Tag Archives: Natural selection

Atheists Cannot Explain This!!! –




Continue reading...

Why Atheistic Antagonism?



Why Atheistic Antagonism?

There seems to be a logical fallacy in many atheists’ compulsion to attack Creationist thinking. Here’s why:

By definition, Evolution (via Natural Selection– “Survival of the Fittest”)’s logical conclusion would be that societal morals, our consciences, and the like are the result of the fact that people tend to survive better in groups. This would leave the individual with two choices in worldview– to cooperate with the society’s kindnesses and be a productive, humanistic member of society, or to take advantage of society’s kindness and manipulate the kindness of others to their own advantage.

There are, of course, subcategories of these which could explain an individual’s antagonistic behavior toward Creationism, and more specifically Christians in general– but these are merely biproducts of the individual’s disposition and overall worldview. Just because someone claims to be an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean their worldview revolves around their atheism– but surely it can’t help but be influenced by it.

Ultimately, whether an atheist’s disposition is geared toward a selfish worldview or a humanistic worldview, even if it be for purely pragmatic reasons, the logical thing would be to encourage people to believe in a higher moral authority for their actions– God. For the selfish worldview, people controlled by such morals would be easier to exploit. For the humanist, the morals would better help society in general.

The atheist’s conflicts with the Christian would then center more on political issues– and thus the focus of debate and energy would center on their interpretations of morality rather than on the existence of a Creator in general.

And yet, the “atheist” –by definition– consistently focuses their argument on the existence of God in general, revealing that the issue is not in fact the politics involved, but a desperate need to validate their insecurities of judgement by an infinitely holy God.

Continue reading...

Natural Selection



Debunking Evolution in Seven Minutes or Less

Natural Selection can not account for the jump from single-celled organisms to complex systems.

The circulatory system is made up of millions of cells. If you had blood cells, but not enough vein cells to stretch to the organs, the system is incomplete and worthless. If you had the vein cells, but not the blood cells, the system is incomplete and worthless. How then could a perfectly happy single-celled organism spontaneously mutate sufficient cells to accommodate such demands, let alone natural-select into a multipe-celled organism?

Even if a random mutation theory were considered, there would be no natural selection advantage to popping out a random blood cell, “just because,” when there were no vein cells or organ cells to go along with them. And even if it did– again– there would be no advantage, nor sustainability, if the blood and organ cells didn’t show up simultaneously.

It is when we realize that Life as we know it would be physically impossible without the deliberate hand of a Creator, that we can ask what His purpose was in Creation, and whether we will be held accountable for what we have done while we are here.

The Evolutionists in and of themselves, subscribe to their own theological beliefs as well. Just as a “zero” serves as a place-holder for a quantity of nothing, so is to say that the absence of belief in God is to assign a quantity of nothing to their Creator. But acknowledgement of existence holds no bearing on whether something actually exists or not.

The evolutionists try to negate the principle of irreducible complexity with contradictory examples in nature, in which examples of microevolutionary scale are presented as “proof” on a macroevolutionary scale– that human beings evolved from a single-celled organism. Carried out to its logical conclusions, it is similar to saying problem-solving characteristics found in chimps prove that chimps can design and build rocket ships. If the exception to the example proves a statement is true, it should hold that just because A person played the lottery and won last week CERTAINLY means you will win the million dollars every time you play. The likelihood remains that you or I could buy a ticket every day and still never win the Lottery Jackpot.

The argument is given that the original example of irreducible complexity’s mousetrap’s exception of a simpler mousetrap disproves irreducible complexity. This by no means debunks the necessity for key elements in the human circulatory system, nor the simple fact that a system, by definition, is comprised of key elements working together. Nor does it prove human life evolved from a single-celled organism.

Behind the smoke and mirrors of the talk of cellular level complexities and apples-to-oranges examples of “reducible” complexity, is a desperate grip to a desired presupposition of a belief system.

Rejection of said presupposed belief system (atheism) would result in an end to grants and funding toward the scientific study of Evolution. On an individual level, it would mean the atheist would have to abandon his/her entire worldview and belief system, admit they were wrong (and that all those people they pride themselves on being so intellectually superior to could be right), and see that their seared conscience isn’t the final one they will be answering to. They would have to consider that they would in fact be held accountable for every thought, word, and action…

The bottom line remains that a rational argument can not be made via the process of natural selection, of single-celled organism to mammal with a circulatory system. And when debating/discussing the plausibilty of evolution, this should be the focus of the conversation, not random examples of microevolution. Microevolution– the natural selection (“survival of the fittest”) of already complex organisms can explain the surviving hereditary traits of already developed complex organisms, but not the jump from single-celled to complex.

The blood-cells, without vein cells to transport them, and organs for the veins to go to, would be useless. A random mutation of a vein cell would contribute nothing without a blood cell to go through it. Any one of those things without the other would do nothing to contribute to a progressive natural selection to a more complexly developed organism.

So, the key is to hold to the meat of the argument that natural selection can not explain the jump from single-celled to fully-developed circulatory system via natural selection.

Continue reading...