous.

You're right, it is.

[see my other posts for more info against EViLUTION]

Are they as entertaining as this one?

Most significant has been the exposure of Freud’s views of religion as entirely fallacious.

Most of Freudian psychology is fallacious.

Ironically enough, scientific research in psychology over the past twenty-five years has demonstrated that, far from being a neurosis or source of neuroses as Freud and his disciples claimed, religious belief is one of the most consistent correlates of overall mental health and happiness.

Really? Do you think fundamentalist Muslims are mentally healthy or particularly happy?

Study after study has shown a powerful relationship between religious belief and practice, on the one hand, and healthy behaviors with regard to such problems as suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, depression, even, perhaps surprisingly, levels of sexual satisfaction in marriage, on the other.

Then you should be able to post reference after reference, link after link.

In short, the empirical data run exactly contrary to the supposedly “scientific” consensus of the psychotherapeutic profession.

Oh, yeah. Those Freudian psychoanalysts are everywhere these days.

An atheist denies God, just as Satan openly rebels against God.

No no no. I decry God. Or defy. I can never remember.

Satan fears God, knows God exists, but of out of spite and jealousy drives away from giving Thanks to Our Lord. Many poeple are this way, even when they see the Signs that have been made obvious to mankind.

They may be obvious, but not everyone likes Mel Gibson.

We cannot know God directly, but He surely shows us His Might and Power in His creation. Science will bring about a post-atheist revolution in the coming decades.

VIVA LA REVOLUCION! What are we rebelling against? What you got?

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe.

Even in my bathroom? Isn't voyeurism illegal?

The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.

Great, just let me know when you've examined every particle, 'kay?

Ask me more!!!

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

 

[Truncate]

Hello,

1-
"An important aspect of atheism in the 19th and early 20th century was the supposition that the Universe was infinite and eternal."

Nope sorry, Not an important aspect of Atheism.

"If it has a beginning, it is not eternal, nor did it come into existence out of its own will."

And you can say that because? Yes it could have come into existance with out any Inteligent designer or it could have, we Do Not Know, nor can science even take a stab at that currently.

2-
"The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion."

Only by its largest opponent along time ago, (an Athiest I believe) and Creationists.
Its Not an "explosion."

" It's so perfect, that, if the rate of expansion of the Universe was 1 billionth billionth of a degree smaller, it would have grown, and if it were bigger it would've spread out too much. (that's a 0 followed by 18 zeros, talk about PRECISE)"

Really, maybe you could cite some info here.

3-
"Atheists believe in a random Universe."

Nope sorry, Not atheism. Some or Many Atheists may believe that, but it is Not part of Atheism.

"For the first time since the 1970’s, scientists have begun to recognize the fact that the whole physical balance of the universe is adjusted delicately in favor of human life."

Reminds me of a quote by Douglas Adams, To paraphrase it, a Puddle fills a hole, the puddle fits the hole so well, it figures the hole must have been designed for it. Was it?
Of course, an interesting aspect is that if the universe hadnt happend as it did, We may not be here to discuse how the universe didnt fit us, so its kinda a given.

"4- ..."

Not sure the point of this as far as "disproving atheism"

"5- Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not). All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment. You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage. That is proposterous. [see my other posts for more info against EViLUTION]"

This suggests to me that you dont quite understand what Evolution is.
If you want to learn, we have a huge forum about it.
Macro Evolution has been observed, and Evolution has actually been used to accidentally "evolve" a radio on a circuit board.

However, Evolution Does Not Equal Atheism.

One can believe in God and Creation and Accept Evolution, this is often called Theistic Evolution. It is the Theory of Evolution, however the person is stating that they are also a Theist. We have quite a few christian Evolutionists on the forum here that would agree.

Thanks for responding to save me energy and time, I agree with what you stated.

 

[mo.mentum]

Arikay,

The order witnessed in every scale of the Universe, sub-atomic, molecular, macro, or galactic points to laws that are in perfect balance. Each elementary force (strong/weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational) acts with specific strength and range.

Gravitational forces are very strong over long distances, but have 0 effect on subatomic levels. And the other way around for the 2 nuclear forces.

Atheism, as I understand it, denies that an intelligent designer set the wheels in motion to give us a perfect system. So if it is so well ordered, how can we say that it figured out how to perfectly order itself? Did it have multiple tries? Did it study and plan how it was going to expand?

Quantum Physics adds a new dimension to our existence. Not only is the Universe composed of matter and energy, but there is information as well. This is the whole basis of Quantum Computing. http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

This information must be managed somehow. I won't speculate on what/who might be managing it but you know where I'm headed.

And no, evolution doesn't equal atheism but it sure does reinforce the idea that everything came into being by its own efforts and decision, which is denying God's eternal power and wisdom.

So you say that Atheists don't necessarily believe that the Universe is random. So if it's not random, it's ordered. Does order come about through chaos on its own? Does a junkyard build a 747 airliner when a tornado passes through it? 'cause that IS what you're implying.

The idea of God that I'm trying to portray here is one of Eternel Wisdom and Power, beyond religious dogma and belief. If HE has no limits, then we should see His infinity in the things He creates. Science cannot be seperated from religion.

Mephster, I didn't go deep into my proofs as I'm testing the waters. Plus, I didn't want to debut with a 10 page post all to myself

LOOK OUT FOR MY NEXT POST. I will expound on all I've written. So don't bother replying to this one. Gimme a few minutes

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : mo.mentum
Funny Maybe i should've mentioned i study Anthropology and Social Darwinism.

If you (or someone you love) is paying money for this education your bragging about I would suggest you either stop spending so much time amusing atheists and hit the book or demand a refund.

 

[Arikay]

Sorry but im going to reply to this one, as it will be a quicker correction to a larger post that appears to be comming.

"The order witnessed in every scale of the Universe, sub-atomic, molecular, macro, or galactic points to laws that are in perfect balance. Each elementary force (strong/weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational) acts with specific strength and range."

Good for it. Of course this is no proof of an Inteligent Designers. Again, if a puddle finds that it fits perfectly in a hole. Can we deduce that the hole was made specifically for the puddle?

"Atheism, as I understand it, denies that an intelligent designer set the wheels in motion to give us a perfect system. So if it is so well ordered, how can we say that it figured out how to perfectly order itself? Did it have multiple tries? Did it study and plan how it was going to expand?"

We dont know. It could have. There are plenty of different possibilities of the start of the Universe, One is god. But at the same time, lack of knowledge doesnt suggest one is more correct than the other. You are placing god into your gaps of knowledge.

"Quantum Physics adds a new dimension to our existence. Not only is the Universe composed of matter and energy, but there is information as well. This is the whole basis of Quantum Computing."

Again, no proof for an inteligent designer, nor proof against atheism (the point of the main thread).

"This information must be managed somehow. I won't speculate on what/who might be managing it but you know where I'm headed."

Assumptions. The information may not be managed at all, or it may not need an "inteligent" manager.

"And no, evolution doesn't equal atheism but it sure does reinforce the idea that everything came into being by its own efforts and decision, which is denying God's eternal power and wisdom."

Nope sorry, wrong.
God could have easily controled Evolution. This is why science is Agnostic. God could have done it, or it could have happend on its own without an Inteligent Designer. You may believe god did it, but Evolution Never even suggests that God didnt do it. (nor does it suggest God did do it).

Oh, and things dont "decide" to Evolve.

"So you say that Atheists don't necessarily believe that the Universe is random. So if it's not random, it's ordered. Does order come about through chaos on its own? Does a junkyard build a 747 airliner when a tornado passes through it? 'cause that IS what you're implying."

Ahha, I see you are working off of a strawman version of Evolution. This of course is Not Evolution.

Evolution is Not Random chance, it is a natural mechanism. If you can find me a natural mechanism that makes tornados build 747's from Junkyards, then yes its possible, otherwise you are just created a false view, in order to burn it down.

Its interesting that you picked a Boeing plane though, as I believe on their most recent planes, Boeing used a computer program version of Evolution to help Design some of the parts.

"Science cannot be seperated from religion."

Yes it can. Tell me what view does science have on god? (I said it earlier in the post).

[snip]

 

[mo.mentum]

The scientific breakthroughs in general directly influence other fields. A perfect example is Darwin's "Origin of Species" published in 1859. This book was an instant success, not because of the scientific value of his writing but the ideological implications. It was concrete support for materialistic philosphies, abundant in the 20th century (fascism, nazism, communism, capitalism, etc..)

Karl Marx dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin, "To Darwin, from a devoted admirer." can be seen on the first page. The entire basis of Darwinian thinking, then and now...is flawed and simply a fairy tale! But why is that?

Darwin listed some problems with his theory in Chapter 6 "Difficulties on Theory", and hoped that these difficulties would be overcome with science. But, the opposite happened! 50 yrs of discoveries actually refuted his ideas, one by one.

[FIRST CELL]
Darwinism speculates that species evolved successivly from a common ancestor. So how did that first Living Cell come into existence? This issue is never addressed in Darwins works, indeed he avoided the subject. 19th century science was very basic and the tools they used were rudimentary, their microscopes and such were nothing like what we have today. So it's only normal that they thought life to have a very simple structure. The living cell, which still harbours many secrets that have not been explained, is one of the major difficulties facing the theory of evolution.

Since middle ages, a popular theory was "Spontaneous Generation", that life sprang out from non living matter. Experiments included trying to make mice pop out of wheat rags, or frogs out of mud puddles. Later on, the commonly held belief was that microbes could come out of non-living materials.

Louis Pasteur scientifically refuted these myths:
"Can matter organize itself? NO! There is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves." Louis Pasteur (Fox & Dose, Origin of Life, p.4-5)

Alexander OPARIN, a Russian biologist, tried to demonstrate that common ancestor could arise from ideal conditions. But, in the 1930s, he confessed the following: "Unfortunetly, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution." Alexander OPARIN (Origin of Life, p.196)

Other evolutionists continued to expermient with OPARIN's ideas. In 1953, Chemist Stanley Miller's most famous experiment yielded a few simple organic molecules by mixing gases and proteins. He then claimed that these gazes were present in primitive Earth's atmosphere. This was hailed as proof! But, these gases turned out to be very different from those of the early atmosphere. Also, there is a big leap between organic molecules and full fledged living organisms.

Jeffrey Bada, a leading microbiologist and evolution theory advocate stated: "Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life originate on earth" Jeffrey Bada (Earth, Feb. 1998)

[CELL STRUCTURE]
With the technology we have today, we've truely seen the incredible complex structure of the living cell, and this is presenting the biggest impasse for the theory. Even single celled organisms are remarkable in their composition. Some have 'organelles' (cellular organs) to help them move or operate in very specific environments. In Darwin's time, this structure was unknown. Cells appeared to be little more than featurless stains, and life was imagined to be simple. But the electron microscope in mid 20th century revealed just how complex/organized a living cell really was. Lets take a look:
- Cell is compromised of tiny parts that work in harmony: power stations, hightech factories, complex databanks, huge storage stystems, advanced refinery, and seemingly concisous cell membrane that controls all that goes in/out.
- All these organelles must work together in harmony. This could not have come togetehr by chance.
- Even most advanced labs today cannot make a single living cell out of nonliving matter. Yet nature hit the jackpot by chance?
- These efforts have actually been abondaned! Just like alchemists efforts to try to turn lead into gold.
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing747 from the materials therein" Fred Hoyle (Nature, 12Nov 1981)

[DNA]
Moderm biochemistry has revealed the complex design of the DNA molecule. The structure was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1955. This demonstrares that life was much more complex that anyone even imagined. Although an evolutionist and received Nobel prize for his discovery, Crick was depressed when he confessed that such a structure cannot come about by chance.

DNA is a giant molecule that exists in the nucleas of the cell. Every detail of a being's physical and physiological information is coded in this double helix. Color of our eyes, shape/function of our cells, structure of our organs are all stored in our genes. The code is made up of 4 different proteins, and can be compared to an alphabet of 4 letters. A million pages would be needed to write out the information in our own cells. This is bigger than the entire encyclopedia britannica but its stored inside the tiny nucleas of every cell.

NOW THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF LIFE. LETS LOOK AGAIN AT THE MECHANISMS CLAIMED BY EVOLUTIONISTS


[MECHANISMS]
-> No mechanism in nature to carry out the function of evolution.
-> Nothing makes a simple organism become more and more complex.
-> Darwin proposed a single concept for this "Natural Selection" (title "Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection")

1) NATURAL SELECTION
This mechanism will make a herd consist of stronger/faster members, but will not cause the animal to evolve to another creature. It only eleminates weak and sick individuals, maintains strength of a species, and has no evolutionary power. Darwin knew this and mentions in his book that "Natural Selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur" Charles Darwin (The Origin of Species, 1ed, p177)

2) FAVORABLE VARIATIONS
About the emergence of favorable traits, Darwin was heavily influenced by one of his contemporaries. Jean Baptiste Lamarque thought that living things passed their acquired traits to future generations. In Lamarque's view giraffe evolved from deer who wanted to reach higher food. Also, if u cut off the arms of a family for a while, their offspring would start being born armless after a while. Darwin, influenced by these examples came up with an even bolder claim. In Origins, he claimed that some bears, while trying to hunt in the water, evolved into whales...
We can't blame them. Biology was simple in their day, genetics/microbiology/biochemistry didnt exist.

The laws of genetic inheretence were unknown, they thought that hereditary traits were passed in the blood and could that new traits could be learned/acquired. When these ideas came up, they didnt seem odd at all cuz it was based widely held beliefs of the time.

But he was disturbed himself by his ideas. In Chapter VI of his book, "Difficulties On Theory", he wrote: "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." (1ed, p189)

Darwin's fears proved to be true soon after his death. The laws of inheritance were discovered by Mendel, causing evolution theory to collapse. BUT IT STUCK!!! No traits can be passed down other that what is in your genetic disposition. And no new organs can be formed, since while these organs are forming, they would be a detriment. Would a half-wing be useful? NO! Would your lungs be useful while they were evolving from gills?

The Science of genetics developed in early 20th century. It showed that not acquired traits, but only genes were transferred to subsequent generations. The idea that acquired traits accumulated from generation to generation to produce new species, is implausible. So Darwin's ideas collapsed early in the 20th century.

Neo-Darwinist could do nothing but confirm that natural selection had no evolutionary value. "No one has ever produced a new species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it. And most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question" Colin Paterson (BBC, Cladistics 4th march 1982)

Experiments to try and produce new species was done on fruit flies since they reproduce really fast and we can have multiple generations within a week. But time and again, the experiments caused disabled or dead offspring of the fruit flies, nothing new was added. (google the research)

20th century science has shown us that systems and organs with extremely complicated and intrictate mechanisms are at work. Everything in your body is very specialized in its task. If a single component is lacking in one of these mechanisms, it will not work. If you take out one of the 46 processes involved in your eyes "seeing", you will no longer see. This characteristic is called the "Irreducible Complexity of Life".

 

[mo.mentum]

3) MUTATIONS
Evolutionists had to make a fundemental change to their theory now that natural selection was found to have no power. Neo-darwinists added Mutation. Mutations are alterations/distortions in DNA of living beings from external effects. Theory states that living things differetianted form one another, delveop as result of mutuation. This simply cannot be true! Mutation only dammages information in DNA, and can only harm living beings. No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. Mutations dont add new genetic information, no living being can acquire new organs through it. No blind animal can develop eyes through mutations. Tests always ended up with destructive/fatal results. They disrupt pefect genetic code of living things and turn it into a freak of nature. (again, fruit fly experiments and US army experiments on its soldiers in the 50s demonstrate this easily). It's easy to see the misconception people have about mutations trhough a brief look at the comic books, mutations or radiation giving people super powers, when in fact we know that such things can only harm living tissue.

4) Genetic Drift
Darwin didn't know about genetic drift, this is one of the reasons why modern evolutionary biologists are no longer "Darwinists". (When anti-evolutionists equate evolution with Darwinism you know that they have not done their homework!) But, I'm above that

From a biology text: "Random genetic drift is a stochastic process (by definition). One aspect of genetic drift is the random nature of transmitting alleles from one generation to the next given that only a fraction of all possible zygotes become mature adults. The easiest case to visualize is the one which involves binomial sampling error. If a pair of diploid sexually reproducing parents (such as humans) have only a small number of offspring then not all of the parent's alleles will be passed on to their progeny due to chance assortment of chromosomes at meiosis. In a large population this will not have much effect in each generation because the random nature of the process will tend to average out. But in a small population the effect could be rapid and significant." (http://www.talkorgins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html)

There's alot more to Genetic Drift that I will not go into, but the basis holds that these tiny tiny variations cannot create NEW ORGANS! This is what evolution is afterall right? Animals adapting and acquiring new organs. The organs we have are very different in form and function than say fish or insects or even other mammals. The unique complex chemical processes that go on in each organ are sufficient to prove that the organ didn't build itself through years of progress nor did it figure out what chemicals/proteins it should work with.

Plus, how does evolution explain the difference in sexes? A species evolves yet the 2 sexes remain quite different? Parallel evolution? I dunno......

[FOSSIL RECORD]
This is the imaginary family tree of life: first unicellular beings were formed..100s million yrs later turned into invertebrate and fish..then they moved onto land and turned into reptiles..the story goes further and says that birds and mammals evolved from repitiles. If this was true, there ought to be numerous transitional forms linking each living species. Countless half bird/reptiles should be found, with incomplete half organs.

Darwin called these 'Transitional Forms'. Remains of such intermediate forms MUST be found in the fossil record. "If my theory is to be true, numerous intermediate varieties linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains" 1ed, p179

Darwin was aware fossil record didnt contain any of these forms. And to this day, these forms have not been found. He addressed this issue in another chapter of his book. "Why, if species have descened from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?" 1ed, p172

So naturally he assumed that these forms would be discovered when the fossil record is looked at more closely. Efforts did end in despair, transtitional forms remain figment of imagination! "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, wether at the level of orders or of species, we find over and over again not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist Derek Ager (Proceedings of the British Geological Association vol87 p133)

Some fossils that were touted as transitional forms were later dismissed. More about this in a bit.

[GEOLOGICAL PERIODS]
The fossil record is split up into 6 layers. Cambrian is oldest layer of where we find complex life forms. Before that, only "simple" uni-cellilur bacteria. But in Cambrian, complex species emerge all of a sudden. They have complex system, circulotary/nervous systems, scales, multi-lensed eyes, etc. The complex eyes of the Trylobyte refutes the claim that life evolved from the simple to the complex. Plus, the honeycomb eye structure of Trylobites has endured for 530 mil yrs without change. Modern insect eyes have the same structure.

Cambrian species had no ancestors. Zoologist Richard Dawkins, confesses: "It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there, wihtout any evolutionary history" (The blind watchmaker 1986, p229)

Hmmmmmm! Darwin wrote: "If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at all once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection" 1ed p302

All fossil layers after the cambrian, living species appear abruptly and fully formed. Not a SINGLE transitional form between each group as evolutionists had imagined. Evolutionist Mark Czarnech: "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God". (McLean's 19 Jan 1981 p56)

Also, there is no difference between fossils that are 100s mil yrs old and their modern descendants. 400mil yr old sharks, have exactly same structutre. 135mill yr old dragon fly. 100mil yr old turtle....50mil yr old bat and modern bat. All are unchanged. They did not undergo any evolution since their appearance.

[TRANSITIONAL FORMS]
Few fossils were touted as transitional forms but turned out to be the nothing of the sort. The best example of this is the Coelocanth. This fossil was thought to have had characteristics of fish and land based animal, and a primitive lung. It even made its way into text books as the first fish to go on land! BUT, the SHOCK to evolutionists came when an 'extinct' one was caught in the deep seas off India. It was shown to be NO different than modern fish. To top it off, this fish that made THE jump from sea to land actually stays VERY deep in the water and never comes close to shore. (google it)

Another example: Osteoptarix, thought to be half reptile and half bird. But a closer examination of the skeleton shows a well developed sternum. A sternum is essential in flight and can only be found in flying birds, ie: chickens don't have one.

[ANIMAL DIFFERENCES]
The difference between mammalian skins, reptilian scales and bird feathers is more than just esthetic. Also, reptiles are cold blooded whereas birds are warm blooded, how could it have changed if birds evolved from reptiles? There is no in between when it comes to warm/cold blooded animals. The physiology of these two groups relies on very different mechanisms to function. What about milk? How did the production of milk come about in mammals? How did the cells in the breasts figure out how to produce such a refined liquid or that the infant would need those specific proteins to survive, and how to deliver it.

[HUMAN EVOLUTION]
Once evolutionists saw that their theory is falling apart, they started focusing human evolution. This was pefect as they started finding all sorts of skeletons resembling that of man. So they took the fossils of these extinct ape species, organized them by skull size and posture, and VOILA! Human evolution. This whole topic deserves another post on its own.

So let's discuss what I've brought to you so far before we go on.

 

[Arikay]

May I suggest you do more research.

Maybe read over my posts a couple more times, or how about go to the science forum and read some of the posts by our local Christian Biologists (who accept evolution), and other scientists.

Maybe also learn a bit more about Evolution and Atheism, the fact that you again used the 747 from junkyard quote, suggests that you either havent read my post yet, or are happy with your Stawmen.

 

[Volos]

originally posted by mo.mentum
Other evolutionists continued to expermient with OPARIN's ideas. In 1953, Chemist Stanley Miller's most famous experiment yielded a few simple organic molecules by mixing gases and proteins. He then claimed that these gazes were present in primitive Earth's atmosphere. This was hailed as proof! But, these gases turned out to be very different from those of the early atmosphere. Also, there is a big leap between organic molecules and full fledged living organisms.

It was haled as interesting and repeated tens of thousands of times with different conditions with basically identical results. Whether or not the chemicals used in the experiment accurately reflect the conditions of primordial earth is of no consequence. Organics emerged form inorganic material.

 

[mo.mentum]

It was haled as interesting and repeated tens of thousands of times with different conditions with basically identical results. Whether or not the chemicals used in the experiment accurately reflect the conditions of primordial earth is of no consequence. Organics emerged form inorganic material.

Like i said, big difference between organic matter and life.

Organic matter can be a few proteins. Your hair is organic matter, is it alive?

 

[mo.mentum]

May I suggest you do more research.

Maybe read over my posts a couple more times, or how about go to the science forum and read some of the posts by our local Christian Biologists (who accept evolution), and other scientists.

Maybe also learn a bit more about Evolution and Atheism, the fact that you again used the 747 from junkyard quote, suggests that you either havent read my post yet, or are happy with your Stawmen.

I like the boeing analogy, makes me all warm inside. But seriously, think about this. A nice intricate swiss clock, you need clock maker to make it. With all its gears and pullies etc, etc..it works perfectly. Does it not require someone to think of it, design it, then build it.

Yes, the Boeing 777 was completely designed by computer. But the computer didn't design it on its own, Intelligent Humans build the computer, built the program then told the program what to do and what kind of result they wanted in the end. It just showed them how to build what they wanted.

Also, If all you keep telling me is to do more research, then I see you sitting high atop a throne of pride and arrogance. Why don't you go do more research into my ideas.

I've had enough brainwashing in school and university. I deprogrammed myself from this whole evolution BS.

Every argument i have with an evolutionist ends the same way. They turn in denial, don't address the ideas i present and suggest i do more reading.

Screw you all I have my degrees and my education. But most important, the reason and intelligence that God bestowed on all of us as a blessing. And which i use to discover Him.

I don't have blind faith in God, nor do i rely on Scripture. It's all in the sciences

 

[Arikay]

The 747 argument is a false one. If you believe that it is a good example then you need to do more research.

Ah, IC, im on the throne of arogance but you came in here claiming that you can disprove Evolution and have Done lots of Research. ok. But thats besides the point.

I am willing to keep the conversation going, only if you are willing to listen, I have done a lot of research into many different creationist views, however if you are not willing to learn (such as drop the false plane analogy) then there is no reason for me to attempt to teach.

 

[mo.mentum]

You still haven't told me how the analogy of a 747 can be false.

That is precisely what is happening with evolution theory. In your studies, have you learned of intricate mechanisms that exist within each cell?

Have you not seen how a human being is constructed, cell by cell in the womb, according to a plan?

Have you not seen how some animals camouflage themselves in a perfect manner, while they do not have the senses to perceive their environment the way their predators do, yet, they're able to camouflage themselves specifically against those?

Did any sperm ever go into a woman's body, then return to the man's and tell the testicles how to build the sperm in order for it to survive the hostile environment in the vag-ina (didnt wanna be censored)?

The way the sperm is designed and built is enough to show that evolution doesn't work. The sperm's head is endowed with 3 layers of armor, each with its own purpose, each removed at a specific stage. The tail falls off at a specific point. It is built in the testicles as though on an assembly line. Yet, no sperm ever explored the vag-ina and came back to tell about it. So how do you explain this and other stuff?

I do want to learn. But not from people who keep dismissing my ideas as false without providing counter proof. All you've done is drill holes without giving me any concrete proof. So i labelled you as arrogant and proud because you're not willing to exchange ideas, but only teach!

Yes i came in saying i can disprove evolution and that is because so far, i haven't heard a single tangible argument that i cannot break down. But if im shown something irrevocable, than i shall submit.

so, if you speak truth, show me your proof.

PS: come on admit it, i bring a fresh touch to this forums

 

[Arikay]

"You still haven't told me how the analogy of a 747 can be false."

Yes I did, but lets try it another way.

•747 from junkyard, Equals, Random Chance.
•Evolution, Does Not Equal, Random Chance.
Thus,
•747 from junyard, Does Not Equal, Evolution.

If
you believe Evolution is Random Chance.
Then,
You have not been studying the Correct definition of the Theory of Evolution.

Thus, 747 from junkyard is called a "Strawman" as it is a false representation of Evolution, that is then Burned in an attempt to prove the real definition of Evolution wrong.


"That is precisely what is happening with evolution theory. In your studies, have you learned of intricate mechanisms that exist within each cell?"

Evolution needs DNA to be able to mutate, or change. It does.
These mutations need to be Bad, nuetral, and good for the organism, They are.

"Have you not seen how a human being is constructed, cell by cell in the womb, according to a plan?"

Good for it. Now, can you show me how this shows Evolution can not happen, and that there must be an inteligent Designer.

I would suggest without using the old line, "its just too complex to have happend on its own" or to fall back on false statements, such as our friend the tornado, and his buddy the 747.


"Have you not seen how some animals camouflage themselves in a perfect manner, while they do not have the senses to perceive their environment the way their predators do, yet, they're able to camouflage themselves specifically against those?"

This is a good example of Natural Selection.

Ok, lets say that we have a species of bugs, that have variations in their species of their color. Now lets say that we have a Lizard that uses Color eye sight to find and eat these bugs.

Basic Natural selection will "select" the bugs that can live long enough to procreate, over those that dont.

Bug Species Variation A, has a color that blends into the leaf it sits on.
Bug Species Variation B, has a color that stands out against the leaf it sits on.

Our lizard friend will more likely Eat Variation B. Thus Variation A will more likely live to procreate and thus will be "selected" by a mechanism of Evolution.

"Did any sperm ever go into a woman's body, then return to the man's and tell the testicles how to build the sperm in order for it to survive the hostile environment in the vag-ina (didnt wanna be censored)?"

No. Just another example of Natural selection. Since I went in depth above, I wont here.

"The way the sperm is designed and built is enough to show that evolution doesn't work. The sperm's head is endowed with 3 layers of armor, each with its own purpose, each removed at a specific stage. The tail falls off at a specific point. It is built in the testicles as though on an assembly line. Yet, no sperm ever explored the vag-ina and came back to tell about it. So how do you explain this and other stuff?"

Just another example of Natural selection. Since I went in depth above, I wont here.

"So i labelled you as arrogant and proud because you're not willing to exchange ideas, but only teach!"

Wahoo, I have been Labelled.

I keep telling you to do more research, because you have come here with the claim that you know what you are talking about, but you dont appear to get Evolution right. It may appear arrogant to you, however I wasnt the one that made the statement that i could "disprove Evolution and atheism." Thus when you get what you are trying to disprove wrong, I suggest you do more research.
I have less patients for people who make such big claims, than those that come here asking questions, wanting to learn.


I do find it interesting that we are discussing Evolution, when the point of the thread was to disprove Atheism. You have said that Evolution is Not atheism, and have been told how it Does not support Atheism either.

[snip]