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 
“It takes a whole lot of faith to believe life in all its complexity originated by accident.”
It takes a whole lot of dishonesty to think that’s what science teaches about the origin of life or the evolution of life
My bad. I thought evolutionists postulated there was no intentional design to life forms. Please correct my view.
You can start by not conflating “no intentional design” with “by accident.”
#10- Bizarre non-sequiter. Hitler believed he needed to breath oxygen to live. So what?
#9- Have you ever wondered why potholes in the road are precisely contoured to fit the shape of the water that fills them? And we have in fact discovered several planets within habitable zones. Read up a little more.
#8- Only Piltdown Man was an actual hoax, and it was debunked by evolutionary biologists, not creationists. Would you like to try and count up all the creationist hoaxers who claim to have found Noah’s Ark, or the location of Eden, or a piece of the One True Cross?
#7- Irreducible complexity has long since been debunked. It rests on the mistaken assumption that evolution can only progress via a step by step addition of “parts,” while ignoring well understood mechanisms of evolution such as scaffolding and co-option.
#6- Evolution does not say DNA formed all at once. Creationism is the one that claims things formed all at once.
#5- Simply looking up carbon 14 on wikipedia is enough to debunk this one. Try a little harder.
#4- The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a theory in biology. The Big Bang is a theory in physics. They are not even the same discipline. And physicsts don’t say the Big Bang was caused by nothing.
#3 Evolution doesn’t even technically deal with the origin of life, but leaving that aside, the Law of Biogenesis states that complex organisms do not form spontaneously, But once again, evolution does not assert this, creationism does.
#2 Non-sequiter. Also, Darwin was a man of his time. He was racist and sexist by our standards, but less so than most people of his day. And even then it’s still a non-sequiter. It wouldn’t matter if Darwin was a Satan-worshipping cannibal. Scientific theories are judged solely on how well they map to the data, not on the character of their originators.
#1- Non-sequiter.
There. 10 tries, 10 fails. Got anything else?
It takes a whole lot of faith to believe life in all its complexity originated by accident. I intellectually accepted evolution until medical school. When I studied immunology, the complexity of it blew my mind and I had to believe their was a Power organizing this amazing system. (Macrophages who present the foreign material to other cells who manufacture antibodies to defeat the invader…and these cells can remember the invader years later to present an immune response…)
The human body is amazingly designed. Thank you for your insight and realization, and thank you for your positive comments
The human body is not amazingly designed. Look at the placement of the optic nerve, a poor design that is easily explanable by evolution. The same is true of the oxygenation system of the heart. Birth defects happen because of identifiable genetic errors. Yet you think an omnipotent deity designed them.
You are assuming that our bodies, if designed, would be designed perfectly or perfectly according to your standard. What if we were made to be vulnerable for the betterment of virtue and love?
And you are assuming they wouldn’t be. Isn’t it funny that they look exactly as we would expect them too, given naturalistic evolution? It’s also odd that you have to come up with tortured logic like that to explain your divine error.
Ok Mr. Smarty Pants: let’s see how your design works.
The human body is not amazingly designed. We must have vitamin C in our diets or we die of scurvy, a horrible, painful death. Around two million sailors died of scurvy before the preventative measures were discovered. Ships’ dogs didn’t get scurvy. They have a working gene which synthesizes vitamin C. Humans have a broken copy of the same gene. Tragic.
You couldn’t figure out how nature did it, therefore it’s magic? This is called an argument from incredulity.
I did not use the word magic. You did.
“Why does ID concern you?”
“…your opinions are baseless.” [Edited typos. – SS]
You make spelling and grammatical errors too Scott. You’re far from perfect. The fact that you can’t demonstrate that ID is anything but religion speaks volumes about what you know on that subject too.
“When will the Darwinists invite the Creationists to even present a paper at an academic conference? Why not discredit Intelligent Design if it were not true?” These are the questions you asked. I answered them. ID has their own journals, and don’t publish anything, because they don’t have any evidence to back up their assertions. All they have to do is submit a paper with their findings.
It really doesn’t matter if you don’t accept evolution. What matters is what you think we should be learning. What should we be teaching in schools instead of the theory of evolution? It can’t be ID; ID is religion, masquerading as science. It can’t be creationism; creationism is religion, masquerading as science. Both matters proven in a court of law and a matter of public record.
Again, if you can demonstrate that I’m frustrated or stressed on these matters feel free to do so. Your attempts to weasel out of answering questions on your own website, and as Patrick Vanderpool has demonstrated, your apparent vitriol against Catholics, are far from the teachings of the god you claim to worship.
As for ID being religious, consider its flaw to a Creationist like myself. For example, you must know the theory proposing that aliens designed, helped design, or remodel life on earth whether by evolution, etc. Creationists have noted the words of the atheist, Fred Hoyle, for supporting ID, and yet we realize that he is an evolutionist among many who support this growing theory of alien design. Therefore, ID is not religious, and cannot be because Hoyle is not religious. Deists believe in ID and are not religious. ID does not institute “an establishment of religion”. If you really want to get into theology, consider that angels are “aliens from another dimension”, and then carry this theory of aliens unto them being made of light. Take that and throw in a little Stoic worship of virtue, and I think you have the development of the religion of evolution. Evolution walks in religion without its common verbiage. Darwinian priests, “scientists”, offer services to the creation such as man via humanism in their institutes and universities, “seminaries”, and “museum” temples telling people that they all created the blessings of technology. The parallel ironies are funny. It is amazing how Darwinism mirrors paganism, but wait that is supposed to be us.
You’re not going to address this? Are you?
I will. The primary problem with ID is foundational. It is an argument from incredulity. The IDist says “D— [edited], that looks complicated. Must not have evolved” and inquiry stops there. That isn’t science. It is a surrender. It doesn’t matter who likes ID or who doesn’t… it isn’t science.
The pat and foolish claim that science is actually religion is tired. Please stop. You are making the all to common error of the theist. You assume that since you believe things on faith that everyone must also do so. That isn’t the case.
“You assume that since you believe things on faith that everyone must also do so.”
– No. – You’re presuming.
Listen to your own words. If you look at something complicated or not, you shouldn’t conclude evolution or design either way by that initial scientific observation alone. Rather let us begin with the laws and the standard of evidence, evolution does not do this.
This will be good for a laugh…
Creationist: I see a bacterial flagellum! Wow, that’s complicated and has to have all it’s parts! It can’t have evolved!
Science: Umm… type 3 secretory aparatus? It totally evolved. Here’s how…
Creationist: Look at the clotting cascade! It is so very complicated it MUST have been created by some creator I don’t name bacuase I am engaging in a dumb legal manuever to try and get my religion in schoools!
Science: I didn’t get to finish, but if you consider the dolphins clotting proces…
Creationist: The eye! The eye dammit! It is confusing to me! GODDIDIT!
Science: Screw this. You’re an ignorant fanatic. I’m going back to work.
Creationist: I win! Science knows I am right!
Seriously though, all of Behe’s (and his witless followers) examples of irreducable complexity have been shown not to be. They simply don’t exist. Time and again, ID fanatics are shown evidence that one of their pet “IR” structures has explanable evolution and yet they keep citing it. Don’t ask for refrences on that… you don’t want that.
So, in studying a plane in flight, should we think, “OK, I know this could be the air supporting this body in keeping with the science of aerodynamics. Hey! Wait! Maybe it’s drifting on the aether! Lets give that idea a look!” That’s why we don’t consider ID. It is illogical (stemming entirely as it does from from argumant from ignorance) and unscientific (it has produced no testable hypothesis and has no predictive value, just for starters).
Again, you know you have no valid response so you don’t respond. Coward.
I hear you saying that you are frustrated with ID, because of education? How do you think your comments here or before anyone else will make you feel better? Do you know what I believe about education? Or are you again presuming in prejudice as you think that I am vitriol toward Catholicism when you do not consider Patrick who opposes us with reviling slander and whose hierarchy once burned us at the stake?
Regarding education in the schools, I think that both evolution, Creation, ID, and all these concepts should be taught in the schools as theories, and since evolution is the most widely accepted and then Creation, evolution should be the most noted. Also, Pasteur and Newton must still be noted for being Creationists and thus supporters of Intelligent Design. I find this fair within the government schools. Also, if the majority within the school or county are Christians, let the local government or even better the parents of the students decide to permit open prayer and how. Note that I cannot always personally consent to the prayers of faiths either, but I respect their right. The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Only the dumb and conceited would interpret “an establishment of religion” to mean religion can have a place in schools, but rather this is about a specific institution of religion. Why not just remove all the students who are religious and have religiously originated names? Religion can be noted and prayer can be included in school, but no organization, denomination, or church gets any preference. That must include evolution. Add to all of this government overreach that parents should decide their children’s education, discipline, and religious upbringing. This is our freedom of religion whether 1st amendment or by faith in scripture that teaches us to follow God before government. If you don’t give this right to the parents, Christians will teach their children anyway (Eph. 6:1ff), and we believe that they should be even more taught their convictions of faith and morality daily than math and grammar. Or is a numeric understanding greater than the virtue supporting human rights? Do you think parents should be less involved in teaching their children and the government should decide what to teach our children and even force parents too teach them things contrary to their own convictions. Parents should choose the schools being religiously affiliated or not whether agnostic, Muslims, Christian, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. Where there is a need for a religious school the parents should be able to organize one and be supported? The government should not tax parents to pay for public education when they follow their convictions and send their children to a religiously affiliated school. The government can decide for themselves whether they want to support such a school or not, but either don’t tax the Christians, Muslims, and Jews to teach contrary to their beliefs in government schools, or support the parents’ rights to choose their own education by tax credit, voucher, etc. My faith is that the just wrath of God will come upon anyone who forces my children to learn something contrary to the Truth. Yes, that would include their parents and preachers (Jas. 3:1).
It would be dishonest to teach creationism and ID as theories. They aren’t. Evolution is taught as a theory. You just don’t seem to know what a theory is.
Evolution does not really meet the scientific definition of a theory, does it?
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “Evolution does not really meet the scientific definition of a theory, does it?”
“Evolution”? No, of course not. Evolution instead meets the scientific definition of a FACT.
“The theory of evolution” is what absolutely meets the scientific definition of a theory.
You don’t even understand the basic terminology of science do you?
Evolution contradicts scientific laws, so that not possible.
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: Evolution contradicts scientific laws, so that not possible.”
Utter nonsense.
But go ahead and publish your findings, if correct a Nobel prize is bound to be yours for the taking.
Lastly, stop your hypocrisy by saying that I am dodging questions when you have not answered one of my questions in comment or any of the positions in the article above. Yet, I have not avoided one of your points. Certainly if I have, you would be able to note that. I am still waiting on a skeptic to provide 2 or 3 of your strongest cases for evolution. No need for anymore than that. Those 2 or 3 should stand alone, and if those strongest arguments fall, you really have nothing to stand on. If you do not respond to this, don’t expect me to go along or permit all your thoughts here.
Of course you are dodging questions. You do it constantly.
It is comical that you think you are in a position to demand evidence for that which is proved. It is also comical that you think you could understand it. Both of your claims here are refuted by the simple fact that I provided multiple instances of observed speciation. That meets your request for 2 or 3 bits of evidence. You have failed to respond, which puts the lie to your claim to the contrary.
If you can show that I’m frustrated, please do so. ID religion doesn’t concern me, as ID advocates such as yourself cannot demonstrate that ID is nothing but religion, trying to masquerade as science. The journals I mentioned are ID journals, which are demostrated to be sterile of content, just like ID. Instead of bearing false witness against me, please demonstrate how ID has any credibility as a science. I’ll wait.
You want me to prove a double narrative, “cannot demonstrate that ID is nothing but religion”. You can address the evidence above. The fact that you do not prove that your opinions are baseless.
Why does this concern you? [Edited typos.] What are you really stressed about that you think this is an appropriate response?
I’ve read the Darwinian journals and they are dry of any evidence. There is not even a little.
When you present some evidence contrary to my world view, we can talk about what it does for me. You haven’t presented any; neither has any creationist or intelligent design religion advocate. Everyone is eager and excited to hear about evidence for gods, waiting for any sign of research or evidence. In the meantime, there are 2 journals for intelligent design religion: Biodiversity and Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design. Biodiversity has had a grand total of 2 articles for 2012. Both articles are critiques of evolution; neither paper presented any new information on intelligent design religion. Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design hasn’t published anything since 2005. Why haven’t we seen any research papers from intelligent design religion advocates? They don’t need any invitations to present papers. They have their own journals and they’re not publishing anything. Why aren’t they presenting any new research? The answer is easy…there isn’t any.
And this frustrates you that these articles are not in your favorite journals? Who does ID concern you?
Here are some after perusal of peer-reviewed journals:
Bergman, J. (2010). Evolution and irreducible complexity. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(1/2), 89-114.
Wells, J. (2010). Darwin’s straw God argument. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(1/2), 67-88.
Your “peer-reviewed” journal (you wrote “journals,” a typo, I assume) is a Christian organ, not a scientific journal.
So what? The other journal article is not. Does that change the facts? Should we disregard the Darwinian sources in Darwinian journals?
So, you have no evidence for your god. No big surprise there. I’m unsure what you’re talking about when you say Darwinists, but all a creationist has to do is present a paper at an academic conference. Intelligent design has already been thoroughly discredited. It’s religion. If anyone in the intelligent design religion has new evidence to prove their assertions, then they should present it in a paper. They don’t need anyone’s invitation.
Does ignoring evidence contrary to your world view give you pleasure, ease your conscience and, or relieve stress?
When will you learn what evidence is?
Yeah, Exactly. When will he?
Your attempts at sarcasm are pathetic and not humorous. You know by now that you idiotic “2 witness” standard of evidence isn’t valid. No adult could actually think it is. You know it but you are too arrogant and stubborn to admit it. Grow up.
Art. 3, Sect. 3 of the U.S. Constitution
“No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Really, that’s your source?! You think that is sufficient to justify your claim that 2 eyewitness testimonies is enough to verify any truth claims?! Ha!
“No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Really, that’s your source?! You honestly think that satisfies your claim that two eyewitness accounts is enough to verify any truth claim (even of the supernatural)?!
Ha!
You finally looked up a source. Now, look into standards of evidence and what primary sources are.
You are still ignorantly and arrogantly asserting that legal standards are relevant outside the legal realm. This is not true. It just isn’t. Your passion for “primary” sources is foolish and you think that because you choose to label the gospels as true they are.
When will you be publishing your findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal? I’m sure the scientific community would be overjoyed to read about your evidence for god.
Your comment does not make sense. This is a secondary source interpreting primary sources. See the 2 references to primary sources from journals on point #5.
You do know that the scientific proof above are found in peer reviewed journals? I certainly do not have to cite a primary historical source from a journal.
All the peer reviewed articles for Darwinian evolution are secondary interpretations of primary sources. Wait. Was Darwin’s theory peer reviewed? No. Did Darwin cite any primary sources? No.
When will the Darwinists invite the Creationists to even present a paper at an academic conference? Why not discredit Intelligent Design if it were not true?
Scientests will invite a creationist to present a paper when they do some science. They haven’t yet.
ID is discredited. Some people just refuse to admit it. I’m looking at you, Scott.
This is denial asking for the evidence already given and yet not giving any proof in return.
Please don’t be ridiculous. Evolution is a well founded scientific theory of great explanatory power. There are also the vast selection of facts that evolution explains. Pelvic bones in whales is just one. The many incidents of observed speciation is a whole list of others.
You are a person waving your arms and shouting “NO!” You are the one saying “I am right and all those people are professionals in the field are wrong!” The burden of proof is on you. Provide some. You are trying this silly shift because you know you have no evidence and you should admit it. I gave two examples above. You have given none.
Why don’t you do with my first 3 points above for evidence? That’s what I intended them for.
Umm, the ones in the original post? Not evidence, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Still waiting for your evidence.
I’m still trying to figure out what you are talking about, these “first 3 points”. You are a poor writer and it is difficult to parse you sometimes. Are you referring to you “primary source” nonsense? Wow… so much stupid.
Great job! Absolutely agree!
Thank you for your encouragement. Spread the Truth.
A popular article with no comments yet. Not even one rebuttal yet?