Evolutionists Were Wrong Again

Once again it was reported today that Evolutionists were wrong about something... yet again.

Evidently the "Scientists find big differences in Y chromosomes of men, chimps"

I did find the first comment in the article spot on when it says:

"No, it may indicate that the human didn't come from the ape to begin with.

Funny how that logical possibility didn't even occur to them."

This article reminded me of another article that I read last year called

Evolution of the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more.

In a past post it was mentioned that "Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?"

Someday, hopefully soon, they will understand they are going down a rabbit hole and getting deeper and deeper into a failed religion of falsehood.

bit.ly/wrongagain

Atheists Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces."

--Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

I just read an article that backed up this quote.

The article was called The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing..."

"...When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?"

It was certainly worth the read.

The Problem of Evil Atheism

From antiquity to today, the evil in the world has always been a powerful mandate for evolutionary thinking. God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law. For centuries this solution has fueled atheism, but from where did evil-ness come?

The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. Atheists, no less than others and perhaps even more so, are exercised by creation's terrors. Earthquakes and tsunamis kill thousands, diseases terrorize, floods destroy and droughts starve. Then there is the seemingly unending narrative of predation in the biological world. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson put it.

Atheists often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their beliefs but ironically this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a motivation. The problem is that atheism fails to explain the existence of evil.

Atheists say that we are able to identify evil as evil because the knowledge of what is evil evolved in our brains. But if that is true then there is no such thing as objective evil. Instead, evil is subjective. We may generally agree that something is evil, but that is only because of similar molecular interactions in our brains that happened to evolve, not because that thing is itself evil. There is no immaterial, objective standard which defines evil-ness.

One might think that atheists could agree with all this, but it is not so simple. Atheists could dispose of objective evil, but then they lose their raison d' etre. God is no longer responsible for creating or allowing evil because there is no such thing as true, objective evil. It is all just in our heads.

In fact, atheists very much do believe there is an objective standard. And they very much hold God to that standard. As PZ Myers wrote:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

This is religion and it is the driving issue. It is no different than what David Hume and thousands of other atheists have been saying for centuries. God wouldn't do it that way and so our only option is atheism. This is what animates atheists. They cannot then turn around and drop their weapon, as though they never used it.

The Evolutionary Paradigm Breeds Atheists

They have no where else to go. There entire industry, careers, and grants are geared to the paradigm of evolution. If wrong, then there is a Creator. These points were discussed in the article named "What Do Scientists Really Think?" that reviews a new book called, 

Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.

We get some of the insight and opinions of secular scientists for example, that was quoting the book, "None of the religious scientists I talked with supported the theory of intelligent design. (94% of religious scientists think that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on earth)." (pp. 29-30).

Why would they? As Expelled, the Movie points out they would be laughed out, or fired, for such blasphemy towards science. Little do they know science was encouraged in the original Christian universities that searches for the 'Fingerprints Of God'. 

Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”(AIG)

Yea, 'under God she flourishes' and not under God, they will fail. Evidenced by the current Evolutionary Paradigm. Evolution is the biggest lie ever perpetuated on mankind, besides man causing global warming that is.

Someone that reviewed the book said "Perhaps its most surprising finding is that nearly a quarter of the atheists and agnostics describe themselves as 'spiritual.'"

O'rly? Closet Christians? No such animal. 

The author, Elaine Ecklund, attempts to show that "Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion."

Restating the Positions of this Blog

It's time to restate the main positions of this blog:

ATHEIST INTELLECTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

IF Atheists believe their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational,
THEN they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief;
ELSE they are not what they claim to be.

ATHEIST DEFINITION AND REDEFINITION

Many Atheists now claim “not to have any god theories”, a claim which is intended to help themselves avoid having to support their own position: they know they cannot. They are, however, subject to the following:

IF creating entity theories exist, THEN either a person has heard of creating entity theories, or has not.

IF a person has not heard of creating entity theories, THEN he likely has no such theories himself. (this is ignorance, not Atheism).

IF a person has heard of God/creating entity theories, THEN one of the following applies:

(a) He forgets them or ignores them; (recurrent ignorance)
(b) He rejects them; (Atheism)
(c) He requires more information; (Agnosticism)
(d) He accepts one of them; (Deist)

Atheism Analyzed

They say they don't believe in God because they don't have evidence. As if they never believe in anything without having evidence. But could it be the fact that they just don't want to because they are purely evil? And they want to live life how they want to, so they won't submit to God's laws? 

I think that's the more accurate interpretation. They already know there is a God. That's why they spend all this time talking about him. They know he exists, but they are pissed off at him. They're mad because they don't want to submit to his Laws, and they know in the end they will be punished severely for it and they feel it's not fair. So they come on here to refute his existence and degrade him and his followers. Because they know they are completely condemned.

They are just like satan. satan will not submit to God and didn't want to obey him but he wanted to be his own god. And now he's pissed because he's condemned. So he goes around looking for mortal humans to corrupt. To get them to follow him and hate God's people and God himself. Is this the truth?

Atheists Are Stupid

The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be Abolished From Society

By Theodore Shoebat

The Theory of Evolution has no place in civilized society. It is a tyrannical ideology, never composed for the sake of scientific discovery (as it was with Newton), but for the conquest of the world, the ascending of government over the Laws of God, the extermination of the helpless, the degeneration of human life, the enslavement of man under a select elite, and ultimately, the obliteration of Christianity.


Here is a video I made illustrating some points as to why Evolutions needs to be abolished:



Evolution is a dangerous and tyrannical ideology, that teaches that “superior” people need to exterminate the “inferior” people. Both Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer (the one who coined the term Survival of the Fittest) believed in the oppression and extermination of what they deemed as inferior peoples. Therefore the Theory of Evolution has no place in civilized society and must be banned.
Charles Darwin wrote of his envisioning of a utopia, in which the ‘inferior’ races will be exterminated and the ‘superior’ people thus allowed to surpass in civilization:

At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin 1871, pp. 200–201, Vol. 1)

Robert Spencer, described Survival of the Fittest (a term he coined), as a utopia in which the society submits to the state:

The Theory Of Evolution Is An Evil Lie From Satan And Needs To Be Abolished From Society | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat

Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION)

Dawkins Evolution Test: The Dirty Secrets of Darwin's Evolution --
Evolution: is it the BIGGEST LIE ever told -or- just POOR SCIENCE? http://godinanutshell.com/

The
Theory of Evolution is often promoted by late night comics, such as
Bill Maher, and heavily promoted by atheist spokespeople such as,
Richard Dawkins, using the primary techniques of mocking science, those
who question the old theory's EXTREMELY long lists (Everest size
mountains) of weaknesses, and mockery at religions

Special
acknowledgements, Dr. Chuck Missler, Dr. Carl Smith - as well as those
doctors, Phds. genetists, and one virologist who helped with ongoing
advice for the content of this video.

Special thanks also to
Richard Dawkins, head hardcore Atheist / Evolution spokesman and Science
/ Religion Mocker who has made up so much nonsense in sheer volume at
this point, and comfortably flip flopped on so many critical issues,
that it makes Darwin's 150 year old theory of evolution not only look
intellectually dishonest, but this easy to tear apart in under an hour.
Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

Evolution Theme Music Composed by

Transform the World by Trevor DeMaere http://youtu.be/DHKQw3HnCGQ
Divine Afflatus by Michael Donor http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelDo...
Theme Music Composed by Sweden Composer Kevin Ohlsson http://www.youtube.com/user/Diskrensare

The Theory of Everything FULL LENGTH DVD by Trey Smith. http://youtu.be/mtBz1roiQR8

Trey
Smith, for information on the time Trey Smith committed a safe robbery
on TV pastor, Mike Murdock in 1999 (Benny Hinn fundraiser) Mike Murdock
Safe Robbery http://youtu.be/kYY5Zz9yV1E

Official Website covering the TV pastor / Mike Murdock safe robbery in 1999 http://readthieves.com/

Also by Trey Smith / God in a Nutshell
Theory of Everything: http://youtu.be/mtBz1roiQR8
Enoch: Book of Enoch -- http://youtu.be/BZGN6EKjvAo
Nephilim: Origin of Genetic Evil http://youtu.be/1zz8_MxcnzY


EVOLUTION DEFINITIONS


Evolution
(Evolution-ism) -- religious movements / political lobbies /
definitions --- Evolution-ism as well as the Atheism religious movement
are often described as, "the religious belief system that most all
science laws, modern knowledge, as well as ancient records are a product
of an unknown grand conspiracy.

Bottom line, the belief that
given enough time dragonflies turn into dinosaurs, dogs become whales,
and monkeys turn into people. -- As a comical note: In 2013, there are
probably a few genetic problems with that idea.

Evolution Quotes - Evolution Quick Notes

Charles
Darwin speaks on Fossils in his own day (NOTE: Knowledge of modern
Fossils / Geology has only made the problem Darwin is commenting on much
worse.)

"The number of intermediate varieties which have
formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection
which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin

Evolution
/ Evolutionism as a cultural movement is a facet of the modern Atheist
belief structures -- it is largely based on those who are "vigorous
fans" so-to-speak of the theories, writings, and speculations of Charles
Darwin. Though Darwin's conjectures and thoughts were violations of
many known science laws even in his own day -- such as Entropy in
Thermodynamics, Mendel's Laws of Genetics, the fossil evidence, etc -- a
writing of his in 1859 titled the "Origin of Species" (often referred
to as "evolution") took on political usefulness (ex. Nazi Eugenics
programs, Marxism, Stalin, oppression of socialist Russia, etc..).

Other
theories were put forth by the Darwin family over the years, such as
his son George Darwin's "Moon Theory" (that the moon was spit out of the
ocean) -- none took hold of public -or-political attention.

It
was assumed by some -- perhaps even Darwin himself --- that the "flaws"
in his theory of evolution would "lighten" as science progressed.
Though, with a wealth of quotes (like the ones listed above) it would be
difficult for one to doubt that Darwin himself -- at minimum -- began
losing "faith" in his theory even during his own life time. The
"scientific troubles" for evolution in 1859 did NOT lighten, but
conversely, have grown to a point many would argue is much beyond fatal.


There is NO theory known to man that violates as many other
science laws in sheer absolute volume as Darwin's 1859 theory of
evolution. Note: There has also NEVER been as much FRAUD committed for
the furtherance of ANY single science idea in history. (many, many hoax
"missing link" finds over the years, etc...)

It is the position
of this video that the theory of evolution has LESS fossil evidence than
BIGFOOT, and directly conflicts EVERY SINGLE observation of the known
world itself... from the cells, to the DNA, to the stars, to the quantum
particles making up the whole place.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson Rejects Darwinian Evolution

On this episode of ID the Future,
host David Boze speaks with Dr. Ben Carson, renowned pediatric
neurosurgeon and Darwin doubter. Dr. Carson is also a best-selling
author, a celebrated and acclaimed surgeon, and he actually had his life
made into a movie which starred Academy Award winning actor Cuba
Gooding, Jr. Dr. Carson was invited to deliver the 2012 commencement
speech at Emory University. Unfortunately, upon uncovering his
non-allegiance to Darwinian ideology, 500 faculty members and students
alike signed a letter in protest of his welcome. Listen in to hear Dr.
Carson discuss this ill treatment and why his acute knowledge of the
brain has led him to reject Darwinism.

Dr. Ben Carson is the
Director of the Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. An
internationally renowned physician, Dr. Carson has authored over 100
neurosurgical publications, along with three best-selling books, and has
been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit
citations.

Links:

Dr. Ben Carson on Darwinian Dogma and the DNA/Software Analogy:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/...

Carson's website:
http://realbencarson.com

If there is a God, why is there evil?

Agnostics ask: If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Another agnostic asked, If there is a God, why is there evil? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is there so much needless suffering in the world, from natural disasters and such? Why would a loving God do this? Numerous and various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, the lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions. Of course, I do not assume to be able to answer these questions definitively, but I can offer some solutions.

I will begin by saying let us first consider the meaning of the word “evil”.  

What is evil?

Evil is usually seen as the dualistic opposite of good. Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, disobeying the commandments of God or gods or the rules of society, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence, in contrast, there can be no such thing as evil apart from the existence of God. Why not? Without God, without a moral law giver, we would not have any objective (real) standards (laws) by which we might deem something to be evil. We would not be able to conclusively say, “Kidnapping children and murdering them is evil.” We could say, "We don't like these things." But we could not call that kind of behavior evil (that which is morally wrong). It would just be a matter of opinion (one man's opinion against another's).

Gap Theory — an idea with holes? — Creation Magazine LIVE! Episode 8

Atheism is Dead - God

WHAT IS THE ATTRACTION OF ATHEISM, AND WHY HAS IS BECOME SO EVANGELISTIC? ARE WE MISSING SOMETHING, OR IS THE ATHEIST PHILOSOPHY MISSING SOMETHING?

Friedrich Nietzsche

Source: Wikimedia

Is God Dead?" So asked the cover of Time magazine on April 8, 1966, in the midst of the sexual and drug revolution. The headline echoed the atheistic sentiments of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (pronounced NEE-che ).

Nietzsche wasn't the first person to reject God's existence, but he was one of the more famous to do so in the late 1800s. In his book The Gay Science he wrote, "God is dead," and gave his own (obviously fictitious) account of "God's murder." From 1859 Charles Darwin's theory of evolution attracted many philosophers and scientists. It gave them a doctrine—actually an atheistic religion—to replace any belief in God as the Creator of all things. Nietzsche's "God is dead" philosophy helped popularize the implications of the theory of evolution.

If God Created Everything, Who Created God?

If God Created Everything, Who Created God?
by Rich Deem

Introduction

How did God get here?

Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.

Rich Deem

Who created God? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to think about the big questions. Having grown up as an agnostic non-Christian, it provided me with a potential reason why there might not be any god. Various religions tend to solve the problem in different ways. The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God (Elohim) to whom we are accountable had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is how did the first god get here? This problem of infinite regression invalidates such religions. Christianityclaims that God has always existed. Is this idea even possible? Does science address such issues?

Christianity's answer

Christianity answers the question of who made God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tell us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:

• No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
• This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
• The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
• To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in hisHortatory Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was created along with the universe from Moses:

"And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: 'Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place.' Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses?"¹

God exists in timeless eternity

How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would existfor us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

God exists in multiple dimensions of time

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

Why can't the universe be eternal?

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20^th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.² Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

What does science say about time?

When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).³ In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

Conclusion 

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html 

The Gene Myth: Our DNA is NOT Our Destiny

Scientific research has shown that 87-98% of mental and physical and behavioral illnesses come from our thought life, which is indubitably a large and frightening number, and contrary to what many of us have been led to believe. In fact, few human processes are turned on or off by a single gene. Most processes require many genes acting together to produce a common result. Thus, the idea fired up by the media that there is a gene for this and a gene for that is incorrect. From second to second, day-by-day, genetic cascades are turned on or off by our own thoughts and experience. Yes, that means we are largely in control!

This picture of a multiplicity of genes that fluctuate moment by moment is at odds with the picture ingrained in the public mind: that genes determine everything from our physical characteristics to our behavior. It’s a highly fashionable concept that there is a “gene for this and a gene for that”, and, in particular, it removes personal responsibility from us as individuals. This is unhealthy and contrary to what God teaches us, which is to take responsibility for the thoughts we think and choices we make. Fortunately, since the 1970s research has been challenging the “gene myth” and now we know that the genes in the neurons of our brains are activated 87-98% by our thoughts with embedded emotions, which, of course, challenges the cause and effect model of genetic causation.