It is so funny. I have been listening to John Macarthur start a topic on Creation and he said one thing. That evolution was created not so much to reject God as Creator but to reject him as Judge. If they can do away with God, they can do away with judgement and they do not have to live with morals because their is no moral law giver

Well we have a perfect example of this with the £5bn (yes you heard me right) Big Bang Experiment which they hope will ‘recreate the conditions a few moments after the Big Bang.’ For details, click here and here

Scientists, I could have saved you a lot of money. Please read below

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

This is another proof that the bible is true when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God

Related website for further investigation on Creation:

Answers In Genesis

Related Posts:

Is Christianity True – Part 1: Does God exist?

  1. Isaiah says:

    Heh, same thoughts, Allen.

    Buying those 2,300 scientists each a Bible would have cost a whole lot less than the US$5 billion spent!

  2. Lucy Lowe says:

    Funnily enough one of the offshoots of this Big Bang experiment – Which began thirty years ago – was the internet. The World Wide Web began as the answer to the problem of how Scientists could communicate quickly with other Scientists half way around the Globe.

    So, without this experiment we wouldn’t have anywhere to write all of our blogs.

  3. naturalsystah says:

    LOL! I was going to post the exact same thing – instead of spending all that money, all they had to do is read Genesis chapter 1.

  4. LayGuy says:

    This post is typical of narrow minded Christianity. Do your homework and read what this experiment is about. These scientists are physicists – not evolutionary biologists.

    They’re trying to understand the nature of matter – not disprove God. Many Christians dismiss the Big Bang theory saying “how could you first have nothing and then it exploded?”

    This kind of ignorance bothers me because I am a Christian and I get tired of people using worn out cliches to defend our faith.

    When God created the heavens and the earth, the term used is “Ex nihilo” – creating something out of nothing. All of a sudden, matter materialised and starting to function in a God determined fashion.

    These laws are what these scientists are trying to understand. And I hope that if it’s pursued without bias, many of these scientists will be struck in awe at the awesome amount of design in our physical world.

    This would warrant the need for a Designer. So cheer up and do your homework before posting like this.

  5. Alan Higgins says:

    LayGuy. in order to ‘recreate the conditions a few moments after the Big Bang’ which is what they are trying to do, they will have to start with NOTHING as God did. If they dont, then they have started the experiment on a false premise. Is this what they are doing?

  6. Laura says:


    Do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and that He did exactly as He said when He created the World? Or do you believe in the ‘intelligent design’ theory? They are, by the way, not the same thing. ‘Intelligent Design’ rejects the Bible and clings once again to man made theories.

    I hope I don’t sound assumptive but I wondered since you used the word ‘design’ more than once and ‘designer’.

  7. luanshya says:

    “because their is no moral law giver” – that’s it, they don’t trust our brains. Imgaine life a hundred or so years ago, life expectancy in the 40’s, a constant state of war, famine, pestilence, no sewers… Was that because we didn’t pray hard enough?

    Compare that to today – don’t you think the “moral law giver” has been a little flakey? Seriously…… I’m interested.

  8. Alan Higgins says:

    The bible states that knowledge will increase so what you have said is no surprise. the fact still remains that we have broken God’s law and so the lawbreakers will be punished unless we repent and put our trust in Jesus Christ. In fact, to say he has not been a ‘little flakey’ but has been merciful in that you (and me) are still alive to read this and he has given you a chance to repent of your sins and turn to him

  9. LayGuy says:


    How could they start with nothing? They are not God. Only He can start with nothing. These guys are trying to mimic the earliest time points of our universe.


    Yes I do believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God – trust me, I hold it in the utmost degree. And I agree with you that ID is different to the Bible – the Bible is not a science text book – ID is a science.

    But your comments suggest you know little of ID – it is not a philosophy inconsistent with Scripture. First and foremost, it’s science pursued without the presumption of evolution. It simply looks at the facts with an open mind and concludes that our existence is full of design – implying a designer behind it all.

    Check out the following 60 minute movie on “The Privileged Planet” about the anthropic principle:

    Or check out the following clip on the wonder of DNA:

    My point is simple. I love God. I love the Bible. But what I am totally against are cliche Christian arguments against what is known in true science. Trust me, we’ve got nothing to worry about – true science will never undermine the Bible. Evolution is a lie. ID is a shining hope – I hope it’s movement just doesn’t get hijacked by simple “Christian” ignorant comments.

  10. lavrai says:

    It’s OK, Alan. These are the days… so they’re working extra hard to ‘prove’ how right man is and how ridiculous believing in GOD is.

    The thing that no one seems to remember when defending these experiments and ideas is that NOT ONE SINGLE IDEA HAS BEEN PROVEN. They are still all theories. Big Bang theory. Theory of evolution. And everything will be a theory until we start to acknowledge HE WHO MADE US. The missing key? The hidden particle…? Yeah.

    We are so silly, the LORD must seriously laugh… when HE’s not furious at our foolishness disguised as wisdom.

  11. LayGuy says:


    True in terms of evolution.

    Completely false in terms of physics.

    The fact that you can sit there and type on the computer is a direct result in research into physical properties. The birth of this science was the discovery of the electron – which kicked off the electronics age. See the following video for more on this:

    When Christians are so simple and narrow minded, a skeptical and unbelieving world dismiss us as irrelevant.

    I don’t think the Lord laughs at the pursuit of true scientific knowledge. I’ve heard Christian scientists comment at how amazed they are in that it’s almost as if God has purposefully put things together to help man discover and learn and grow. These scientists, instead of pursuing bogus theories, sit back and are awestruck and the marvelous creative genius that is our Father.

  12. Laura says:

    “My point is simple. I love God. I love the Bible. But what I am totally against are cliche Christian arguments against what is known in true science.”

    Such as? I’m not trying to be patronising or sarcastic, I genuinely like to know.

  13. LayGuy says:


    This post for example. Plus comment number 3. This makes us Christians look like ignorant fools.

  14. Alan Higgins says:

    Layguy. from their own website it says ‘Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang’ so they have made a presupossition that there was a Big Bang. Hence my reason I said all they had to do was read Gen 1:1

  15. Tony Sidaway says:

    This has got to be the weirdest anti-Large Hadron Collider posting I’ve ever read.

    What part of genesis tells us whether the higgs boson exists?

  16. LayGuy says:

    Alan – the “big bang” theory is not contradictory to scripture – evolution is, but bing bang – no.

    Big bang is more about physics – it’s just later that the stupid evolutionary biologists jump on board.

    Remember that God spoke into existence our space time reality – and it came to be. The big bang theory is a POSSIBLE explanation from a human perspective about how this may have occurred.

    Let me ask you a question, do you believe in a literal 6 day creation? You see, I don’t. Days as we define them consist of a morning and evening – so you need a sun (and moon and stars etc.) But read the Genesis account and you see that the sun, moon AND stars weren’t made until the fourth day – rendering our definition of 6 literal days obsolete.

    Some Hebrew scholars suggest the “morning and evening” mentioned in Genesis refer to a “beginning and end” of a particular cycle of transforming chaos and randomness to law and order – therefore implying that the Genesis account suggests 6 periods of “correction” of matter being random and chaotic to having form and substance.

    God then used this as an allegory of working for 6 days and then resting on the 7th – therefore setting the Sabbatical into motion and culminating into “entering the rest found in Jesus.”

    Our universe is expanding to this day – implying that it had to begin somewhere. Form our physical time/space perspective, something was created from nothing – hence the big bang theory. But tell me, is this contradictory to scripture such as this:

    “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Hebrews 11:3

  17. LayGuy says:

    And to answer Tony’s question…

    “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Col 1:17

    Higs Boson is a calculated guess on the massless energy holding all of reality together.

    I submit that the power behind this is none other then the creater of mass – Jesus Christ. 🙂

  18. Gordon Tatro says:

    LayGuy is correct. And I too am a Christian (since Sept 1985). Why is it that those who pour over the Bible have to use it as if a club to beat others to their own values? Frankly, that is pride and that is…sin. Jeremiah 33:3 states “…call on me and I will tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know”. We are told to “…test everything and to hold on to that which is true”. In Isaiah 1:18 it states “Come let us reason together…”.

    God is reasonable (logical) it is an attribute that is not on here and off somewhere else in scripture. God does not want us to use half the brains He gave us to seek him he does not want us luke warm nor are we to get a lobotomy to…measure ‘up’. We can never “measure up” even though we are called to be “holy for I your lord God am Holy”. We are here to seek and build a relationship via the grace of God in Christ (Trinity: one God three personalities). God knows we fall short hence His demonstration of love for us in His intervention (a literal invasion) into His own creation (in four dimensions) in human form via Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). We are in a WAR and it is mostly in dimensions that surpass our ability and knowledge. Scientists believe there are up to 10 dimensions and so when God made ‘creation’ He accomplished this from OUTSIDE of the four dimensions in which we are limited in. When God came into His own creation He took on the form of man limiting himself to our dimensions…and when He ascended after the Cross this ‘miracle’ (was such to us) was done and accomplished by use of other dimensions for which we have little knowledge.

    Good job Layguy and praise be to God for the wisdom He bestows to your spirit.

    Privileged Planet is EXCELLENT (I have 13 copies and I hand them out regularly) Also Case for the Creator is Great (by Lee Strobel) and so too is Hugh Ross and his web at

    When some one asks me of the “6 days” I typically stun them with “(Yaaa, I have a hard time believing that too…I surprised it took Him so long!)” . God is spirit outside (not impacted by) time, space, matter, and energy….the creation ex nihilo is just God creation beyond the dimensions from which we can understand or be affected by…to us it is ‘no-thing’ but in all common sense there is no such thing as ‘no-thing’ (except that place of void whereby God is not and I’d suggest that anyplace one might go upon graduation of life through death…would be hell!

    The Big Bang (or ultra-fast singularity expansion) is a highly ordered low entropic dimensional transition of the ten dimensions to our effective 4 dimensions. The WMAP, COBE, satellites along with the Boomerang Balloon experiments have established that the first line in the Bible (Genesis…”in the beginning God created…) is FACT. It is just that the Bibles foundational truth has now been more fine-tuned and made more intellectual. Science is proving God for all science needs do is seek Truth—God is not afraid of the Truth! Thanks Layguy…! In Christ: Gordon

  19. Tony Sidaway says:

    Okay, excuse me but it’s as if I’ve encountered a bunch of people who really believe that jumping around and singing songs will make it rain.

  20. Laura says:

    Yes Tony, please join us – and don’t forget to bring your sacrificial lamb!


  21. Alan Higgins says:

    Yes layguy, I do believe in a literal six day creation. If you look at the hebrew for morning and evening (bôqer and ‛ereb repectively), it means just that. A morning and evening. The hebrew word for day is yom. If possible can you show me a example in the bible where the word day (yom) is interpreted as an age or some long period (I am sincrely asking)

  22. LayGuy says:

    Here is a little extract from Bible teacher Chuck Missler. If you haven’t heard of him, this dude is a brilliant and deep Bible teacher:

    “The Hebrew terms, Erev,and Boker, now refer to “evening” and “morning” but their origins remain obscure. Erev designates obscuration, mixture (increasing entropy). The time when encroaching darkness begins to deny the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities; thus, it becomes a term for twilight or evening.20 This also marks the duration of impurity, when a ceremonially unclean person became clean again,21 and thus, the beginning of the Hebrew day.

    Boker is a designation for becoming discernible, distinguishable, visible; perception of order; relief of obscurity (decreasing entropy). It thus is associated with being able to begin to discern forms, shapes, and distinct identities; breaking forth of light; revealing; hence, denotatively, dawn, morning. (As traditional designations for the Hebrew day, technically it would seem to only designate the nighttime hours, but it is used connotatively for the entire calendar day.)

    It is noteworthy that neither of these are recorded on the seventh day, and thus their original significance may have been to designate the increments of creation.”

    This is taken from the article found here:

    Like I said before, do your homework, don’t be afraid of proper science and leave cliche Christianity behind. Then your witness on these matters will be so much more engaging to a non-believing world. Peace.

  23. Tony Sidaway says:

    It appears then that we can say without equivocation: the bible gives a description of the origins of the universe that is exceptionally simplistic by modern standards and fails to correlate in any significant way with the thinking of modern-day cosmologists and the evidence of modern astrology.

  24. Tony Sidaway says:

    Oops, I mean modern astronomy.

  25. LayGuy says:

    Tony – the Bible is not a science textbook – get that through your mind first and foremost. Having said that, do your homework first, learn the text and the meaning behind it, and you will discover that NOTHING known to PROPER science contradicts Scripture.

    Where the problem lies is when simple Christians use cliche answers to the honest questions you guys raise. That’s when “our” “arguments” look really silly.

    The origins of the universe? The Big Bang theory plagerises the Biblical term “ex nihlio” – bringing into existence from nothing. So my friend, it seems as if modern science is starting to catch up to what Scripture declared thousands of years ago – yes I did say thousands. Before the advent of any particle accelerator.

    If you were honest with yourself, you would be humbled. No. Really. Humbled.

  26. Tony Sidaway says:

    LayGuy, thanks for getting that straight: the bible is not authoritative on science. I’ve been trying to get creationists and people who, like Alan Higgins (above posting), seem to think that the bible is all you need to know about the universe to recognize that it firstly doesn’t claim to be such a book and secondly if it did it would be considerably at variance with the known facts.

    While many apologists do argue that “nothing known to science contradicts Scripture”, it takes a considerable effort of interpretation to make this claim even plausible.

    Your second paragraph reminds me of what Augustine said in his work on Genesis. To paraphrase: “Don’t talk rubbish and claim that it’s supported by scripture. It makes you and the writers of the scripture, look ignorant.” And that’s very good advice.

    Your third paragraph is trite and contains no meaningful science.

    What I find immensely humbling is that Homo sapiens is one species, approximately 1 million years old, on a planet that is about 4 billion years old and has harbored complex life for about 1 billion years, in a universe about 10 billion years old. The planet orbits a star, one of 200-400 billion in a galaxy that is one of 35 such galaxies in the local group. In turn the group is one of 100 or so such groups or clusters in a supercluster which is so vast that it would take a beam of light 200 million years to cross it.

    All of humanity lives on that tiny planet in the great gulfs of space. We’re a tiny part of something absolutely immense.

  27. Laura says:

    There is no real evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old – although theologians need the Earth to be that old for evolution to be possilbe.

    All modern dating methods are ridiculously fallible – a living, yes living snail was ‘carbon dated’ by scientists testing the accuracy of the dating method. It dated it something like two million years old. That’s an old snail.

    The layers of rock can easily be explained by the World wide flood of Noah’s time recorded in nearly every ancient tradition.

  28. Tony Sidaway says:

    Flood geology is a fiction now promoted largely by a few clerics and fundamentalist Christians. The concept of a global flood has had no standing in science for well over a century.

    There are circumstances under which some dating techniques give old dates for young material, and vice versa. These are well understood. However we know independently of the vast age of the earth. Unless one is to produce contorted special explanations of the sort that no reputable scientist uses, one has to conclude from all the evidence that the earth is very, very old.

    A flood cannot explain the evidence available for an ancient earth.

  29. Laura says:

    The flood is a widely reported event. As I said before nearly all ancient civilisations have reported this ‘global flood’ – coincidence? The flood doesn’t fit into our small understanding of science and the universe as yet – but as I’m sure you’ll agree we’ve been proven wrong before. I just think if it’s so well documented in so many places it can’t totally be renounced as ‘fiction’ just because we can’t possibly believe it.

    Also regarding evolution, no ‘neanderthal’ man has ever been found, although many times we’ve been told that one has – years later they’ve been proven to be ‘pig bones’ etc. Also a frozen man was found from thousands of years ago with complex tools and advanced equipment which we didn’t believe they had back then. Finally in several places human footprints have been found in the same vicinity and depth as dinosaur footprints – how could that be if we were not walking the earth at the same time?


    All recorded history and civilisations of the World date back to a maximum of about 6,000 years.

    The oldest living trees in the world dated accurately by annual growth rings are about 4,000 – 5,000 years old – in harmony with the ‘flood theory’.

    The present World population (6 billion ish) is in harmony with the flood theory. Starting with 8 people and apply a growth factor of 2.5 children per family (less than the present rate) we end up with the current population in about 4,300 years which takes us back to the flood theory. Take the same rate and apply it to only half a million years of the evolution of man and there would not be enough surface area on the planet to contain the number of people.

    Another measure for the age of the Earth comes from the moon. Evolutionists expected the layer of meteoritic dust to be at least 16.5 metres deep but when Luna landed on the moon the greatest depth reading for the dust was under 0.5m, the moon is also young..

    Further methods estimating the earth to be under 10,000 years old are:
    Efflux of helium into the atmosphere
    Decay of carbon-14 in pre-Cambrian wood
    Growth of active coral reefs
    Decay of short period comets
    Formation of river deltas
    Influx of nickel, silicon, lead, aluminium, chronium, manganese and other elements to the ocean via rivers.

  30. Tony Sidaway says:

    Laura, please read a modern textbook on geology before you make a bigger fool of yourself. You have been lied to by people who think that in lying they are doing the Lord’s work.

    Just open a book on geology, and have your mind blown.

    Or look up at the night sky. You’ll see the Andromeda constellation, and on a moonless night you’ll see the smudge that is the Andromeda Galaxy. A close companion to our own, Andromeda is so far away that its light takes two-and-a-half million years to reach us.

    You’ve been lied to. You don’t have to believe the lies. Enter the modern world.

  31. Atheist101 says:

    Why is it you guys always have to have a problem with anything, even if it isn’t critisizing God. How’s this for a question? Where did Noah fit all the animals? and don’t cop out by saying God helped. Why is it that people are sad when people die? Shouldn’t we be happy! Yeah, they’re going to heaven! Clap our hands! Go find another fairy story to read.

  32. Alan Higgins says:

    First of all not everyone goes to heaven but only those who have repented and put their trust in Jesus

    Mourning is a normal part of grieving. The only difference is when a christian dies, we do not mourn in exactly the same way because we know that their is hope

  33. Laura says:

    Agreed Alan.

    The actual measurements of Noah’s ark make it bigger than a football pitch – it wasn’t exactly a dingy. And if you consider that Noah would’ve taken on board two dogs, not two poodles, two dobermans and two great danes etc. It was two of each kind of animal. They would fit.

  34. Atheist101 says:

    So did he have an aquarium on board for the amphibians and the, lets see, about 5000 different mammals, insects, reptiles, etc. How did he feed them? Did he ever sleep? If he did take only one pair of dogs, where did the other breeds of dogs come from? Did God create them, or could it be evolution.

  35. Laura says:

    No, different dog breeds don’t come from evolution – as anyone who knows anything about dog breeding knows you take two dogs, breed them and the outcome is a mixture of the two, for instance if you want a tiny breed, you breed the runts from each litter and so on until the breed gets smaller. Want a dog with a bigger nose, find two breeds with big noses and mate them etc. It’s certainly not evolution!

    Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list.

  36. Tony Sidaway says:

    Hi, Laura. So you’re aware of the homologies between dogs and other canids, surely. These are evident not only in the skeleton and other parts of the phenotype, including behavior, but also in the genome.

    Making up stories about big boats just makes dogmatic Christians look uneducated.

  37. LayGuy says:

    Uneducated? What do you do with the fact that every major early civilisation hold onto traditions equivalent to the Genesis flood story?

    By throwing insults , this makes illogical atheists look like fools. 🙂 You started.

  38. Atheist101 says:

    Dude, I am not critisizing and I am sorry if you are getting offended, but these are questions that need to be answered. But you may want to ask yourself, why wasn’t Christianity around from the beginning of time? It was the pagans, who believed in mother nature, not God. I am trying to get your side of the story. I am being open minded. One more question though re. Noah. Was everyone wiped out except him and a few chosen people? Thus if so, where do all the different nationalities come from? Are we all related.

  39. Tony Sidaway says:

    I’m calling Laura (and all other creationists) uneducated because they obviously don’t follow modern science but prefer to get their information about how the world works from an ancient book, supplemented by highly speculative attempts to shoehorn the writing in that book into the available evidence.

    It has indeed been noticed that the early biblical texts including the flood story seem to be derivative of several other messopotamian and Eastern Mediterranean myths. This is not unexpected, it just doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. There is no geological evidence for a global flood, and there is copious evidence for humans going back hundreds of thousands of years.

  40. Laura says:

    “There is no geological evidence for a global flood”

    Please actually do some unbiased research on this, I mean really unbiased – ignoring all ‘theories’, only using fact.

    “there is copious evidence for humans going back hundreds of thousands of years.”

    But not millions?? And what is this evidence?

    Also you blanketed over all the points I made in an above message with the whole ‘you are uneducated’ remark, yet you did not refute the claims I made or argue them with any counter evidence. Please explain, since you are educated to such a higher level than me the statements below:

    All recorded history and civilisations of the World date back to a maximum of about 6,000 years.

    The oldest living trees in the world dated accurately by annual growth rings are about 4,000 – 5,000 years old – in harmony with the ‘flood theory’.

    The present World population (6 billion ish) is in harmony with the flood theory. Starting with 8 people and apply a growth factor of 2.5 children per family (less than the present rate) we end up with the current population in about 4,300 years which takes us back to the flood theory. Take the same rate and apply it to only half a million years of the evolution of man and there would not be enough surface area on the planet to contain the number of people.

    Another measure for the age of the Earth comes from the moon. Evolutionists expected the layer of meteoritic dust to be at least 16.5 metres deep but when Luna landed on the moon the greatest depth reading for the dust was under 0.5m, the moon is also young

    Atheist 101; God’s people have been around since the beginning of time, alongside pagans but the ‘beginning of time’ is not as far back as many believe.

  41. Atheist 101 says:

    I am sorry, but I disagree with your estimation of 6000 years. There is proof of fossils that date back 30 000 years ago. If you remember, in those days it was very difficult to have children, so the chances of having 1 let alone 2 or 3 was risky. The world could have easily been that old, as this would mean that if the were 2 children born there was no real expansion in population, as when the parents dies, it cancelled out.

  42. Tony Sidaway says:

    Laura, I get the impression I’m talking with someone who deliberately and consciously filters out information that doesn’t fit her preconceptions–in this case it’s obvious that your filter ignores or discounts everything that isn’t written down in an old book.

    But really that’s not my concern. Your unwillingness to accept the scientific consensus of the past century or so is fine with me; it simply cuts you off from all the great knowledge of our vast and ancient universe that is pouring in from scientists every minute of every day.

    You may notice that I am not seriously debating your claims. They don’t deserve my or anybody’s attention. Really they don’t. I want you to understand that. I don’t need to convince you if you don’t want to be convinced.

    On the other hand, to keep in the game, proponents of your idiosyncratic beliefs must convince generation after generation of your children, increasingly, to shut out the enormous evidence for an ancient and vast universe and an old human race. Even in the United States, the number of Christians is declining fast (ARIS 1990-2001, decline of nearly 10% in Christians in 11 years). The number of those who adhere to extreme literalist beliefs was always small and it’s getting smaller.

    The passage of time and the slow drip of scientific evidence will ensure that one day every single one of your descendants, and those of all your fellow believers, will permanently repudiate what you yourself now hold to be absolutely true and incontrovertible because it is written in an old book.

  43. Laura says:


    We true believers know this fact – there will be great aposty towards the end times – Jesus Himself said ‘Will there be any faith left on the Earth when I return’ – and the answer itself also lies in the pages of the Word of God. The true believers will only be a remnant – not quite a few, or a lot, or hundreds of thousands but only a remnant. So yes, people will either fall away en mass or as I and many others suspect will follow a false and corrupt version of Christianity which is already popular in the West and which this site discusses in other posts.

    Does it bother me that I’m in the minority and labelled ‘stupid’ and ‘undeserving of any kind of debate’ by people such as yourself? No at all. I am honoured to be part of that ‘remnant’ and praise God each time I am insulted or persecuted for the sake of His name.

    Just a pointer you may want to look up though is the growing arguements against Darwin’s theory amoungst atheist scientists in America, those who have no ‘religious adgenda’. School biology books are infultrated with false information such as Henkels embryos, information on the four winged fruit fly (who can actually only survive in a lab) and the ‘evolutionary bird beaks’ that have be proven to actually change due to the weather changes ie: when there is a drought the finches with shorter beaks die out making the average beak size longer.. then when the rains come the average beak size drops right back down to the normal length. Evolution? Do you really think so???? And how do we answer the ‘Cambrian Explosion’? Funnily enough this subject is hardly mentioned in schools as evolution has no explanation to it. Tip Darwin’s tree on it’s head and you have a more acurate diagram of life as scientists in China are also discovering. If there were more fossils they’d have been found by now.

  44. Laura says:

    “It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without.”—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

    “What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.”—*Arthur N. Field

    “The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

    “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

    “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”—*D.B. Gower, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

    “It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,’ or `We may well suppose,’ etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin’s Origin of Species alone.”—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7

    “Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . . . Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.”—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202

    “The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

    An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist.

  45. Atheist 101 says:

    So let me get this straight. Since man is unsuccessful in creating evolution, it doesn’t exist? It’s like I can’ play soccer, so it doesn’t exist. Of course it exists, it’s not us that is creating it, it is the factors in the earth. if you were to constantly stretch your ears, obviously they will stretch and stay like this. This is the same with life. When we came out the ocean, we had to grow legs to walk. Sorry you have to use quotes to justify yourself.

  46. Laura says:

    Every good arguement should be followed with evidence.

    Once again, evolution and creation are both ‘theories’ neither can be proven or disproven – there is actually NO evidence which proves evolution – but there is A LOT which makes it look very unlikely.

    Again though you didn’t answer the key point – The Cambrian explosion – disregarding whether or not we can make evolution ‘happen’ this phenomia alone discredits Darwin’s findings.

    Evolution is no less a religion than Christianity – you are all having faith in something you have no proof of and something which is also becoming less and less likely as science develops.

  47. Tony Sidaway says:

    Laura, as you’re still crying out for a response, I will give you one.

    Please visit this excellent website and read the creationist arguments and the responses to them. The overwhelming mass of evidence from the life sciences and earth sciences speaks overwhelmingly in favor of a very, very ancient earth in what astronomy tells us is a vast, ancient universe.

    You cannot swallow evolution? Fine. That can wait. But the geological evidence for an ancient earth is far, far stronger than you seem to think. Morover the astronomical evidence is undeniable. Just look up into the night sky and photons will enter your eyes after a journey, in some cases, of millions of years. On a moonless night you may see a faint smudge in the constellation of Andromeda. Seen through our best telescopes, it appears as a spiral galaxy. The light we see from the Andromeda Galaxy took 2.5 millions years to reach us.

    Your beliefs, which you think are what the bible tells you, are wrong. Either the bible is wrong or the interpretation you put on the bible is wrong.

  48. Yos says:

    I feel sad for many that struggle in the faith in contact with a lot of science. I am skeptical about many current methods in use as a result.

    However, I side with evolution and suggest that Christians should pick up The Language of God by Francis Collins (A Christian who was the head of the Human Genome Project). It’s a pretty good read.

    Relying on Answers in Genesis may not be the best option. Across Youtube,there are plenty of debunkings going around.

    For those that are not offended by criticism on creationism,Check this series called “Why People Laugh at Creationists”:

    It should give people an intro to why Creationists aren’t seen to be credible by my scientists.

    That’s not to say that I’m closed to creationism,but I feel unconvinced by the arguments set forth.

  49. Alan Higgins says:

    Without getting into all the science, I think all you need is a brain and eyes to know that there cannot be this complex creation without a creator. A building is 100% proof that a builder was involved and a painting is 100% proof that there was a painter. They do not happen by themselves yet creation is so much more complex. See

  50. Yos says:

    Part of the problem is the rejection of science. Many discoveries in science are actually refuting old beliefs. With that said, we should cautiously embrace the findings and be willing to learn, regardless of our conceptions beforehand. Otherwise, many people who are raised in societies with a filter may soon see their whole religion as nothing more than superstition. As a result, I can understand why a former fundamentalists have trouble looking back. I was a fundamentalist in a sense who got in debates with an atheist and was blown apart. Later as I opened my views and accepted what has been found, I became more comfortable within my religion and didn’t need to worry when looking through my biology textbooks;Evolution does not rule out G-d. In fact,I’m a bio major right now.

    If you’re implying that I’m an atheist, you’ve missed the mark by far (Hint: The Language of G-d by Francis Collins). However, I believe at one point I’ve used your defense before;sadly, it’s old and can create problems. Further to mention,it’s pathetic many. For one, the many supposed inefficiencies in our bodies and that of many organisms can reflect badly to atheists about G-d. In addition, there are many sciences that support it. In denying evolution, you deny much more since its supported by multiple sciences.

    On another note, what do you think of the videos on Creationism? My beef isn’t with the idea of a creation week, it’s moreso with the the problems that it entails and the evidence shown contrary to it. There’s a reason why there is a counter creationism handbook. If you’d like something more palatable, try this series by DonExodus2 (

    On a last note, if I was an Atheist, I’d probably be insulted in some way by the latter part of your reply. If you’d care to continue this, I’d recommend the Christian teens group on myspace:

    If your argument is sound,you can change many minds. If not,expect it to be overlooked.

  51. Alan Higgins says:

    Yos, I did not suspect that you was an atheist at all and if I offended you, I apologise as it was not intended. I was just trying to show how we instinctly know that complex things have to be designed but when it comes to creation, its a different matter

  52. Yos says:

    Oh, there’s no real offense taken. I have been in a a scenario where someone said I wasn’t Christian (possibly due to my skepticism during the convo). Stuff like that kinda hurts a little,but soon, it becomes nothing.

    On addressing the rest,I feel that I should at least expand or follow through on my previous thought:

    Still, the argument from design still fails for many educated nonbelievers. Indirectly, you not only attack the idea that G-d has always existed(since the argument requires that he would need a creator which seems blasphemous),but imperfections(from what we know in Biology and from a strong atheist’s perspective) in the design can give a different impression. Evolution can help us to sidestep these problems.

    “I was just trying to show how we instinctly know that complex things have to be designed but when it comes to creation, its a different matter”

    As for your statement,I disagree. I don’t believe that we instinctively know anything besides that we exist;instead we take assumptions and use them to then build on what we know. I’d hate to take a note from Shermer,but we humans seek patterns. As a result, it’s not uncommon for us to assume and believe that everything has a designer. Depending on how you define “complex”, complex things don’t really have to be designed from a naturalists perspective (if you’re familiar with erosion, take a look:

    Ultimately, I agree that G-d is the designer.Our ideas on how that came to be differ,but nevertheless I feel that I know where you’re coming from. However, to people who are not a stranger to an article like this:,read any books by New Atheists, or are familiar with what I’ve mentioned, it must be emphasized that your argument can appear very weak. As our knowledge base about the universe grows, the strength of our defenses should as well.

    There are some apologists/writers that really stand out today that may are worth checking out such as William Lane Craig(Whom is said to have crushed Hitchens during his debate), Ravi Zacharias, Dinesh D’Souza (I could be wrong on him,but he wrote “What’s so Great About Christianity” which I’ve heard to be good), Norman Geisler,and Lee Strobel (I believe his material is good for beginners).

    Please don’t get any misconceptions. I may agree with your ultimately on the idea of design,but we need better defenses for the faith.Do you know what it’s like to have people question the validity of your beliefs and you don’t have anything to stand on,but your personal experiences? I’ve been there, and am trying here and there to change that. In echoing another commenter on this site, I wonder what will happen to Christians 20 years from now?

    If you don’t expand your view, that’s cool with me ,but I’d like for you to know of the difficulty you face in explaining religion or defending it to those that are knowledgeable on what is agreed on by many most scientists;my purpose in writing this isn’t to discourage,but rather to bring to light what’s ahead if you’re not in the know. I do thank you for hearing me out.

  53. Yos says:

    I forgot to add G.K. Chesterton when referring to apologists/writers. One of my favorite Christian bloggers recommended him to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s