The morality and foolishness of the Christian God

[InterestingUsername]

1.look up the videos by Kent Hovind on YouTube. In them he spells out very clearly how evolution is no more than a religion itself with little to no true scientific data to support it.

Look up the videos by thunderf00t on Youtube. In them he spells out very clearly how Kent Hovind is wrong on everything he has ever taught.

2. For instance the bible first stated that the earth was round.

It stated it was a circle. This can still be interpreted as 'flat' which the bible regularly hints at. For example the phrases "four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" appear in countless books, too many for me to consider that they are just metaphorical. All these repeated phrases directly contradict the circle comment in Isaiah 40:22.
The bible also states that the Earth doesn't move, rests on pillars and the sun revolves around it. Did you forget about those?

3. they now believe that their own flatulence caused a massive climate change that wiped them out. And these are supposedly the smartest among us?

Have you read the paper this was published in/theory at all? Have you managed to refute the evidence they have brought forward for this theory? Do you have your own scientific theory in place of this which is more plausible?

Before you write off ANY theory, please make sure you can answer yes to all these questions and then provide evidence of the last two.

 

[Metal Minister]

First, let's just get down to brass tacks. It's very obvious you're a troll getting his jollies on this forum. Now getting this discussion back to its root, you are an athiest and as such feel superior to those of us who believe in God. This is the natural state of deniers. First, please, considering you have no belief in God or the bible, what is the scientific proof for the origin of matter. Grub assuminy that the big bang created all the planets (which is impossible because of the existence of galaxies, moons, and planets that spin contrary to angular momentum) and assuming that the earth was a hot molten mass, then how do you explain the existence of radio polonium halos in the "basement" granites? Next, again assuming billions of years, how would you explain the lack of a contiguous fossil record? By the theory of evolution there should be an enormius amount of fossils showing a progression toward more complex life. In fact there are fossils of "modern" animals in strata lower than the supposed ancient ancestors. Next please show the fossil record shows one animal becoming a completely different kind of animal. This of course all ASSUMES life evolved from non-living material. Something that is IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce and holds no evidence to support it. All of the tests trying this ij the lab have fallen flat.
There in lies the problem with evolution. It ASSUMES a lot but proves almost nothing. And what it does have proof for can be viewed as evidence for both sides. Christianity is an ideaology, and we freely admit that. However, atheism and evolutionism are as well, but their proponents refuse to admit that. It takes as much if not MORE faith to believe in evoultion than it does to believe in God. You have to BELIEVE in the big bang. You have to BELIEVE that stars evolved. You have to BELIEVE that all the elements evolved from hydrogen. You have to BELIEVE that life cane from some mysterious chemical soup. You have to BELIEVE that animals begot animals completely different from themselves. There is no direct evidence for these things. But as has been stated before you have no true intrest in an honest discussion and refuse to open your mind to other possibilities, so you will continue to troll on this forum until people stop responding. Then you can pound your keyboard in mock triumph thinking you really stuck to those creation freaks, when in actuality we've had enough of your childish posts and insults. I honestly hope I am wrong and that someone somewhere will be able to reach you with the truth, and you will see the light of Christ, but I'm not holding my breath. People like you refuse to set your ego aside long enough to consider the fact that there may be a power greater than yourself in the world.

 

[docpotter]

John 3: 19-21

2 Timothy 2: 25 - 26

As always the word of God tells us the truth. It always has, and it always will.

 

[InterestingUsername]

First, let's just get down to brass tacks. It's very obvious you're a troll getting his jollies on this forum. Now getting this discussion back to its root, you are an athiest and as such feel superior to those of us who believe in God. This is the natural state of deniers. First, please, considering you have no belief in God or the bible, what is the scientific proof for the origin of matter. Grub assuminy that the big bang created all the planets (which is impossible because of the existence of galaxies, moons, and planets that spin contrary to angular momentum) and assuming that the earth was a hot molten mass, then how do you explain the existence of radio polonium halos in the "basement" granites? Next, again assuming billions of years, how would you explain the lack of a contiguous fossil record? By the theory of evolution there should be an enormius amount of fossils showing a progression toward more complex life. In fact there are fossils of "modern" animals in strata lower than the supposed ancient ancestors. Next please show the fossil record shows one animal becoming a completely different kind of animal. This of course all ASSUMES life evolved from non-living material. Something that is IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce and holds no evidence to support it. All of the tests trying this ij the lab have fallen flat.
There in lies the problem with evolution. It ASSUMES a lot but proves almost nothing. And what it does have proof for can be viewed as evidence for both sides. Christianity is an ideaology, and we freely admit that. However, atheism and evolutionism are as well, but their proponents refuse to admit that. It takes as much if not MORE faith to believe in evoultion than it does to believe in God. You have to BELIEVE in the big bang. You have to BELIEVE that stars evolved. You have to BELIEVE that all the elements evolved from hydrogen. You have to BELIEVE that life cane from some mysterious chemical soup. You have to BELIEVE that animals begot animals completely different from themselves. There is no direct evidence for these things. But as has been stated before you have no true intrest in an honest discussion and refuse to open your mind to other possibilities, so you will continue to troll on this forum until people stop responding. Then you can pound your keyboard in mock triumph thinking you really stuck to those creation freaks, when in actuality we've had enough of your childish posts and insults. I honestly hope I am wrong and that someone somewhere will be able to reach you with the truth, and you will see the light of Christ, but I'm not holding my breath. People like you refuse to set your ego aside long enough to consider the fact that there may be a power greater than yourself in the world.

Like a typical creationist, you didn't respond to anything I posted in regards to your first comment, and began spouting a bunch of scientific drivel you probably don't even understand just to try and get me to answer unanswerable questions and explain gaps in scientific knowledge as if this proves your beliefs.

You have a SERIOUS lack of understanding about anything you are talking about. This is why I did not want to get involved in the scientific side of the Theist/Atheist debate and hoped to come in on the morality of the foundations of your beliefs, because there is a severe gap in scientific knowledge amongst 'creationists'. You seem to take things at face value in regards to science. For example, yes, planets spin contrary to the law of angular momentum and this would be completely against everything we gained in accordance to the law, but you do not take into account other forces in the universe. Gravity is the cause of planets and moons spinning in opposite directions. I also urge you to please start from the beginning again when it comes to evolution. If you would just start without your biased presupposition of the god of the bible, I sincerely believe your mind would be open to the theory. Faith is unnecessary when it comes to evolution, because it has remarkably consistent predictive capabilities (it has been proven consistent amongst ALL species on the planet), the one MAIN thing it needs to be recognised as a scientific theory. The reason people like me do not believe your religion is true is because it has NOT had the same consistencies, even outwith the scientific arena.

Now I think it's a bit hypocritical for you to say I think I am superior to you. You are the one labelling me a 'denier' as if to say you are the one that's right with absolute certainty. The one thing I do pride myself over you is that I know I am insanely stupid in regards to knowledge of the universe, and for that very reason I realise I could be completely wrong in my beliefs and would accept that if the evidence presents itself. But I work with what I currently have, and what I currently have suggests that there is no real proof of God, and I therefore do not waste my time with faith until your faith can become my logical conclusion. You however believe with absolute certainty you are right in regards to the existence of God, that your religion is the right religion amongst all others, that your denomination within your religion is right amongst all others, and that everyone who doesn't share your beliefs is wrong in their beliefs.
How you manage to call me out as an egotistical jerk is beyond me.

 

[USincognito]

Second, look up the videos by Kent Hovind on YouTube.

1.
2. I believe he goes by his inmate number at this time.

In them he spells out very clearly how evolution is no more than a religion itself with little to no true scientific data to support it.

Actually all he does is lie to people for an hour. He's a slick snake oil salesman, but the garbage he's peddling is still worthless.

For instance the bible first stated that the earth was round.

Circle =/= Sphere

You must be new to this game if you think that apologetic hasn't been presented and refuted a million times.

Honestly I've lossed a lot of respect for the scientific community because of the ridiculous nature by which they hang onto a theory so patently foolish that future generations will laugh atvus for even posing it.

So you chest thump this baseless and unsupported claim and then follow it up with some bizarre straw man?

In fact the most recent example shows they are so desperate for a reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs they now believe that their own flatulence caused a massive climate change that wiped them out. And these are supposedly the smartest among us? These are the people you're banking your eternity on? The people who think the dinosaurs farted themselves to death?

Yeah, you might want to look up Deccan Traps and Chicxulub, plus what the guys who published this actually did and what they claimed along with what they did not.
Media Blows Hot Air About Dinosaur Flatulence | Dinosaur Tracking

Let me guess, you got your garbage version of this story from Fox news or The Blaze.

 

[USincognito]

{snip rambling gnashing of teeth}

Ah! High dudgeon and Gish Gallop. I bet you're a great Creationist...

Grub assuminy that the big bang created all the planets (which is impossible because of the existence of galaxies, moons, and planets that spin contrary to angular momentum)

Oh brother, not the angular momentum thing. You do know that bodies and even galaxies collide and interact with each other, right? Actually, you probably don't since you bring up this insipid PRATT.

...and assuming that the earth was a hot molten mass, then how do you explain the existence of radio polonium halos in the "basement" granites?

The don't exist
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index, Polonium Haloes Indicate a Young Earth
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

...Next, again assuming billions of years, how would you explain the lack of a contiguous fossil record? By the theory of evolution there should be an enormius amount of fossils showing a progression toward more complex life.

You ever seen a fossilized American Bison or Passenger Pigeon? If you understand my question, then you might understand what I'm getting at with regards to fossils. If not, it's going to take a while.

...In fact there are fossils of "modern" animals in strata lower than the supposed ancient ancestors.

No there are not. Whoever told you that lied.

...Next please show the fossil record shows one animal becoming a completely different kind of animal.

Before anyone provide you with examples of transitional fossils, are you expecting an extant taxa to give rise to another extant taxa (say, a cat turning into a dog) or do you have some awareness of what evolutionary theory actually predicts we'll find in the fossil record.

- cont.

 

[USincognito]

This of course all ASSUMES life evolved from non-living material. Something that is IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce and holds no evidence to support it. All of the tests trying this ij the lab have fallen flat.

Of course, if all one knows about studies into aboigenesis are Creationist lies that conflate the archaic concept of spontaneous generation, one would think that since scientists can't get an amoeba to crawl out of a petri dish that said studies have "fallen flat". But if one looks into what resulted from Miller-Urey (amino acids - the building blocks of life produced from "non-living material"), Fox's experiments with protocells, evidence that amino acids form in environments other than the earth, etc., one sees that the argument against abiogenesis isn't as solid as Creationists would make one believe.

And then there's the fact that focusing on abiogenesis is not an argument against evolution for two reasons - first, because evolution only occurs in extant life that reproduces via a method that allows for mutations to cause change in offspring and second, because it's merely an argument against atheism. Evolutionary theory will not be effected one bit by the source of the original life - be it abiogenesis, panspermia, fiat creation, etc. - evolution will occur after said life comes into existance regardless of the method.

There in lies the problem with evolution. It ASSUMES a lot but proves almost nothing.

Yeah... you keep using "proves", "proof", etc. in a scientific discussion which tells me you're in over your head. Proof is for math, alcohol and colloquially in the courtroom. As far as the evidence goes, you can use magic words in all caps like "ASSUMES", but that won't change the fact that the evidences exist and are unassailible.

And what it does have proof for can be viewed as evidence for both sides. Christianity is an ideaology, and we freely admit that. However, atheism and evolutionism are as well, but their proponents refuse to admit that. It takes as much if not MORE faith to believe in evoultion than it does to believe in God. You have to BELIEVE in the big bang. You have to BELIEVE that stars evolved. You have to BELIEVE that all the elements evolved from hydrogen. You have to BELIEVE that life cane from some mysterious chemical soup. You have to BELIEVE that animals begot animals completely different from themselves. There is no direct evidence for these things. But as has been stated before you have no true intrest in an honest discussion and refuse to open your mind to other possibilities, so you will continue to troll on this forum until people stop responding. Then you can pound your keyboard in mock triumph thinking you really stuck to those creation freaks, when in actuality we've had enough of your childish posts and insults. I honestly hope I am wrong and that someone somewhere will be able to reach you with the truth, and you will see the light of Christ, but I'm not holding my breath. People like you refuse to set your ego aside long enough to consider the fact that there may be a power greater than yourself in the world.

I'd snip this self-congratulatory, equivocatively fallacious, ignorant screed, but I think quoting it in toto and noting to someone who has had an account for 2-3 days, as someone who has been her for nearly 9 years, that playing the troll card makes you look pretty silly.

"Metal Minister". That suggests youth pastor to me. I hope you're not giving sermons/Sunday School lessons on Crevo... I'm just saying.

 

[Metal Minister]

What does the theory of evolution need to explain?

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must be also be able to explain how the following came into being.

1. The sun and the earth (Without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (Without the first cell there can be no other life.)

3. The formation of all other living things

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.

In natural selection, the environment affects the gene frequency in a population. Even so, natural selection is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are random, mindless and blind.

Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist ,but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!” 11

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent." 12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!” 13

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists". 14

The universe cannot have created itself!

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said: "Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." 1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." 9

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …" 7

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!

Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." 2

What does the fossil record teach us about evolution? Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links? Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals. 4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria /sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

 

[USincognito]

Ah, more bluster and Gish Gallop.

You're a great Creationist.

 

[Metal Minister]

EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution
Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" 5

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …” 10

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9 th power. BUT the probability of eve. n one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known hu.man gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

Probability Arguments in Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

Great scientists from the past and present talk on Evolution and God

How Antony Flew (an outspoken atheist for 60 years) came to believe there is a God

Four Things That Two Ex Sceptics Got Wrong

GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

C.S. Lewis showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver). “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” 14

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." (Lord Kelvin)

"I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler)

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule)

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun)

"Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus)

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister)

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)

"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)

"The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)

"We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)

"The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)

"I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)

"I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)

"At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)

"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

This is my final response to both of you trolls. I know neither interestingusername or usincognito want to learn so I post this for the benefit of those who come here seeking answers. As an aside I'm and ordained minister with a healthy love of metalcore.

 

[Metal Minister]

Thank you for proving my point...

 

[USincognito]

Thank you for proving my point...

What point is that? I eviscerated your rambling rants and you just ignore them and post spam you stole from Creationist websites. I fail to see any point you've made than that you are woefully ill prepared to engage in an actual debate on this subject.

- eta I found where you stole that wall of text
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
and don't worry, when I have some free time, I'll eviscerate it as well. Creationists tend to be pretty ignorant of science and post a lot of walls of text like this on their websites without realizing that what they're posting is in error.

 

[USincognito]

Soooo. anyway...

What does the theory of evolution need to explain?

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must be also be able to explain how the following came into being.

The author of this garbage doesn't understand science or what a theory is. Theories are broad in scope, but focused as well. Germ theory of disease explains why diseases happen - a broad topic - but it does not cover how organisms evolve, came into existance, the formation of the earth, turtles all the way down. The same is true of evolutionary theory, and using language like "come into existance" borders on the pathetic. Evolution starts with the first primordial life - regardless of how it came into existance. Humans are rather late to the life party. If one looks at the existance of life on earth as a calendar, then modern H. sapiens evolved about Dec. 21st or so.

1. The sun and the earth (Without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

No, this is addressed by Astrophysics and Geology.

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (Without the first cell there can be no other life.)

No, that would be abiogensis. Of course it doesn't really matter where the primordial lifeform comes from, be it abiogenesis, panspermia, or fiat creation by God, evolution would happen to it after it started to replicate.

3. The formation of all other living things

Bizarre framing of the "question", but evolutionary theory does explain that in a way more cogent than any other. I fail to see how this is a problem.

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.

Metaphysical manure. The sun and earth were formed via processes known as primordial and stellar nucleosynthesis, stellar fomation, planetary accretion and plate tectonics - all well understood by astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists, physicists and chemists. The earliest life was likely not a "cell" per se, but self-replicating polymers that eventually led to proto-life and then to life as we know it. That is the perview of chemists, biochemists and microbiologists. None of these processes are "random, mindless or blind", and are guided to a certain extent by the laws of physics and chemistry.

{snip more metaphysical garbage}
EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed.{snip quote mining and a horrible misunderstanding of 1LoT vs. the actual law}

Unless one wants to get into a turtles all the way down debate, the Big Bang Theory - which was formulated by a Catholic priest btw - does not suggest either that the universe "created itself" or that it has always existed. The singularity that began expanding was extant at the advent of the universe we know and are trying to understand today. That is very different from "created itself" and quite far from Steady State Theory which is the only scientifically viable "always existed" option.

EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

The author of this garbage doesn't actually understand the 2LoT. That's not surprising because the common Creationist straw man of 2LoT would prevent an acorn from becomming an oak tree, an embryo from becoming a baby, the big Island of Hawaii from existing. It's an almost Poe worthy joke whenever a Creationist uses this "argument".

EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

Pure straw man on the part of Creationists. Abiogenesis suggests that the chemicals that make up life can form an organism by a method quite different from the Creationist straw man version, but again, evolution doesn't rest on the source of primordial life. If it exists and reproduces, it will evolve.

- cont.

 

[USincognito]

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

Oh how cute! The author of the stuff you're stealing is trying to use the IC "argument. And best of all they quote mine Darwin in the process...

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory.

How pathetically PRATTish. How many websites exist that show how Darwin - 160 years ago and with no knowledge of genetics - goes on to explain how "the eye" could have evolved? I'm sure, because you only read that quote mine, think he just threw up his hands and realized the futility of his blasphemy shortly before he recanted on his death bed as heard by Lady Hope.

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Emotional garbage language aside, sorry, but yes, there has been a mechanism not only put forth but evidenced - mutation and natural selection, the basis of evolutionary theory when Darwin proposed it 160 years ago and still valid to this day.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

I was going to snip this but it's just too rediculous. Does the author of this garbage think that all these systems suddenly appeared in humans suddenly when we evolved suddenly or something?

Body plan - humans are Bilaterians.
Digestive system - humans are Deuterostomes.
Nervous system - humans are Chordates.
Skeletal - humans are Vertebrata, Craniata and Tetrapods.
Muscular and Immune - humans are Mammals and Primates.
Brain - humans are Primates, Hominds and Hominans.

I again fail to see where the problem is.

Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

More than Creationism.

EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.[/quote]

Oh brother. Not only do they use the anachronistic 19th Century term "missing link" they exhibit no understanding of how fossils are formed. Of course I asked you in my earlier replies that you ignored before going on your stolen, cut and pasted Gish Gallop if you were familiar with the Passenger Pigeon and the American Bison so it's clear you took no effort to educate yourself on the subject of fossils.

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution{snip argumentative abominations against science}

Wow, just when I thought the author of that cut and pasted garbage you stole couldn't get any worse, they post that stuff.

Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

This is an awesome example of the abuse of science and language, and reliance on metaphysics that most Creationists engage in when "debating" this subject. As you'll see, it's also one that requires more than a quote mine or unsupported assertion in order to discuss.

Take cave fish for example. Those that have gone blind. Is the mutation that shuts off the development of eyes "positive" or not? Well, if one lives in a totally dark environment, and the development of eyes would be a total waste of energy/calories, then yeah, it's a positive change caused by a mutation. Fish that don't waste energy/calories in developing and maintaining eye function have a selective advantage in totally dark environment over those that do waste energy/calories on useless organs. From a human perspective, not developing eyes would be seen as a negative adaptation, but from the perspective of the cave fish, it's positive.

So, there's my long paragraph fairly succinctly explaining why a mutation humans might consider "negative" is actually "positive" and why we shouldn't try to foist our value judgements on the - and not the quotes - "direction" evolution takes.

I think you're in over you head dude and should take your spam to another venue, but if you want to be continued to be schooled on this subject, keep posting and I'll keep correcting your lie based misconceptions.