Evidence Cannot Convince the Unwilling

What HAPPENED?

Matt 11:20-24 

20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

Matt 23:37-39

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed isHe who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

So as the reader reading this you may realize, as I just have, how long it has been since my last article. Upon realizing this fact, you may ask "What happened?"; whether for what has kept me away so much this year, or whether what happened to cause me finally write a new one. 

I'll tell you what happened, what caused this article to be written. It was the event of a Militant Twitter Atheist(MTA), who calls himself Shaun, denying the Law of Causality.

Now MTA Shaun is one of those "Atheists" who do everything they can possibly do to avoid having to support any claim. He was one of a group of MTAs who jumped on a friend's Tweet. I asked them all: "If Christianity were true would you become a Christian today?" MTA Shaun answered this way:



We had a short discussion about prophecy. He responded that even true prophecy which preemptively proclaims the history of the World would not be proof of God. His attitude, and how he interacted with me and others exposed the fallacy of his answer to me. Here's an example of something he said to someone else during the same time he was discussing things with me: 

Now this wasn't my first time to the rodeo with a MTA. I was well aware that he was baiting me for an argument and was going to avoid answering any questions or supporting any claims. I was careful not to make specific claims about the existence of God. Instead I focused on the FACT that Shaun knows that God exists as well as I do. Rom 1:18-32 I demonstrated this to Shaun when I told him that he hates God. Shaun replied that he can't hate who he doesn't believe in. I replied that I agreed with that statement, but that his Twitter feed easily demonstrates his hate for the God of the Bible.

Now here's the thing. Shaun is one of those MTA's who claim that the term "Atheist" (Stanford) "Atheist" (Philosophy Pages) "Atheist" (Oxford) means someone who "lacks a belief in a god" (Lackofbelief.com) not someone who denies the existence of God. Folks, this is one of the best indications that you are wasting your time speaking to someone who claims the title Atheist. The sole reason for this definition is to avoid making any claims so that they don't feel the need to defend anything they say.  Now if someone THINKS that is the definition of Atheist (or Atheism) but allows you to correct them so that they understand they are actually an Agnostic then they may well be someone worth having a discussion with. 

Nonetheless he had made a number of claims by mistake, but these three were the ones I pressed him about. 

1. That he (Shaun) would become a Christian if Christianity were true.
2. That God is my imaginary friend (therefore does not exist). 
3. That I/Anyone do not/cannot know that God exists.

He did his best to avoid supporting these claims. He repeatedly stated that he didn't make them or that he was mistaken with his language. He claimed that when he wrote that no one can know that God exists, that he meant that I (Kevin) did not know. I asked him to offer any proof for either statement... he refused to do so.

Eventually however, I did slip up and directly state that God exists. So I, in order to remain honourable, had to provide a defence. So I sent him a link to this video on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

To which Shaun replied with:

Here's the page he linked me to. It is a long winded refutation of something the author of the page CALLS the Cosmological Argument. Here is the argument as detailed on this page.

The argument runs like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Now you can compare this argument with the video yourself, but here is the actual argument that I provided the MTA. 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

1. The universe began to exist

• Therefore: the universe had a Cause.

Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm premise 1.
 2^nd Law of Thermal Dynamics tells us that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. Therefore if the universe was eternal it would be out of energy.
 Albert Einstein, Alexandra Friedmann, Georges Lemaitre, Edwin Hubble,  all showed that the universe is expanding from a single point in the finite past.

All alternative models for an eternal universe have all failed under scientific testing.

In 2003 three cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that any universe that has on average throughout it’s history been expanding cannot be eternal in the past, and must have an absolute beginning. This includes the theorized Multi-verse.

Science has proven that the universe has had a beginning.

Therefore the universe had a cause.
Because this Cause must be outside of Space-Time this Cause must be:
Spaceless, Timeless, Immaterial, Uncaused and Powerful

Obviously the page the MTA linked to didn't even come close to "refuting" the argument posed by the video I had linked him to. He eventually agreed, at least in passing, that the page did not actually address the argument. He didn't go so far as to agree that it was a Straw-Man, but he did then try to engage the argument albeit dishonestly. After a number of tweets back and forth he finally watched the video. 

His response to the video is to ask me to prove the Law of Causality. Causality, or Cause & Effect, is the basis for science. As Turek and Geisler write in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist: Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (David Hume, in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187)

I found Shaun's response amusing and asked him if he was really so desperate not to repent that he would deny the Law of Causality. He responded with these tweets:

and 

This MTA had jumped on a friend of mine to try to start an argument. I took up the bait and replied to him. He claimed to have a worldview that is based on the evidence, and when asked about that all he would say is that he doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence for Him.

In reality this article has little to do with Shaun. He's just another in a long list of "lack of belief" Atheists.

The point of this article is this: just as the Lord Jesus Christ explained that those who had seen His powerful signs (miracles) and not believed would come under strict judgment - and therefore they had been UNWILLING to believe even with this powerful evidence - there are people who are UNWILLING and so will never believe even if you give them very good evidence for God.

In the end we know that EVERYONE already believes that God exists, and we know much about Him just by looking at Creation. Romans 1:18-32 explains the same things that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does.

 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Ian Juby's Travelling Creation Museum

I had the pleasure of meeting Creationist Ian Juby this week. He is on his second stop with a travelling Creation Science museum. I'm impressed with the man, and his exhibit. Not only is he as likeable in person as he is in his videos, he seems to be authentic and transparent. Here are some photos I took of his current setup at Cole Harbour Place in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  Ian's Blog is HERE. His highly informative, and exceedingly helpful YouTube channel is HERE.

This is the main exhibit, Noah's Ark in the center and
fossils around the outside.

Noah's Ark was made of "gopher wood" which was not a
type of wood, but a type of cross-bracing of the wood.

One human footprint fossilized inside
a dinosaur's fossilized footprint. Obviously
the evidence shows humans and dinos
were alive at the same time.

Another human print inside a dino print.
There are several others of these at the museum.

Indian rock art, do these things look like
dinosaurs to you too?

Dinosaur carving on a temple in Cambodia? Yep.

With some science on the side

Happy New Year everyone!

Here's three notable science stories from recent days which I hope will work together to make a cool point or two.

Is this evidence that we can see the future? - NewScientist.com

Experiments with 1,000 volunteer students determined that people can recall words they've been shown in a list of words 53.1% of the time when they will be asked to type the same words in the future. That is to say they are asked to type randomly selected words from the original list they were shown only after they have already demonstrated recall of some of the words from the original list. One might expect a 50/50 result based on pure randomness. The 53.1% rate is interpreted as significant proof of pre-cognition, or seeing the future in some way imperceptible way.

Question: Would a rate of 50% (or 46.9% for that matter) have been interpreted as significant proof that people do not naturally have pre-cognition?

Why the human body temperature is 98.6 degrees F. - GIZMODO.com

Turns out our body temperature is "perfectly balanced." If it were lower we'd get fungal infections, if it were higher we'd have to constantly eat to maintain the energy requirements.

Question 1: Have we been designed with the perfect temperature or did we only happen to survive because we evolved to have this body temperature?

Question 2: If we evolved to have this temperature, then how? Did we, or rather our ancestor just get it right the first time? See if the temperature wasn't perfectly balanced then the organism COULD NOT have survived. This is sort of like irreducible complexity in that you can't gradually come to the correct temperature. It's right or you're dead.

Why published research findings are often false. - SlashDot.com

Uh oh.  The New Yorker is reporting that many well-established, multiply confirmed findings are looking increasingly uncertain. Why is this happening? Apparently John Loannidis (author of Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) says that it is because of "significance chasing" or finding ways to interpret data so that it passes the test of statistical significance. That is the 95% boundary proposed by Ronald Fisher.  "The scientists are so eager to pass this magical test that they start playing around with the numbers trying to find anything that seems worthy." 

Question: Why do we, the very assembly of the Firstborn, allow the unmitigated and implicit trust of scientists to propagate through our society as though it were helpful in any way? The very Scientific Method is based on mistrust of findings! See the graphic above. I wholeheartedly believe in the use of the Scientific Method - I do not believe this even allows for the creation of a new High Priesthood of Scientists.

Happy New Year! How's your Worldview doing?

THE BEGINNING IS NIGH!

Lots of people like to make fun of the people who wear or wave signs that say "THE END IS NIGH!" (or near).  Last week I read about Stephen Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" with which Hawking argues that because of the Law of Gravity the Universe had to create itself out of absolutely nothing. He is quoted as saying:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." 

Maybe you remember the "Mother Of All Bombs" or MOAB that the USA developed and exploded just before their invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some say the demonstration explosion in Florida of the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the world was the first shot in the "Shock and Awe" campaign. Well the MOAB weighs in at 10.3 tonnes and I've got to say based on what I learned last week, when I asked "How much does nothing weigh again?" the MOAB is most obviously an example of typical USA over indulgence and over engineering. They didn't need a 10.3 tonne weapon, they needed nothing at all... which takes us to a terrifying point of discussion! 

The Discovery Channel's Mythbusters represent a "clear and present danger" to, not just the USA but the Universe as a whole! Back in 2008 the Mythbusters decided to bust the myth that says the NASA Moon landings were a big fat hoax. Little did any of us know at the time that these men and women had our very existence in their little hands!


Stephen Hawking says that because of the Law of Gravity the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Part of the episode was testing if a flag cannot flap in a vacuum. Here's what MythbustersResults.com had to say about this test.

A flag cannot flap in a vacuum.

BUSTED

The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.

They used a VACUUM CHAMBER!! A place where there was ALMOST nothing! Danger Will Robbinson! DANGER! The Mythbusters who are well known for blowing things up, causing damage and mayhem were foolishly allowed to get dangerously close to deploying NOTHING! - and I have it on video! Check it out:

Am I being unreasonable? Well, I don't think so! In May 2008, no one questioned handing such power to the unruly Mythbusters, but by September of that same year people were much more concerned about some scientists. The headlines every where read like this "Boffins set to cause Big Bang!"

In 2003 the USA used the MOAB to scare Saddam out of Iraq and it looked like this:

In 2008 people were all freaked out because some scientists wanted to smash some really tiny particles together at really high speed... a black hole or even another Big Bang was expected. 

However, what we should have been worried about, if we are to believe Stephen Hawking, is that the Mythbusters almost caused another Big Bang! 

With people playing with vacuums (Yikes! I just realized that we put vacuum cleaners in the hands of disgruntled house wives every day!!!) perhaps we should heed Homer Simpson's dire warning to us from the beginning of this article! THE END BEGINNING IS NIGH!!!

How much does nothing weigh again?

OK I'm sure I'm not the first Christian blogger to respond to the news of Stephen Hawking's forthcoming book with the same simplistic thought - "How much does nothing weigh again?" Perhaps I can distinguish myself in some other way then?

First off I completely agree with you, I am no where near as smart as Dr. Hawking is. However small my intellect is, I am however still able to call "shenanigans!" when I see them going on.

The article is about Dr. Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" which sounds more than a bit intentional. It's good to be intentional though, especially when you're making claims. Intentionality makes it easier to confirm, and debunk your claims. So I'm glad he's intentionally making an argument against so called "Intelligent Design."

The article starts with these words; "Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God." It is his intention to debunk the creation account by postulating an alternate theory. Good on him! At least he's being honest with a full on frontal attack, not and not being slimy and subversive like some other popular anti-creationists.

Let's check out a couple of quotes from this article shall we?

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

Is it too simple to ask how much nothing weighs again? OK let's continue....

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

OK that's rich, but before I get too excited and call the man a fool I must remember I have not yet read his masterful work in which he no-doubt explains how absolutely nothing is affected by gravity that does not yet exist to the point that it does something... and then eventually blows up and becomes everything all neatly ordered and such.

Apparently, Hawking says that it is "M-theory" which is a sort of "string theory" that has allowed us mere mortals to understand how the universe created itself. This of course prompts long time universal sports fans to shout "Go Uni!!" in unison purely by chance, and then quickly stop because their unity made it appear as though some form of intelligence might be at work.

OK the universe isn't really getting cheers... it turns out that humanity is the real star of the day!

"The fact that we human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph."

So I've been taking a few pot shots... and EASY ones at that. I'm sorry, really... well ok I'm not going to lie I've had more than a few giggles writing this post. Here's a more serious point.

Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

I feel the urge to remind you that Dr. Stephen Hawking is much smarter than I am, and I'm aware of this fact. However, saying that because there are other planets (non of which thus far found, or invoked, are even remotely close to being able to support life) orbiting around other stars is even the slightest evidence that the Universe was not "designed" by Creator God is like saying this;

I saw a pile of steel beams on the way home from work today. This is the first blow to the belief that Hyundai Corp designed my car.

Anyway, if you want to celebrate the triumph of the human imagination to come up with any excuse possible not to worship God then check out Dr. Hawking's forthcoming book The Grand Design on Sept 7th, and read the rest of the article I've been discussing at The Guardian.

Response to '50 Reasons I Reject Evolution' Update

I made a mistake... it happens. Not often.. but.. hahaha I'm just kidding. I did. I did make a mistake. I'm sure most reading will forgive me in light of the inarticulate nature of the source material I was trying to understand and respond accurately too. In Part 4 of my response, I wrote the following.

33.) Because I don’t realize that if we actually found croco-ducks in the fossil record, it would falsify evolution.

At 33 reasons in I finally read something I’ve never heard before. I’m not sure why showing that there is gradual change from one life form to another would falsify a theory which says that life forms gradually change from one to another. I’m sure the author is being clever here, even if it is beyond my understanding. ;)

At least I admitted I had never heard the argument before... is that enough to get me off? Probably not given the cocky way I finished my paragraph...

OK in short here's what the 33'rd reason was attempting to convey. Crocodiles and Ducks are considered by Evolutionists to have come in two different lines of animals. These lines would have originated at the original first organism, but branched off at some point. Since ducks are not considered decedents of crocodiles, and crocodiles are not considered decedents of ducks either... finding "croco-ducks" would falsify the Theory of Evolution.

Once again, the author (be this the person I'm quoting or one of the many other people who have posted iterations of this same list of 50 reasons on the net in various places) is being deceitful, and needlessly clever. Hey I guess I was right about that much in my answer! :)

So how did I figure this little mystery out? I subscribe to John MacKay's "Evidence News" email list. You can too if you visit Creation Research.

Here's a rather longish exert from his latest mailing which I found most interesting.

7. DAWKINS SHOOTS HIMSELF in the foot again with his shonkey fronkey story in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, (Bantam Press, 2009, pp 151-154) Richard Dawkins accuses creationists of asking: "Why doesn't the fossil record contain a fronkey?" (quote marks his). He then goes on to state:

"... it is a disgrace that the perpetrator of this little witlessism, the Australian itinerate preacher John Mackay, has been touring British schools in 2008 and 2009, masquerading as a 'geologist', teaching innocent children that if evolution were true the fossil record should contain 'fronkeys'." (quote marks around 'geologist' and 'fronkeys' are in original)

Dawkins further perpetrates this accusation against John Mackay in the product description of his book on the Amazon UK website. In the section headed "From the Author", Dawkins presents a series of questions and answers including "Why doesn't the fossil record contain a fronkey, or a crocoduck?"

Dawkins replies:
"The question betrays a lamentable confusion about what evolution means. Yet such questions really have been truculently asked, in all earnestness, by creationists: for example the Australian creationist John Mackay, who is regularly invited to preach to British schoolchildren ... The question presumes that evolutionists ought to find an intermediate between pairs of modern animals, such as frog and monkey, or crocodile and duck". See: http://tinyurl.com/Amazon-GSOE

ED. COM. Until we saw it in Dawkins' book, neither John Mackay nor any of the Creation Research team had ever used the word "fronkey", so we were intrigued as to where Dawkins got this idea from, as he does not provide a direct reference to John Mackay or any Creation Research publications. In the notes at the back of the book he does mention a Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) article, 7 May 2006. All other blog and web postings connecting fronkeys and Mackay that we tracked down can be traced to this same SMH article by Annabel Crabb, entitled 'Darwin's evolutionary theory is a tottering nonsense, built on too many suppositions'. (quote marks in original). Crabb was writing about John Mackay's meetings in Britain in April and May 2006. This article contains the following statement and hypothetical question:

Put simply, Mackay's belief - and it's one that is firmly entrenched in the US, where President George Bush advocates its ventilation in schools - is that Darwin's evolutionary theory is a tottering nonsense, built on too many suppositions and not enough evidence.

If so many species evolved from the shapeless creatures of the primordial slime, if people came from monkeys via frogs and fish, then why does the fossil record not contain a "fronkey"? See: http://tinyurl.com/SMH-Mackay

The question was clearly written by the SMH journalist and is clearly not a quote from John Mackay. Since no one at the meeting heard John Mackay ask such a question, and no one heard him use the word "fronkey", then who is journalist AnnAbel Crabb quoting, or has she created the word herself by deliberate intelligent design?

To give you the full context Crabb continued her article by accurately telling everyone: "Mackay, who was originally educated as a geologist and devout Darwinist at the University of Queensland, experienced a conversion while working as a teacher and now tears down his former beliefs with the seamless enthusiasm of a zealot.

"Charles Darwin actually graduated in theology, which is a little-known, well-kept secret," he tells his audience. "He knew exactly what he was trying to disprove."

As a university professor, Dawkins should know that if you are going criticise what someone has said or written, you need to show that the person actually stated what you are criticising, and give the reference to that person, not a secondary source. Dawkins has clearly not done this, as the word "fronkey" does not appear in any Creation Research writing (until now) or other media we produce, and has never been used by John Mackay in any interviews or presentations around the globe.

If Dawkins was a first-year university student submitting an essay, he would, quite rightly, be rebuked for using such poor research methods. He is, however, a retired Oxford University professor, therefore, his sloppiness which has led to this false accusation is inexcusable, and he rightly owes John Mackay an apology for slandering his name, and an erratum slip placed in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, plus a statement on Amazon stating he is wrong about Mackay. We wait with eagerness to see the results of this test of his honesty. (Ref. atheism, Darwinism, fraud)

Well it seems obvious to me that the "clever" way of dealing with arguments and facts are far from restricted to ridiculous internet sarcasm like "50 Reasons I Reject Evolution." Such seems to be common place among these most educated and enlightened minds. ;)

Response to '50 Reasons I Reject Evolution' Pt 5 of 5

Continued from Part 4

41.) Because I don’t know what an atavism is and if you told me, I still wouldn't believe it. Too weird.

Thank God for Google http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+atavism&btnG=Search&meta=

He is even to be praised for Bing

http://www.bing.com/search?q=define%3A+atavism&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n

It’d be convincing if only Evolution could explain the appearance of entirely new biological information.

42.) Because I don’t know that evolution explains methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and also provides the answer in preventing it from turning into a superbug and killing massive numbers of people.

The author substitutes the definition of Natural Selection for Evolution again here. Mutations that reduce information in life forms do not explain how new information is formed. http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers

43.) Because I don’t know that evolution is routinely used in medicine to diagnose and treat certain illnesses such as genetic ailments, bacterial infections, and viral infections.

Still confusing Natural Selection with Evolution, and I’m reasonably sure that there is no medical procedure which uses evolution to treat illness or disease. People complain about wait times now, can you imagine if they had to wait for millions of years?

44.) Because I believe there is a strong comparison between designed inanimate objects such as buildings, paintings, and watches (which we know were pieced together from identifiable components by human beings) and living organisms (which reproduce with genetic variation under the effects of environmental attrition).

How do we recognize design? Is it some dubious survival mechanism to do so as the author suggests in reason #14? When we unearth a pyramid out of the ground we don’t for a moment consider that it was formed by natural processes. The only thing we know the natural processes have done to it is damage it.

Likewise, we don’t sit a first time user at a computer and tell them to type until they manage to design an operating system like Max OS X, or Windows 7, or perhaps even Linux.

When we look at the information required for life to “work” it is much more complex and interdependent than that in a pyramid or a operating system. Do you think the OS on your computer just happened?

The author makes an incomplete argument against design proving a Designer. For more information please visit; http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers

The vast difference between the physical objects we all agree do not happen by random natural processes and life is that life is incomparably more complex. There is no known random natural process which could make a pyramid form in the desert, just like there is no known random natural process that could form a human using the information in an Ape-like creature.

45.) Because I see no significant similarities between humans and apes. *scratches my ********* then smells my fingers*

This is not a Creationist argument. Companies spend large sums of money on ensuring their brands are recognizable. Have you ever said, “That looks like a Ford” before? There’s a reason. Similarity in design shows that the Designer chose to have similarity in design. It does not show decent.

No right thinking person thinks that the 2008 Ford Focus evolved into the 2010 Ford Focus through natural processes. A team of people used intelligence and effort to design a new car which had similar design features. Even if we buried the cars in the ground for 4.5 million years it wouldn’t change that while they look somewhat similar one did not come from the other.

46.) Because I think I’m too special to have been crafted by any natural process and the entire planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were created with me especially in mind.

Given that there are no natural processes known at the present which could possibly have “crafted” (logical fallacy of reification) me, I do consider myself too “special” to have been “crafted” by them. Biblical Creationists know that the planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were created especially with God’s glory in mind. Psa 19

47.) Because I unquestioningly swallow the ignorant anti-science bullshit spewed directly from the fraudulent stupid ***** of people like Ken Ham, Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, and Kent Hovind.

Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem. Also hypocrisy, as the author is sarcastically suggesting that the readers should accept the Evolutionary Worldview though no scientific evidence is presented to support the theory.

48.) Because I’m a freethinker and freethinking really means ignoring anything that contradicts what I already believe.

Actually Biblical Creationist have repented.

49.) Because I don’t know what confirmation bias is.

I am rubber you are glue…. Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem again, seasoned with obvious hypocrisy.

50.) Because despite the fact that in all my years of life, I have never seen any magic, I still believe magic is the answer to anything I don’t immediately comprehend.

Absolutely nothing exploded, spewed out everything, which eventually evolved into me! Simply magic!!

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. Quod erat demonstrandum, I ******* win. Take that you EVILutionists!

~By Bobbie Jean Pentecost

Thank you for your demonstration Ms Pentecost. It has been most entertaining, if unconvincing.

Well that's it. I spent way too much time responding to this article because too many people are intimidated by such foolishness.

Response to '50 Reasons I Reject Evolution' Pt 4 of 5

Continued from Part 3

31.) Because I’m too stupid to realize that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and is actually a pseudo-scientific bastardization that real science largely rejects.

Logical Fallacy of Reification. Actually Social Darwinism is completely consistent with the Evolutionary Worldview. As is murder, theft…….. people rightly get upset when someone claiming to be a Christian is caught in some horrible sin because the person is a hypocrite. However, when someone who holds to the Evolutionary Worldview does these things they can not be said to be a hypocrite.

Here’s what Jeffrey Dahmer had to say on the subject.

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

32.) Because the planet and all the life on it was designed for humans… kinda like how the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY was designed specifically for the dust-bunnies that may accumulate on the floors.

“Dust-bunnies” can exist in a multitude of environments. Life has a comparatively very narrow range of environments which it can exist in. Dust-bunnies, minus the organically produced portions, could theoretically exist throughout the universe.

The author is referring to the Anthropic Principle. Check out item 93 on this page for more information on this principle. http://creation.com/astronomy-and-the-bible

33.) Because I don’t realize that if we actually found croco-ducks in the fossil record, it would falsify evolution.

At 33 reasons in I finally read something I’ve never heard before. I’m not sure why showing that there is gradual change from one life form to another would falsify a theory which says that life forms gradually change from one to another. I’m sure the author is being clever here, even if it is beyond my understanding. ;)

*I've updated this answer after finding some related, and revealing information.

34.) Because plenty of respect able people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don’t accept evolution, and that somehow validates my opinion.

Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem, not to mention hypocrisy; see reasons #1,2, 4 for examples of the author agreeing with Evolution because respected people say it is true.

35.) Because my mother didn’t know not to drink while she was pregnant. She also didn’t know not to repeatedly throw herself down a flight of stairs in an attempt to undo the accident of screwing someone who voted for Bush both times.

Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem.

36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

I didn’t know that irreducible complexity had been “debunked.” I know it’s been it’s been sidestepped by those who are sure there’s an explanation for it that doesn’t involve God. http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

37.) Because I have never seen a duck evolve into a cat over night, despite the fact that such a thing would be contrary to all known scientific disciplines.

It’s true that a Duck evolving into a Cat, over night or over any amount of time, would violate all known scientific laws. This is just the same argument about time again. I remind the reader that it doesn’t matter how much time you give a broken toaster, it’s not going to make toast for you.

38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.

Using the full name of DNA might make someone sound intelligent, but to suppose that sounding intelligent makes an argument correct is to simply commit the fallacy of ad hominem again. I don’t have enough imagination to believe that absolutely nothing exploded, spewed out everything, which eventually evolved into me.

39.) Because evolution means that I absolutely MUST reject everything else I know, abandon all my beliefs, and start aping around my house like a ******* monkey. OOOh-ooohh-ooohohh -OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!

If the author is referring to giving up on the God of the Bible, then yes one would have to give up on Him. For if Evolution is true, then He is not. The two are not compatible, no matter how ignorant the author is of this fact. http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution

40.) Because I haven’t put my cave on the market and moved into the 21st century yet. I’m waiting for the cave market to rebound from the recent financial meltdown.

What was true when people lived in caves (they still do in places like Afghanistan) is still true today. People simply have more sophisticated ways to quiet their conscience. Romans 1

Response to '50 Reasons I Reject Evolution' Pt 3 of 5

Continued from Part 2

23.) Because the idea that life evolved naturally over billions of years is infinitely less believable than the idea that an 800 year old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat when the entire planet flooded, an event for which there is absolutely no geological evidence whatsoever and also makes no ******* sense at all.

That nothing exploded and became everything is infinitely less believable than our Creator creating the Universe, yes I agree. I have not forgotten that the author ignorantly separated Evolution from the self-creation of the Universe earlier in his 6^th reason.

Of course there is no evidence for the Flood that can be seen with your hands over your eyes. However, if you take a quick peek there may well be some to be seen. http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers

The author’s claim of the Bible saying that an old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat is incorrect. For the actual information visit http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf

God put the animals in, gave warning, and closed the door leaving all those who did not heed that warning outside the protection He provided and covered in His wrath. This is a shadow of today. The warning is clear, repent sinner to put your faith in Christ, or be left outside of Him to suffer the full wrath of God on your own.

24.) Because Jesus totally rode around on a ******* t-rex. He’s just that badassed. And also, did you know that t-rexes were vegetarians? Ken Ham says so and I believe it.

These are interesting reasons, there can be no doubt. However the first is not something any Creationist would say, and the second is only part of what Ken Ham states. Much like bicycles were designed to ride on two wheels didn’t stop people from riding them on a single wheel, that God designed every animal to be vegetarian doesn’t mean they couldn’t eat otherwise. When God cursed the world because of man’s own disobedience He loosened the controls on all living things. Death entered the world by God’s curse because of sin. Are you good enough to make God a liar? Or does your own life testify to your guilt? Check out Exo 20 and see how you’re doing with being such a good person.

25.) Because I don’t realize that saying “microevolution is possible but macroevolution isn’t” is as stupid as saying “I can pick my nose for one second but I cannot pick it for 10 seconds.”

Microevolution is Natural Selection, the de-selection of less favourable traits in animals by death resulting in less and less information in a population’s gene pool. Since the longer it goes on the less information there is it can not produce the increase in information required for Macroevolution. There is no known natural mechanism which increases the information in living things. For more information on Natural Selection/Microevolution visit http://creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers

26.) Because the education system failed me miserably.

27.) …and then took a big *** **** on my face.

Logical Fallacy of Reification.

28.) Because I think that knowing how nature works magically obliterates all of its beauty.

Does the author think she knows how Nature works? Is there anything we know about Nature that Creationists claim has “obliterated” (or in anyway diminished) the beauty we see in the natural world?

29.) Because I didn’t know that evolution has been tested and observed in laboratories.

I didn’t know this either. Neither does Dr. Richard Dawkins, the foremost proponent of the Evolutionary Worldview. He said ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’ Now, 3 December 2004, PBS Network http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html

Here’s some information about mutations, which without a doubt the author is referring to here as having been tested and observed. http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers

30.) Because when confronted with that, I refuse to believe it. It’s obviously a scientific conspiracy aimed at turning everyone on the planet into atheists... even though evolution says nothing about god's nature nor whether he, she, it, or they exist.

Actually you don’t need to be a Christian to understand that Evolution says a lot about any “god” who would use it. Read Dr. Dawkin’s comments here http://creation.com/dawkins-on-compromising-churchians

Natural Selection is actually the most cruel mechanism for the selection of traits imaginable. It is a process by which nothing can improve. Life forms which are not perfectly protected from all environmental hazards are killed off. Those that are killed off prior to procreating are de-selected from the population, leaving only those which the current environmental hazards did not quickly kill.