10. Pagan Origins: Abiogenesis and the evolution of genera are not new ideas. These emerged from mythology. Ancient Egyptian mythology records the myth, and later, Greek philosophers accepted it like Anaximander and Democritus. Diodorus Siculus, a first-century BC historian, presented in his “Universal History” the ancient Egyptian myth that life emerged from membranes in a wet marsh. He reported that Egyptians believed that bestial man hunted and gathered, invented language from grunts, and discovered fire. Does that sound familiar? Such theories are not original to science. Read more.
9. Habitability: The universe is fine-tuned for life. The cosmological constants perfectly set against naturalistic odds. The earth is precisely balanced for life. The habitable zone from the sun, the amount of liquid water, protective “gas giant” planets, the ideal orbit for stable temperatures, a precise axial tilt to maintain seasons and warmth, a protective magnetic field, an open position in the galaxy, and essential elements of biochemistry are some conditions necessary for life on Earth. Secular scientists have yet to observe another planet that meets these few conditions despite the thousands of observable planets. The earth is observably 1 in 10^24. Read more.
8. Hoaxes: Evolution of humanity rests on refuted conjectures and frauds. Find a “missing link”; find a hoax. “Missing links” are based solely on conjecture. The list of evolutionary hoaxes presented as the primitive man include the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man, Cro-magnon, and Neanderthal. Another hoax that stands out is Haeckel’s embryos. This fraud is still used in textbooks to indoctrinate children and adolescents that they evolved through forms of animals in the womb. There is no doubt that this lie is the basis the U.S.’s 50 million plus abortions since 1973 as seen by Carl Sagan’s belief that unborn children are just animals.
7. Biology: Whatever system is more complex than design is most likely designed. Biology is more complex than human design. Therefore, biology is most likely designed. The complexity of the internal order of the cell displays a complex machine. Kinesins are motor proteins that walk on cytoskeleton. Every process of every cellular organelle performs essential functions for each living cell to exist. Comprehending the processes of the cell only reveals a complex order equal from within only by its genetic code. The functions of a cell is an example of the irreducible order of life.
6. DNA: People learn and educate themselves to communicate in complex languages, and they intelligently design complex computer codes. According to evolutionists, nature formulated its own code — a molecular mechanical strand containing more than a trillion processes that instructs the building and maintaining each cell. The order of each code is different for every living organism. As scientists have observed, if SETI received a code one billionth in size to any strand of DNA, then they would declare the existence of intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. How is it that DNA does not declare intelligent design behind life on Earth?
5. Radiometric Dating: God would create a mature and habitable earth rather than a mass of radioactive lava. By presuming that natural processes formed the original rock without God, secularists ignore any consideration that God could and would have created the universe for life to live in the beginning. According to Genesis, God created man and woman in maturity not infancy, and likewise, God created the earth and its life in maturity. Radioactive measurements reflect a mature creation not long ages. The atheistic assumption undermines long ages that secularists presume. Scientists recognize the assumptions upholding radiometric dating by presuming the original elements. Read more.
4. Causality: Causality is the law of cause and effect. The law affirms that everything that begins to exist has a greater cause. Trace the effect of every cause back and find the greatest cause of all. The cause of the universe must extend beyond the universe, and so the cause must transcend nature. Atheistic origins assert that a quantum flux formed mass-producing particles forming a dense ball of matter once known as the singularity that exploded in the Big Bang forming the precise order of the universe with fine-tuned cosmological constants. Read more here: The Law of Causality and Cause and Effect.
3. Biogenesis: As Louis Pasteur affirmed, life only comes from life, and life only produces after its own kind. This scientific fact is indisputable and no experiment has yet disproved this scientific Law. No scientist has formed life in the lab. No life has evolved from nothing. However, secular evolutionists conjecture without proof that there could have been a time when this might have happened given a number of assumptions. Read more.
2. Constant Virtues: Why believe someone who believes himself to be an ape and lays aside a constant standard of virtue? Why trust the person who believes humans are highly developed animals who invented morals? Why undermine all human rights by there being no constant right and wrong? Why reject the belief that virtues are constant? Right and wrong are always right and wrong. Why believe those who see the virtue of honesty as an idea invented by people? Evolution and its constructs are the prejudice that rejects virtues, because people attempt to console their guilty consciences and appease their own faults through self-righteousness. At the core of doubt and unbelief is the guilty conscience allowing self and society to claim morality. Read more.
1. God in the Flesh: Jesus Christ also testified to the Genesis account of the Creation of the universe (Matt 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–9). Critical scholars admit that Jesus lived as an apocalyptical preacher and his followers and opponents sincerely experienced appearances of Jesus risen from the dead (1 Cor 15:1–4). Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels testify of what they saw and heard, and they also testify to the testimonies of other eyewitnesses. Historical criticism affirms that Christ lived, was crucified, buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, women found the tomb empty, many experienced appearances of Jesus resurrect, and the church began upon faith in the resurrection. Their written testimonies remain for an honest examination before all. The written statements of the Gospels attest to Jesus as the predicted Messiah doing miracles, predicting Jerusalem’s destruction, and resurrecting from the dead (Ps 22; Isa 52:13–53:12). Read more.
The Breath of God 
Pagan Origins of Evolution: Abiogenesis and the evolution of genera are not new ideas. These emerged from mythology.
And Icarus predicted Aerodynamics. What’s your point?
Planetary Habitability of Earth: The Earth is precisely balanced for life.
Actually that’s not true anymore. They have found some plates that are probably the right distance from thei sun to support life. But even before that happened, that was before we explored that far you idiot. Also, Law of Averages dictates that it’s unlikely for there to NOT be a planet like this. Extremely high numbers have a tendancy to invert odds, you see
Fossil Hoaxes:
Yeah yeah we all know about Piltdown Man. You guys are the only ones who won’t shut up about it.
The Irreducible Order of Life: The complexity of the internal order of the cell displays a complex machine. One example are Kinesins, which are motor proteins that walk on cytoskeleton. Every process of every cellular organelle performs essential functions for each living cell to exist. Comprehending the processes of the cell only reveals a complex order equal from within by its genetic code. The functions of a cell is an example of the irreducible order of life.
Irreduceable complexity is so [##RemovedProfanity##] you guys can’t even come up with a convincing man made metaphore for it. Cars? You mean the horseless Carriage?
Causality: Causality is the law of cause and effect.
Wrong! A lot of enormous things start small.
.
The Law of Biogenesis:
No such thing
The Existence of Constant Virtues:
This is a SCIENTIFIC debate not a philosophical one. Away with your talk of “value”! I’ll have none of it. You might as well be asking “why trust an accountant with such bad taste in shoes?” But, if you insist on bringing morals into it;
If you can’t think of a reason to be good other than hell you’re a sociopath.
The Verification of Jesus as the Christ:
Don’t care. Jesus was probably real but he was a psycho.
It deeply upsets me, so see such mislead, uneduated understandings of our planet and the universe it resides in. Unfortunately this article stands to show the backwards thinking and blisfull ignorance of the Christian faith and other religions.
I apologise forbeing here and reading this article from a atheistic perspective, but I had to see for my self the true innocence and foolishness of the argument. How else can we know what ‘ticks’ away inside the religious mans colective mind.
Thank you for reading.
After reading so many articles online about evolution vs. creation, I have certainly noticed that creationists try to argue their point in regard for their concern in the eternal fate of people, whereas evolutionists attack and offend creationists to no end to defend a theory they didn’t come up with.
I’m not even getting what you are trying to say there Rob.
Your point (intended that way or not) does seem to be valid; that creationists arguments are not founded on the theories truth value so much as what they believe the consequences might be (known as The Appeal to Consequences fallacy.) But not only, or as far as I have observed even mostly, as ‘concern in the eternal fate of people” as much for their concern that the science challenges the validity of their cherished beliefs.
I have no clue what this “they didn’t come up with” the theory stuff has to do with anything though.
Hi, I should have clarified a little better but when I say “they didn’t come up with” it, I’m referring to everyone who believes in evolution except Darwin. I’m just speaking in general here but it seems unnatural to defend something that you can’t take credit for so much so that you will be very emotional and attack others. As far as the “concern in the eternal fate of people,” I know it’s true that not all Christians/creationists are arguing their point for this reason but it should be the reason. Any other reason (e.g. pride) is not right. I realize both sides are at fault in arguing their sides for the wrong reasons.
That leads to my main point in that I don’t understand why evolutionists care what creationists say or think unless it directly can affect their job/career. Not that that’s a good reason to be so defensive but, from an evolutionist’s point of view, it’s understandable if that person truly believes in evolution and has no belief in God. I can understand that point of view as I haven’t always been a Christian (I’m born-again) and spent my first 26 years (I’m 36 now) on earth learning about and believing in evolution. Even then I never felt the need to argue with Christians about it but I also have never been a biologist.
I never engage myself in a creation/evolution debate as it never leads to agreement, only to offensive remarks. This is certainly one topic where both sides strongly believe what they believe and (usually) will not change their minds. I read these articles (both sides) because I’m fascinated by it but, as a Christian with Christian beliefs, I’m depressed that so many people believe in evolution. I have done a lot of personal research on evolution (pro and anti) and have decided that I don’t believe in it. I’m not here to argue my side, just to explain my observation about the debates. Have a good day.
Rob wrote: “Hi, I should have clarified a little better but when I say “they didn’t come up with” it, I’m referring to everyone who believes in evolution except Darwin.”
That wasn’t the problem I had with it. Just an aside, but; Darwin didn’t “come up with it” out of whole cloth either by the way.
Rob wrote: “I’m just speaking in general here but it seems unnatural to defend something that you can’t take credit for so much so that you will be very emotional and attack others.”
Why does it seem unnatural? Do you find it equally unnatural for those who defend their belief in the existence of some god, that they can’t take credit for? They didn’t come up with it either.
The emotions and attacks I have seen theists accuse atheists of have largely been a matter of projection, certainly in cases when I personally have been accused of such (and I have a number of times), where the only emotional responses are theirs, and they then imagine the same coming from this end. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen of course. Sometimes it’s warranted and sometimes not, it depends on the context.
I have also seen many cases where attacks on the argument have been misinterpreted as attacks on the person. It seems in many such cases that this is due to the theist being so emotionally attached to the claim that they can’t differentiate the subject to their own person.
Rob wrote: “As far as the “concern in the eternal fate of people,” I know it’s true that not all Christians/creationists are arguing their point for this reason but it should be the reason. Any other reason (e.g. pride) is not right. I realize both sides are at fault in arguing their sides for the wrong reasons.”
About caring about the truth? Caring if what we may believe is actually true and/or real or not? Is that “right”, a good reason? That’s my reason; I care about truth and reason, I prefer my beliefs/opinion to reasonable, rational.
And I really care about reason; An enjoy trying to correct flawed arguments, pointing out the flaws, errors and failures in reasoning.
Rob wrote: “That leads to my main point in that I don’t understand why evolutionists care what creationists say or think unless it directly can affect their job/career.”
Interesting. So you only understand selfish motives? That itself highlights one of the reasons I ague over such issues; I’ve seen this kind of selfish outlook from theists quite often, sometimes mixed within claims about their worldview being more moral and caring etc.!
Individually I don’t really care that much. You (directed at any individual) are free to believe whatever you want/do, as far as I am concerned. Believe that the world is flat and lying on the back of a giant space turtle if you want. And go ahead and argue for it if you want. But please afford me the same freedom, to argue against it if and when I consider your arguments to be lacking.
On a wider scale however; such beliefs when widespread (as they are within certain areas) potentially undermine science, and other reasonable and reliable means of getting to the truth. Sacrificing reality for cherished beliefs. Or have you not noticed things like the innumerable attempts to push creationist doctrine into the high school science classroom without going through the same processes that real science has had (and continues) to go through to pass muster as science, let alone well established science, which is what that level of science teaching is about?
More importantly to me is the sloppy, flawed, irrational way of thinking that so often goes into such apologetics. Which offers the very real possibility that such poor reasoning is liable to influence how the people who think like that to spread into other areas of their thinking as well. I actually care enough about people and reasoning that I want to help people to become better at it, as I endeavour to improve myself in the same way.
Rob wrote: “ Not that that’s a good reason to be so defensive but, from an evolutionist’s point of view, it’s understandable if that person truly believes in evolution and has no belief in God. I can understand that point of view as I haven’t always been a Christian (I’m born-again) and spent my first 26 years (I’m 36 now) on earth learning about and believing in evolution. Even then I never felt the need to argue with Christians about it but I also have never been a biologist. “
Um okay.
You might not, but I enjoy arguing (informal debate) with people. It offers an opportunity to improve the understanding and the mental tools of reasoning and expressing oneself, for all parties involved, directly or indirectly. I see value in it.
It can often be important as well. Don’t you think it important to determine if ones beliefs are reasonable, likely to be true, or not? Important to determine as best as one can if any gods exist or not?
A major problem with this “evolution” argument is that the anti-evolution apologists appear to be arguing against it, not because they think there are good reasons to dismiss it, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Which they seem to ASSUME to be true, and therefore assume that evolution (and anything that conflicts with that belief.) This being the primary reason why their arguments are so flawed; they are starting from an irrational foundation.
It really doesn’t matter what you, I or anyone BELIEVES (gods/creationism/theory of evolution…) so much as the value (truth/validity/soundness…) of the arguments being made. It would probably surprise you to learn that I, being an atheist who accepts the scientific value of the theory of evolution (it’s not a “truth” claim, but a “best explanation” claim) have argued AGAINST arguments:
for the non-existence of some god(s)
critiquing theistic arguments
trying to support the validity of the theory of evolutionists
…
when I have found those arguments to be flawed.
I’ve even gone to some length in the past to argue that the, claimed by some as “unanswerable” question “Can god create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” can in fact be answered, without rendering the existence of God to be impossible.
Bottom line: Scott Shifferd’s arguments are flawed. and even if you, like him believe that ‘evolution’ isn’t real, you should still reject those arguments for the failures that they are. At least if you care if your reasons for believing something are any good. If you are happy to believe things for poor/flawed/false reasons then I guess there isn’t much I can do about that.
Rob wrote: “I never engage myself in a creation/evolution debate as it never leads to agreement, only to offensive remarks. This is certainly one topic where both sides strongly believe what they believe and (usually) will not change their minds.’
I’ve changed my mind of many things. Creationists have yet to impress let alone convince me, because their arguments thus far have been horrendously flawed, in all kinds of ways. I would be happy to be change my mind if only a decent argument would be offered.
Have I made any “offensive remarks’?
Rob wrote: “I read these articles (both sides) because I’m fascinated by it but, as a Christian with Christian beliefs, I’m depressed that so many people believe in evolution.”
I bet it depresses you that many Christians accept it as well.
Isn’t it that you describe “depression, a remark on how it affects you EMOTIONALLY, as opposed to REASON?
Also interesting that you appear to IDENTIFY yourself as a Christian, more than the fact that you believe the things claimed in that religion, but as a kind of definition of who and what you are. It suggests that you will reject evolution, and anything else that conflicts with “Christian doctrine”, not because you have assessed both sides of the question and found the Christian one more convincing, but simply because you identify yourself as a Christian.
I’ve even heard people claim that they believe/disbelieve something BECAUSE they are a Christian, and that is what Christians have to believe!
Rob wrote: “ I have done a lot of personal research on evolution (pro and anti) and have decided that I don’t believe in it. I’m not here to argue my side, just to explain my observation about the debates.”
Okay, so you don’t believe in it. If you’re not interested in explaining why, then there’s nothing for me to work with is there? As long as you don’t run around trying to get others to believe its false, without offering any reasons why anyone should believe that, go right ahead; believe whatever you want.
On the basis that you call it “evolution” alone; I suspect that one major part of the reason why you don’t believe it is that you really don’t understand it.
Rob wrote: “Have a good day.”
You too.Rob wrote: “Hi, I should have clarified a little better but when I say “they didn’t come up with” it, I’m referring to everyone who believes in evolution except Darwin.”
That wasn’t the problem I had with it. Just an aside, but; Darwin didn’t “come up with it” out of whole cloth either by the way.
Rob wrote: “I’m just speaking in general here but it seems unnatural to defend something that you can’t take credit for so much so that you will be very emotional and attack others.”
Why does it seem unnatural? Do you find it equally unnatural for those who defend their belief in the existence of some god, that they can’t take credit for? They didn’t come up with it either.
The emotions and attacks I have seen theists accuse atheists of have largely been a matter of projection, certainly in cases when I personally have been accused of such (and I have a number of times), where the only emotional responses are theirs, and they then imagine the same coming from this end. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen of course. Sometimes it’s warranted and sometimes not, it depends on the context.
I have also seen many cases where attacks on the argument have been misinterpreted as attacks on the person. It seems in many such cases that this is due to the theist being so emotionally attached to the claim that they can’t differentiate the subject to their own person.
Rob wrote: “As far as the “concern in the eternal fate of people,” I know it’s true that not all Christians/creationists are arguing their point for this reason but it should be the reason. Any other reason (e.g. pride) is not right. I realize both sides are at fault in arguing their sides for the wrong reasons.”
About caring about the truth? Caring if what we may believe is actually true and/or real or not? Is that “right”, a good reason? That’s my reason; I care about truth and reason, I prefer my beliefs/opinion to reasonable, rational.
And I really care about reason; An enjoy trying to correct flawed arguments, pointing out the flaws, errors and failures in reasoning.
Rob wrote: “That leads to my main point in that I don’t understand why evolutionists care what creationists say or think unless it directly can affect their job/career.”
Interesting. So you only understand selfish motives? That itself highlights one of the reasons I ague over such issues; I’ve seen this kind of selfish outlook from theists quite often, sometimes mixed within claims about their worldview being more moral and caring etc.!
Individually I don’t really care that much. You (directed at any individual) are free to believe whatever you want/do, as far as I am concerned. Believe that the world is flat and lying on the back of a giant space turtle if you want. And go ahead and argue for it if you want. But please afford me the same freedom, to argue against it if and when I consider your arguments to be lacking.
On a wider scale however; such beliefs when widespread (as they are within certain areas) potentially undermine science, and other reasonable and reliable means of getting to the truth. Sacrificing reality for cherished beliefs. Or have you not noticed things like the innumerable attempts to push creationist doctrine into the high school science classroom without going through the same processes that real science has had (and continues) to go through to pass muster as science, let alone well established science, which is what that level of science teaching is about?
More importantly to me is the sloppy, flawed, irrational way of thinking that so often goes into such apologetics. Which offers the very real possibility that such poor reasoning is liable to influence how the people who think like that to spread into other areas of their thinking as well. I actually care enough about people and reasoning that I want to help people to become better at it, as I endeavour to improve myself in the same way.
Rob wrote: “ Not that that’s a good reason to be so defensive but, from an evolutionist’s point of view, it’s understandable if that person truly believes in evolution and has no belief in God. I can understand that point of view as I haven’t always been a Christian (I’m born-again) and spent my first 26 years (I’m 36 now) on earth learning about and believing in evolution. Even then I never felt the need to argue with Christians about it but I also have never been a biologist. “
Um okay.
You might not, but I enjoy arguing (informal debate) with people. It offers an opportunity to improve the understanding and the mental tools of reasoning and expressing oneself, for all parties involved, directly or indirectly. I see value in it.
It can often be important as well. Don’t you think it important to determine if ones beliefs are reasonable, likely to be true, or not? Important to determine as best as one can if any gods exist or not?
A major problem with this “evolution” argument is that the anti-evolution apologists appear to be arguing against it, not because they think there are good reasons to dismiss it, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Which they seem to ASSUME to be true, and therefore assume that evolution (and anything that conflicts with that belief.) This being the primary reason why their arguments are so flawed; they are starting from an irrational foundation.
It really doesn’t matter what you, I or anyone BELIEVES (gods/creationism/theory of evolution…) so much as the value (truth/validity/soundness…) of the arguments being made. It would probably surprise you to learn that I, being an atheist who accepts the scientific value of the theory of evolution (it’s not a “truth” claim, but a “best explanation” claim) have argued AGAINST arguments:
for the non-existence of some god(s)
critiquing theistic arguments
trying to support the validity of the theory of evolutionists
…
when I have found those arguments to be flawed.
I’ve even gone to some length in the past to argue that the, claimed by some as “unanswerable” question “Can god create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” can in fact be answered, without rendering the existence of God to be impossible.
Bottom line: Scott Shifferd’s arguments are flawed. and even if you, like him believe that ‘evolution’ isn’t real, you should still reject those arguments for the failures that they are. At least if you care if your reasons for believing something are any good. If you are happy to believe things for poor/flawed/false reasons then I guess there isn’t much I can do about that.
Rob wrote: “I never engage myself in a creation/evolution debate as it never leads to agreement, only to offensive remarks. This is certainly one topic where both sides strongly believe what they believe and (usually) will not change their minds.’
I’ve changed my mind of many things. Creationists have yet to impress let alone convince me, because their arguments thus far have been horrendously flawed, in all kinds of ways. I would be happy to be change my mind if only a decent argument would be offered.
Have I made any “offensive remarks’?
Rob wrote: “I read these articles (both sides) because I’m fascinated by it but, as a Christian with Christian beliefs, I’m depressed that so many people believe in evolution.”
I bet it depresses you that many Christians accept it as well.
Isn’t it that you describe “depression, a remark on how it affects you EMOTIONALLY, as opposed to REASON?
Also interesting that you appear to IDENTIFY yourself as a Christian, more than the fact that you believe the things claimed in that religion, but as a kind of definition of who and what you are. It suggests that you will reject evolution, and anything else that conflicts with “Christian doctrine”, not because you have assessed both sides of the question and found the Christian one more convincing, but simply because you identify yourself as a Christian.
I’ve even heard people claim that they believe/disbelieve something BECAUSE they are a Christian, and that is what Christians have to believe!
Rob wrote: “ I have done a lot of personal research on evolution (pro and anti) and have decided that I don’t believe in it. I’m not here to argue my side, just to explain my observation about the debates.”
Okay, so you don’t believe in it. If you’re not interested in explaining why, then there’s nothing for me to work with is there? As long as you don’t run around trying to get others to believe its false, without offering any reasons why anyone should believe that, go right ahead; believe whatever you want.
On the basis that you call it “evolution” alone; I suspect that one major part of the reason why you don’t believe it is that you really don’t understand it.
Rob wrote: “Have a good day.”
You too.
What a smart little ‘monkey’ u are ‘fellowprimate’….here…have a banana!
Nice of you to say, Ez.
Mmm Banana. Bananas are good! (At least once man modified them so much to suit our liking of course.)
I’m good with “monkey”, the closest scientific classification is “simian” which includes our species therein.