maxuh

Actually I spent the last two years studying solely Maths, Physics & Philosophy. If the age in your profile is true then I find you only more delusional if you believe that you have some kind of divine world view that I am incapable of understanding. Facts for me are either a-priori and universally derivable or it is peer reviewed research/evidence. The bible for example, is certainly not fact. Evolution however IS a fact.

Personally I think that evolution and the idea of a designer/world creator can co-exist, in fact they HAVE to be allowed to co-exist for any kind of argument for God to be valid. Evolution happened, that is a fact. Whether it was the work of some kind of supreme being or not is a different argument, but one I personally don't agree with.

If you're refusing the criticism of evolution, you're kinda putting yourself inside an intellectual void. I'm gonna write down a few problems concerning evolution, naturalism and atheism for you. You may either answer or ignore me. I don't mind at all if you call me an idiot or a retard or whichever cool words you come up with, but, with all due respect, if you completely refuse discussion, what does it make of you? :(

1) Genetic degradation is a proven fact. The primary method for evolution to produce new information is considered to be the genetic mutations. Yet there's still no sign of a single mutation that could actually produce new information in the genome, quite the opposite. Every single mutation found so far is actually decreasing the amount of information. Mutations are mistakes, errors, in the genetic copying process, not a way to produce any new information required for amebas-to-atheists evolution. Kinda like in the "golden" 90's when we used to copy and zip computer games to floppy disks and occasionally there was a CRC error in one of the twenty disks which in worst cases ruined the whole copying process. :p

2) Natural selection is a fact, I would be stupid to deny that. But based on #1, it really isn't adding any new information anywhere in this universe. It's specialization, dropping the useless information. Let's consider dog breeds and take Chihuahuas as an example. The selective breeding done with it has produced the extremely small size and there's no way it could be brought back to the same level with the Great Dane since all the information needed to the transformation is lost.

Naturalists divide the evolution process in microevolution and macroevolution. By microevolution they mean the changes within species, also known as natural selection, but it actually is a fallacious and misleading term and should be called microDevolution instead, in light of the scientific proofs available. Macroevolution, molecules to man, lacks any serious evidence.

Darwin himself, the almighty God of atheists, admitted that the biggest problem for his theory (he didn't call it a fact) was the lack of transitional fossils. The late Dr Colin Patterson, who, at the time of the quote, was the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, answered the following, when he was inquired why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? Yet Gould (Stephen J. Gould, the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University) and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. ... You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

3) The second law of thermodynamics states that order tends towards disorder which is a complete opposite of evolution. It also means that the usable energy in the universe is running out and we're slowly and surely coming towards an end. The decreasing amount of energy also means that there has been more energy in the past. Yet, the evolution seems to be proposing exactly the opposite, taken that the amount of information should be growing all the time.

You could argue, like some do, that the evolution has actually stopped and isn't happening anymore. It really isn't happening anymore, if it ever has been, but from the naturalistic view that's truly a selfish statement, like we would be a cherry on the cake of evolution, the ultimate result of random processes, mistakes and accidents. Yet there are still people who are obviously "wrong", like creationists, which would mean that natural selection still has work to do. From the biblical aspect however, that's exactly what we see in the first pages of the mighty book. Yet, according to the Bible, we aren't the superior force, but there's something bigger, the God who created the whole universe.

4) Byproducts of atheism are clearly seen. The famous Bible passage states that "a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit". Atheism produces nothing but sadness, grief, anger, sorrow and other marvellous stuff like that. There was a research made in Australia, which stated that while the church contacts of young men decreased, the suicide rates increased in inverse proportion. You could argue that it's how this game works, the survival of the fittest. But if Christianity was just a delusion procuced by a so-called "God gene", it shouldn't really have much influence on anything, should it? Yet, it's not that difficult to see its impact on the surrounding society. An American historian Carlton Hayes investigated this subject in the 1950's and he came to a following conclusion. I love to cite it, because it's so true. Indeed, Christianity is a bulwark against something worse, just like Dawkins said.

"Wherever Christians' ideals have been generally accepted and their practice sincerely attempted, there is a dynamic liberty; and wherever Christianity had been ignored or rejected, persecuted or chained to the state, there is tyranny."

Hayes, C.J.H., Christianity and Western Civilization, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p. 21, 1954.

http://creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny

A Finnish evangelist Kalevi Lehtinen told of a Christian conference he was a part of, which was held in current St. Petersburg, Leningrad back then, in 1990, when Soviet Union was still up and running. They had rented an ice hall and there were 22 000 tickets sold. Lots of people were left outside the hall just because they couldn't fit in anymore. He preached a simple gospel of Jesus and in the end he was amazed to see 15 000 people (three quarters of the audience) running towards the stage crying for salvation. After 70 years of atheistic indoctrination, that was the result. He put it simply as "nobody is born as an atheist".

5) The problem of the naturalistic approach is that it can't explain anything but plain matter. Thus, even the existence of DNA is a problem since it is metaphysical. DNA is information and information always requires an intelligent source, it doesn't come around by itself. I quoted Dawkins exactly because he's so keen on supporting evolution, yet his thoughts occasionally represent some interesting contradictions in his mind. He also confirms that the existence of information is one of the biggest problems for evolution. Eventually he seems to be more a misotheist (a god-hater) rather than a true atheist since he's often concentrating on blaming the God he doesn't even believe in. Regarding the naturalistic thinking, I love the famous and genius argument of C.S. Lewis:

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

In other words: If you (a random "you", not meant personally) believe that your thoughts are just accidental movement of atoms in your brain, why to call yourself a "free-thinker", while you, according to your own logic, can't help what you're thinking.

6) Back to the start. A single living cell is so amazingly complex system that it's still to be explained how the first cell could've been formed by random naturalistic processes. "Could've been" indeed. Evolutionary propaganda is full of that. "This might have happened the way we propose, or might have not." Since it's about researching events happened in the past, you can't have a certain knowledge and need to base everything on assumptions, unless you have a proper eyewitness account, like I believe we have in the Bible. Eventually it's a question of different worldviews. Facts are same for both sides, it's about how you interpret them.

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.

A wise man (I can't remember his name) once said, that if an atheist is right, then he's at the same position with a Christian, but if a Christian is right, the positions change quite radically. So you could consider, which side is a wiser one, so to speak.

7) Unlike often pictured with the dark middle age imagery, flat earth theories and other fancy but fallacious arguments by the atheist side, the western science pays a lot to guys who actually were Bible-believing (including the first chapters of Genesis) Christians, like Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler and, last but not least, Sir Isaac Newton.

Evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley:

"The philosophy of experimental science began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation... It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Kepler stated that he was "thinking God's thoughts after Him". You could of course argue, that if these fathers of the modern science had knew what we know now, they'd been naturalists, but really, Darwin wasn't even close to be the first one to propose evolutionary thoughts. The first ones were documented already 600 BC and Apostle Paul was constantly debating the evolutionary Greeks. I imagine it'd be extremely hard for Darwin to push his own agenda today in the light of what we know about genetics and microbiology in general.

http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science

Newton said:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. ... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called 'Lord God', or 'Universal Ruler'. ... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect. ... Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

It's also often said about Galileo that he was actually fighting against the church leaders with his research work. That is true, however the church leaders were the ones who were supporting the common beliefs of academics of their time, just like many of the church leaders in today's world. The majority wasn't right back then and they aren't right today either. :P