Our Websites

If Evolution Is True…

If evolution is true:

  1. You are nothing but stardust that came from a cosmic burp 18 billion years ago.
  2. There is no purpose to life except to have fun and pass on your genes.
  3. When you die you get recycled into a worm or a plant.
  4. There is no such thing as right or wrong, there are no absolutes.
  5. You are an accident and have little or no value.
  6. The universe will not miss you when you are gone.
  7. Your presence here is a burden on the planet since you are one of the polluters. It would be better for the world if you died.
  8. Now, try to have a positive self-images! Take a class on self-esteem.

The other option is that you were designed by an all-powerful Creator who has a purpose for each of us. When you die, you face the Creator to give an account for your life. Your duty here is to find out what the Creator wants, and do it since He is the owner of the universe and makes the rules! These two views of life are as opposite as any two views could be. At least one of them is wrong!

Further Study

 

Are You Being Brainwashed?Are You Being Brainwashed? Propaganda in Science Textbooks
A resource to give students information that will help them combat the lies often promoted in the classrooms as evidence for the evolution theory.
Book or Download

,

Leave40 Responses to testIf Evolution Is True…

  1. yuriy September 2, 2010 at 7:37 am #

    Thank you Kent. I learned many useful things from your seminars. Update your seminar with an eye to date (given the realities of today). You now have a lot of free time (I am without irony). Maybe it makes sense to start writing the script of a new seminar now? Sorry for bad English.
    We love you.

  2. Frederico Muerto September 2, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    If creationism is true:

    1. You are nothing but the offspring of dirt bought to life by God 6000 years ago.
    2. Your only purpose in life is to massage God’s ego.
    3. When you die there’s a better than even chance you’ll be tortured for all eternity for not being one of the ‘elect’.
    4. Right or wrong don’t matter, you should do just what your God demands.
    5. You were deliberately created to have little or no value.
    6. The universe will not miss you when you are gone.
    7. Your presence here is a burden on God as you continue to be one of the sinners. It would have been better for God if you’d died before you had the chance to offend Him through sin.
    8. Don’t worry about self image, lets face it you couldn’t possibly have one you depraved individual.

  3. Corey September 2, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    You are nothing but stardust that came from a cosmic burp 18 billion years ago

    And creationists believe that their great, greag, great…grandfather was dust and their great, greag, great…grandmother was a dusty rib.

  4. Joakim Rosqvist September 2, 2010 at 8:19 am #

    If evolution is true:

    1. You are the result of over 3 billion years of refinement and improvement on the basic principles of life.
    2. You are free to define the purpose of your life – your life is truly YOURS.
    3. When you die, you will be remembered and your actions will have an impact on other’s life. Through writing and other technology, your ideas and thoughts can be preserved.
    4. Logic contains plenty of absolutes. We can learn what is right and wrong through reasoning, trial and error instead of arguing about which book contains “the truth”.
    5. What you and others think and do continuously adds new value to the universe.
    6. Your friends, relatives and aquaintancies will miss you when you’re gone.
    7. You can educate yourself on how to do your daily business in an environmentally friendly way.

    If Christianity is true:

    1. You are nothing but a toy God built because He likes to be praised.
    2. God decided what the purpose of your life is, and you’d better like it.
    3. When you die you will have to keep praising God forever and ever with no end in sight.
    4. God decides what is right and wrong – if you try to use your “free will” to disagree you’ll burn!
    5. Man is built in God’s image which is as good as it gets, so the universe will never produce anything more capable or interesting than a human.
    7. God could fix all our environmental issues with a snap of his fingers, but chooses not to. You’ll probably do less damage to Earth once in Heaven, so please die quickly.

    I think I’ll stick to atheism.

  5. Phil Brown September 2, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    Well said

  6. andrew Ryan September 2, 2010 at 9:22 am #

    Eric, first off you are committing a logical fallacy – the argument from consequences. The evidence for evolution exists regardless of the consequences one might surmise follows from its veracity.

    Secondly, none of those things follow from evolution being true or false. At best you could attempt to argue that they are consequences of there not being a God. Most people who accept evolution to be true are theists. Do you believe that if there is a God your life is meaningless? If not, then surely your God is giving your life meaning regardless of whether or not evolution is true.

    Thirdly, it is sad if you believe your life has no value. Speaking personally I get a lot of joy from my family. I understand that you have a troubled family history, but surely you get some kind of solace from this website?

  7. Jon Richt September 2, 2010 at 9:24 am #

    If evolution is true: You are nothing but stardust that came from a cosmic burp 18 billion years ago
    Lie #1. The theory of evolution says nothing about how the universe came into existence.

    If evolution is true: There is no purpose to life except to have fun and pass on your genes.
    Incorrect. The theory of evolution, just like the theories of chemistry, gravity and baseball have nothing to do with “purpose”. They simply explain what we see, and make no attempt to prescribe how we should behave. Systems of morality, philosophies, goals and hobbies address this issue; complaining that the ToE doesn’t is dishonest (though not technically a lie)

    If evolution is true: When you die you get recycled into a worm or a plant.
    This is just weird. Even Christians know that when you die, your physical body gets “recycled”. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Again: dishonest, but not technically a lie.

    If evolution is true: There is no such thing as right or wrong, there are no absolutes.
    Lie #2. You can repeat the mantra as often as you like, but it still doesn’t change anything: the theory of evolution has nothing to do with morality.

    If evolution is true: You are an accident and have little or no value.
    This is admittedly more tricky. I’d love to see a separate topic/thread on it.

    If evolution is true: The universe will not miss you when you are gone.
    So far, this is the first thing truthful thing you’ve written here. Of course, its also fair to point out that that same can be said with Christianity: if the Bible is correct, the universe doesn’t miss dead Christians or atheists et al.

    If evolution is true: Your presence here is a burden on the planet since you are one of the polluters. It would be better for the world if you died.
    Lie #3. The theory of evolution does not assert the planet would be better off if you’re dead.

    If evolution is true: Now, try to have a positive self-images! Take a class on self-esteem.
    Don’t be a jerk.

  8. Jack Napper September 2, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    Oh look an old recycled argument. Again?

    “You are nothing but stardust that came from a cosmic burp 18 billion years ago.”

    That’s a GREAT oversimplification. It especially so considering there were no stars. Then again if you look at Eric’s ‘Creation Minute’ and some of your doodles you’d think the stars, galaxies and planets flew out fully formed. Evolutionary theory makes no comments on this.

    “There is no purpose to life except to have fun and pass on your genes.”

    Evolutionary theory makes no comments regarding anyone’s purpose in life. It looks like we’re moving more toward the creationist concept they call ‘Evolutionism’. People must find their purpose in life.

    “When you die you get recycled into a worm or a plant.”

    Evolution makes no comment about this. It makes no comment about reincarnation either. Besides I thought it was only your ‘soul’ that moved on. Wouldn’t this mean that your flesh woud still be recycled? You’re kind throwing an argument in the face of your own misinterpretation argument that energy and matter can neither be create nor destroyed. That’s right Kent. Take your time.

    “There is no such thing as right or wrong, there are no absolutes.”

    Again this is more in line with your misconception you call ‘Evolutionism’. Evolutionary theory make no comment about this either.

    “You are an accident and have little or no value.”

    See response above.

    “The universe will not miss you when you are gone.”

    See response above.

    “Your presence here is a burden on the planet since you are one of the polluters. It would be better for the world if you died.”

    See response above.

    “Now, try to have a positive self-images! Take a class on self-esteem.”

    This is a rather misplaced state that should be outside. It should be a conclusion drawn from your list not included.

    “The other option is that you were designed by an all-powerful Creator who has a purpose for each of us.”

    And there it is folks. The logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

    “These two views of life are as opposite as any two views could be.”

    A worldview you constructed and your worldview may not yet be mutually exclusive.

    “At least one of them is wrong!”

    Or…SHOCKER…both could be!!!

  9. Ralph McWhinnie September 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Wow, 6 true points in a row!
    7 is false because the planet doesn’t care if it is polluted (although the life on it might not be happy about it).

    If my bank statement is correct:
    1. I only have $10
    2. My bills outweigh my income
    The other option is that I am really a millionaire and there is a giant conspiracy to make me look poor. These two views of my financial situation are as apposite as any two views could be. At least one of them is wrong.

    Now let’s play find the logical fallacy.

  10. Nigel McNaughton September 2, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    We are all ‘accidents’, that’s how genetics works. Irrelevant of your understanding of science.

  11. Eric Idle September 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    # You are nothing but stardust that came from a cosmic burp 18 billion years ago. – too humble for you? A bit more ‘special’ than that re you?

    # There is no purpose to life except to have fun and pass on your genes. – what do you base this absurd assertion on?

    # When you die you get recycled into a worm or a plant. – that’s be called ‘nature’

    # There is no such thing as right or wrong, there are no absolutes. – again, an absurd assertion

    # You are an accident and have little or no value. – compared to???

    # The universe will not miss you when you are gone. – I don’t think it misses us while we’re here. Really, are you sooo special?

    # Your presence here is a burden on the planet since you are one of the polluters. It would be better for the world if you died. – nah, we are part of nature.

    # Now, try to have a positive self-images! Take a class on self-esteem – I think you might have overdosed.

  12. Geno Castagnoli September 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm #

    Simply not true. There are not only two choices. The fact is that multiple Gallup polls over the last 30 years have clearly shown that some 80% of those who accept evolution believe it to be a process of creation used by God.

    I’d post the link, but they say it will be blocked. Simply Google “Gallup poll” and evolution.

  13. Philip Kingsley Subas September 2, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Repeated i see that theory of evolution isnt about this… The term evolution also has the meaning
    “a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena”
    Mirriam-webster

    I think Eric isnt talking about Theory of evolution but the theory the atheist(s) have to reject God. And that theory must include how this universe came into existence, how all life came into existence etc. This entire theory is what he claims as evolution (not Theory of evolution).

    PS. I am not in CSE

  14. Mark James September 3, 2010 at 5:15 am #

    If everything in the universe can be explained by evolutionary processes then there is no need of God. If there is no God then we’re all just a pile of chemicals, remarkably well organised chemicals but a pile of chemicals none-the-less. Where did the chemicals come from? Apparenty from stars. Where did the stars come from? A big bang (cosmic burp) 14 to 20 billion years ago. Point 1 seems reasonable, what about the rest?

    A pile of chemicals, no matter how well organised, can have no purpose in and of itself; will break down to simpler forms over time; can’t decide right from wrong (can’t decide anything, in fact); has to be the result of an accident (to assert anything else is to infer design); has no value because there’s nothing to value it; and, won’t be missed when it’s gone.

    Unless, of course, another pile of chemicals gets all emotional!

  15. Kurt Petersen September 3, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    If evolution is true:

    the so called atheist evolutionists wouldn’t get there undies in a bundle thinking about such things…

    but look at the anger, and frustration on those comments above…. I understand their hatred after knowing what they are pretending to cover up,
    So simply explained in Romans 1:20 written some 2000 years ago, speaks to their ignorance.

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

  16. Julie Collins September 3, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    Joakim Rosqvist, Jack Napper, Jon Richt

    i love how all of you try to “refute” kent hovind… without even realizing you all got fundamentally different answers. and then here comes the ad hominem…

    great list by the way, i agree, i do not believe i came from matter that came from nothing, and i am sure all of my morals were either given by god, or by someone who was influenced by god in some way, i mean, if a boy goes and lives with animals, he will not come back with a set of morals. all atheist today learned morals from religion. even if it was a atheist he learned it from a religious person down the line.

  17. Mark Jones September 3, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    I love these blogs … BUT … The real fight is on Facebook, where we see people arguing against the facts we repeat.

    So … why not just preach the gospel, because the Bible says that is what saves people. Creation is brilliant for Christians but its the Word of God that saves.

    Am I wrong in this or is it God that builds the Church? The Word is a sword which CUTS deep etc etc.

  18. Michael Weston September 3, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    An appeal to emotion is a fallacious argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.

  19. Eric Lloyd September 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    For those atheists that attempted to answer all 8 points that Kent brought up:

    The spirit of what Kent is saying is, often atheists use evolution in support of atheism. Evolution, being a natural explanation of life, and the universe, does not require God.

    Therefore if evolution is true (which means God doesn’t exist) and there is no soul, all of Kent’s 8 points apply.

    We came about by accident, and when we die we cease to exist, might as well eat, drink and be merry.

    This is the danger of believing evolution.

  20. Melody Frederic September 3, 2010 at 6:46 pm #

    This article is not supposed to be a list of seven logically derived facts. It only describes the worldview which results from indoctrination in the religion of evolution. The seven points on the evolutionary side are indeed logically false. But that is because their foundation is flawed. It hardly matters anyway. This set of beliefs and values is pushed on children every day in the public school system nearly exactly as it is presented here. I have been there and seen this. The evil polluters doctrine, the stardust (which is oversimplified of course, it’s only a list of points not a doctoral thesis) origin of the universe, the cosmic worthlessness of the individual, these are shoved into their little minds as absolute fact. The eight hours a day of school is complimented by Hollywood when they get home. They are not trained to think. only to believe what they are told. And this is what they are told to believe.

  21. Rene Otero September 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    I guess Dr. Kent struck a nerve.

  22. Mike Ayala September 3, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

    Hi Dr. Hovind,

    I’d like to add a couple of things to your list of conclusions:

    If evolution is true, my garage would clean itself and become orderly without any effort on my part.

    If evolution is true, my computer operating system would upgrade itself at no cost to me, and not only would it work, but it would work better. (Amen to that!).

    Thank you for your awesome ministry that reaches all around the world.

    Mike Ayala

    For the rest of you, despite your humorous speculations, evolution is not true.

    Evolution as taught by evolutionists cannot be true because it confuses surprise effect with information. Please do not confuse surprise effect with information. Evolutionists do so all the time. Surprise effect is what one gets when one randomly splatters mud on a wall and an intricate design appears formed from the mud on the wall with no apparent manipulation of the mud. Bart Simpson and his bad-company friends observing culturally significant shapes in the clouds is another example of surprise effect. Surprise effect has merely the appearance of information but no code. Information is applied code which can also be described as highly ordered non-randomness. Life depends on information – not surprise effect. Evolutionists have to try to convince themselves and others that the information of life is nothing more than surprise effect.

    Now, the mechanism for the storage, retrieval, and use of information in life is way beyond amazing. The more you understand it and think about it, you would not be wrong calling it a miracle.

    In DNA there are two orders of complexity of information. Firstly, there is the physical designed machine of DNA which is a miraculous feat of engineering and super-miniaturization. Even with all our human technical advances about which some are so proud and in which some place undue reliance, these pale into insignificance in comparison to the genius behind DNA’s design.

    As brilliant as the mechanical design DNA is, and it is exceedingly brilliant, ever far more mysterious and miraculous is the 4-part digital code stored on the DNA. This code is an higher order of complexity. These are two orders of complexity: the machine itself, and the code it stores and by which it is manipulated.

    Even if one could twist reality so much so as to see a DNA molecule appear by random chance, (And no, don’t hold your breath. It ain’t gonna happen), there is no way the information used with the DNA molecule can appear by random processes. The fact that DNA has encoded on it highly detailed information about the sequestering from the environment, storage and use of iron, but it contains no iron is an example of one of the multitudes of impossible hurdles which intellectually undefendable evolution and all its dogmas has to overcome because evolution as taught by evolutionists is based upon randomness.

    Information is non-randomness.

    Information does not arise by surprise effect. Evolution depends on the miracle of DNA arising spontaneously fully functioning by random processes and the information encoded on it, the software, arising spontaneously fully functioning, neither without any bugs. If DNA 1.0 had bugs, there would never be upgrades like DNA 1.1 or even DNA 2.0. It would have to start all over again from a bowl of primordial soup.

    Moreover, evolution depends on this spontaneously arising hardware and software being replicated without fatal error and passed on to replicating progeny. Do you have any idea what kind of engineering feat that is? Think!

    I know you guys are way smarter than me, but please be honest. The venerated halls of science have no credible explanation for the spontaneous appearance of the fantastically complex machine called DNA let alone the encoded information on it.

    Wake up!

    Evolution does not even begin to address the origin of intellectual thought in living organisms. When this is brought up is usually when evolutionists find some excuse to go.

    Grace and blessings to you all, and may the Lord open your hearts, minds, and eyes that you may see the wonders and miracles of His creation that you may praise and worship Him.

    Mike Ayala

  23. Mike Ayala September 3, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    Hi Jon & Jack,

    All machines have purpose and are created for a purpose: to reduce randomness.

    Another thought with which you are all going to have to grapple is that even randomness is not truly random as we think – it is created! What we call randomness follows tightly defined laws. It does not happen by accident.

    You guys cannot tell the difference between science and speculation. What part of cosmic evolution is verifiably observable? Where are the test and control samples to repeat cosmic evolution?

    Let’s just sidestep the origins issue for a moment and just think. Think back to what evolutionists teach as the Big Bang where there is nothing but chaos and randomness. Take away all the ‘somehows’ and ‘eventually’s’, and all that is left is randomness, no machines, no mechanisms.

    There is no machine or mechanism to store temporary fluctuations.

    If that is not a problem, then you are not thinking – or not being honest.

    There are only two possibilities: randomness or non-randomness. Evolution as taught by evolutionists requires that there are only random processes driving evolution. The Bible teaches that creation and biogenesis originated from an highly non-random process.

    Gob bless you both,

    Mike

  24. Mike Ayala September 3, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    PS: To Mike Ayala
    September 3rd at 9:36 pm

    Please change “without” to “with” in the sentence:

    “Evolution depends on the miracle of DNA arising spontaneously fully functioning by random processes and the information encoded on it, the software, arising spontaneously fully functioning, neither without any bugs.”

  25. Duane September 3, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    You keep saying “accident” and “random”. You completely misunderstand the concept. Let’s look at it another way. You have 2 parents. Each parent has 2 parents. Each of those parents has 2 parents. Keep going back, say, 10 generations and we have 512 different people going about their own business. Each one of those people will have nothing to do with all but one other of that group of 512. They will pair off and those 256 couples will each have a child. That second generation of 256 children will then pair off into 128 random couples who will most likely never know any of the rest of their group to have a child each. That group of 128 will then pair off into 64 couples, and so forth. Now, consider this whole process has lasted over 200 years and involved over a 1000 people and the final result is you. Was this all a directed process to reach the final specific destination of YOU, or was it merely a random series of chance encounters over an extended period of time and you are merely the “accidental” result of this. See, this is nothing like the “oops” kind of accident you keep portraying.

  26. younger brother September 4, 2010 at 8:14 am #

    I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but the true outcome of eveolutionary theory does not automatically cause, but certainly does allow for a complete devaluing of human life. In fact it is historical documented fact that people like hitler and I beleive Stallen used it to justify mass murder as a the central motive and authority for it. I would also like to mention that anyone who has studied philosophy realizes that questions of origins is by nature metaphysical and therefore outside of the realm of science.

  27. younger brother September 4, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    Creationists and evelotionists look at and study the same evidence and come to two different, but perfectly logical conclusions. It is a matter of a- priori assumptions before the observations. If logic is a factor in these comments, it is a fact that there are just as qualified professors, and scientists from proabably ever field on either side of the argument. Logically then, the argument is not based on evidence and scientific discovery, (otherwise you would expect all scientists to be on one side based on the result of their findings). Rather, and logically speaking the multiplicity of camps points to the argument being about world-views or a-priori assumptions imposed form both sides on the evidence

  28. dan stewart September 4, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    Wow! Lots of intelligent comments here. In my opinion there is no conflict between evolution and intelligent design or the belief in God.The God of man can also be the God of evolution, can he not? Besides, regardless of ones faith or lack there of, the possibility of a power greater than ones self is a great developer of a conscience. I am no scholar but it seems to me that some things should be believed in simply because they are the only things worth believing in.

  29. younger brother September 4, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    Finally, and with respect, I have to respond to the comment by Joakim Rosqvist that if evolution is true: “You are free to define the purpose of your life – your life is truly YOURS.”

    You then essentially go on to state that logic and reason can then be used to discover absolutes.

    This is not an attack on you nor on what you said, however they are illogical statements.

    For example: If atheistic evolution is true you, then everything that exists is purely naturalistic. If everything is purelly naturalistic, then eveything exists in a chain of cause and effect.

    Logically then, you, your thoughts, and even your actions are the strict result of natural random processes within this chain and there is therefore no human free will, nor is there such thing as a free agent. You have no controll over your actions nor your thoughts because they are purely the result of the natural random movements of attoms that had their movement as the result of other random atomic movement and so on all the way back to the beginning (the big bang if you are an athesitc evolutionist who adheres to the big bang theory). How can we be free agents from the chain of cause and effect?

    I’m afraid Atheistic evolution does not allow for human free will or the capactiy to chose. Even the perception of free will and choice is the result of the chain.

  30. Joakim Rosqvist September 5, 2010 at 1:21 am #

    @younger brother
    >> How can we be free agents from the chain of cause and effect?

    I don’t think you’d want to be “free” from the chain of cause and effect. That would mean actions had no or unpredictable consequences. Freedom wouldn’t be worth much if you couldn’t have some idea of what your actions will result in.

    In addition to the determinism from cause and effect, our universe also seems to be imbued with randomness. While neither of them does it alone, I’d say their combination allows for free will to the extent we are experiencing it.

    Compare to the (biological) Theory of Evolution – mutations alone will not result in long-term development because deleterious mutations are more common than beneficial ones. Natural selection alone will not result in long-term development either since it couldn’t go further after selecting the best candidate. But combined, they compensate for each other’s weaknesses – mutations gives selection a steady stream of new candidates to select from and selection filters out the deleterious mutations.

  31. Jack Napper September 5, 2010 at 3:31 am #

    @ younger brother

    This is apparently the new fad argument that’s been making the rounds with Creationist. It has a couple of major flaws in it.

    First, you want to say that if atheistic evolutionism’ is true there is no free will. Then of course there’s usually something like two or three paragraphs littered with armchair philosophy/physics. The next problem is yet another assertion…that you leave out. What you avoid saying it “I believe we have free will” or simply “free will exists”. You then skip to the end and assert that ‘atheistic evolutionism’ must be wrong.

    “’Im afraid Atheistic evolution does not allow for human free will or the capactiy to chose. Even the perception of free will and choice is the result of the chain.”

    I’m sure sure I won’t see the last of the copy and paste argument from someone that lacks a real understanding of causality and chaos.

  32. andrew Ryan September 5, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    Younger Brother: “In fact it is historical documented fact that people like hitler and I beleive Stallen used it to justify mass murder ”

    Simply false. Hitler rejected evolution and banned Darwin’s books.

  33. Mike Ayala September 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    Hey Younger Brother and Dan Stewart, (September 4th at 8:21 am & 8:35 am)

    Just a quick note. The resultant consequence of coming to different conclusions is base on much more than just having different world views. The world view is the starting place, but there is also the matter of honesty. There is also the rejection of evidence contrary to the evolutionary world view. We do not live in a perfect world. In fact, our world is still under the curse of Genesis 3. Not only is there sin in the heart of man which is a big influence on the process of coming to a conclusion, but there are also hostile malevolent beings who mean to cause all humanity harm, death, and destruction who would rob any human of the opportunity to repent, be born again of God, and love, worship, and praise Him. There is a global war on right now for the hearts and minds of people, and most are not even aware it is occurring. They are the targets of opportunity for the enemies of God.

    Dan,

    If you cannot see the conflict between evolution and intelligent design or the belief in God, then it is clear that you do not understand the problem. My dad used to tell me, “It is hard for one to appreciate the solution when one is not even aware of the problem.”

    Firstly, evolution and special creation are based on mutually exclusive foundations: randomness and non-randomness. It cannot be both. Each is the opposite of the other.

    Secondly, the God of the Bible, our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of Heaven and Earth tells us in His word the account of creation which is in total contradiction to the speculations of evolutionary teaching. Again, they are mutually exclusive.

    Thirdly, despite the common often repeated error that the existence of God cannot be proven, the existence of God can be empirically proven if one is willing to objectively weigh and consider the evidence God has given. The problem is that the sinful heart of man is often unwilling to humble oneself to honestly and objectively consider God’s evidence – evidence found in His word, the Bible.

    Please remember, evolution immediately gained popularity, not because it had any scientific value or basis, but solely because it was seen as an avenue to remove the need for God in the universe if anyone could be fooled into believing it. We’ve got to keep it in perspective: evolution is based on an 1850’s ignorance of microbiology, metabolism, and information theory – and evolutionists are still trying to convince the uninformed that it is science. Evolution is not science, it is speculation in conflict of the available evidence. Evolution is in contradiction to every area of science upon which it encroaches.

    Have you ever heard of the lie, “The Simple Cell”? You can thank an evolutionist for that one. It was part of the propaganda pumped out by evolutionists to fool people into believing an 1850’s speculation by a young imaginative man.

    And finally, but certainly not exhaustively, the true and verifiable facts and evidence not only does not support evolution in any way, but it destroys any chance of evolution. That is why evolutionists fight so hard to keep creation science out of the schools and education. They know when the evidence is fairly presented, not only is evolution not possible, but one can see it has only been supported by an intricate web of lies and intimidation in the academic world.

    Evolutionists cannot stand scrutiny.

    I hope this at least gives you some food for thought about the conflict between evolution and creation science.

    God bless and protect you both.

    Mike Ayala

  34. Nigel McNaughton September 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    “Evolution depends on the miracle of DNA arising spontaneously fully functioning by random processes and the information encoded on it, the software, arising spontaneously fully functioning, neither with any bugs.”

    And Mike with that one comment we can write off anything you have to say about the issue. What we have here ladies and gents is a classic example of the Creationist Strawman. Evolution depends on no such thing. But here comes Mike with his made up definitions and then gets to tell you how ridiculous they are. The creationist definitions are ridiculous, but they also aren’t the real deal.

  35. Nigel McNaughton September 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Julie, once again your example works against the idea that everyone has your God given morals written on their heart if you have to get religion to be taught them.

  36. Nigel McNaughton September 6, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Younger brother, you’ve almost got it.

    Remember on one side you have ‘people who follow the evidence’. This side is made up of essentially the entire worlds Scientists. From it’s strong Christian beginnings a few hundred years ago which gave us modern Geology, Astronomy, Physics etc, this group is now represented by people of all faiths (and none), Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, etc.

    On the other side you have ‘No matter what the evidence says my interpretation of my favourite version of my holy book is always right”, that side is populated by a small subset of Muslims and Christians. So yes presuppositions do matter.

    Now in case you think I am over gerneralising here it is from CSE
    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.”
    From AIG
    “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

  37. younger brother September 6, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    Sorry Joakim Rosqvist, I was typing a new comment and I hit something that caused it to post before I actually got past the salutation. What follows is what I was meaning to write.

    First, I would like to thank you for your civil reply to my previouse post regarding cause and effect and natuaralistic determinism. I’m new to these blogs, and although I know what I beleive and how I’ve come to beleive it, I view these types of discussions as an opportunity to continually learn, (especially more about the world views of others). I’ve found that many poeple in similare conversations become very defensive or even hostile without actually listening to what is said, ..so thank you for the conversation!

    However, in the spirit of conversation, I still find the conclusion in your last post (concerning cause and effect working together with randomness to produce a level of free will in humanity) puzeling. This is mainly because if atheisitc evelotion occured in a natuaralistic universe, the observed randomness of the universe can not be devorsed from the chain of cause and effect as you have proposed. In fact, that was my original point, that athesitic evelotion requires a chain of cause and effec that is based on the random movements of attoms begun from the big bang..which in turn results in complete determinism and therefore no free will. in atheisitc evolution, randomness can not exisit outside of the chain.

    On a note of clarification, in your last post, I felt as if you thought I wanted to be free from the chain of cause and effect. I don’t, I too enjoy a universe where outcomes are predictable based on our growing understanding of it. Rather the point I was originally making, is that logic dictates strict determinism from an atheistic evolution of the universe and life regardless of whether we percieve the causes and effects as random or not in their essence

  38. younger brother September 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    Dear: Jack Napper

    I have to admit, I am slightly amazed at your response. I scincerely do not mean any of this in a derogartory way but you’ve made quite the many assumptions in your last statement. As I have mentioned to Joakim Rosqvist, I know what I beleive and how I came to beleive it but I enjoy good thought provoking conversations with others of differnt world views, and this is what my purpose in my previouse posts and this one is.

    I have to admit, I find it interesting that in a dialogue such as this there is so much hostility. With respect Mr. Napper (and I do truly say this with respect for you), I was amazed how a person you’ve never met is assumed to be a creationist and unlearned in philosophy after reading one simple post. And in fact, your statements assume that creationists are by virtue of their world view, unintelligent or unlearned in philosophy (history and the present show this assumption incorrect).

    However, in the spirit of conversation I would like to adress the points in your last post. First, you mentioned this is a new fad argument of creationists used to argue for the existance of God or the falshood of evolution. I have to admit, I had no idea creationists were using such an argument and I did not hear the argument from a creation scientist.. Using the formal post-secondary training I have had in philosophy, phylosophy of religion and world veiws (that you assumed I did not have), I was simply taking the logic of a naturalistic world view to it’s final end regarding human free will as per the comments of Joakim Rosqvist. (Although if creation scientists are using reason in such a way I’m glad to see their marriage of scientific interpretation and philosophy).

    Second, I never made the claim from my original post on the subject that strict determinism from atheisitc evolution results in the falsification of the theory/world view. That is a discusion i’m willing to engage in. (I am intersted to know how you came to that conclusion however). Rather my purpose was to show that atheistic evolution, despite what many may beleive, does not allow for free will within humanity or the individual.

    However, I did notice that you stated my conlusion, and apparently the conclusion of creation scientists (that if atheistic evolution is true then there is no free will) was one of the problems when creationists’ use such an argument, but you did not elaborate. In essence, you did not falsify the conclusion but merely stated that such a conlusion is incoreect. I am interested in your reasoning becasue it does contradict the logical conlusion of many a professor of philosophy christain, atheist or other.

    I truly and honestly do not mean this in a rude manner, but your post that you intended to use as a refutation against a logical argument did not make use of logical argumentation but merely made statements without support.

    Finally, from your post, I do assume that you have studied philosophy to some degree and are interested in the topic of world views (why else would you be on a creationist site and responding to creationist blogs while holding a differnt world view if you weren’t?), If youare interested in further study of variouse world views I recommend “The Universe Next Door A basic World view Catalog Fourth Edition” By: James W. Sire.

    Thanks and I hope we ahve the chance to talk again

  39. Mark James September 7, 2010 at 4:42 am #

    Hi Joakim,

    In your last post you make a sweeping statement about the role of beneficial mutations in long term development, but in the process you have glossed over one of the biggest problems facing the theory of evolution.

    DNA molecules are incredibly long and complex. Human DNA alone has as many as 3 billion base pairs. The theory of evolution requires that these molecules started out much smaller and simpler and that, over time, the information for such things as eyes, ears, blood vessels, etc. has been added. So the beneficial mutations you speak of must, at some stage, explain how coherent information is added to the DNA.

    To explain the huge variety and complexity of life on Earth there must have been many billions of billions (and more) of these mutations, and they must still be happening today. Unfortunately scientists have been unable to find an example of a single one!

  40. nathan oliver September 7, 2010 at 6:32 am #

    causality, hmm
    to every action there is an equal opposite reaction?

    chaos, hmm
    if you want it to squirt, it’ll stop-up (corrode) and spray
    if you want it to spray, it’ll stop-up and squirt?

    i wonder if evolutionists have considered if humans are more or less evolved than animals?

    if evolution were true…
    there would be life everywhere that chemical reactions are possible.