I Need Strong Evidence That The Theories Of Evolution And The Big Bang Are Wrong.

Discussion in 'New Members Welcome' started by alwayswondering, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. I am not asking for evidence because I think that evidence is non existent. If that were the case, I wouldn't be here. I recently began feeling as though I am on a mission (for myself) to find answers to all my questions about these things. Asking questions in a place like yahoo answers has given me nothing but answers like "christians are evil" or "You are a theist, therefore you must not know much of anything". I have been reading "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. This is the book that kind of started it all. I find the evidence that I have read so far very frustrating and compelling. I still dont understand how a THEORY is being treated as a fact and thrown around in textbooks as such. The provided issues in "A Case for a Creator" just amplify my frustration.

    Anyways, I have a relatively good friend at school who has a very firm belief in evolution and takes everything charles Darwin said in his book "The Origin of Species" as though it were the Bible to us. I brought up several points in school today when I was with him. I didn't use any of the points in the book (yet), but resorted to several things listed on the answers in genesis website (The points: Lack of population three stars, lack of antimatter, the flat problem, monopoles, etc) and also Michael Behe's argument about "irreducible complexity".

    First of all, do you guys find it problematic that I would debate a friend on this subject? It was clear that he was getting extremely frustrated with me as I went on. I simply want to make him see the gaps in these ideas (err..."facts").

    Can anyone verify the things that I used (and back it up) and provide any other compelling evidence that evolution and the big bang are just hypothetical? If you do, please try to avoid bringing in ideas that are way over my head. Thanks!
  2. I recommend the first volume of The Evolution Of Species Revisited by W.R. Bird. It is very well researched, containing over 5000 footnotes. Most of the book consists of quotes from evolutionary and ex-evolutionary scientists.

    I'm also reading The Bone Peddlers by Wm.R. Fix. The first part describes how evolutionary scientists dishonestly promote evolution. The last part of the book Fix where goes off the deep end can be ignored.

    Neither of these books are from a creationist's world view.
  3. #5 aha, Jan 9, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2014
  4. IMHO a problem in the creationism v evolution debate is that the evolution side presents its 'evidence' as if it is the absolute truth which would only be doubted by someone who denies the existence of science.

    I have problems with this as it tends to distort reality and chokes off any true debate before it can get a real start.

    First, evolution does not and can not explain the start of the universe. Second, I have trouble accepting a process which operates using mutations which are 99.99+% harmful to the organism. Even given the time they claim (14+ billion years) this won't happen. IMO evolution requires way more faith than I can muster.
  5. In the beginning, God created. Enough said.
  6. ok. please delete that post if it will not serve a good purpose...and this post... thanks...
  7. No problem with the post. I was showing how your experience was similar to what God did.
  8. Ah ok, sorry as I think I am so sensitive this past few days! : )

    I was active in boy scout when I was a kid… and when the teacher talked about the big bang back then… it immediately clicked to me:

    Well, of course, there is a sound, the atoms picks up few atoms along the way to create bigger pieces and there was light, heat and light are created by friction…. : )
  9. There is lots of great information out there, Google is your friend. However, unless you understand science yourself and have a firm grasp then all you will be doing is explaining someone Else Work and will be unable to answer questions that you have not read or covered.

    Hence why I stay out of the subject as It would take a degree in these sciences to have any credibility. Preach the Lord Jesus as their belief in Evolution should have nothing to do with a belief on the Lord Jesus. If it does, then they themselves have a religion and are not true non-believers.
  10. YES.

    I was involved in a bit of a creation/evolution 'discussion' on Facebook. It started with the upcoming Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate.

    Even though I have a degree in engineering, I was attacked for not having a sufficient 'understanding' of science to even be in the discussion.

    This is indeed a no-win scenario as those who would be involved in the debate for the evolution side are convinced they are correct and that there is overwhelming 'science' in their favor.

    They totally dismissed the book I suggested they read, 'The Genesis Flood' as one of its authors has a degree in civil engineering which does not permit him to comment on anthropology.

    BTW 'The Genesis Flood' is a dated, yet still valid reference. The authors offer alternative explanations for how fossils formed and the present surface of the earth came to be using the Flood as described in Genesis.
  11. Any discussion with a Non-believe who takes a topic to prove Jesus is not the Savior or only way to eternal life, being the son of God, is a exercise in futility. A heart condition knowing they are lost and want better is the only way to reach them. We can't reach anyone through pride, or on their level and choice of topic. Your right, their mind is already made up and their goal is to prove you wrong, not hear the truth.

  12. I'm putting together a personal apologetic, giving reasons why I think belief in God and the inspiration of the Bible is a much more intelligent position than belief that everything came about by chance. Part of my apologetic deals with our first-person experience of self-consciousness. One of my arguments for this follows (which I'm still editing):

    . . .

    Our bodies are made of atoms and molecules. Each of us has the same kinds of molecules. There is nothing special about what we are made of. The oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other elements that make up our bodies are common, everyday elements. Just the proportions are slightly different for each of us.

    If we are the same in physical essence, why do I have a first-person conscious experience of living in and through my body, but not of your body? And why do you have a first-person conscious experience of living in and through your body, but not of my body? In other words, why is my self-awareness linked to the molecules that make up my particular body, and your self-awareness linked with the molecules that make up yours? We are all made up of the same stuff.

    If consciousness is energy, the same holds true. Each of us runs on the same kinds of energy that everyone else does. There is no special "me" biochemical reaction or electric current that I have but you don't.

    Consciousness also can’t be explained purely in terms of one’s brain function, although I believe that functioning necessary to be aware of the physical world and interact with it. Without the immaterial side of us (the soul or spirit), we would have no first-person experience of consciousness. All we would have is a brain with no self-awareness, effectively wired so that it always responds in a predictable way for a given input.

    Materialistic science's explanation for self-awareness is a matter of faith. It is assumed that when a living organism's brain becomes developed enough, self-consciousness somehow just happens. This is exactly the kind of thinking religious people are faulted for. But nothing "just happens."

    . . .

    I give another reason for the necessity of a soul for self-consciousness in my apologetic, but this should provide some food for thought.

  13. I agree, precisely why I found it hard to imagine evolution of man… the conscious mind: conscious to ask who we are, where we from, why we are here…​
  14. There are some interesting things going on in the area of quantum physics, especially quantum entanglement.
  15. Since there a personal apologetic post, am encourage to post a personal apologetics as well : )


    I remember “arguing” with a guy about the bible and I ask him a simple question: “do you read the bible?”….
    he admit that he seldom read it!....
    ”what? you are arguing about the bible and you do not read it regularly?”…. how can you argue with that? : )
    Thus, I think those kind of people can be easily swayed by bible rhetoric…

    The Purpose:
    So, in the same manner, kids are attracted to Science, because it does works I think,
    ...... and yet, I think they have none of the basic: Chemistry: Atoms.
    atoms then, then sub-atomics......

    This can be Science rhetoric by the Atheists .....so i think...
    Young kids can be easily swayed with this Science rhetoric, thus, am posting my personal apologetics:

    The basic: ATOMS
    Atoms … atoms does not physically exist…. it only a concept, a theory: a mathematical theory.

    It is the Element that does physically exist: we can observe it, we can touch it, some we can see…
    Gold, Silver, Hydrogen and Oxygen…..

    What defines an element? It is pure with no other element! Very elementary : ) i will explain as it goes..

    Chemist then observe why an element can combine with other element that will come up with very stable substance: example: water…. It is very stable combination of element Oxygen and Hydrogen….

    Back to Atoms….. man since ancient times tries to get the basic unit of things: a common basic building block of the universe…..

    But since when we chop into pieces element such as Gold, the smallest particle of it is what: still Gold….not a common building block.

    When we split Oxygen into smallest: it is still oxygen…

    Why? Because an element is the most stable substance : because even if you chop it to smallest piece: it remains as it is: element.

    So the next question will be: why there is the next stable substance : a combination of element

    So, there goes the theory: the atomic model…..

    The objective is to get a mathematical model that will explain substance stability, why Oxygen and Hydrogen combination is very stable as water….

    Thus, the litmus test of an Atomic model to work is that when elements are mixed: it should explain why a mixture of element is stable… and why a combination of element will not mixed….

    Thus, at the end of the day: Atoms are simply mathematical model conceptualized……

    So as its derivative concepts! THE SUB-ATOMICs: atoms derivatives: the electrons, protons, . And the latest news:, the higgs boson !

    So what does it mean when one says the current ATOMIC MODEL does work….
    Yes, it does work!....

    Unless proven other wise , the current model works….

    But it still remains a mathematical concept…. In other words: a THEORY
  16. Just read your question to yourself. You need strong evidence that we don't come from chimps....???
    How about looking at your thumb for a few minutes. Everything you stare at for longer then a minute reveals intelligent design! which involves irreducible complexity. It can simply not be debunked by a sane thinking person.

    Sin a bit, live in pride and suddenly you abnormally hold onto evolution and laugh at Genesis.

    Evolution thought is traced back to 600 bc with the Greeks. Since then Jesus came, changed the world, never supported it and never ran down the bible for not mentioning it. Jesus taught from scripture as though it was the writings of God / Himself.

    It is no co-incidence that evolution attacks Christianity head on by undermining scripture! Suddenly we can't believe Adam was the first human as scripture says. Suddenly we entertaining a belief that condones any lifestyle, leaving us unprepared for judgment day.

    There is a devil who hates us and God. Evolution thought encourages a mindset that is almost on par with satanism. But I won't get into that here.
  17. Genesis 1:1.
  18. Answers in Genesis with Ken Hamm explains and points out a lot - I have his whole series on that and he Scripturally as well as scientifically annihilates the theory of evolution.

Share This Page