Science and creationism vs Evolution theory and myth

[MarkNigro]

It is obvious that atheistic origin science really is not science at all. It actually matches pagan myth.

 

The evolution from atoms to man and Big Bang from nothing (evolutionary "science") defies all scientific principles. 

 

1. You would actually think after 150 years since Darwin someone would have an idea of what the first creature was like. There seems to no answer yet. 

 

Was it just proteins? How many amino acids? What was the sequence? How did the jump to RNA and DNA come about?

 

Was it just RNA and proteins? How many nucleotides? What was the sequence? How did the jump to DNA come about?

 

Was it DNA based? How many nucleotides? What was the sequence?

 

2. Empirical science starts with observing things that actually occur. But not evolutionary "science".

 

No one has ever observed nothing exploding into an entire universe. Yet evolutionary "science" concludes it must have happened.

 

No one has ever observed non-life becoming a living creature spontaneously by random chance. The observation is always life comes from life. Yet evolutionary "science" concludes that life from non-life must have happened.

 

No one has ever seen a set of proteins becoming an RNA based creature by random chance. 

 

No one has ever sen a creature consisting of RNA and proteins developing DNA capability.

 

No one is seen a creature developing new functionality and multiple genes by random chance.

 

Every object with high amounts of order and with large amounts complexity, information content, and functionality was made by an intelligent maker. Yet Yet evolutionary "science" concludes that living things, the most complex, information rich and most functional of all MUST have come from random chance and not from the Almighty Creator.

 

3. Evolutionary "science" has not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years old. Yet if refuses to state its assumption in its approach to origins. Real science states its assumptions.

 

4. Evolutionary "science" claims it has fossil of many transitional creatures (missing links). Yet no dates for the 3 species that must be there to establish a missing link have yet been given.

 

5. Real science has theories that can be tested and refuted. Evolutionary "science" is not real science. There is nothing there. So there is nothing to test and nothing to refute. It is just faith in pagan myth.

Here is how Paul, wiring by the power of the Holy Spirit, stated it:

 

Romans 1:18-23

 

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

¹⁹ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

²⁰ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

²¹ Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

²² Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

²³ And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[MarkNigro]

It is obvious that atheistic origin science really is not science at all. It actually matches pagan myth.

 

The evolution from atoms to man and Big Bang from nothing (evolutionary "science") defies all scientific principles. 

 

1. You would actually think after 150 years since Darwin someone would have an idea of what the first creature was like. There seems to no answer yet. 

 

Was it just proteins? How many amino acids? What was the sequence? How did the jump to RNA and DNA come about?

 

Was it just RNA and proteins? How many nucleotides? What was the sequence? How did the jump to DNA come about?

 

Was it DNA based? How many nucleotides? What was the sequence?

 

2. Empirical science starts with observing things that actually occur. But not evolutionary "science".

 

No one has ever observed nothing exploding into an entire universe. Yet evolutionary "science" concludes it must have happened.

 

No one has ever observed non-life becoming a living creature spontaneously by random chance. The observation is always life comes from life. Yet evolutionary "science" concludes that life from non-life must have happened.

 

No one has ever seen a set of proteins becoming an RNA based creature by random chance. 

 

No one has ever sen a creature consisting of RNA and proteins developing DNA capability.

 

No one is seen a creature developing new functionality and multiple genes by random chance.

 

Every object with high amounts of order and with large amounts complexity, information content, and functionality was made by an intelligent maker. Yet Yet evolutionary "science" concludes that living things, the most complex, information rich and most functional of all MUST have come from random chance and not from the Almighty Creator.

 

3. Evolutionary "science" has not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years old. Yet if refuses to state its assumption in its approach to origins. Real science states its assumptions.

 

4. Evolutionary "science" claims it has fossil of many transitional creatures (missing links). Yet no dates for the 3 species that must be there to establish a missing link have yet been given.

 

5. Real science has theories that can be tested and refuted. Evolutionary "science" is not real science. There is nothing there. So there is nothing to test and nothing to refute. It is just faith in pagan myth.

6. Evolution claims that mutations which destroy information actually produce new design. The odds are incredibly against this. 

 

7. Evolution ignores the fact that mutations over time should have destroyed all DNA codes in all species many years ago.

[Ninevite]

 

 

 

 

 

You have nothing everything becomes figurative so you can agree with atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and here is the crux of the matter.  In order not to agree with atheist you choose to stop using your brain and ignore evidence.

 

I will tell you I agree with atheist all the time.  I work as a statistician and the theorems that are essential for my craft to exist are shared between believers and atheist alike.  I guess I should disregard the central limit theorem or the  law of total variance because atheist agree with those too. 

 

Sorry, I will not check my brain at the door.

 

this was a mistake, good day

 

 

Do you mean to say that athiests have difinitively answered the question to life, the universe and everything or are you simply saying athiests can be right some of the time?

 

They can also be wrong some of the time. For instance, the big bang...this theory is incredibly flawed and time and time again creationists have proven this. The big bang has never, since it's first inception, held up under scrunity. When you start inventing things like dark matter and anti matter to rescue a dead theory, that is checking your brain at the door.

[JDavis]

You have nothing everything becomes figurative so you can agree with atheists.

and here is the crux of the matter. In order not to agree with atheist you choose to stop using your brain and ignore evidence.

I will tell you I agree with atheist all the time. I work as a statistician and the theorems that are essential for my craft to exist are shared between believers and atheist alike. I guess I should disregard the central limit theorem or the law of total variance because atheist agree with those too.

Sorry, I will not check my brain at the door.

this was a mistake, good day

Do you mean to say that athiests have difinitively answered the question to life, the universe and everything or are you simply saying athiests can be right some of the time?

They can also be wrong some of the time. For instance, the big bang...this theory is incredibly flawed and time and time again creationists have proven this. The big bang has never, since it's first inception, held up under scrunity. When you start inventing things like dark matter and anti matter to rescue a dead theory, that is checking your brain at the door.

I meant that just because an atheist believes something does not mean we should not.

For some Christians it is a badge of honor to disagree with everything

I disagree with your view of the Big Bang, I think ithas been well supported and points to a creator

[Ninevite]

I meant that just because an atheist believes something does not mean we should not.

 

 

Of course. I agree. I happen to think a lot of science is very useful, regardless of the beliefs of the scientist.

 

For some Christians it is a badge of honor to disagree with everything

 

Not for me. Please don't get that impression of me. I will listen and try to understand.

 

I disagree with your view of the Big Bang, I think ithas been well supported and points to a creator

 

Fair enough. Can I ask why you believe the big bang theory? Maybe we can start a new thread devoted to the big bang, though I have noticed most threads tend to be all over the place. I would still like to discuss it in more detail.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Ninevite

[JDavis]

 

 

 

Of course. I agree. I happen to think a lot of science is very useful, regardless of the beliefs of the scientist.

 

and on this we can agree.  But sadly not all do. 

 

 

Not for me. Please don't get that impression of me. I will listen and try to understand.

 

I have never gotten that impression of you.  But you have also never questioned the salvation or even love for the Lord because you do not agree with someone.

 

 

Fair enough. Can I ask why you believe the big bang theory? Maybe we can start a new thread devoted to the big bang, though I have noticed most threads tend to be all over the place. I would still like to discuss it in more detail.

 

I believe that an old earth is the best fit for both scientific data and the scriptures.

 

I was once an YECer, but over time have changed my view as I looked closer at both the science and the scriptures. 

 

The most influential person on this journey was my mothers husband (they were married after I was an adult so I it hard to consider him my step-father).   He was (now retired) a Protozoologist and much of my understanding of current science came from him.  We used to do long runs together (10-15 miles) and our discussions one day came around to the age of the earth because of a comment I made.  After that for the next year or more he explained his view of both science and the scripture and how they could mesh.

 

To this day I have not found any compelling evidence for a young earth from a scientific point of view.  I fully understand that the scriptures can be taken that way, but I do not feel they require it.

[Ninevite]

 

To this day I have not found any compelling evidence for a young earth from a scientific point of view.  I fully understand that the scriptures can be taken that way, but I do not feel they require it.

 

 

I feel the same way, believe it or not. I will argue for a young earth and I do consider myself a YEC, but I am not dogmatic about it. I don't consider it a salvation issue for sure and besides that, I don't think anybody has the age of the earth right. lol. I know that sounds funny, but it's true. I think science is very useful and it will eventually provide an answer to certain questions.

 

As far as science goes...I love it and it scares me about as much as a winning lotto ticket found in MY wallet. I think science (when done correctly) will teach us the ways of God as much as He will permit.