First, let me address the claim that the majority of scientists are evolutionists. While more scientists today might claim to be atheists or evolutionists, this is no mere coincidence. Many fail to realize that the mainstream scientific and education communities in America have been hijacked. The opposing side might not agree with this use of the word 'hijacked,' but this word fits perfectly. Hijacked is exactly the right word to describe the action when someone takes something from others. And that is exactly what has happened with our education and scientific communities. Wealthy atheists have gained leadership positions in various communities, and then used their clout, power, and wealth to eliminate any opposing views within that community. This is why the 'Scientific Journal,' for example, has led many to believe that all the scientists are evolutionists. As famous actor/comedian and activist, Ben Stein, demonstrates in his documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," anyone even mentioning 'intelligent design' is not only fired, but blacklisted from their respective education or scientific communities today. So it should be known that there are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate, however, only one side is truly being represented. We should all know from history that the majority are often wrong. One should look to the evidence, not the majority. Furthermore, many do not know that the vast majority of schools have been forced to teach the side of evolution, but not because this theory is supported by evidence. There are powerful organizations, particularly ACLU, actually looking for schools teaching intelligent design or creation and suing them if pressure does not work. And because of powerful backers, ACLU is winning most lawsuits, and so schools are just bending over. This very act to suppress the other side should be a huge warning flag to everyone that something is not right, because if evolution was evidenced based, they would have nothing to worry from opposing arguments. The truth is that the debate is has not been settled by atheists and evolutionists because their theory is so full of holes it couldn't hold water, there still lacks any evidence of macro-evolution, and in fact new breakthroughs have destroyed evolution. The other side has overwhelming, concrete evidence, and can answer almost every important question.
Secondly, I want to point out that real and true atheism is a new belief, and the first of it's kind in history. Going back through 6,000 years of recorded history, we see that man has always known there was a God, although often, many gods were worshiped as well. This new belief system of atheism spawned from the publication of a book in 1895 in which the author Charles Darwin proposed that all life evolved over time based on nothing more than his observations of various species of dogs, finches, and other animals. Soon afterwards, text-book 'proofs' such as 'Piltdown man,' 'Lucy,' 'Neanderthal man,' 'Java man,' 'Nebraska man,' and 'Orce man' emerged as 'missing links,' and as carbon dating then seemingly discrediting the young-earth belief held by the majority of creationists, creation-science was quickly forced out of schools, and evolution began to be taught as fact, despite the fact that this 'fact' was only a baseless theory.
Now science literally means 'Knowledge,' referring to that which we can observe and test. Real science represents our body of knowledge derived from our studies of this universe. Unfortunately, today science has been twisted to include baseless theories because there is nothing 'knowledgeable' about the theory that nobody + nothing = everything. Many are unaware that every former text-book 'proof' has been disproven and thrown out, including carbon dating. Many former text-book 'proofs' were found to be completely fabricated lies. Unfortunately, millions of youth were brainwashed by lies for decades, which is also the only reason why the majority of scientists today are evolutionists. Today, a bird with talons on its wings is the latest 'missing link' to be thrown up, but you have to be pretty stupid to actually think this 'proves' reptiles evolved into birds. All this shows is an extinct bird with talons on its wings. Furthermore, a fossil can never prove evolution because you can't prove that animal had kids, let alone different kinds of kids. More importantly, the atheist-jacked community has lost all credibility with their previous stunts. The single most damning evidence against evolutionists is the fossil record for two very important reasons: 1.) the fossil record shows a sudden emergence of life, and the theory of evolution actually shares that similarity with Creationism with their "Cambrian explosion', and 2.) if billions of transitions occurred over billions of years there would be plenty of evidence. In over half a century of digging and searching, the best we could do is a bird with talons on its wings, or thicker human like skulls, or other fossils of dead species?! And why would you think animals back then could do something they can't or don't do now?? What do we observe today? Kinds giving birth to their kinds. Many think dinosaurs 'prove' evolution but this is ridiculous and illogical. History is full of an overwhelming abundance of evidence to show that dinosaurs, or monsters, and man coexisted, including drawings, pictures, paintings, carvings, and inscribed recordings and legends. Although most of this evidence is in remote museums now, and so most today are growing up without a clue, which is the only reason why this lie of evolution is now even possible. 'Dinosaur' literally means 'terrible lizard.' Lizards never stop growing. Dinosaurs are simply the first lizards. Why do you think we have not found millions of dinosaur fossils? Our planet is actually losing species, not gaining them. And while we have observed side-ways mutations in species, we have never observed any change of one species to another, and there lacks any evidence whatsoever. Check out these links below for additional information.
The only reason the theory of evolution is believable is because of the change evident in nature through variations in species. But scientists have broken down evolution into two different categories, and we now know that they are completely different: micro or sideways evolution, and macro or upwards evolution. Now, micro-evolution is scientific based on observations in bacteria, birds, and other species over time, but this is just sideways evolution, a change or mutation of already existing code, nothing new is added. The theory of evolution, that all life evolved from goo, is based on macro-evolution, and this theory is not at all scientific because it has never been observed, and lacks any evidence whatsoever. Without an 'old Earth' theory, no one would have ever bought into macro-evolution either. Today a new dating method, uranium-lead dating, supposedly 'proves' this or that is millions of years old, but a quick study reveals that this method literally rely's on almost a dozen assumptions, as with every other dating method currently used by evolutionists. Other scientists have found that the massive climate change which occurred approximately 4500 years ago has led to objects before then appearing much older than they really are. Even if this Earth were really old, this does not conflict with the creation account. But let me clarify, there is NO accurate way to date anything beyond a few thousand years, and there is actually an overwhelming abundance of evidence pointing towards a young earth and galaxy. This is a very important point. 'Dating methods' today are nothing more than 'guestimations' based on a dozen unreliable and inaccurate assumptions. Many believe ice-core measurements, stalactites/stalagmites, starlight, or tectonics indicate an old Earth, but a quick study finds these arguments invalid. Concerning ice-cores and stalactites, there are recently documented examples demonstrating that under the right conditions both can form rapidly. The argument of starlight rely's on the assumption that light has always traveled at the exact same speed, and other scientists have concluded that tectonics appear to have shifted rapidly at one point. And there is literally an abundance of evidence indicating everything is young. I'll present some for you now:
- A galaxy consists of stars spinning in big groups together. The stars on the outside are going faster than the stars in the middle. The existence of spiral galaxies indicates that our universe is not billions of years old.
- Galaxies wind themselves up too fast–current speeds indicate an age of less than .3 billion years old.
- Distant Galaxy magnetic fields are young; the fields follow the spiral arms.
- Carbon dating is now evidence of a young earth, because carbon 14 only has a half-life of 5,730 years which means that in 50,000 years all carbon will have completely disappeared.
- Comets crumble too quickly. It looks like they can only be in the system 100k years at the most, 10k on average. If the Earth is billions or even millions of years old, we would not still have comets.
- Some planets are cooling rapidly; they are losing heat. You cannot keep losing heat. If these planets were billions of years old they would not still are cooling off. Jupiter's moon is still hot indicating it is not billions of years old.
- Saturn's rings are unstable and moving away from the planet. If the universe was billions of years old Saturn would not have rings.
- The moon is rotating around the Earth. As it rotates, it gradually moves farther away from the Earth a few inches a year. The moon causes the tides and if the moon were closer the tides would be higher because of the law in physics called the inverse square law; if you are half the distance you quadruple the attraction. If you bring the moon back as it would have been a million years ago, the tides would be so high they would drown everything on Earth twice a day.
- The moon is constantly collecting dust. If you measure the amount of dust collected a year, then it is impossible for the moon to be millions of years old.
- The Earth is losing its magnetic strength, which means it is not billions of years old. Current magnetic loss puts Earth’s max age at 25,000 years old.
- Mercury’s magnetic field is young
- The Earth is spinning about 1000 mph at the equator, but the Earth is slowing down a thousandth of a second every day. If the Earth is slowing down, it used to spin fast. If you backtrack 6,000 years then this is not a problem, but if you backtrack billions of years then you have a problem. Centrifugal force would have been enormous and winds would have been 5,000 mph from the Coriolis Effect.
- The population of our world indicates that the world is not billions of years old. According to our population growth rate, if our Earth were 3 million years old, there would be 150,000 people per square inch. The population growth curve appears everything started 4400 years ago which is the approximate time of the Biblical flood.
- The Sahara Desert has a prevailing wind pattern. This process which causes deserts to grow is called desertification. The Sahara Desert grows four miles a year. It was announced in 1999 that extensive research revealed the Sahara Desert to only be 4,000 years old.
- There is a lot of oil under the ground and it is under a lot of pressure up to 20,000 psi. Geologists agree that rocks can only hold that kind of pressure for 10,000 years or less.
- The oldest tree in the world is a bristlecone pine in California. This tree is 4300 years old, Earth's oldest living organism. If the Earth is millions of years old, we would have older organisms.
- The largest reef in the world is in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef. After studying the Great Barrier Reef for twenty years, experts have decided it is less than 4200 years old. If the Earth is millions of years old, there would be a bigger reef.
- When it rains, 30% of the water runs into the ocean. Water runs into the ocean bringing with it mineral salts. Evaporation takes fresh water out of the ocean and leaves that salt behind so the oceans are gaining salt every day. The oceans today are 3.6% salt, they could have only done that in 5000 years old or less. If the oceans were millions of years old, the oceans would be saltier.
- When it rains, dirt washes off the mountains and into the ocean. The mountains are eroding flat and the oceans are filling in with sediment. At the current rate of erosion the mountains will erode completely flat in fourteen million years.
- Mud always slides down, so how can we have fossils that are three hundred times older than those still above sea level? The answer is that this is impossible, and this is another example of faulty evolution science and their dating methods, and also this is evidence for the great Flood.
- Seafloor mud accumulates too fast. Judging by current levels, Earth cannot be millions of years old.
- Biological material decay too fast; DNA is nothing within 10k years. So the fact that DNA was found on dinosaur bones indicates that they and Earth are young.
- There are not enough Stone Age graves. Evolutionists would have you believe mankind endured a long stone age.
- Young written records containing genealogies coincide with creation 6000 years ago.
- All fossils have young c-14 ages-half-life of 5700 years (even diamonds).
- Helium leakage when backtracked indicates a young Earth. Uranium decays into lead, which is a very common element on the earth. When the uranium decays it also produces helium-4 as a by-product, but unlike lead helium-4 is very rare. Rocks which the uranium-lead dating method estimates to be more than 100 million years old, contain only enough helium to account for a tiny fraction of that time. The evolutionists claim that the helium must have escaped from the rocks, but if that were the case we should be able to find vast amounts of helium-4 in the atmosphere. The tiny amount of helium-4 present on the earth indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay, not billions.
- So the our dating desert growth, mountain erosion, sea salt, human population growth, moon moving away from Earth, great barrier reef, and trees all point towards a young earth and life beginning around the time the Bible says the great Flood occurred. Most are unaware that every culture, including over 200 texts, not including the Bible, mention a great world flood.
- Every mountain has been found to contain sea creatures and sea shells supporting a great flood.
- Vertical trees have been found fossilized.
- Whale graves have been found in deserts.
- Giant man fossils have been found. (Bible mentions Giants)
- I could go on...and on....and on....and on.....
There is a theory residing among uneducated Christians known as the “Gap Theory,” which incorporates evolution into Christianity by suggesting that the six days of creation were actually long drawn out days including millions of years, and that God used evolution overtime to bring about life as we know it. However, a quick study of the original Hebrew text describing these days will reveal that they are indeed literal days, hence God’s charge to rest on the seventh day, a twenty-four hour period pertaining to the last day of the six day week.
The fact remains that not only is there ZERO evidence whatsoever to support macro-evolution, and science has literally destroyed this theory with recent breakthroughs that prove the impossibility of evolution. First, let me point out:
- The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics is that everything tends towards disorder. Macro evolution goes against these first two fundamental, scientific laws.
- The conservation of angular momentum states that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment the pieces that fly off will spin the same direction because the outside is moving faster than the inside. Venus and Uranus spin backwards, including six moons in our solar system. This disproves the big bang theory.
- Macro-evolution cannot explain where first matter came from
- Macro-evolution cannot explain universal laws, or how everything just hangs in space.
- We only observe life coming from life.
Now for the Whopper.
- New breakthrough research into DNA has found a code, a language. More importantly, scientists have discovered that this code contains our blueprints, an instruction manual to build us, and everything about us boils down to these blueprints. We know that this code can mutate as is obvious in variations of species, but macro-evolution insists new code spontaneously and magically creates itself. This new knowledge about the fact that we are built based on blueprints and instructions based in our DNA destroys evolution. We now know that choosing to believe macro-evolution would be like choosing to believe the blueprints of a car can somehow scramble over time to produce the more complex and completely different blueprints of an airplane, which any engineer could tell you is not only impossible but ridiculous. Another example would be like believing that the code for a small phone app can somehow scramble overtime to produce the more complex, superior, and completely different code required to run a human-like robot, which any computer programmer could tell you is not only impossible but quite ridiculous. Believing macro-evolution is worse than believing that if you dissembled a watch, threw the parts in a bag, and shook them up for a million years one day a working watch would form. Evolution is worse because you start with nothing. Believing macro-evolution is like believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and somehow produce a nice, beautiful, working anything.... Bird feathers could not have evolved because their DNA is far more complex and stronger than any man made structure by weight. These recent discoveries even has top evolutionists admitting there must have been aliens. So there you have it, the end of Darwinism. Unfortunately, as usual, the truth will be suppressed and buried because the mainstream scientific communities will be the last ones to admit that they have been teaching bullshit and brainwashing our children for decades. Their credibility would be completely destroyed and too many careers would be completely ruined.
- New breakthrough research has allowed us to break down DNA and discover an amazing information system far more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. Scientists have recently decoded the human DNA molecule to find an exquisite 'language,' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code."
- One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data making it the most dense storage mechanism in the universe.
- Information contained in a pinhead would fill stack of books five hundred times the distance from Earth to the moon.
- DNA has three dimensional, self replicating, and auto detect-and-correct replication characteristics
- Each cell is miniature city, and our body is made up of 100 trillion cells which build based upon code.
- Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." and Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.” "The coding regions of DNA," expostulates Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language"
- For example, the precise nature of this genetic language is such that the average error that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If an error occurs in one of the most important parts of the code, in the genes, it causes diseases such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most apt typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters-far from it.
How crazy is it to believe that something more intricate than the most complex program running on a super computer could be the result of an accident? If you walked into the woods and found a computer, you would know there was a computer builder. Just as if you walked into the woods and found blueprints, you would know there was an engineer out there, even if you didn't see any person or even footprints. One thing we need to realize is that we are not going to find an explanation for a Creator in our universe anymore than you can find an explanation of the origin of a painting in the painting itself. However, we can examine this universe at every level and find concrete proof of an intelligent designer, and a study of history does reveal that this Creator has revealed Himself. I won't get into that here, but feel free to check out my 'God' page where I also detail more evidence for Creation, including proof of God.
So there you have it. DNA has destroyed Darwinism. Unfortunately, many will dismiss or reject these findings, but the truth will stand by itself. For those of us who knew the truth all along, it feels good to finally be vindicated by science and to finally put an end to the century long debate with atheists. I must say, it was a sad time in the history of science and education when the baseless theory that nobody + nothing = everything was ever taught as 'knowledge' or scientific fact and pushed through our education system brainwashing our children so deeply these kids have grown up treating everyone else like lunatics. And it will be a testament to the deep corruption that has settled in our higher institutions everyday this theory is allowed to stand. But then again, who would want to admit that they have been teaching lies for decades. The education and scientific communities would lose all credibility and many life's would be destroyed. Unfortunately, the truth will likely be buried because that's the point; to point us away from God. There is war for your minds. I hope you wake up to the truth before you die.
Now for those of you interested, the chances of life originating randomly can be calculated.
Life cannot exist or function without proteins which exist in a cell, and proteins are made up of chains of amino acids which must be in the proper order or sequential arrangement for the protein to form. However, even if a pre-biotic soup existed and contained the necessary conditions and components required for amino acid chains to form randomly on their own, it is completely unscientific or even realistic to say something came into existence out of nothing as this violates the law of causality. Moreover, the assumed early conditions of earth would not have been conducive to the constituent parts of the cell arising and surviving on its own. But for argument sake, let's say the right conditions and right components did exist. There are 100k proteins in the body comprised of 20 different amino acids in arious combinations. Since only 20 kinds of amino acids form proteins the probability of even small chains of acid forming randomly into a protein can be calculated. A hypothetical chain 2 amino acids long – the number of possible combinations would be 20 to 2nd power = 20x20=400 possible combinations. A short protein has 150 amino acids which mean the number of possible combinations would be 20 to 150th power. Consider that the total number of atoms in the observable universe is believed to be 10 to 80th power. Each grain of sand contains many millions of atoms, therefore to say total number of atoms in universe dwarfs total number of grains of sand in world would be major understatement, and total number of possible combinations in 150 amino acid chain dwarfs total number of atoms estimated to exist in universe. Even if one presupposed that all constituent parts necessary to build functional protein existed on their own, something not realistic or scientific, a small chain of 150 amino acids which must be in precise order for functional protein to form would represent only one possible sequence out of 10 to 195th power of possible sequences.
Life cannot exist or function without proteins which exist in a cell, and proteins are made up of chains of amino acids which must be in the proper order or sequential arrangement for the protein to form. However, even if a pre-biotic soup existed and contained the necessary conditions and components required for amino acid chains to form randomly on their own, it is completely unscientific or even realistic to say something came into existence out of nothing as this violates the law of causality. Moreover, the assumed early conditions of earth would not have been conducive to the constituent parts of the cell arising and surviving on its own. But for argument sake, let's say the right conditions and right components did exist. There are 100k proteins in the body comprised of 20 different amino acids in arious combinations. Since only 20 kinds of amino acids form proteins the probability of even small chains of acid forming randomly into a protein can be calculated. A hypothetical chain 2 amino acids long – the number of possible combinations would be 20 to 2nd power = 20x20=400 possible combinations. A short protein has 150 amino acids which mean the number of possible combinations would be 20 to 150th power. Consider that the total number of atoms in the observable universe is believed to be 10 to 80th power. Each grain of sand contains many millions of atoms, therefore to say total number of atoms in universe dwarfs total number of grains of sand in world would be major understatement, and total number of possible combinations in 150 amino acid chain dwarfs total number of atoms estimated to exist in universe. Even if one presupposed that all constituent parts necessary to build functional protein existed on their own, something not realistic or scientific, a small chain of 150 amino acids which must be in precise order for functional protein to form would represent only one possible sequence out of 10 to 195th power of possible sequences.
On examination of our universe and science it is actually a HUGE leap of faith to believe evolution, while believing intelligent design doesn't take any faith at all because it's straight up obvious.
Check this video out below:
Check this video out below:
No comments:
Post a Comment