A few Replies Cont....
The Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the
Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) -
before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that
didn't exist, if there is no God?
Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time
for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful
is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the
first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have
therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and
came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the
problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still
unknown. See Reasons to Believe for more information on Creation and Time
and the astronomical evidence for God's existence.
No model has ever succesfully been given for the evolution of the first
biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time.
Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of
bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their
component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind
chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would
surely destroy them.
What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real
information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents
would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows
95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some
might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?
The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in
its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions
of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species.
Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium,
the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt
the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that
by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do.
As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will
believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that
other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the
true keys to evolution's popularity.
Some Biological Problems of the Natural Selection Theory - Dr. Jerry Bergman
If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life
would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist?
And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has
someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?
All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds
or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be
replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account
for the evolution of man from apes.
Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the
theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on
genetic information.
Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which says that
closed systems tend to increasing levels of disorder. The order must have
come from somewhere in the Universe to give rise to the order here on earth?
But how and from where? Naturalists don't seem to have any real answers to
these questions.
I
It's hard to imagine how an eye would evolve. A half seeing eye has no
survival value. How could such as a half developed eye come to exist if it
serves no function and adds no survival value?
Pasteur, of "spontaneous generation". Things just appear. Genetic
information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes.. No
God need be involved. Take it on trust. Its only your eternal soul that's at
stake.
BY: BABU G. RANGANATHAM
June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the fossil
record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of
half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that
a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there
are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the
fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be
able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any
partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every
species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species
survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were
still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing,
eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive
organs were still evolving?
In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern
evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium
which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to
another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species
in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith
because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These
evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation
resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes
from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be
discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.
The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete
in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation
because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and
complete which is possible only by creation.
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between
species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one
interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative
similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for
similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be
scientifically proved.
Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection
occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a
creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological
variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the
possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses,
cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless
Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution
will not be possible.
The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are
really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck
regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and
spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the
rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx
has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic
muscles.
Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or
biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they
are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic
potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs,
cats, horses, cows, etc.
Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like
creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as
Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has
the capability of performing genetic engineering.
Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species.
The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids
which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is
this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various
tissues and organs.
The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the
genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits
and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in
entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of
natural genetic engineering.
However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility.
Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic
code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and
toxic chemicals.
Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally
expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one
there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being
disastrous for the species.
Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of
previously existing genes - not because of mutations.
Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing
traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the
gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't
change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits
(i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of
the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or
characteristics.
Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races
of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches. Well,
in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different
color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same
parents who both have black hair.
Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with
different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed
genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not
carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve
did possess such genes.
All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not
all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one
person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e.,
brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of
the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different
abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.
Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove
we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They
are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian
macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value
of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe
operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to
believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of
science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe,
and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can
never fully explain the origin of such order.
The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the
ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the
universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.
http://www.gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html
Or go here:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
: )
And for those that say universe is all chaotic, and not organized; then look at us right now. Here we are. Everything perfectly working and beautifully, harmoniously balanced. Life sure exists right now due to amazing harmony and balance of numerous, essential things all at once.
There is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today. Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself.
Many of the arguments about "organized religion" do have merit, IMO.
But there are some pretty good arguments backing up some of those opinions. Whereas I see absolutely nothing, anywhere, which supports the belief that there is no God or Intelligent Designer anywhere despite an abundance of amazing things all around us today.
This is why so few today ever give atheism a second glance.
But I have done much more than that. I have debated these very things with hundreds of capable non-believers in many places. The facts supporting atheism are just not there.
I do appreciate your taking the time though.
Have a good one Seratonin.
All the best,
Vinny
