Arguments for Evolution

What I am referring to as evolution is the belief in no God and that life started at the Big Bang and evolved into what we are today. I realize that evolutionist like to separate the views of the evolution of man and the Big Bang, but most evolutionist also believe in the Big Bang and the whole entire view point is what I will be addressing here.

Quote from evolutionist:
"And you cite..... what now? I have read several essays by scientists about evolution. Adaptation and natural selection have been observed, and from there it's simply a matter of time to reach speciation. Which, for that matter, has also been observed. While the fossil record is incomplete, some transitional forms have been located, and assuming that the holes are due to the rarity of fossilization is just as valid as assuming that the missing transitional forms don't exist."

This is from the talkorigins.org website. Creationist do believe in adaptation.

Creationist believe in a creator because life does not come into existence by chance (this has never been observed in science). Creationist believe in a creator which has been believed as long as man has been on the earth. Evolution has not been a widely accepted view point until Darwin.
Lets discuss some of the primary arguments for evolution (See my next posts for rebuttals):

1) Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang (Unless you are someone like Hugh Ross who doesn't truly believe in the Bible so they adapt the Bible with evolution): This theory believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, that the earth is billions of years old and that over billions of years we evolved by random chance and random mutations into what we are today.

2) Evolutionist believe in macro-evolution which means that we evolved from a completely different Kind.

3) Evolutionist believe that the earth is billions of years old. (So do other people who adapt the Bible to evolutionist theories)

4) Evolutionist do not believe in a world wide flood caused by God, but other forms of natural disasters such as the ice age.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Read more...

The Big Bang Fact or Fiction

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

(H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138).
H.S. Lipson who was quoted as saying that the Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. He went on to say that evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory and nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation.

People have been persuaded to think that evolution is a fact, and there isn't any evidence against evolution. One atheist asked me (in another post) why so many scientist believe in evolution. My answer is this, "Because the evolutionist ran a good campaign". The evolutionist have been successful in influencing the media and our educational institutions by convincing people that science has proven everything. People constantly use the term, "it is scientific", and therefore it must be true. The fact is that evolution has so many holes in it that the atheist are embarrassed. However, this is the only theory they have so they keep believing it.

Some of the problems with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

1) The element abundance predictions used in the Big Bang require too many adjustable paramters to make them work.

2) The universe has too much large scale structure to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

3) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

You can read more at the above website.

Read more...

Evolution or Creation Using Current Scientific Evidence Part 1

Again in my Ida Evolution post, I keep getting attacked by the Atheist who do not agree with me. Apparently they have no arguments but attacks. The last person said that he doesn't have respect for me because I said Isaac Newton was a Creationist. The fact is that the theory of Evolution existed before Darwin and my point is that Isaac Newton was a scientist and believed in God. However, I also continously mention that there are many scientists today that reject the theory of evolution. It seems that many Atheist are unable to analyze the facts to logically debate the subject intelligently so they start attacking me.

The fact is that many people have been brainwashed by the theory of evolution quoting information without every analyzing the facts. Even when I give a counter argument, most evolutionist (that aren't scientists) ignore what I said and continue with their nonfactual arguments. I am going to now present to you a look at the evidence for evolution written and compiled by my brother Andy Dias.

I would encourage you to analyze this information intelligently and hold your comments to the facts and not your feelings. It seems to me that Evolutionist are basing their opinion on how they feel, and not the actual scientific evidence.

What is the debate:

Evolution	Intelligent Design+Young/Earth/Cataclysm
Is the paradigm of evolution a solid explanation for the origin of natural phenomena?	Is there evidence that nature is so fine-tuned that a designer must be recognized? Is there evidence for a “young” earth whose surface was completely eroded in a cataclysmic flood?

Pre Notes:
The Paradigm of Evolution must be distinguished from the theory of evolution. The Paradigm of Evolution goes well beyond the so called origin of the species and attempts to explain the existence of nature. It should be stated that Intelligent Design and Young Earth/Cataclysm theories are not the same. The Intelligent Design (ID) community simply holds that the complexity of nature implies or even requires design. The term Creator is seldom used by these scientists in their presentations due, in part, to the bias of the Evolution crowd against theistic arguments. On the other hand, scientists who hold to a Young Earth/Cataclysm model would embrace much of what the ID community holds, but they would not avoid the use of the term Creator. They further hold that the earth is relatively young (some would say as young as five to six thousand years since it was created) and that there was a cataclysmic flood early in the history of the world. For simplicity, I have combined these two theories taking the more extreme position that the universe was both designed and that the earth is young having suffered a great and universal flood.

The references in these arguments are not fully documented. In many cases they are out of date, but the arguments still hold. In truth, the more that man learns about the complexity of nature, the less likely evolution appears.

Go To Part 2

Read more...