Evolution vs religion

cmon royalCA, where did you go? im starting to miss your arrogance. did i "fail miserably?"

First of all, I forwarded that article for all investigating this topic not just you. This is good exercise in asking the right questions, researching and knowing what you believe in and attempting to have a discussion with others with opposing viewpoints. This is America and everyone has the right to his or her point of view or beliefs. These two articles were designed to assist those seeking to investigate evolution and the truth behind it. Evolutionist should welcome scientific inquiry, questions, and should not be so afraid of their own methods or tools of scientific inquiry and those seeking to obtain more information. Yes I understood you perfectly but I don

[SIZE="5"]Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Evolution is False and Impossible.[/SIZE]

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a [SIZE="4"]theory[/SIZE] instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a Religion - the Worship of Time.

Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support, which it does not. They switch tactics when pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution as presented below by stating that evolution is "only" a theory. Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways. They claim scientific support when [SIZE="5"]none exists[/SIZE], and they claim it is only a theory when the theory straddles them with outlandish, impossible conclusion that violate scientific truths. Evolutionists simply ignore reality, slink into denial and walk away when presented with the scientific facts below. The human mind has a very detrimental character weakness. Humans would rather believe error for the rest of their lives than admit they had been wrong.

The education system teaches children not to think. Any student that uses logic and solid scientific evident to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students that submit become non thinking robots that dare not question the dogma presented.

Brainwashing, Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychotic, Sociology, Sociopath, Schizophrenia, Anorexia, Bulimia, Depression, Obsessive-Compulsive, Paranoia, Phobia, Addiction and Other Mental and Personality Disorders.

The educational system on the university level in all English-speaking countries brings brainwashing to perfection. Many generations have lived and died having been brainwashed into believing that extra terrestrial life forms must have evolved and exist somewhere. They search in vain for life elsewhere in the universe and cosmos. They research in vain trying to prove the evolutionary theory. They get Ph. Ds., become professors, and teach the next generation the same unproven and impossible ideas. The brainwashed individual rarely understands his own condition and no means exist for his reprogramming. They read scientific facts presented here, but the brainwashed brain is in lockdown, unable to understand logic. That is why they call it brainwashing.

Intelligent design can easily be seen in every detail of nature. The theory of evolution falls short consistently in the absence of intermediate species, the sudden appearance of giant dinosaurs and basic science.

Darwinism is the official state religion in all English-speaking countries.

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State. The Separation of Church and State.

Separation of Church and State, God versus Politics in America.

Advice to students of light.

Students in secular high schools and universities that reject the Theory of Evolution in favor of creation are commonly ridiculed, insulted, shunned and punished by fellow atheistic students and teachers. The atheistic teachers will punish the students who reject evolution by using these and other psychological control techniques. There comes a point when it is hopeless to try to change a hardened atheistic heart.

After you receive your diploma and walk off the stage, stomp the dust off your feet as a testimony that you are shaking off their false teaching.

The teacher is most likely to slam your grade down very hard if you challenge evolution simply because he will know you are a creationist. Staying on the Dean's list is more important at this time in your life than witnessing to a hardened atheists. You can always find a hardened atheist on campus to debate. There are hundreds of them.

Mark 6:11 "And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them."

Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.

Time is the evolutionists' god.

Time is the god of evolutionists. The evolutionists' god is claimed to be very slow but infinitely powerful. The time-god is credited with the ability to accomplish anything and everything given enough time. It simply takes the time-god millions or billions of years to accomplish it. Scientifically impossible events are credited to the time-god. Evolutionists keep their time-god close at hand where they can watch their god's hands move around slowly, slowly, slowly trying to evolve new species but never succeeding.

Evolutionists Cannot Truly Have Faith in God, the Creator.

Instant creation is rejected by evolutionists even though the fossil record shows the instant appearance of every known species. One evolutionist suggested another false theory called the "evolutionary jump" because he acknowledged this reality. Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution and also believes in God is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.

[SIZE="5"] Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.[/SIZE]

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense. The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection sending the Theory of Evolution crashing .

The bird is said by evolutionists to grow hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take the fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die, but let's get back to the fish story. His gills are made for water. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe on dry land. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is lizard. If you believe this, you need psychiatric help.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs. They do not exist because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with a long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural selection theory.

[SIZE="5"]
Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." However, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features, such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct; but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solid within their DNA code.

Evolutionists Go Ape Over Ape-Girl.Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl."


The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago. The number of bones of the skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments. This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal). It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual."

The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees." It looks like an ape. It has a head like an ape. It has arms like an ape. It has shoulder blades like an ape. It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. Evolutionists simply will not accept the obvious. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.

Evolutionistic scientists call these ape-like features "evolutionary baggage." In other words, these scientists are discrediting their own evolutionary theory of "natural selection." They are calling the ape-like features unnecessary "baggage." The theory of natural selection is not supposed to have unnecessary baggage, remember?

The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Evolutionistic scientists also claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The evolutionistic scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a modern day pig.



'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006.

"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."

Evolutionists Go Ballistic Over Ape-Girl. Side view."Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce. Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said. "In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. "In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. "[The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from.""

Climbing ability

"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape. This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the "Lucy" species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just "evolutionary baggage"."

Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory that there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains that they don't. Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse not better with the discovery of more fossils. The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists. The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the theory of evolution. New species literally explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.

Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day. Well, guess what. He died not finding them. [SIZE="5"]Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they announce finding one it is later proven to be false.[/SIZE] The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct.



Archaeopteryx Bird. The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur, with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing and teeth in the jaws.

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers


The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[SIZE="4"]Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The theory of evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton page 263.

The odds that the correct proteins could somehow come together in a functional configuration to make a living cell are so high that it will never happen. The thought that anything can be accomplished by chance given enough time is a myth and a lie. Some people foolishly believe that anything can be accomplished given enough time. That concept is false.

Evolution Is Biologically Impossible by Joseph Mastropaolo.

"That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

Darwin

[SIZE="4"]Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Chromosomes, Chromatin, DNA Replication and Repair

"Replication also contains built-in error checking. The frequency of errors is about 1 per 100 million bonds (1 x 10-8 ). Over the entire human genome, that works out to roughly 30 errors every single time the genome replicates. BUT! There are really only around three errors per replication because of DNA repair. If a repair enzyme finds a mistake, it can fix it, and it can tell which strand is wrong because it can tell which strand is the newly synthesized strand by at the extent of cytosine methylation. As DNAs exist in cells, many of the cytosines have a methyl group added to them by enzymes called methylases. A new DNA will have relatively few methylated cytosines because it has not been around long enough to have picked up that many methyl groups."

"Without DNA repair there can be some major problems. Xeroderma pigmentosum is a serious ailment caused by mutations in the gene for DNA repair. People with xp develop many skin tumors and other problems because of the number of errors in their DNA."

Mutations Result From Damaged DNA During Replication

Mutations are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage and passed on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation. The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Evolutionists believe in the mutation theory for the origin of the many species. They believe the "time god" does this by messing-up. Tick - tock -tick - tock - the "time god" makes mistake after mistake after mistake until VOLA, we have a hummingbird that can fly backward. They claim that mutation mistake after mutation mistake eventually led to humans with color vision that can focus at different lengths and coordinate two eyes in order to judge distances. The mutation theory is nonsense, folks.

Evolutionists believe the mutation nonsense, but they have a hissy fit at the thought that nuclear radiation could possibly cause a mutation. They start nutty, false rumors that three-eyed frogs are being found near a nuclear power plant. If the mutation theory were true they should be overjoyed at the thought that nuclear radiation could possibly cause a three-eyed frog by mutation. They should go around radiating everything in sight in order to speed up the evolution of a new specie. Evolutionists should radiate themselves. Perhaps they would grow a brain by mutation.

[SIZE="5"] Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos unless changed by an intelligent being.

Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler, "One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness - the fact that, on the average, things will get into disorder rather than into order, if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics." This scientific law actually refutes and contradicts the theory of evolution in its entirety. The whole universe is not getting better and more specialized; it is running down; it is wearing out.


[SIZE="5"]
Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

When your dog is going to have a litter, don't worry that she will have a litter of monkeys instead of a litter of puppies. That she will have puppies was determined when her chromosomes joined with her mate's chromosomes at conception. You see, a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54. Half the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male. So the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.

Man has 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes produce variety within the species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but still all people. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. It would stop it dead in its tracks.

[SIZE="5"]Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas

"We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn't resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from."

Stars and galaxies could not evolve as many scientists claim. There are no proven scientific theories for the development of stars and galaxies.

Origin of the Stars

"The stellar evolution theory is foolishness. Fortunately, common sense and reputable scientists have refuted it. Yet their writings are not well-known. Here is a summary of some of their findings. The truth is that there are many scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:"

Some people fail to see the connection between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but the connection is very real. Evolution was conceived in order to ignore creation by an infinitely powerful God. The evolutionists soon realized that creation of the Earth and all the cosmos had to be ignored also. The Big Bang myth quickly gained the support of atheistic scientists. The two theories are intertwined to oppose creation as taught in the Bible. If one theory falters, both falter.

The Big Bang and Redshift Theories Have Many Big Flaws, Errors and Problems

[SIZE="5"] Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile any longer. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have now contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that any of these organisms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life was found it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.

[SIZE="5"] Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong.[/SIZE]

Radio Telescope Array.Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

This is a typical picture of an array of radio telescopes. The search for extra terrestrial intelligence over many decades has been a complete failure. The billions of dollars spent searching for intelligence outside of earth has been a total waste.

Life on Earth is enormously diverse. There are millions of species. There are microbes that live in boiling water, salty water and at the South Pole. Life is in abundance in the hottest deserts on Earth. You can't put your foot down without squashing something. Swarms of life would evolve all over the cosmos if life could evolve on Earth under such extreme conditions. But there is no known life elsewhere in the cosmos -- no radio signals, no x-ray signals, nothing. Therefore the lack of life elsewhere in the cosmos proves life did not evolve on Earth.

According to mathematical statistics, intelligent life forms in the cosmos should be numerous if evolution were possible. The number of galaxies, stars and planets should easily produce vast quantities of intelligent life forms if evolution were possible. The lack of signals from space proves evolution is wrong.

Scientists looking for life in the cosmos call themselves astrobiologists or bioastronomers. We now have jobs and titles for something that does not exist. They are destined to a career that will be a complete failure. They will never find any evidence of life beyond Earth. This would be fine for someone who wants to spend their personal time and money in a worthless hobby, but these guys are leaches on the taxpayer.

and So on and So on proving evolution to be false...theirs much more...
pheww
last words
Don't believe your biology science text book. Biologists keep revising science that was supposed to be scientifically fact


Atheism (the denial of God) is a modern human belief. Artifacts in ancient burial sites reveal that humans have always believed in a life after death and a Creator God. Humans have a natural belief in God. Brainwashing by books, schools and the major media is required to make a human atheistic.


Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.

that is the most gross, offensive display in the name of "science" that i have ever seen. please read the SELFISH GENE or GOD DELUSION, both by Richard Dawkins, to have every single one of those ridiculous arguments, if you could even call them arguments, soundly rebutted.

further, evolution will NEVER be considered a scientific law because it cannot be expressed by a mathematical equation. that is why you find laws in mostly the fields of chemistry and physics, whereas biology has mostly theories -- it does not invalidate its authenticity in the least.

Just to show a tid-bit of how your argument tries to distort the truth, straight from wikipedia:

"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

As a science-head I made that urgent call to God to prove himself to me and if He is real to make himself known to me in a very real and undeniable way. It happened and I got my proof. I was real in my need to know about God and God was real in His response as well. Life is sweet.

i'm intrigued by this statement. can you elaborate? i always find it interesting when people call out to "god" and get a response... because even if i concede the point that "god" contacted you, personally, how do you make the connection that "god" = JC?

organized religion is so geographically and demographically defined -- i can guarantee that you live in a country, state, town, culture, family that is predominantly of the christian faith. thereby, "god" = JC...

if you had such an experience in baghdad i am quite sure you would be praying to allah right now; israel you'd be praying to yahweh, and southeast asia buddha...

UH OH STEP what are we going to do Royal CA has come back with some HEATTTT !!!!!! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I'm going to H E Double Hockey Sticks .....

u douche bags who believe in that science shit are going to hell, nuf said, say all you want

u douche bags who believe in that science shit are going to hell, nuf said, say all you want

You should remember that every time you logg onto the internet, technology is part of evolution.

You should remember that every time you logg onto the internet, technology is part of evolution.

lmao

i think they have supplied us with enough information to rule out any creation from a SUPREME BEING

If the universe (SUPREME BEING as you put it) is responsible for creating everything, how could gathering information and understanding from the very things it created disprove it is the creator?

If the universe (SUPREME BEING as you put it) is responsible for creating everything, how could gathering information and understanding from the very things it created disprove it is the creator?

exactly. this dude thinks that evolution disproves god. all it does is disprove a POINT OF VIEW that the bible was written in a LITERAL sense, when it IS possible that the bible was not a true collection of history. people defend it so vehemently because if people throw into question genesis or revelations, then its ok to question the gospels and therefore the legitimacy of jesus christ, and if he isnt authentic, they might as well all be jewish. and they cant have that, now can they?

and royal, i didnt fully answer your questions in that "scientific questionaire" |0 because i had stayed up most of the night answering them and i was tired of doing so, since the questions it asked at the end were redundant and i had already answered them.

I glanced through these other articles of "facts" and "logic" you posted, and whoever wrote them does not have much of a grasp on how this world works. there is nothing worse that someone who is trying to disprove something when they dont know how it works in the first place. thats like the Church trying to disprove Gallileo. He claimed we were not the center of the universe, based on scientific observation and FACT, while the church sited him for heresy, for what he was saying couldnt possibly be true because it went against the common perception that since we were god's favored creations we MUST be the center of the universe. it just had to do with a primitive perception of how things work. someone stays in a certain place on the earth, it appears as if the sun and everything else rotates around us, but that is because WE are rotating. Just the same way you like to use an article that relates BREEDING which is not natural selection and only has been taking place over a couple hundred, maybe a thousand or so years (and HAS created different species, if you must know), compared to processes that take place over 10K's, 100K's to millions of years, with a different process, doesnt work as some sort of PROOF that what you think is right. your arrogance astounds me, youre not doing your religion any service right now.

u douche bags who believe in that science shit are going to hell, nuf said, say all you want

dont be a retard. dont contribute to this discussion unless you have something constructive or actually intelligent to say.

ok here i go

People have been trying to disprove God since FOREVER. No matter how many theories you come up with you're never totally going to dis prove God. The same for the believers, the only proof they have is the holy boks anfd "miracles". Only true way to prove or disprove is to die and find out but your dead so now what. So live your life as you see fit, a life with god, or a life with nothing. This is a major waist of time.

peace

wow none of the arguments that Royal CA copied and pasted are even remotely true or based in fact. Royal did you even read them? Do you have any idea how evolution works, how chemical revolution lead to biological evolution. Have you ever gone and taken a class that discusses evolution? It's fine to say that evolution is god's doing b/c that's fine, but there have been signs of revolution during the last 200 years (i.e. moths during industrial revolution). How can you deny natural selection when it has been observed and proven as something that has occured for millions of years and is still occuring right now? I mean there is plenty of evidence that the earth is much much much older than the age of earth found in biblical scripture (5000 years i believe is what christianity claims) and that it obviously didn't come into being in 7 days (or however long the bible claims). C'mon dude, grow up and don't be so close minded. You can believe in god and believe in evolution, there are plenty of christians (probably most in the US) that believe in both god and evolution.

and yes you can't disprove the existence god but you can't disprove ghosts, the boogie man, etc

ok here i go

People have been trying to disprove God since FOREVER. No matter how many theories you come up with you're never totally going to dis prove God. The same for the believers, the only proof they have is the holy boks anfd "miracles". Only true way to prove or disprove is to die and find out but your dead so now what. So live your life as you see fit, a life with god, or a life with nothing. This is a major waist of time.

peace

I just don't understand why you guys think not having faith makes us bad people lol.... it means we ( By we I mean I) are not confined to a set of rules of faith. That does'nt make us bad people, and you probably could'nt tell the believers from the non- believers. And what is ironic is it's the believers who are the ones fucking up. But like I said that's just my observation.

i.e. Mark Folley
Polygamy
Catholic Priest
Religious Extremist

Good thing im not Catholic.

Good thing im not Catholic.

lol word I'm catholic by birth, and it think it's boring and alittle foolish.

Good thing im not Catholic.

ppl from every faith fuck up (as do non-religous types as well):
Islam: Osama, Saddam, Armenian Genocide, 7/7 Bombers, Munich Olympics, Algerian bombings, Tanzanian embassy bombing, Kenyan embassy bombing, Indian bombings

Judaism: Jewish terrorists back in the early days of the state of Israel

Shinto: Japanese massacreing Chinese and others during WWII

and so on...
naturally, these are individuals that tend to have quite distorted and unrepresentative views of their religions

ppl from every faith fuck up (as do non-religous types as well):
Islam: Osama, Saddam, Armenian Genocide, 7/7 Bombers, Munich Olympics, Algerian bombings, Tanzanian embassy bombing, Kenyan embassy bombing, Indian bombings

Judaism: Jewish terrorists back in the early days of the state of Israel

Shinto: Japanese massacreing Chinese and others during WWII

and so on...
naturally, these are individuals that tend to have quite distorted and unrepresentative views of their religions

christians: the crusades (thats all i can think of)

christians: the crusades (thats all i can think of)

there's a lot more for christians but i didn't bring em up b/c it's more apparent to most ppl
: ie. KKK, much slavery, abortion clinic bombins, American genocide of the native americans, Australian genocide of natives, Bosnian genocide (mostly against muslims), etc... could go on forever

If you are truly devote and have solid faith, why would you be afraid to die?

If you are truly devote and have solid faith, why would you be afraid to die?

You should'nt, as long as you life to the fullest and have no regrets then you should'nt be afraid to die. Regardless of faith.

holy crap i just read through all that stuff, AND i found the original website (or one that lists these arguements). all i have to say is that the arguements listed by royalCA (who can only rely on the arguments others have written) are so filled with selective quoting and logic based on poor understanding of science. These "articles" were written by a minister, versed in defending THE BIBLE, not versed in scientific theories and facts. i can and probably will break down these arguments but not till a later date. im off to work.

BUT, if anyone has a couple days to kill, here are two conflicting websites. ONE, the website where he got this information (which also happens to claim that organic food is BAD for you- claiming that organic spinach had E.COLI recently, when it was not solely organic spinich, it was a huge group- and that DDT does not have adverse affects on life through its accumulation in the food chain), and another site which will counter alot of creationist arguements. The point is that creationists tend to write essays using information to claim something (like Nebraska man was claimed to be a missing link but was disproved by creationists, when in fact there were only a few people who claimed that it was primate and even then they were cautious to claim such a thing).

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html

and for fun, there is http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page

and http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

ok here i go

People have been trying to disprove God since FOREVER. No matter how many theories you come up with you're never totally going to dis prove God. The same for the believers, the only proof they have is the holy boks anfd "miracles". Only true way to prove or disprove is to die and find out but your dead so now what. So live your life as you see fit, a life with god, or a life with nothing. This is a major waist of time.

peace

well i personally have NEVER tried to disprove god. and all my arguements only were to disprove creationism. not god.

what jus bugs me is how in schools , they teach evolution but say " Oh, you dont have to beleive this, but we are just required to teach you what it is ". When we all agree that evolution doesnt have nearly enough proof to be taught as if it were fact.
i just think it would be fair to also teach the other hundreds of "theories" of how life began. Because it seems a bit bias for us to have to learn it, even tho they say " oh you dont have to beleive it "