a scientific proof that GOD existes ... ( long read )...

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Man, this is hilarious, I post a few quotes by some random people and everyone leaps on it like crazy. I'm not trying to prove anything. Nor do any of you need to refute me. Here's some things that might get your feathers ruffled.

Science's Unexplainable Creatures

Have you ever wondered how anything could evolve by chance? I believe that if evolution were true, which it is not, then when creatures evolved, they would evolve to a state where they are completely independent. They would not depend on other creatures or the environment to live. According to Charles Darwin, "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Now, to prove this point I am going to go through some of the creatures living on the planet that scientists have been unable to explain.

Eolidoidea:

Before we go into what an eolidoidea is, first we must discuss what an anenome is. An anenome is a creature that lives in the ocean. For a form of protection from predators, it has spines that inject poison into the body of the predator and kills it. And so the anenome lives to face the next day. However, the eolidoidea have small pockets in their stomachs that store the poison and use it as a form of defense against its predators, and it eats the rest of the anenome. Thus far, science has been unable to explain this creature and how it could have evolved by chance. I have the simple solution to this: God spoke it into being!


Giraffes:

Amazingly enough, giraffes are also hard to explain. A normal giraffe has a long neck, but how does it keep the blood flowing out of its head, or when it bends down to drink, how does it keep the blood from rushing to its head? It is all in the neck. You see, there are blood vessels running up and down the neck that push the blood up to the head when the giraffe is standing up. But when the giraffe puts its neck down, the vessels close up so that the blood doesn't all go into the head. If a giraffe would have evolved by chance, isn't it obvious that the head would have exploded before the vessels had fully evolved? I certainly think so.

White-throated Warblers:

I am going to start this section with a story. There once was a man who had two white-throated warblers in a cage inside a closed up room. There was no window- the only light that came was from an electrical source or a candle. One winter, he noticed that the birds were moving towards the southern side of the cage. Now how on earth did they know that it was winter and that they were supposed to go south? This behaviour is very common among these birds in the wild. The warblers will lay their eggs in Germany, then leave and go to Egypt for the winter. As soon as the eggs hatch and the chicks are able to fly, they go join their parents. How do they know where to go? Scientists have looked at other migrating species and learned that it is not only warblers, but also pigeons, monarch butterflies and others that do this. In order to figure out how they do it, scientists decided to track a pigeon on its flight path. They noticed that the birds did not necessarily use the sun because the flight pattern didn't change when the day was overcast. To test whether or not it was the earth's magnetic field that they were using, the scientists tied an electronic device to the bird and let it loose. The bird did fine when the sun was out, but once clouds covered the sky, they didn't know where they were going. But yet how could they have learned how to use the magnetic field of earth to go south? Obviously it could not have happened by chance. Someone or something had to have told these animals that when the climate is this way, go that way or something. Is it really possible for them to have figured it out on their own?

Castorocauda lutrasimilis:

Scientists have recently found a fossil supposedly dating back millions of years to the Jurassic period. This creature is a mouse-type animal. It has (or had,depending on your viewpoint) the tail of a beaver, the teeth of a seal, the habits of a platypus, hair and sweat glands that modern mammals have, and was about ten times bigger than most mammals from that period were thought to have been. Scientists are now saying that this find proved that mammals were much farther advanced much earlier in the timeline that previously thought. It also supports the fact that mammals were here much earlier before the supposed extinction of the dinosaurs. This animal is just one more proof that God created the creatures of the earth almost simultaneously.

Jurassic Shrimp:

Scientists on the coast of Australia have just unearthed another 'living fossil.' The Jurassic Shrimp are a shrimp genus that was thought to have died out about 50 million years ago. The marine biologists were looking at the life in the Australian seas when they found one of these crustaceans. Scientists knew what it was because it was well known from the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. However, these shrimp were supposed to be extinct. This is similar to another find in the Philippines in the 1970's. A team of fisherman were out getting their daily catch when they caught a ceolacanth. This fish was first rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa, and there was a second species of the ceolacanth found in Indonesia in 1997. The so-called living fossils did not go extinct during the time-period that was previously thought. Our world is a big one. Could there possibly be more finds like these out there?

kayoticdreamz

we have animals that breathe oxygen that roam the oceans. honestly theres alot science cant even comprehend and i doubt it ever will because the answer is simple God made this planet. science can only prove evolution by dating stuff. but by sciences own logic the matter of earth had to of always existed so is therefore ancient in age.

but thats it science cant prove evolution past dating things and even then thats not conclusive to disprove God. because even taking just that i suppose one even if it is typically God made the earth 6000 years ago i could also say well no God made the earth 4 billion years ago and with that number science is even more confused than it originally was. the fact is science cannot prove evolution if it can its not there yet and honestly till we treck to the bottom of the ocean the planets core and find out what creatures live there and fully comprhend all life on this planet science is in no position to tell me we evolved.

never mind science is constantly learning and constantly progressing and in never ending state of gaining knowledge and changing rules and adding new theories etc. science would have to also be able to travel to other galaxies and study life there too and the fact going back to the moon seems to be difficult at this point in time im not getting my hopes up on inter galactic space travel. also evolution must somehow imply not only did the earth evolve to its current state but so the entire freakin milky way galaxy which is neccessary for earth to even support life. ca

use earth is useless on its own so somehow the sun evolved into the sun the moon started rotating around the earth and the other 9 planets or is it 8 i cant remeber started rotating around the sun as well. and the mysterious belt of commets seperating us and mars. theres also its basically inconceivable for us to get off this planets and travel past the moon. its like somehow everything just evolved perfectly by pure freakin chance is basically what evolution wants me to beleive and i cant do that. theres about 5443564356547657567567567 variables probably more that had to conviently not go wrong in this process. oh yes and we all exploded out of an apparent something that caused this bizzarre turn of events.

i mean here we are the universe is going on along just find and boom bam planets start appearing out of a bizzarre explosion. i mean evolutionists ask yourself can you really beleive we all exploded out of a bizzarre something and 544756756765765765543545 variables all went just right and we are here today because of that? i really cant. and again not just earth the entire universe had to do this too at the very bare minimum the entire solar system we live in had to do this. the rule of probablities and possiblities put this on the .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening in otherwords might as well be 0% chance.

As i mentioned last night in another thread that unfortuneatly got closed, Science is not like religion, and unlike religion, Science attempts to back up their theories with proof that is supported by the knowledge within the current paradigm. Yes, science cannot prove what happened before the big bang yet, but you have to remember that the big bang theory is still relativly young, and science is constantly changing as new discoveries are made, maybe in 10, or a 100 years we might discover a new theory that will either be able to confirm or debunk the big bang theory. And even then we might afterwards find something that debunks the new theory on creation of the universe, and it has always been like that with science and will always be. Then again you might argue that you'll probably never get a definitive answer, but scientist at least try to work at it, and work out a possible explaination, other than just sitting and saying that a fictional entity created everything thousands of years ago without having even the slightest proof

Yet another Creationist with a piss-poor understanding of science trying to argue in favour of the existence of a being which, lacking a scientific definition, is empirically impossible to verify.

use earth is useless on its own so somehow the sun evolved into the sun the moon started rotating around the earth and the other 9 planets or is it 8 i cant remeber started rotating around the sun as well. and the mysterious belt of commets seperating us and mars. theres also its basically inconceivable for us to get off this planets and travel past the moon. its like somehow everything just evolved perfectly by pure freakin chance is basically what evolution wants me to beleive and i cant do that. theres about 5443564356547657567567567 variables probably more that had to conviently not go wrong in this process. oh yes and we all exploded out of an apparent something that caused this bizzarre turn of events.

i mean here we are the universe is going on along just find and boom bam planets start appearing out of a bizzarre explosion. i mean evolutionists ask yourself can you really beleive we all exploded out of a bizzarre something and 544756756765765765543545 variables all went just right and we are here today because of that? i really cant. and again not just earth the entire universe had to do this too at the very bare minimum the entire solar system we live in had to do this. the rule of probablities and possiblities put this on the .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening in otherwords might as well be 0% chance.

kayoticdreamz

care to show all the math behind this (and compensate for physics and chemistry in the process) Creationists always talk about how impossible it would be for the molecules to line up randomly, and they are quite correct. Fortunately for us thanks to the laws of physics it isn't random at all. It all happened because physics works in specific predicable ways and if the right conditions occur then stuff will happen the same way every time. Is life forming improbable? yeah, but over billions of years and seemingly infinite space the improbable tends to happen.

Man, this is hilarious, I post a few quotes by some random people and everyone leaps on it like crazy. I'm not trying to prove anything. Nor do any of you need to refute me. Here's some things that might get your feathers ruffled.

Science's Unexplainable Creatures

Have you ever wondered how anything could evolve by chance? I believe that if evolution were true, which it is not, then when creatures evolved, they would evolve to a state where they are completely independent. They would not depend on other creatures or the environment to live. According to Charles Darwin, "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Now, to prove this point I am going to go through some of the creatures living on the planet that scientists have been unable to explain.

Eolidoidea:

Before we go into what an eolidoidea is, first we must discuss what an anenome is. An anenome is a creature that lives in the ocean. For a form of protection from predators, it has spines that inject poison into the body of the predator and kills it. And so the anenome lives to face the next day. However, the eolidoidea have small pockets in their stomachs that store the poison and use it as a form of defense against its predators, and it eats the rest of the anenome. Thus far, science has been unable to explain this creature and how it could have evolved by chance. I have the simple solution to this: God spoke it into being!


Giraffes:

Amazingly enough, giraffes are also hard to explain. A normal giraffe has a long neck, but how does it keep the blood flowing out of its head, or when it bends down to drink, how does it keep the blood from rushing to its head? It is all in the neck. You see, there are blood vessels running up and down the neck that push the blood up to the head when the giraffe is standing up. But when the giraffe puts its neck down, the vessels close up so that the blood doesn't all go into the head. If a giraffe would have evolved by chance, isn't it obvious that the head would have exploded before the vessels had fully evolved? I certainly think so.

White-throated Warblers:

I am going to start this section with a story. There once was a man who had two white-throated warblers in a cage inside a closed up room. There was no window- the only light that came was from an electrical source or a candle. One winter, he noticed that the birds were moving towards the southern side of the cage. Now how on earth did they know that it was winter and that they were supposed to go south? This behaviour is very common among these birds in the wild. The warblers will lay their eggs in Germany, then leave and go to Egypt for the winter. As soon as the eggs hatch and the chicks are able to fly, they go join their parents. How do they know where to go? Scientists have looked at other migrating species and learned that it is not only warblers, but also pigeons, monarch butterflies and others that do this. In order to figure out how they do it, scientists decided to track a pigeon on its flight path. They noticed that the birds did not necessarily use the sun because the flight pattern didn't change when the day was overcast. To test whether or not it was the earth's magnetic field that they were using, the scientists tied an electronic device to the bird and let it loose. The bird did fine when the sun was out, but once clouds covered the sky, they didn't know where they were going. But yet how could they have learned how to use the magnetic field of earth to go south? Obviously it could not have happened by chance. Someone or something had to have told these animals that when the climate is this way, go that way or something. Is it really possible for them to have figured it out on their own?

Castorocauda lutrasimilis:

Scientists have recently found a fossil supposedly dating back millions of years to the Jurassic period. This creature is a mouse-type animal. It has (or had,depending on your viewpoint) the tail of a beaver, the teeth of a seal, the habits of a platypus, hair and sweat glands that modern mammals have, and was about ten times bigger than most mammals from that period were thought to have been. Scientists are now saying that this find proved that mammals were much farther advanced much earlier in the timeline that previously thought. It also supports the fact that mammals were here much earlier before the supposed extinction of the dinosaurs. This animal is just one more proof that God created the creatures of the earth almost simultaneously.

Jurassic Shrimp:

Scientists on the coast of Australia have just unearthed another 'living fossil.' The Jurassic Shrimp are a shrimp genus that was thought to have died out about 50 million years ago. The marine biologists were looking at the life in the Australian seas when they found one of these crustaceans. Scientists knew what it was because it was well known from the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. However, these shrimp were supposed to be extinct. This is similar to another find in the Philippines in the 1970's. A team of fisherman were out getting their daily catch when they caught a ceolacanth. This fish was first rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa, and there was a second species of the ceolacanth found in Indonesia in 1997. The so-called living fossils did not go extinct during the time-period that was previously thought. Our world is a big one. Could there possibly be more finds like these out there?

KH-mixerX

You seem to have a lot of simple solutions. Might you have an equally simple solution for the fact that humans cannot synthesize vitamin C? The natural synthesis of vitamin C requires four enzymes. Most plants and animals on Earth have all four, which is why they do not need to eat anything containing vitamin C. Humans do not - humans only have three (and, completely coincidentally of course, this trait is shared by several other great apes as well, although not all). In addition, there is present in the human genetic code a faulty sequence that, were it formed properly, would cause humans to have the fourth, and would cause humans to be able to synthesize vitamin C.

So the obvious question comes, then: why did God create humans with three of the four enzymes needed to synthesize vitamin C and with a faulty genetic sequence that would give humans the fourth? Just for the lulz?

See, the powerful thing about science is that it doesn't need to have all of the answers to be able to have some of the answers, because it goes from the evidence to conclusions. Evolution is maintained because the evidence supports it - that being the fossil record, the interconnectedness of life on Earth through like traits, the existence of DNA, and the existence of thousands of fossils bearing properties found in two different types of animal, to name a few of the most compelling pieces of evidence. The fact that there are a few fringe spots left not wholly explained to date no more invalidates evolution any more than missing two pieces in a jigsaw puzzle makes you unable to make out the picture contained in the puzzle.

EDIT: Oh, and regarding the opening post, it contains so many misrepresentations of science that I think I'd die if I tried replying to it. :P

Can't we all just agree with Seth MacFarlane.

First the beginning was like this, but then it was like this.

Not trying to drag away from the discussion, there just seems to be a lot of hostility here and I'm trying to provide a bit of comedic relief.

Why do I click on these threads? It is always the same wall of text that claims to prove/disprove the existence of God but doesn't make sense and sounds like too much thought was put into it. :?Superironic

disproving one thing =/= proving something else

[QUOTE="ToppledPillars"]

This is far from scientific

gubrushadow

OK, now who created god?:|

OK, now who created god?:|

metroidprime55

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

OK, now who created god?:|

gubrushadow

Eternity must start somewhere right, just because this "higher power" lives in a medium between universes there must be a beginning, this would be contradicting your opening "post".

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

OK, now who created god?:|

gubrushadow

then why does this not work with energy?

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

OK, now who created god?:|

DoomZaW

then why does this not work with energy?

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] another one of these ? 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.gubrushadow

then why does this not work with energy?

So at a certain level of the hierarchy of the universe there no longer needs to be a beginning, what did god do when he wasn't starting all existence, just sitting around in an empty void? Is existence just some science experiment that will happen again and again because it didn't go exactly as god wanted it to go, the universe "winded-down"?

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

then why does this not work with energy?

metroidprime55

So at a certain level of the hierarchy of the universe there no longer needs to be a beginning, what did god do when he wasn't starting all existence, just sitting around in an empty void? Is existence just some science experiment that will happen again and again because it didn't go exactly as god wanted it to go, the universe "winded-down"?

i read some comments and lold , i doubt they read anything at all , oh well i'll always believe in GOD untill someone prooves the miracles in my holy book arnt true...gubrushadow

I read that entire article you know, it basicly said that if matter was created in a way we can't comprehend then god must have done it, but that just means that we haven't advanced enough to find a method of creating matter.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

then why does this not work with energy?

metroidprime55

So at a certain level of the hierarchy of the universe there no longer needs to be a beginning, what did god do when he wasn't starting all existence, just sitting around in an empty void? Is existence just some science experiment that will happen again and again because it didn't go exactly as god wanted it to go, the universe "winded-down"?

That's what I think. Physical existence is just a set of cause and effect events and interactions that's been occurring since the FIRST cause, which would be the Big Bang. Once entropy has exhausted the Universe of all energy, it will start all over.

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] since HE's higher than energy...gubrushadow

So at a certain level of the hierarchy of the universe there no longer needs to be a beginning, what did god do when he wasn't starting all existence, just sitting around in an empty void? Is existence just some science experiment that will happen again and again because it didn't go exactly as god wanted it to go, the universe "winded-down"?

Life is sort of like a rechargable battery, we have to get energy to run, eventually we all break down, like when a battery leaks. If we don't supply our bodys with the nessessary nutrients that break down into energy then our mind begins to decay and our heart begins to slow down, like when a battery runs out of energy.

tl;drBiancaDK

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

So at a certain level of the hierarchy of the universe there no longer needs to be a beginning, what did god do when he wasn't starting all existence, just sitting around in an empty void? Is existence just some science experiment that will happen again and again because it didn't go exactly as god wanted it to go, the universe "winded-down"?

metroidprime55

Life is sort of like a rechargable battery, we have to get energy to run, eventually we all break down, like when a battery leaks. If we don't supply our bodys with the nessessary nutrients that break down into energy then our mind begins to decay and our heart begins to slow down, like when a battery runs out of energy.

I don't believe the existence of God can be proven/disproved on a message board. I do believe that God exists though. I have believed for many years. I made the decision to be baptized 20 years ago and I have never once regretted my decision.

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] we dont know that !! as much as you atheists dont know where did the original human or monkey get his energy to live and wake up , how did his blood start flowing ?his mind start working ?gubrushadow

Life is sort of like a rechargable battery, we have to get energy to run, eventually we all break down, like when a battery leaks. If we don't supply our bodys with the nessessary nutrients that break down into energy then our mind begins to decay and our heart begins to slow down, like when a battery runs out of energy.

Of course; would a robot be able to move without an energy source? No. There is a charge, a spark of energy that starts life, I realize I am saying that sperm are life forms that can die and be killed but does a battery just start out with all it's acid? No. It takes energy to reproduce, you give some of your energy to the new life form, a man uses energy to produce more sperm, a woman uses energy to fuel the fetus that is why pregnant woman eat often, it is to create more energy for the mother to efficiently function while caring for her fetus.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

Life is sort of like a rechargable battery, we have to get energy to run, eventually we all break down, like when a battery leaks. If we don't supply our bodys with the nessessary nutrients that break down into energy then our mind begins to decay and our heart begins to slow down, like when a battery runs out of energy.

metroidprime55

Of course; would a robot be able to move without an energy source? No. There is a charge, a spark of energy that starts life, I realize I am saying that sperm are life forms that can die and be killed but does a battery just start out with all it's acid? No. It takes energy to reproduce, you give some of your energy to the new life form, a man uses energy to produce more sperm, a woman uses energy to fuel the fetus that is why pregnant woman eat often, it is to create more energy for the mother to efficiently function while caring for her fetus.

I actually can't bear these threads... there is no scientific proof God exists. And these arguments of "here is proof of God!" I don't see why people cannot see through the bigger picture of "Who created God?" oh that's right God just always has been.... but Energy or Matter in some form or another can't have always been? I know which one seems more logical to me.

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] how does fetus take enrgy ? from his mom! the original one hadn't any mom , or anything , he was just created like this body and flesh , i imagine this body , lying on the ground , what gave him life ?? if what you say is true , that means we can get organs from the dead and put them all in one day , would he wake up ? no since he is lifeless...gubrushadow

Of course; would a robot be able to move without an energy source? No. There is a charge, a spark of energy that starts life, I realize I am saying that sperm are life forms that can die and be killed but does a battery just start out with all it's acid? No. It takes energy to reproduce, you give some of your energy to the new life form, a man uses energy to produce more sperm, a woman uses energy to fuel the fetus that is why pregnant woman eat often, it is to create more energy for the mother to efficiently function while caring for her fetus.

Where did God receive energy to start working from?

So much misinformation and blatant religious propaganda in here.

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] since HE's higher than energy...gubrushadow

So at a certain level of the hierarchy of the universe there no longer needs to be a beginning, what did god do when he wasn't starting all existence, just sitting around in an empty void? Is existence just some science experiment that will happen again and again because it didn't go exactly as god wanted it to go, the universe "winded-down"?

let me repete myself , how did the original human or monkey which was created by "itself" recieve energy to start working ?gubrushadow

The universe is filled with energy. All that energy doesn't necessarily have to come from a god, especially not an omniscient god.

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] how does fetus take enrgy ? from his mom! the original one hadn't any mom , or anything , he was just created like this body and flesh , i imagine this body , lying on the ground , what gave him life ?? if what you say is true , that means we can get organs from the dead and put them all in one day , would he wake up ? no since he is lifeless...gubrushadow

Of course; would a robot be able to move without an energy source? No. There is a charge, a spark of energy that starts life, I realize I am saying that sperm are life forms that can die and be killed but does a battery just start out with all it's acid? No. It takes energy to reproduce, you give some of your energy to the new life form, a man uses energy to produce more sperm, a woman uses energy to fuel the fetus that is why pregnant woman eat often, it is to create more energy for the mother to efficiently function while caring for her fetus.

Well, to ask that question we have to ask the question of how unicellular organisms (and don't critisize me for saying this) evolve into multicellular organisms. I think of is as sort like what we see today with these adeptations you sometimes see with some people, these super humans you see on TV that have amazing abilities. These abilities may be an adeptation develped to better coup with their environment, we may view them as freaks but as these people mix their genes in the gene pool we will see more and more of these people.

Basicly, what I am saying is that through what I think is evolution people evolved after many generations, after many freaks and geniuses we became who we are today. So that without popping into existance we starting slowly with all our energy to live.

In the famous words of ricky gervais ''If god was real then why did he make me an athiest?''

Also if he was real then why the F**k did he put the snake and the tree in the garden of eden i mean its a disaster waiting to happen

make a deal....have God stop by to see me between the hours of 9am and 5pm M-F anyday in the next 20 years and I'll jump on the God bandwagon....Omni-Slash

My friend u should watch ricky gervais stand up on god i think you'll enjoy it

[QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] we dont know that !! as much as you atheists dont know where did the original human or monkey get his energy to live and wake up , how did his blood start flowing ?his mind start working ?gubrushadow

Life is sort of like a rechargable battery, we have to get energy to run, eventually we all break down, like when a battery leaks. If we don't supply our bodys with the nessessary nutrients that break down into energy then our mind begins to decay and our heart begins to slow down, like when a battery runs out of energy.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="metroidprime55"]

Life is sort of like a rechargable battery, we have to get energy to run, eventually we all break down, like when a battery leaks. If we don't supply our bodys with the nessessary nutrients that break down into energy then our mind begins to decay and our heart begins to slow down, like when a battery runs out of energy.

hydratedleaf

Where did the thread creator go, I haven't had a conversation like this on Gamespot in awhile, and I have never won.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

The bbt also theorizes that the law of phyiscs that the matter and energy of the universe follow came into existance shortly after the inflation of the big bang. The first law of thermodymanics did not exist at the moment of inflation.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

The creation of heavy elements is not the creation of new matter, it is the fusion of existing elements into heavier ones in the cores of stars or supernovae. The material which created heavy radioactive elements existed before they were created. It is generally accepted that at the start of the universe all that existed was hydrogren and maybe a tiny bit of helium which condensed into stars and in thier cores, was fused into heavier elements.

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

True, the universe is winding down. The sun is slowly buring itself to death and will eventually become cold and dark. In the meantime, however it is giving off energy which allows order to arise on earth in the form of complex life. This increase in complexity is not permanent however. The sun will die and when that source of energy is no longer present life on earth will die with it ( assuming there is also no energy left within the earth to sustain life, geothermal etc. )

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: "Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, 'It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been "wound up." Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

EVOLUTION

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these "theorists" try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked" (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967). DNA is the matieral used to make the comparisons between man and ape because it is through the change in DNA that evolution occurs, not milk, or cholesterol, or tears. To make such an argument shows a blatent disregard ( or misunderstanding ) of the theory of evolution.

oh no its too long , well have fun :P

gubrushadow

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]how does fetus take enrgy ? from his mom! the original one hadn't any mom , or anything , he was just created like this body and flesh , i imagine this body , lying on the ground , what gave him life ?? if what you say is true , that means we can get organs from the dead and put them all in one day , would he wake up ? no since he is lifeless...hydratedleaf

That's not evolution, that's creationism... In evolution, everyone has a mother, and everyone started as a micro-organism, not as a dead corpse on the ground...

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gubrushadow"]how does fetus take enrgy ? from his mom! the original one hadn't any mom , or anything , he was just created like this body and flesh , i imagine this body , lying on the ground , what gave him life ?? if what you say is true , that means we can get organs from the dead and put them all in one day , would he wake up ? no since he is lifeless...bloodling

That's not evolution, that's creationism... In evolution, everyone has a mother, and everyone started as a micro-organism, not as a dead corpse on the ground...

I just realized, where does that dead body come from anyway?:|

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="gubrushadow"]how does fetus take enrgy ? from his mom! the original one hadn't any mom , or anything , he was just created like this body and flesh , i imagine this body , lying on the ground , what gave him life ?? if what you say is true , that means we can get organs from the dead and put them all in one day , would he wake up ? no since he is lifeless...bloodling

That's not evolution, that's creationism... In evolution, everyone has a mother, and everyone started as a micro-organism, not as a dead corpse on the ground...

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"]I don't understand your conception of evolution, but it terrifies me.racer8dan

That's not evolution, that's creationism... In evolution, everyone has a mother, and everyone started as a micro-organism, not as a dead corpse on the ground...

....Animal a didnt give birth to animal b. For instance a dinosaur didnt spontaneously one day give birth to a chicken, just like a primate didnt spontaneously give birth to homo sapiens.

When in documentaries you hear them say "the first "animal x" lived in bla bla bla" the "first" is a way of placing conventional turning points for better understanding. Actual turning points (where animal x "became" animal b) dont exist (once a user mentioned radical genetic mutations so I guess there could be exceptions to this but the fact remains that generally turning points dont exist).

But if one doesnt understand the previous then they misunderstand evolution.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

That's not evolution, that's creationism... In evolution, everyone has a mother, and everyone started as a micro-organism, not as a dead corpse on the ground...

Teenaged

....Animal a didnt give birth to animal b. For instance a dinosaur didnt spontaneously one day give birth to a chicken, just like a primate didnt spontaneously give birth to homo sapiens.

When in documentaries you hear them say "the first "animal x" lived in bla bla bla" the "first" is a way of placing conventional turning points for better understanding. But if one doesnt understand the previous then they misunderstand evolution.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Where did the first "mother" come from? Or is there just a beginning-less chain of things birthing other things?

racer8dan

....Animal a didnt give birth to animal b. For instance a dinosaur didnt spontaneously one day give birth to a chicken, just like a primate didnt spontaneously give birth to homo sapiens.

When in documentaries you hear them say "the first "animal x" lived in bla bla bla" the "first" is a way of placing conventional turning points for better understanding. But if one doesnt understand the previous then they misunderstand evolution.

What things are you referring to. Be more specific.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I am not 100% sure what you mean by this but if it is what I think it is then...

....Animal a didnt give birth to animal b. For instance a dinosaur didnt spontaneously one day give birth to a chicken, just like a primate didnt spontaneously give birth to homo sapiens.

When in documentaries you hear them say "the first "animal x" lived in bla bla bla" the "first" is a way of placing conventional turning points for better understanding. But if one doesnt understand the previous then they misunderstand evolution.

Teenaged

What things are you referring to. Be more specific.