Marble Falls

 

History

 

Marble Falls was founded in 1887 by Adam Rankin Johnson, a former Indian fighter and Confederate general, known as "Stovepipe" Johnson for his Civil War escapades, which included duping the Union army in Newburgh, Indiana, with fake "cannons," constructed from stovepipes and wagon wheels. Johnson had viewed the natural Marble Falls during his pre-war days as a Burnet County surveyor, and had dreamed of building an industrial city, powered by the tumbling Colorado River, not to be confused with the river of the same name in Colorado and Arizona. Despite a "friendly fire" incident which blinded him near the end of the Civil War, General Johnson followed through with his dream, facilitating the construction of a railroad to nearby Granite Mountain in 1884, then (with ten partners, including one son, one nephew and two sons-in-law) platting the townsite and selling lots, beginning July 12, 1887. Johnson built a fine home, a college (soon to be home of the "Falls on the Colorado Museum") and a large factory near the falls. The town grew to a population of 1,800 within ten years.

 

Marble Falls made history in 1917 by electing Ophelia Crosby "Birdie" Harwood as the nation's first woman mayor, three years before women were allowed to vote.

 

When the Max Starcke Dam was completed in 1951, the marble falls which had given the town its name were submerged under the new Lake Marble Falls. While the town's economy struggled through the drought of the 1950s, a new economy based on tourism and retirement began to grow in the 1970s. During the last thirty years, Marble Falls has grown into the retail and entertainment center for the Highland Lakes area, and continues to attract tourists, retirees and new businesses.[8]

 

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Falls,_Texas

  

HILL COUNTRY

 

"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.

 

Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.

 

But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.

 

In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area

 

Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryh02

ATHEISM REFUTED.

 

There are only 2 basic options for the origin of the universe .... an uncaused, supernatural first cause of the universe OR an uncaused, natural first cause of the universe. If you categorically reject the former (as atheists do), you have no option but to accept the latter by default. It is an intellectually dishonest cop-out to say atheism is merely a lack of belief. A genuine lack of belief would be classed as agnosticism, which is a neutral position. It is a 'don't know' or 'fence sitting' position. A 'don't know' position is not one which would specifically single out to reject, attack and ridicule just one side of the argument, i.e. the concept of a supernatural, first cause, as atheism does.

Atheists cannot simply deny, attack and vociferously ridicule the concept of - a supernatural, first cause, without being expected to justify the only alternative - a natural, first cause. That cannot be regarded as intellectually credible or rational.

We see that atheists dogmatically reject supernaturalism and are zealously on the side of naturalism (a naturalistic origin and explanation for everything). That is not a neutral, 'don't know' or objective position. It is not merely a lack of belief. It is a positive and subjective belief in naturalism. And hence a belief in a natural cause of the universe, and everything that exists or has ever existed.

 

What is religion?

It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from absolutely nothing.

The incredible fantasy promoted by some high profile, atheist 'scientists' - that the universe was able to create itself from nothing - is merely a cynical and unscientific attempt to evade the scientific law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.

A child can understand that something CANNOT create itself. For something to create itself, it would have to pre-exist its own creation in order to do the creating. In which case, it already exists and has no need to create itself. And, if something already exists, it is not 'nothing'.

It is an insult to the intelligence of the public that such illogical and unscientific nonsense - as the universe creating itself from nothing - can be presented as 'science'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by high profile scientists.

However, if you believe in the only, truly, credible possibility - that something has always existed with (godlike) powers capable of producing all the wonderful, amazing qualities we see in the existing universe - information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness etc. (science tells us; an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s) - then you believe in a god. The only remaining question is - which god?

Religion seeks to answer that question.

 

So how do we know that atheism false and that God MUST exist?

 

Firstly ...

We know that the universe has not always existed, we know it had a beginning and it is 'running down' from an original peak of energy potential at its beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) confirms that. So we know the universe had an origin.

 

Secondly .....

What about matter itself?

Can matter have always existed? The simple answer is no.

Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effects is very long, it had to have a beginning at some point.

A basic principle of the scientific method is that we can expect to find an adequate cause for every natural occurrence. All scientific research is based on that premise ...

“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

Dr. Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183.

To propose a non-contingent (uncaused), natural occurrence or entity as the originator of the universe (as atheists are forced to do), is unscientific fantasy.

 

Thirdly ....

A supernatural first cause (God) is not a contingent entity. It is not natural, and is not bound by natural laws which govern matter and all natural events. In fact, as the first cause of matter/energy, it is also the author of the laws that govern matter/energy. It cannot be subject to laws it has created.

As the very first cause, it also cannot have had any preceding cause, so we know it cannot be a contingent entity.

Why? Because ...first means first, not second or third. If something is first, nothing preceded it. It must have always existed and must have had within itself the means of its own existence. It could not have relied on anything else for its existence. So the supernatural, first cause (a creator God) has to be eternally, self-existent and necessary.

It also has to have the powers and ability to create everything else that exists in the universe. As the original cause, it has to be an adequate cause of everything ...of all causes and effects that follow it, forever. That means - it has to have the powers, properties and qualities sufficient to create: time, matter/energy, natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness and every characteristic that humans have. Because we, as a mere effect of the first cause, cannot be greater than that which ultimately caused us.

 

So God is the non-contingent, self-existent, necessary, supernatural, first cause of everything in the universe.

That is the logical conclusion of the understanding and application of natural laws.

 

ATHEIST BELIEF IN A NATURAL FIRST CAUSE VIOLATES NATURAL LAW.

THUS ATHEISM IS ILLOGICAL, AND ANTI-SCIENCE.

 

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

 

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:

A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.

'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.

Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.

We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.

We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

 

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

 

What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.

It is patently obvious there can only be one supernatural first cause.

The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.

If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.

If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.

So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.

 

Does the first cause have to be a supernatural one, or is it (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?

 

What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something which cannot be explained by science, natural laws or by natural processes.

 

The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.

Why?

Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.

Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity.

To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical first cause? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but science certainly cannot envisage a causeless, natural event or entity, science cannot look for non-causes.

 

No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever they are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.

The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it was claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember it was claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.

 

Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or perhaps, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question. Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities. And the whole essence of science is the fact that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.

The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.

 

If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.

You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws. For that reason it is inexplicable to science.

In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.

Those who believe such nonsense are enemies of science.

 

ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.

Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.

 

The argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe. It is a nonsensical argument because natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities, those properties don’t change.

However, even if we accept the possibility that natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.

Why?

Because the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things. In fact, it is better described as an eternal truth, rather than a law.

It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to natural entities. Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method is based on it being true.

We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.

Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.

Natural things are all temporal and therefore can never escape from that overriding principle.

 

Everything with a temporal character is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, wherever and whenever it exists. There cannot be an exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on exploring causes.

 

So, even if the argument that we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe is correct, it doesn't and can't apply to the principle of causality.

The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.

 

FACT: If something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.

So, it is not possible to propose a natural origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and therefore are all subject to cause and effect.

 

The only thing not subject to a cause is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it is infinite and eternally self-existent.

The first cause doesn’t violate the law of cause and effect, because it is only a cause and not an effect. The law states that every effect requires a cause, not that everything requires a cause.

Everything, other than the first cause is an effect, is contingent, and owes its existence to causes, which ultimately originate with the uncaused, first cause (God).

 

Atheism is debunked ... and God MUST exist.

___________________________________________

____________________________________________

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin.

Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

 

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.

Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

Which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?

You may think this is a stupid question -

Because ...

Atheism is claimed by atheists and the popular media as the rational, scientific viewpoint. While Christianity is portrayed as an irrational, outdated, backward enemy of science.

Many of us have been conditioned to believe this.

But is what they say actually true?

The answer may surprise you.

 

What does science itself have to say?

 

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

 

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

 

Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.

 

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.

 

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:

Christianity 1

Atheism 0

_________________________________________

 

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that both the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.

 

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

 

Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a subsequent, continuing development of order.

 

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.

 

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:

Christianity 2

Atheism 0

_________________________________________

 

3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.

 

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

 

Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – a natural, first cause of the universe that was uncaused.

 

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:

Christianity 3

Atheism 0

__________________________________________

 

4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.

 

Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.

 

Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which would obviously be inadequate to produce the effect.

i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe [such as a (Big Bang) explosion or quantum effects] which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe.

 

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:

Christianity 4

Atheism 0

_________________________________________

 

5. The Law of Biogenesis says – only life begets life, it cannot arise by purely natural processes from sterile matter.

 

Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.

 

Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.

The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.

Regardless of the facts, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, quite perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.

Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition when environmental conditions are conducive.

Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from? Ironically, this predisposition for life is fatal to the atheist idea of a purposeless universe? A classic, catch 22 situation.

 

Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis

_________________________________________

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:

Christianity 5/5

Atheism 0/5

_________________________________________

So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?

Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.

Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.

Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with god-like, non-contingent, autonomous powers, which (according to science) they clearly don't possess.

This means ....

Christianity is more scientific than atheism.

 

_________________________________________

Conclusion ...

Christianity is compatible with science.

Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.

_________________________________________

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin.

Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

 

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.

Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

  

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

Artist: Eme Freethinker

HILL COUNTRY

 

"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.

 

Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.

 

But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.

 

In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area

 

Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryh02

   

The progressive, evolution story

is one huge MISTAKE

which, ironically,

depends on MISTAKES

as its mechanism ...

Mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

So that the whole human genome

is created from billions of mistakes.

 

If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.

  

EVOLUTION .....

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....

the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

 

So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

 

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.

 

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.

But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

 

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

 

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.

 

Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

 

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

 

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

 

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the incredible idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected and preserved by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over millions of years.

 

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

 

Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not at all surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.

If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you would be daft to expect it to improve the operation of the machine. However, evolutionists ignore such common sense and propose that something (which, similarly, would be expected to cause damage) caused billions of constructive improvements in complexity, design and function, ultimately transforming microbes into men, and every other, living thing.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....

Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations just as much as everyone else. You can bet your bottom dollar that you won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents in order to 'improve' humanity. You certainly won't get evolutionists deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution by mutations a helping hand. No way!

 

Evolutionists know perfectly well that mutations are very risky and are most likely to be harmful, certainly not something anyone should desire.

Yet, perversely, they still present them as the (magical) agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. They present and teach that extraordinary belief as though it is an irrefutable fact.

If we don't believe the progressive evolution fantasy, or dare to question it, we are branded as unscientific, ignorant, uneducated, backward thinking cranks or fanatics.

Incredible!

I suppose, one way to try to stifle opposition to a crazy idea, is to insult or ridicule those who oppose it. The story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind.

 

It is understandable that, people are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

 

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new, anatomical structures, organs etc. and that really is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool (existing, genetic imformation). Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

 

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

 

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.

 

To clarify further ...

Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ludicrous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of an accumulation of billions of random, genetic copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and on - and on.

 

In other words ...

Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing, or that has ever lived, was created by an incredibly, long series of random mistakes adding to previous, random mistakes.

 

If we look at the whole picture ...

we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, complementary sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated and randomly, occurring mistakes ... i.e. a random mistake accruing upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - over and over again, billions of times.

 

This notion is so incredible, we must emphasise once again what it actually means -

It means that all the body parts, systems and biological processes of all living things are the result of literally billions of random, genetic MISTAKES, accumulated over many (alleged) millions of years. This amazing thing occurred from one, original, living cell, which, it is claimed (without any evidence), spontaneously arose, entirely of its own volition, from sterile matter, in some imagined, primordial, soup scenario (contrary to the well established and unfalsified Law of Biogenesis).

Consider this ...

If, for example, there is no genetic information (constructional instructions) for bones (or any other body part) in the alleged, original, living cell, how could copying mistakes of the limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely, new constructive information? That's right, it simply couldn't, it is sheer fantasy.

 

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Utterly incredible!

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations.

 

Conclusion:

 

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

 

The progressive, evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question the new 'improved', neo-Darwinian version of progressive evolution are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils...

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

 

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

 

So, it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

 

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

 

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

 

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

 

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

When no evidence is cited as evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

 

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

 

Nebraska Man (a pig),

 

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

 

Orce man (a donkey),

 

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

 

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

 

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

 

Peking Man (a monkey),

 

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

 

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

 

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

 

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

 

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

 

Ida - the newly discovered (2009), hominid, 'missing link' (an extinct lemur),

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

Want to publish a science paper?

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

 

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

 

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

 

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

 

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

 

A pig, a horse and a donkey ...

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary (a type of pig). It was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. All based on a single tooth. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, scientist weep.

South West Colorado Man, was based on another single tooth ... of a horse this time! ... also presented as 'scientific' evidence for human evolution.

The Orce Man saga - a tiny fragment of skullcap was presented to the media as a human ancestor, accompanied by the familiar hype and hullaballoo. Embarrassingly, a symposium planned to discuss this supposed, ape-man had to be cancelled at short notice when it was 'discovered' that it was most likely from a donkey!

But, even if it was human, such a tiny fragment of skull is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as had been claimed.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation - The 19th century, evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who inspired Hitler's, Darwinian, master race policies) published fraudulent drawings of embryos, and his theory was enthusiastically accepted by evolutionists as proof of progressive evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor - A so-called, feathered dinosaur from the Chinese, fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man - Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... eventually admitted that it was actually a giant gibbon. However, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it. So, evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it and still maintained it was a human ancestor. It later turned out that Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention he had found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient, limestone burning, industrial site, where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So, that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series - fossils of unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth - moths were glued to trees in order to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing, gene pool, is NOT progressive evolution. It is just an example of normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material, and even plant seeds, were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis), which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there. And hence, abiogenesis could be declared by evolutionists as a scientific fact.

 

'Missing link' Ida - Hyped up by evolutionists (including the renowned, wildlife documentary, presenter Sir David Attenborough) in 2009 as a newly discovered, “missing link” of human evolution. This allegedly, 47-million-year-old fossil was discovered in Germany. However, it is now obvious that Ida is not evidence of primate (or human) evolution at all, it is simply an extinct type of lemur.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The honest answer to that question has to be an emphatic - NO!

 

The accepted definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Progressive evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief, based primarily on preconceptions.

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes-to-man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis). They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Progressive evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

 

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

 

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

 

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

DNA.

The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.

 

It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.

Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.

 

Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?

Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.

However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.

 

Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

 

Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.

That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,

Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

 

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.

For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.

You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.

The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.

So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.

Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.

 

It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.

 

For example:

1. The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life), and has never been falsified, is not universally valid.

 

2. They have no explanation of where the first, genetic information came from. Information Theory rules out an orign of such, constructive information by natural processes.

 

3. They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.

 

4. They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.

 

5. They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.

 

6. They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.

 

7. They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).

 

8. They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.

 

9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.

 

10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.

 

11. They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.

 

There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.

It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.

 

Evolutionism is not science.

Science is the method through which theories are tested and re-tested. However, today evolution is guarded against such scrutiny and taught uncritically in our public schools. This pervasive defense of naturalism has led students to view Darwinism as the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This presentation will encourage critical thinking of scientific interpretations, and examine the bedrock evidence for the theory of evolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6hm2kpYiY&list=TLGGI4E1iBi7...

 

We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.

That is another great MISTAKE!

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

 

EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.

peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

Abiogenesis - the atheist and evolutionist belief - that life can spontaneously generate itself from sterile matter, whenever environmental conditions are conducive .... And the belief that this actually happened in the early Earth.

 

Is it possible?

 

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO INFORMATION THEORY.

 

Three fundamentals are essential for the material universe to exist: matter - energy - information.

Obviously, all theories about how the universe operates, and its origins, must take account of all three. However, every evolutionary, origin of life hypothesis yet devised (primordial soup, hydrothermal vent, etc. etc.) concentrates on the chemistry/physics of life, i.e. the interaction of matter and energy.

Atheists and evolutionists have virtually ignored the essential role and origin of information. We should demand to know why? Especially as we are told (through the popular media and education system) that an evolutionary, origin of life scenario, should be regarded as irrefutable, scientific fact.

 

Atheists and evolutionists are well aware that the information required for life cannot just arise of its own accord in a primordial soup. So why do they usually omit this crucial fact from their origin of life story?

 

In order to store information, a storage code is required. Just as the alphabet and language is the code used to store information in the written word, life requires both the information itself, which controls the construction and operation of all living things, and the means of storing that information. DNA is the storage code for living things.

No evolutionary, origin of life hypothesis has ever explained either how the DNA storage system was formed, or how the information encoded within that DNA storage system originated. In fact, even to attempt to look for the origin of information in physical matter is to ignore the natural laws about information.

 

Information theory completely rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

Information theory tells us: ANY MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE BASED SOLELY ON PHYSICAL AND/OR CHEMICAL PROCESSES, IS INHERENTLY FALSE. And: THERE IS NO KNOWN LAW OF NATURE, NO KNOWN PROCESS AND NO KNOWN SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, WHICH CAN CAUSE INFORMATION TO ORIGINATE BY ITSELF IN MATTER… So information theory not only rules out all evolutionary hypotheses which cannot explain the origin of information in original life, it also rules out all evolutionary hypotheses which cannot explain the origin of the completely new, increasingly complex information which would be required to be added to a gene pool for progressive evolution to take place in existing life.

 

Because of their zealous and unshakable faith in Darwinian evolution, most evolutionists choose to ignore this. They simply refuse to face this most important question of all, where does the complex information essential for all life come from? The reason seems obvious, it is because there are only two answers which could be compatible with the evolution fable, both are unscientific nonsense which violate information theory. They are: 1. That information can just arise magically out of nowhere. OR 2. That the material universe is an intelligent entity, which can actually create information.

(See more on genetic information and the DNA code later on)

 

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

 

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS.

 

The Law of Biogenesis rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter under all known circumstances. All modern scientists now accept this well tested law as valid. It has never been falsified. In fact, the concept of medical sterilisation, hygiene & food preservation is wholly dependent on this law.

No sensible scientist would dare to claim that spontaneous generation of life ever happens in the world today, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this Law (like every natural law) is not always valid, in all places and at all times, within the material universe.

Yet, amazingly, because of their belief in biological evolution, evolutionists are quite prepared to flout this well, established Law and to resurrect the ancient belief in abiogenesis (life arising from non-life). Like latter-day advocates of the ancient Greek belief (that the goddess Gea could make life arise spontaneously from stones), evolutionists and atheists routinely present to the public (as a fact), the preposterous notion that, original life on earth (and even elsewhere in the universe) just spontaneously generated itself from inert matter. Apparently, all that was required to bypass this well established Law was a chance accumulation of chemicals in some alchemist’s type brew of ‘primordial soup’ combined with raw energy from the sun, lightning or geothermal forces. (Such is their faith in the creative powers of matter). They call this science? Incredible!

 

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

 

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

 

The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Even if we ignore the above reasons why spontaneous generation of life is impossible, the formation and arrangement by chance of all the components required for living cells is also impossible. The arrangement of all the components within the simplest of living cells is extremely precise; these components cannot just arrange themselves by chance.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered. Or in other words, things will naturally go to more probable arrangements and disorder is overwhelmingly more probable than order. Disorder actually increases with the passage of time and also with the application of raw (undirected) energy (for example, heat).

Yet we are repeatedly told the evolution fable, that the numerous components required to form a first, self-replicating, living cell just assembled themselves in precise order, by pure chance, over a vast period of time, aided by the random application of raw, undirected energy.

 

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

 

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.

 

A fundamental principle of science is the law of cause and effect. It is a primary law of science, and the very basis of the scientific method.

The law of cause and effect tells us that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

Life is not an intrinsic property of matter/energy - so it is beyond the capabilities of matter/energy to produce a property (life) it doesn't possess.

The interaction of matter and energy cannot produce an effect with properties extra and superior to its own properties, that would violate the law of cause and effect.

 

Can chemistry create biology - which has entirely different properties to its own?

Of course it can't.

Biology includes such properties as genetic information, the DNA code, consciousness and intelligence. To believe that chemistry can create biology - means believing that something inanimate can create additional, new properties that it doesn't possess. To exceed the limitations of its own properties would violate the law of cause and effect.

 

For matter/energy to be able to produce life whenever environmental conditions permit, it would have to be inherently predisposed to produce life.

It would have to embody an inherent plan/blueprint/instructions for life, as one of its properties. The inevitable question then has to be - where does an inherent predisposition for life come from? It can only signify the existence of purpose in the universe and that is something atheists could never accept.

A purpose, order or plan can only come from a planner or intelligent entity. So it is a catch 22 situation for atheists ... the atheist/ evolutionist belief in abiogenesis either violates the law of cause and effect, OR is an admission of purpose in the universe. It can only be one or the other. Atheists cannot possibly accept the existence of purpose in the universe, because that would be the end of atheism. So the atheist belief in abiogenesis violates the law of cause and effect.

 

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

 

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO MATHEMATICS.

 

Even if we ignore the Law of Biogenesis, Information Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which all completely rule out the spontaneous generation of a living cell from non-living matter). Mathematical probability also rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.

The laws of probability are summed up in the Law of Chance. According to this Law, when odds against a chance event are 10 to the power of 15, the chance of that event happening are negligible on a terrestrial scale. At odds of 10 to the power of 50, there is virtually no chance, even on a cosmic scale. The most generous and favourable, mathematical odds against a single living cell appearing in this way by chance are a staggering 10 to the power of 40,000. A more likely calculation would put the odds at an even more awesome 10 to the power of 119,850. Remember odds of 10 to the power of 50 is sufficient to make an event virtually impossible (except, perhaps, by magic!!).

 

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible

 

Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist 19 Nov 1981. p.526. On the origin of life in primeval soup.

“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognise that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so. The biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles.”

 

“Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated, it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarising the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.” Bio-informaticist, Hubert P. Yockey. Journal of Theoretical Biology [Vol 91, 1981, p 13].

 

Conclusion: Abiogenesis is impossible - it is just another atheist myth debunked by science.

 

Evolutionists and atheists are quite entitled to abandon the scientific method and all common sense by choosing to believe that all the necessary information for life can just appear in matter, as if by magic. They can also choose to believe that: the Laws of; Biogenesis, Mathematical Probability, Cause and Effect and Second Law of Thermodynamics, were all somehow magically suspended to enable their purported evolution of life from sterile matter to take place. They can believe whatever they like. But they have no right to present such unscientific, flights of fancy through the media and our education system, as though they are supported by science.

  

More about DNA and the origin of life.

 

The discovery of DNA should have sounded the death knell for evolution. It is only because atheists and evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.

 

It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.

Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.

 

Do atheists/evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?

Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.

However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.

 

Even though atheists/evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

 

Evolutionists/atheists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.

That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists/atheists cynically exploit,

Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

 

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.

For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.

You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.

The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.

So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.

Next time you hear evolutionists/atheists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Many know him as one of the world's top science authors. We were gathered for his non-profit, the Center for Inquiry (CFI), the “only organization in the country that promotes secularism and skepticism to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to all claims about the true nature of reality.”

 

Some of their activities and concerns:

• Secular rescue: like the underground railroad for the thirteen countries where being a non-theist is punishable by death

 

• Battling fake medicine: suing Walmart and CVS for putting poorly-labeled quack homeopathic remedies that lack any active ingredient alongside real children’s medicines on their shelves. Homeopathy is a $3B business in the U.S., and the FDA just ignores it. Here's a punchy video summary.

 

• The decline of critical thought: 40% of Americans think God created the Earth and anatomically modern humans less than 10,000 years ago. Psychics bilk the gullible of $1B per year. “A new age has dawned for pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, religious zealotry, medical quackery, and plain old lies. When no one can trust anything they hear, they will believe what they want, regardless of whether it’s true.”

 

• Of their many programs, my favorite is the CFI Investigations Group, the largest paranormal investigations group in the world: cfiig.org They offer a $500K prize to anyone who can prove anything paranormal or demonstrate anything supernatural. Next time someone prattles on about crystal healing, or homeopathy, or speaking with the dead (1/3 of Americans believe in this!), or telepathy or astrology, and you just can’t anymore, you have a new tool — suggest they go collect the $500K that’s just waiting for them. Why not? If it’s a lack of faith, perhaps they should keep their delusions to themselves.

 

For over 40 years, CFI has advanced reason over fantasy and science over myth. The co-founders, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, B. F. Skinner and James Randi were deeply worried back in the 1970s, that many Americans looked to horoscopes, mystical gurus, spirits of the dead, aliens, and countless other forms of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, and the paranormal.

 

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

 

Thank you to last night’s host David Cowen, and for his support of the rescue of freethinkers, such as the Afghan girls robotics team, after the fall of Kabul. You can donate to CFI too.

~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

For Clichce Saturday -Words scavenger hunt

and The Shutter Divas (We Love Words)

 

Model: Melissa

 

Melissa and I found this awesome abandoned office building today. We climbed through a broken window on the first floor.It was terrifying at first we were so scared that we were going to incounter a homeless person sqautting in there, and the wind slamming doors and make creepy noises didn't help. It was freezing in there, I think I'm finally getting the feeling back in my hands.The word Warriors was spay painted in an office on the second floor. Lots more abandoned awesomeness to come!

 

Bird texture by JoesSistah

But I do. 💓😘🌷

This System is Mentally ill its not for Normal Human Beings

JIMI HENDRIX Street Art by Eme Freethinker (@eme_freethiner) am Blackland Metal Pub (@blackland_berlin), Lilli-Henoch-Str. 1, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg.

Foto: Bernd Sauer-Diete, Mai 2021

 

James Marshall „Jimi“ Hendrix (* 27. November 1942 als John Allen Hendrix in Seattle, Washington; † 18. September 1970 in London) war ein US-amerikanischer Gitarrist, Komponist und Sänger.

A fossil beetle ... Cybister Explanatus

Dated to 2.6 million years ago (evolutionist dating).

This beetle could be regarded as a living fossil, as it is still living today, and is completely unchanged from its fossil form, i.e. it shows no sign of evolution after a couple of million years (evolutionist dating).

 

The adults of this species are edible and are eaten roasted and as a taco filling in Mexico.

 

See examples of fossil fish unchanged after many millions of years: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12683911855/in/photos...

And:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12684146323/in/photos...

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

The creation of intact fossils almost always requires rapid burial in a substantial depth of sediment. This has to take place before they can be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decomposition. If you find a well preserved or intact fossil, it is most unlikely to have been buried gradually. Although that is the way it is often presented in descriptions of how fossils are formed.

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

This fossilised beetle is identical to beetles alive today. Which means it has not evolved at all in over 2 million, alleged years.

 

The life span of such a beetle would be very short. There would be many billions of generations of such beetles in even one million years. That no evolution at all has taken place throughout all the vast number of generations of beetles that there would have been in a million years, is a serious problem for evolutionists.

 

However, you may be surprised to learn that this is not exceptional, it is the general rule.

 

For example, other insects found in amber, which are claimed to be many millions of years old, are the same as insects alive today. An insect's life span is shorter than many other creatures, and the number of generations in a million years much greater. But in spite of this there is still no sign of any evolutionary change.

 

So-called living fossils, such as the Horseshoe Crab also remain un-evolved, some of them after an alleged hundred or more million years,

What many people don't know is ... that whenever a creature/plant alive today is found as a fossil, there is no major difference between the fossil version and the present one. In other words, no evidence of any evolutionary change.

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

 

Progressive, macro evolution is based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. Macro evolution is based on a belief in a complete progression from microbes to man through millions of random, genetic copying MISTAKES. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is unscientific nonsense which defies logic.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information, that is what is essential for macro evolution. Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all.

 

Macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of genetic copying mistakes. mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... etc. etc.

 

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

 

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell: every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - etc. etc.

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Conclusion: progressive, microbes-to-man is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is a fairy tale.

 

Atheist myths debunked - Abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of life.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768

Snapshot: an honest moment caught: in the act of creation. When painting or drawing, I am swept up in a whole other world. As I said to one journalist: “When creating, I found at some moments I flew out of myself, becoming purely a channel for inspiration: there was an almost total loss of self-consciousness.

 

******************************************************************************************

 

Spirituality is not to be found in the bricks of churches or at the end of one’s kneeling knees. It is not to be found in the pile of unintelligible New-Age bilge or in off-key Hymn singing. It is not to be found in the Bible or in the so-called sacred text of Islam or in the spouting of pious platitudes on street corners. It is not in the act of giving spare change to a bum or yearly donations to ‘save the planet’ crusades. It is religion that has pre-empted the word ‘spiritual’ making it very difficult to communicate this phenomenon in solely secular terms. Spirituality is to be found at the center of a truly individualized person. It is to be found in love and art—in the act of truly loving someone---and in the act of creating or enjoying a work of art, a work that makes you feel alive. It is love and the act of creation that is united in passion and devotion. This is the human potential at its peek. Love and art: This is where you’ll find spiritually.

 

********************************************************************************************

 

--

Click Texas

 

CLICK, TEXAS . Click is on Barnett Branch near Sandy Creek in Sandy Valley, fifteen miles southeast of Llano in southeastern Llano County. It was granted a post office in 1880 with Benjamim F. Lowe as postmaster. The community was named for the large family descended from Malachi Click, an early settler. At one time it had a church, a school, and a store, but the post office was closed after 1940, and the population had declined to twenty by 1966.

 

©UncoveredTexas.com

  

History on a Pinhead

 

The town was founded by one Malachi Click whose family provided a good percentage of the population. A post office was granted in 1880. The town did once have a school, store and church but the post office was closed sometime after 1940 and the town has maintained a low historic profile ever since. The only population figure dates from the mid-1960s when 20 people lived here. The town has no cemetery - the closest being two at nearby Honey Creek.

 

Click was submitted for inclusion by Robin Nichols of Willow City, Texas who wrote: "In the early part of the twentieth century it was the site of a dispute over cotton(?) and 4 people were shot in the general store. The old general store and post office are still there but abandoned."

 

Texas Escapes.com

  

Click, Texas Forum

 

Click, Texas was named for my great-great grandfather. I have an envelope that was kept by family members that has a Click, Texas postmark. There is quite a bit of history about the Click and Walker family that has been donated to the Llano, Texas city library. Many of the family members are buried in the Comanche West Cemetery just 'south' of the former town. The name of the cemetery is sometimes referred to as the Click and Walker cemetery. - Anna Galloway, Austin, Texas, April 17, 2008

  

HILL COUNTRY

 

"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.

 

Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.

 

But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.

 

In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area

 

Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryh02

 

Have you been led up the garden path of lies?

 

EVOLUTION .....

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....

the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

 

So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

 

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.

 

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

 

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

 

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

 

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

 

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

 

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

 

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.

 

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

 

People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

 

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

 

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

 

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.

 

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

 

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series ... of mistakes ... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc.

 

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.

That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

 

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

 

Conclusion:

 

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

 

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

 

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils.

 

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

 

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

 

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

 

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

 

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

 

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

 

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

 

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

 

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

 

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

When no evidence is cited as evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

 

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

 

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

 

Nebraska Man (a pig),

 

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

 

Orce man (a donkey),

 

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

 

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

 

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

 

Peking Man (a monkey),

 

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

 

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

 

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

 

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

 

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

 

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

 

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

 

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

Want to publish a science paper?

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

 

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

 

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

 

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

 

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

 

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

 

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

 

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

 

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

 

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

 

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

 

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

 

To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:

"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".

What was once a thriving industry and considered the height of fashion is today almost invisible - pipe smoking! While Kapp and Peterson still exist they are a fraction of what they once were. I always loved the smell of pipe smoke as distinct from cigarette smoke!

 

A few weeks ago we bought a brand new Locomotive air horn, the Leslie S5T, with five "chimes" - to be known hereafter as our "People Identified Horn" I just got it installed yesterday and I now have a big red button on my desk. Low and behold after hearing from aidanhodson I immediately pressed the button and shattered the nerves of most of the "Silence Please" brigade who were visiting the library this afternoon.

 

Aiden tells us that "In the workforce photo uploaded by Sharon Corbet, M13/15 my granduncle Frank Porter is fourth from the right, third row from the front. His younger sister my grandmother Lily Porter also worked in K & P, from 1911 when she turned 14. She met her future husband Harry Hodson, my grandfather at K &P."

 

Collection: The Mason Photographic Collection

 

Date: ca. 1890-1910

 

NLI Ref: M13/8

 

You can also view this image, and many thousands of others, on the NLI’s catalogue at catalogue.nli.ie

 

Something or nothing?

There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?

Existence is a fact!

We know something exists (the physical universe),

but why?

Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?

And where did that something come from?

Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, is being proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator. For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, ‘A Universe from Nothing’. Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’. His ‘nothing’ involves the pre-existence of certain, natural laws and quantum effects.

A well, publicised example of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing was one presented by Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up in a single sentence:

“Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”

 

It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.

In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.

Nothing means absolutely ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.

 

Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.

Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists.

And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in this example ‘gravity’, it cannot be called 'nothing'.

Furthermore, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. And also, How can something pre-exist that which it is a property of? Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.

“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.

 

Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.

Incredibly, Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this law of cause and effect, which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.

Therefore, Stephen Hawking's natural, 'theory of everything' which he summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence:

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

 

Religion?

Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.

If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.

This means we need to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only remaining question is - which god?

Is the godlike entity a creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim? Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which essentially utilises logic and reason, rather than just relying on blind faith.

 

Why God MUST exist ...

There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.

Everything that exists must be one or the other.

The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.

The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.

They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.

The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.

“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes

It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.

Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:

A causes B

B causes C

C causes D

D causes E

‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.

We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.

Why?

Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.

The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

Conclusion …

A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

 

Entropy

The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.

The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.

The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).

As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.

The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.

This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.

However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.

If the material universe was infinite, entropy wouldn’t exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.

The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.

Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.

Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.

That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.

As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.

So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.

This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).

The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was the sin of humankind that corrupted the physical creation, resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...

Scripture: Romans 8:18–25

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."

Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.

Why?

Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.

To put it another way …

God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.

 

Creation - an act of will?

For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.

Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.

Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as “I am”. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).

Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:

The single, supernatural entity:

1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).

2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).

3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.

In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.

The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).

So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.

All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.

Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.

We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.

We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.

We can love. Thus, our creator must love.

We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.

Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.

This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.

It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.

Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?

The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of God’s nature.

For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?

To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.

The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.

Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.

We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.

They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.

 

To sum up:

Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.

God discovered, not invented!

Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.

The real character of atheism unmasked.

Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?

Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation story, summed up in a single sentence.

When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers –

“the universe can and will create itself from nothing”

The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...

The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.

 

God’s power.

Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.

This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.

What caused God?

Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.

The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.

This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:

“What caused God then?”

This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.

As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.

Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.

It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.

First means 'first', it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.

So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.

God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.

As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).

Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?

This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.

Why?

It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.

Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.

Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.

Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.

What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?

Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.

It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.

Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.

For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.

As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. 2 is 2 ones, 3 is 3 ones, etc.

The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.

The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

 

The Law of Cause and Effect

Dominant Principle of Classical Physics

Chance Events? Nothing happens by chance! Classical Science, which dominated studies

of the physical universe before the Twentieth Century, generally held an opinion that

there are no events that happen by chance. For many centuries, it seemed obvious that

all things were caused by something physical or mental. This idea was expressed by

Hippocrates of Cos (c. 460-377 B.C.): “Every natural event has a natural cause.” [1, p.

12].

History of the Concept of Cause and Effect. The concept of order maintained by the law

of cause and effect is a scientific principle with a history traceable through Hebrew,

Babylonian, Greek, and modern civilizations.

Hebrew Concept of Causality. Certain Hebrews acknowledged the role of causality in the

universe before the Babylonians and Greeks. These Hebrews denied chance and its offspring

chaos:

That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting

That there is none besides Me;

I am the LORD, and there is no other;

I form the light and create darkness,

I make peace and create calamity;

I, the LORD, do all these things.…

Shall the clay say to him who forms it, “What are you making?”

Or shall your handiwork say, “He has no hands”?…

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

..To me,yes.Anything and everything under the sun can be interesting once u have the camera in ur hand.

This was clicked at the jumma masjid at ahmedabad a few days back...

 

>> Knowledge of what is possible is the beginning of happiness..

 

>> I was a freethinker before i knew how to think..

 

please scroll down for the other versions and frames of this picture.

 

This was one of the winners at the Bsb-Two Contest..

 

View on black:

View On Black

 

Cheers!!!

Freethought Day is October 12th. It's the annual observance by freethinkers and secularists of the anniversary of the effective end of the Salem Witch Trials. I read that just up the road in Sacramento, our State Capital, a three-day festival to honor the occasion starts today. The theme is "Spread the Reason". I can't get up there this weekend, but I would certainly love to see a rampant spread of reason!

www.freethoughtday.org/about.html

 

Im Wald series, 2020

 

Erwin Olaf Springveld (1959-2023) is internationally renowned as one of the most prominent Dutch photographic artists, praised for his distinctive staging, unique lighting, perfectionism, and controversial subjects. He was a freethinker, and the pursuit of personal freedom was the foundation of everything he did—whether it concerned identity, sexuality, and gender, the human body in all its manifestations, nightlife, or equal rights for everyone.

The exhibition is a journey through Erwin Olaf's rich oeuvre, beginning with his journalistic, handheld black-and-white reportages from the early 1980s. These reveal all his engagement, with subjects such as gay rights demonstrations. His love of light and composition is clearly visible; his desire for greater control led him to his next step: staged studio photography.

 

Erwin Olaf - Freedom, exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam from October 11, 2025, to March 1, 2026.

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

 

On behalf of Britain, I ask the whole world to accept the sincere apologies of the British people, for the damage done to science and society by Charles Darwin.

Britain has a great scientific heritage, having produced some of the world's finest, and greatest scientists. However, Britain's enormous contribution to science has been seriously sullied by the false ideas popularised by Charles Darwin, which have led to a serious decline in scientific integrity, and spawned a whole catalogue of fakes, frauds and very dubious science.

 

Although it has been evident for some time that Darwinian, progressive evolution is not scientifically credible, and that there is a great deal of evidence against it, the idea has now developed a life of its own, and has become an essential lynch pin in an ideological agenda. As a consequence, there is no longer any normal, scientific objectivity permitted and Darwinism has become uniquely sacrosanct, even to the extent of it being given a protected status in science education by some national governments. This is very damaging to genuine, scientific endeavour, and has had the effect of creating a virtual straitjacket, for any field of research that is likely to have any adverse implications for Darwinism.

 

So what is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

 

The fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

 

So what exactly was the erroneous idea that Darwin popularised?

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

 

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, body parts etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were strictly limited, as the science of selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are literally ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the fanciful idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on the belief in a total progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be regarded as unscientific nonsense. It defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

 

People are often confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of progressive, macro-evolution.

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating entirely new structures, body parts, organs etc. and that is a FACT.

It is no wonder that Professor W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity".

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story. The dogs remain dogs and will always remain dogs. Hundreds of years of experiment and observation through selective breeding confirms that.

 

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of billions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

 

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA), of every living thing that has ever lived, was created by a series built on previous mistakes ... mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc.

 

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, body parts, organs, biological systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed - in all living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes, all built on previous mistakes ... mistake upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic MISTAKES over many millions of years.

 

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been transformed from an original, single, living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

 

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils.

 

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that any rock containing good, intact fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes under catastrophic conditions.

 

The very existence of intact fossils is testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

You don't need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

But what does leading sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault have to say:

www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Drama in the rocks - the scientific evidence of rapid strata formation - confirmed by the scientific method of experiment and observation.

youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

 

Living Fossils - when NO evidence IS evidence.

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

 

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

 

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution, and Nebraska Man (found 3 years before the trial) was resurrected and given increased media publicity leading up the trial in order to influence the outcome.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

 

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also promoted as 'scientific' evidence for evolution by evolutionists in the popular media leading up to the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

 

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

 

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to

the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

Evolution is a fairy tale.

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

___________________________________________

THE GREAT MISTAKE

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15650423453

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

JIM MORRISON Street Art by Eme Freethinker (@eme_freethiner) am Blackland Metal Pub (@blackland_berlin), Lilli-Henoch-Str. 1, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg.

Foto: Bernd Sauer-Diete, Mai 2021

 

James Douglas „Jim“ Morrison (* 8. Dezember 1943 in Melbourne, Florida; † 3. Juli 1971 in Paris) war ein US-amerikanischer Sänger, Songwriter und Lyriker. Er war der Frontmann der Rockband The Doors.

One of the simplest way to be HAPPY is letting GO of the things that makes you SAD.....😍😘😎.. #awesome #awesome_shots #absolutelyfabulous #happiness #joy #stressbuster #honesty #trust #love #perfect #positivevibes #beautiful #rainydays #happytimes #bravehearts #inspiration #motivation #freethinkers #positivity #changeyourthoughts

The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.

 

Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.

 

They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.

Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.

 

Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.

Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.

And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.

Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.

The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......

 

Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.

 

Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.

You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.

 

For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.

For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.

 

Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.

 

Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.

 

Please read on and you will understand ......

 

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

 

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.

The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

 

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?

And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

 

Shall we analyse it?

"Because there is a law of gravity ....

 

So,

1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?

AND -

2) Where did the law of gravity come from?

AND -

3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

 

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

 

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?

(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

 

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?

AND -

6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?

Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

 

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

 

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.

The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".

However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.

We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.

The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

 

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).

Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?

Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

 

Here it is again ...

‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

 

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.

AMAZING!

 

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

 

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

 

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.

Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

 

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.

IMPRESSED? I think not!

 

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

 

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.

Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?

That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

 

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?

Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.

They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.

That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.

Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

 

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?

How does that fit in?

 

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.

The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.

So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

 

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.

That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.

Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.

 

An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.

So is it a valid solution?

 

Firstly .....

Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).

Why?

Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.

Secondly ....

It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.

It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.

Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.

The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.

Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?

If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.

The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.

Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.

Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

 

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?

Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.

In addition ....

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.

So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?

Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.

It can only be one of two options,

an uncaused, natural first cause

OR

an uncaused, supernatural first cause.

An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.

Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

 

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….

And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.

We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.

The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

 

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.

SO ....

Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

 

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

 

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.

ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.

Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

 

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.

If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?

Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

 

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

 

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?

Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

 

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.

That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.

By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

 

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.

Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

 

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

 

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

 

Which one would you choose?

 

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?

The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.

So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

 

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?

OR,

the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

No contest!

 

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

 

The question of purpose ....

A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

 

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.

The development of order requires an organizational element.

To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.

Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

 

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.

If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.

Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!

Bogus science indeed!

This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

 

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?

In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.

Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.

Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.

This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.

Atheists say the exact opposite.

Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

 

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.

There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.

It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.

Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.

Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.

However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

 

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

 

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

 

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

 

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

 

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

 

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

 

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

 

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

 

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

 

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

 

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

 

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.

They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.

However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

 

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.

 

What about Christianity and pagan gods?

 

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

 

Do they have a good point?

 

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.

They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.

They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.

In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.

For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

 

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.

Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.

This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

 

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?

How true is that?

 

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

 

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?

If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.

That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.

All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.

That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.

Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.

Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.

So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.

The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.

In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...

The effect cannot be greater than the cause....

So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,

If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.

If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.

If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.

That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

 

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

 

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.

The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.

This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.

That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.

But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.

A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.

Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism is the real enemy of science.

 

So please ignore the atheist bus slogans, they are not worth the ink the are printed with.

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

inspired by JP Freethinker's shot here: www.flickr.com/photos/crazydriver1420/16603753389/

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....

the real fact, as we will show later, is that there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

 

Classical Darwinism: Evolution by creeps.

What was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?

Put simply ...

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the gradual transformation of a first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

 

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis, or duplication, of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged, multi-million year timescale.

 

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from that which is already there, it cannot create any new information.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But, because Darwinism had so quickly and widely acquired a status more akin to an ideology than objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science. Thus classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism could not be supported scientifically, and should not even merit the status of a scientific theory, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

 

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) would require the creation of new, genetic information.

 

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been consigned to the dustbin of history,

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea as unscientific nonsense, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so important, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which depended on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

 

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

 

That mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

Enter Neo-Darwinism: Evolution by freaks.

 

Because the majority of the public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was undoubtedly a crank, all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the ‘theory’ had been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

 

The true fact that classical Darwinism had always been demonstrably wrong and was fatally flawed from the outset, was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and who were the real champions of science, continued to be ridiculed and vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and the establishment.

 

The new developments were portrayed simply as an updating of the ‘theory’. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with Darwin’s original idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge ....

A sort of progressive evolution of the whole idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So, what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the (ludicrous) idea that random mutations (which are accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

 

However, there is no evidence for it, and it should be classed as unscientific nonsense, it defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

 

It is understandable that people can be confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. It is a disgrace that evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

 

Such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is being hoodwinked and lied to. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution, and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations, capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that the distinguished entomologist, W R Thompson wrote in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... “the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.”

 

Micro-evolution is just the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes, outside the extent of the existing gene pool, requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, constructive, genetic information. That is essential for ‘macro’ evolution. And that is a massive problem.

 

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. Therefore, micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. Apart from the idea that both require natural selection, there is no other connection, whatever evolutionists may claim.

 

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various, dog breeds, for example, are just limited micro-evolution (selection of existing, genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and fully, informed evolutionists know that is an irrefutable fact.

 

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the incredible idea that everything in the genome of humans, and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) , is purely the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic, copying mistakes..... mutations accrued upon previous mutations, and on - and on - and on.

 

Although evolutionists don’t like to state it this way, Neo-Darwinism actually proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series of cumulative mistakes ... mistakes upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc. In other words, the complete genome of every living thing is made up of nothing more than an incredibly long chain of mistakes. That is the mind-boggling truth about the neo-Darwinian, evolution story. For obvious reasons, it is something evolutionists would prefer you not to think about too much.

 

When we do think about it, we soon realise that what is actually being proposed is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created entirely from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.

That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

 

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, reproductive organs, or something like the process of insect metamorphosis, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool.

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single, living cell into humans by an incredibly, vast accumulation of these imaginary, beneficial mutations.

 

Conclusion:

 

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

 

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

 

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils.

 

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

 

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

 

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

 

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

 

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

 

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

 

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

 

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

 

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

 

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

Evolution - multi-million year timescale debunked.

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

When no evidence is cited as evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

 

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

 

Nebraska Man (a pig),

 

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

 

Orce man (a donkey),

 

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

 

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

 

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

 

Peking Man (a monkey),

 

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

 

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

 

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

 

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

 

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

 

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

 

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

 

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

Want to publish a science paper?

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

 

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

 

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

 

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

 

Is that 'science'?

 

Punctuated Equilibrium: Evolution by Jerks.

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

_____________________________________________

A pig, a horse and a donkey!

 

The pig ....

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans. Highly imaginative artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc.

Having been 'discovered' 3 years prior to the Scopes Trial, it was resurrected, and given renewed publicity, shortly before the trial - presumably, in order to influence the trial and convince the public of the scientific evidence for evolution.. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

 

The horse ....

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... also hailed as ‘scientific’ evidence for human evolution.

 

The donkey ....

Orce man, loudly proclaimed by evolutionists to be scientific evidence of an early hominid, based on the discovery of a tiny fragment of skullcap. This is now believed to have most likely come from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as it was claimed. A symposium which had been planned to discuss this alleged human 'missing link' had to be embarrassingly cancelled when it was identified as being very similar to a donkey skull.

_________________________________________

 

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

 

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

 

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

 

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

 

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:

"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".

 

The real theory of everything

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211

 

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561/in/dat...

What is atheism?

Modern atheists say that atheism is the non-belief in ALL deities (gods). They also say things like; atheism does not require any beliefs - similar to not believing in fairies. Some even say that atheism is like not being a stamp collector or not engaging in some other hobby.

However, many people would disagree with the idea that atheism doesn't require any beliefs, or is not in itself a type of ideology/religion. The Bible proclaims that such atheism is irrational nonsense (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God).

 

So which view is correct?

 

Is it rational or feasible to reject ALL deities, and could such a rejection be described as simply a non-belief, similar to not believing in fairies?

Rejecting all deities seems fine at first glance. However, if we bother to consider what it really means, we soon realise that rejecting ALMOST all deities could be feasible - BUT not EVERY deity, because there is one particular exception..

 

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that all deities (gods) are NOT the same. They can’t all be lumped together. There is one particular deity that is fundamentally different from all the others. There is one particular deity that it is not credible for any rational person to reject or dismiss. This may seem like a bold statement but, as we will see, it is not logically possible to reject the deity (God) that is regarded as the ‘Creator’ or supernatural, first cause of the universe.

 

Why?

 

Because, if you reject the supernatural, first cause, you have no option but to transfer all the creative powers and godlike attributes of the supernatural, first cause to nature or the natural/material realm. This means you effectively deify nature.

So by attempting to eliminate one deity - a supernatural, first cause (God) - you simply create another deity with similar, godlike powers (such as Mother Nature) to replace it.

Therefore, no rational person can honestly reject belief in a creator god. The only question is; which god best fits the bill of being the creator of the universe?

Is it the supernatural, first cause monotheists call ‘God’- or a natural, first cause - a material god of nature?

 

So we are left with the option of choosing which creator god (first cause) to believe in? Either - a supernatural, first cause (God) - or a natural, first cause (a material, pagan style god)? We do not have the choice or luxury of believing in neither, there is no other option. This reveals the atheist claim that it is rational, feasible or logical to reject ALL deities as completely bogus.

 

A most crucial question in this matter is ….

Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems the most logical viewpoint would be the idea of eternal nothingness – i.e. total non- existence - that there is not, never was and never has been, the existence of anything. However, it is not that easy, we don’t have that option, because something definitely does exist and thus we are forced to face the question of why and how something exists here and now, rather than an eternal, infinite nothingness?

We are left with only two options for where the ‘something’ we know as the material universe came from? - It either came from:

1) An eternally, pre-existing nothingness.

OR

2) An eternally, pre-existing something.

The first option of something tangible/material arising of its own volition from absolute and complete nothingness is not logically credible. It is safe to say it is a certain impossibility. There is no rational argument that can be made for such a scenario. Which means that we are forced to accept the second option (an eternally pre-existing something) as the only credible possibility for the origin of everything that now exists.

If the ‘something’ that eternally pre-existed the material universe has always existed, it must be entirely self-sufficient in its ability to exist. Which means it is eternally self-existent, i.e. not dependent on anything else, other than itself, for its origin or its continued existence. It always has, and always will exist.

In other words, it is non-contingent and completely independent and autonomous. Nothing can effect, cause or prevent its existence in any way.

It also has to be the first cause of everything else that exists. Without it nothing else could exist.

 

What does science tell us?

Science tells us that all material entities are regulated by natural laws - natural laws are based on the properties of natural/material things. Natural laws allow scientists to make predictions concerning the behaviour of all natural entities. It is obvious that natural things can never exceed the limits of their own inherent properties which natural laws describe. One natural law, that is actually the founding principle behind all scientific research, is the Law of Cause and Effect. It tells us that every natural effect/entity has to have a sufficient or adequate cause. A causeless, natural entity is impossible according to science, science cannot entertain such a prospect, because scientific research is based on looking for a sufficient cause or causes of EVERY natural occurrence. Scientists expect every natural occurrence to be contingent - to be adequately caused. Science cannot look for non-causes. That would be a nonsense. The dilemma here for atheists is that the first cause of everything had to be uncaused, it had to be eternally self-existent, it could not be contingent, it could not be subject to the limits of any natural laws, it had to be entirely autonomous and self-sufficient. It could not rely on causes or anything else for its existence, it had to contain within itself everything it required to exist and furthermore to bring everything else that exists into existence.

 

Atheism is not just a rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, it is also the BELIEF (by default) in the only other option ... a NATURAL first cause.

Atheists may call their natural, first cause - a big bang, a quantum fluctuation of nothing, a singularity, a cyclical universe, a self-creating universe, string theory, or any other fantastical invention.

It makes no difference, because none of them can be UNCAUSED and none of them are ADEQUATE as a first cause of everything that exists in the universe. They are all contingent and all inferior to the end result, and consequently ALL are disqualified as possible, first causes by the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

So atheists simply transfer the creative powers, properties and qualities, that theists attribute to a Supernatural, First Cause (God), to a natural entity. In other words, they effectively deify matter/energy and credit matter/energy with godlike, creative powers. Thus atheism is simply a revamped version of the discredited beliefs of pagan naturalism.

Remember the pagan belief in the all powerful Sun god (Ra), or the Moon god, Mother Nature etc.? EXACTLY!

 

A natural first cause is an impossibility, there is no such thing as an UNCAUSED NATURAL event or entity.

That is not my opinion, it is the verdict of science, which is founded on the principle that every natural effect/event/entity requires an adequate cause. There is no exception to that rule. Which means any scenario atheists propose as a natural, first cause cannot be regarded as scientific. They are all unscientific nonsense.

People may be surprised to hear that, because we are conditioned by the popular media and incessant, atheist hype to believe that such proposed, natural causes are a scientific version of origins. It is complete hogwash, they all violate scientific principles without exception, and have got nothing to do with science. The public is being cynically conned and manipulated. All atheist, naturalistic, origin scenarios are based purely on ideology and the pagan religion of naturalism, and that is the true nature of atheism.

 

Pagan naturalism was soundly debunked by the onset of modern science and the understanding that all natural occurrences are contingent - that all natural occurrences MUST have an adequate cause and are subject to, and limited by, natural laws based on the inherent properties of matter/energy. The idea that nature/material things are some sort of power unto themselves - that they are all powerful, autonomous, non-contingent entities which can behave with impunity unrestricted by natural laws etc., that things can just happen the due to the vagaries of Mother Nature etc. was demonstrated by science to be nonsense. Regardless of this, modern atheists are intent on reviving pagan naturalism in a different guise. We have to wonder why?

 

The law of cause and effect is the basis of science. If you deny it, you step outside of science into the realm of metaphysics or magic. That is why atheist naturalism (which credits nature/matter/energy with autonomous powers, unfettered by the restraints and limitations of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws, which are intrinsic to nature) is really a religion. Even worse, it is not a rational religion, it is one which defies logic, science and reason.

 

The law of cause and effect (which is the fundamental basis of the scientific method) tells us that EVERY natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause. The material universe as a whole is no exception. It had to have a beginning and a cause - it is a contingent thing, it cannot exist without causes. Therefore, it cannot possibly be UNCAUSED. It had to have a sufficient cause to bring it into existence). That is the verdict of science. Science can only look for adequate causes, not non-causes. That is the fundamental principle behind all scientific enquiry. Whereas, if we go back far enough, the very first cause of everything material had to be UNCAUSED (i.e. non-contingent and thus non-material) because it is the FIRST cause. No other cause could have preceded it. If another cause preceded it - it would not be the first cause, it would be only a secondary cause and not FIRST. So the first cause of the material realm couldn't be a natural, contingent entity. That would violate the law of cause and effect. Hence for anyone to propose that the first cause could be a natural thing is illogical, unscientific nonsense.

 

Atheists are very fond of repeating the claim that the idea of a creator God/religion is just a human invention.

Christians would say that the existence of a creator God is revealed and confirmed by His revelation to mankind. But whether you accept the revelation argument or not, the claim that God is a human invention is clearly wrong and silly. Because, regardless of revelation, the existence of God is an inevitable conclusion reached by logic and the application of natural laws and principles of science.

So rather than God being a human invention, the existence of God should be described as a discovery. Revelation, scriptures or religious texts are not essential for the knowledge that a creator God must exist. That is a true discovery that can be reached independently of revelation by any sensible, rational, objective person through simple logic and respect for natural laws and science.

 

What about the idea that our knowledge is limited, that we cannot know what took place at the beginning of the universe, we cannot know what laws existed? And therefore to propose a supernatural, first cause (God) as the Creator is just a desperate or lazy way of filling a gap in our knowledge? This is the so-called God-of-the-gaps argument.

 

If we trust science, we simply cannot propose a natural, first cause of the universe as a logical or scientific possibility. We do KNOW that for certain. There is no gap in knowledge as far as that fact is concerned. Our present knowledge is sufficient to rule out a natural, first cause of the universe as impossible according to well established, scientific principles.

The law of cause and effect makes scientific research possible. It is only possible because we trust the scientific principle that we can expect to find an adequate cause or causes for EVERY natural occurrence.

If, like atheists, we want to claim we don't or cannot know whether the universe had an adequate cause - or to claim that a natural first cause could be possible, we are ignoring science and stepping outside of science into fantasy.

That is ALL we need to know, in order to conclude that the atheist paradigm is fatally flawed.

 

The law of cause and effect is exactly that which, as the basic founding principle of modern science, demolished all pagan, naturalist religions, it demolished belief in the autonomous, creative powers of material things. Atheists apparently want to resurrect that belief.

Science is: 'knowledge' through seeking and discovering causes. If anyone claims a natural event happened without an adequate cause - they are anti-science.

 

Therefore, to say "we don't know" what laws existed at the origin of the material universe, as some atheists do, is utter nonsense. The law of cause and effect pertains to matter/energy and ALL natural occurrences - wherever they may be.

All natural events whether inside or outside of the universe are governed by the law of cause and effect. Just like gravity (which is an inherent property of matter), so the principle of causality is an inherent property of everything in the natural world. . Everything ... means all natural entities, events and effects. All natural things, by their very nature, are contingent, that is a fact, and they can't be anything else.

They can never act independently of causes, to say they can is to invoke magic, it is definitely not science.

 

That then, is our understanding of science, it is not just an opinion or assumption. It is the very basis of the scientific method that we can expect to find an adequate cause of every natural occurrence. To say that there may be some natural occurrences that are not subject to the law of cause and effect is to dispute the scientific method. So atheism has no valid, scientific argument, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

 

Is it possible to know the attributes (or character) of God - the Supernatural, First Cause?

 

The evidence that a natural, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE (because it violates natural laws) should be sufficient for any rational person to conclude that the first cause could not be a natural entity, and therefore has to be supernatural. Furthermore, the first cause HAS to be adequate for the effect.

If an effect of the first cause is the universe, then that cause has to embody the potential and power to produce everything that exists in the universe. Nothing in the universe can be superior to that which ultimately caused the universe.

 

AN EFFECT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN ITS CAUSE.

 

Therefore - if there is life in the universe - the first cause or the universe MUST have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe - the first cause MUST have intelligence.

If there is consciousness in the universe - the first cause MUST be conscious.

If there is law in the universe - the first cause MUST be a lawmaker.

If there are morals in the universe - the first cause MUST be moral.

If there is justice in the universe - the first cause MUST be just.

If there is love in the universe - the first cause MUST be loving.

And so on ...

All the powers, properties and qualities that exist in the universe were created by the first cause, so the first cause must possess the ability to create those attributes. None of those attributes can be greater in any respect than the attributes possessed by that which created them. There is no conceivable natural, origins scenario that is adequate to account for every quality that exist in the universe. Which shows that the so-called big bang, singularity or any other proposed, natural, origins scenario is not possible as a first cause.

 

The Bible says we were made in the image of a Creator God who is the first cause of everything material, including us. The Bible thus reveals and confirms the SCIENTIFIC principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. We cannot have any properties or powers that are superior to that which caused the universe, we have inherited all our attributes from the first cause and are therefore made in the image of that cause (the Creator God, as described in the Bible).

 

Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that quantum mechanics or a so-called god-particle are the answer to the origin of the universe and of everything from nothing without the need for any cause?

 

We can say quite categorically that quantum effects haven't got anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.

Why?

It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause, micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.

 

However, the atheist mentality seems to be that if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible to a credulous public.

Just make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, and then people will believe anything is possible.

This is exactly the same little-by-little criteria that atheists apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

 

What makes them think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?

Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?

Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.

Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.

Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

 

Atheists obviously think …. OK, people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, but what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?

What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?

That should sound much more plausible.

What if we could find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle (a substitute for God)? A supernatural, first cause (a creator God) would then be made redundant.

Problem solved - apparently!

People will think that, even if the problem of the origin of everything without a cause hasn’t been solved completely, at least 'science' is well on the way to solving it.

Of course, if anyone stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t possibly come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

 

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved it and, predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.

What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.

A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.

So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shot themselves in the foot....

The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.

An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.

The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.

The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains.

Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.

 

So atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.

 

Wikipedia …

“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.

While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."

 

____________________________________________

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin.

Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

 

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.

Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Independent thinking and open mind concept as a freedom metaphor for an innovative thinker as a cement prison with open metal jail bars shaped as a human head.

Panurbana 174 Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis

Amsterdam Atlas

collage: 3 Photos

format: 35 x 35 cm

see more @ www.panurbana.nl

 

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis (1846-1919) was a freethinker

and founder of socialism and anarchism in the Netherlands. He was committed to the fight against social injustice and stood up for the socially weak and the workers. When it becomes known that General Jo van Heutsz (see Panurbana (171) will receive a monument, this leads to protests in socialist and communist circles. In 1928, a committee was set up for a statue for Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis. The money is raised through donations from workers and left-wing organizations. The statue, made by the sculptor Johan Polet (1894-1971), consists of a cast bronze Domela Nieuwenhuis with a clenched fist. A chained Prometheus with a torch is depicted on the basalt plinth. Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to men.

 

What is atheism?

Modern atheists claim that atheism is the non-belief in ALL deities. They also say that atheism is not a belief - and does not require any beliefs. Some even say that atheism is similar to something like not being a stamp collector or not engaging in some other hobby.

However....

Is it rational or feasible to reject ALL deities?

Rejecting all deities seems fine at first glance. However, if we bother to consider what it really means, we soon realise that rejecting ALMOST ALL deities may be feasible - BUT not every deity, because there is one particular exception..

 

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that not all deities (gods) are the same. They can’t all be lumped together. There is one particular deity that is fundamentally different from all the others. There is one particular deity that it is not credible for any rational person to reject or dismiss. This may seem like a bold statement but, as we will see, it is not logically possible to reject the deity (God) that is regarded as the ‘Creator’ or supernatural, first cause of the universe.

 

Why?

 

Because, if you reject the supernatural, first cause, you have no option but to transfer all the creative powers and godlike attributes of the supernatural, first cause to nature or the natural/material realm. This means you effectively deify nature.

So by attempting to eliminate one deity - a supernatural, first cause (God) - you simply create another deity with similar, godlike powers (such as Mother Nature or Mother Earth) to replace it.

Therefore, no rational person can honestly reject belief in a creator god. The only question is; which god best fits the bill of being the creator of the universe?

Is it the supernatural, first cause monotheists call ‘God’- or a natural, first cause - a material god of nature?

 

So we are left with the option of choosing which creator god (first cause) to believe in? Either - a supernatural, first cause (God) - or a natural, first cause (a material, pagan style god)? We do not have the choice or luxury of believing in neither, there is no other option. This reveals the atheist claim that it is rational, feasible or logical to reject ALL deities as completely bogus.

 

A most crucial question in this matter is ….

Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems the most logical viewpoint would be the idea of eternal nothingness – i.e. total non- existence - that there is not, never was and never has been, the existence of anything. However, it is not that easy, we don’t have that option, because something definitely does exist and thus we are forced to face the question of why and how something exists here and now, rather than an eternal, infinite nothingness?

We are left with only two options for where the ‘something’ we know as the material universe came from? - It either came from:

1) An eternally, pre-existing nothingness.

OR

2) An eternally, pre-existing something.

The first option of something tangible/material arising of its own volition from absolute and complete nothingness is not logically credible. It is safe to say it is a certain impossibility. There is no rational argument that can be made for such a scenario. Which means that we are forced to accept the second option (an eternally pre-existing something) as the only credible possibility for the origin of everything that now exists.

If the ‘something’ that eternally pre-existed the material universe has always existed, it must be entirely self-sufficient in its ability to exist. Which means it is eternally self-existent, i.e. not dependent on anything else, other than itself, for its origin or its continued existence. It always has, and always will exist.

In other words, it is non-contingent and completely independent and autonomous. Nothing can effect, cause or prevent its existence in any way.

It also has to be the first cause of everything else that exists. Without it nothing else could exist.

 

What does science tell us?

Science tells us that all material entities are regulated by natural laws - natural laws are based on the properties of natural/material things. Natural laws allow scientists to make predictions concerning the behaviour of all natural entities. It is obvious that natural things can never exceed the limits of their own inherent properties which natural laws describe. One natural law, that is actually the founding principle behind all scientific research, is the Law of Cause and Effect. It tells us that every natural effect/entity has to have a sufficient or adequate cause. A causeless, natural entity is impossible according to science, science cannot entertain such a prospect, because scientific research is based on looking for a sufficient cause or causes of EVERY natural occurrence. Scientists expect every natural occurrence to be contingent - to be adequately caused. Science cannot look for non-causes. That would be a nonsense. The dilemma here for atheists is that the first cause of everything had to be uncaused, it had to be eternally self-existent, it could not be contingent, it could not be subject to the limits of any natural laws, it had to be entirely autonomous and self-sufficient. It could not rely on causes or anything else for its existence, it had to contain within itself everything it required to exist and furthermore to bring everything else that exists into existence.

 

Atheism is not just a rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, it is also the BELIEF (by default) in the only other option ... a NATURAL first cause.

Atheists may call their natural, first cause - a big bang, a quantum fluctuation of nothing, a singularity, a cyclical universe, a self-creating universe, string theory, or any other fantastical invention.

It makes no difference, because none of them can be UNCAUSED and none of them are ADEQUATE as a first cause of everything that exists in the universe. They are all contingent and all inferior to the end result, and consequently ALL are disqualified as possible, first causes by the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

So atheists simply transfer the creative powers, properties and qualities, that theists attribute to a Supernatural, First Cause (God), to a natural entity. In other words, they effectively deify matter/energy and credit matter/energy with godlike, creative powers. Thus atheism is simply a revamped version of the discredited beliefs of pagan naturalism.

Remember the pagan belief in the all powerful Sun god (Ra), or the Moon god, Mother Nature etc.? EXACTLY!

 

“Our ancestors worshipped the Sun, and they were not that foolish. It makes sense to revere the Sun and the stars, for we are their children.” — Atheist Carl Sagan

 

A natural first cause is an impossibility, there is no such thing as an UNCAUSED NATURAL event or entity.

That is not my opinion, it is the verdict of science, which is founded on the principle that every natural effect/event/entity requires an adequate cause. There is no exception to that rule. Which means any scenario atheists propose as a natural, first cause cannot be regarded as scientific. They are all unscientific nonsense.

People may be surprised to hear that, because we are conditioned by the popular media and incessant, atheist hype to believe that such proposed, natural causes are a scientific version of origins. It is complete hogwash, they all violate scientific principles without exception, and have got nothing to do with science. The public is being cynically conned and manipulated. All atheist, naturalistic, origin scenarios are based purely on ideology and the pagan religion of naturalism, and that - behind the mask - is the true nature of atheism.

 

Pagan naturalism was soundly debunked by the onset of modern science and the understanding that all natural occurrences are contingent - that all natural occurrences MUST have an adequate cause and are subject to, and limited by, natural laws based on the inherent properties of matter/energy. The idea that nature/material things are some sort of power unto themselves - that they are all powerful, autonomous, non-contingent entities which can behave with impunity unrestricted by natural laws etc., that things can just happen the due to the vagaries of Mother Nature etc. was demonstrated by science to be nonsense. Regardless of this, modern atheists are intent on reviving pagan naturalism in a different guise. We have to wonder why?

 

The law of cause and effect is the basis of science. If you deny it, you step outside of science into the realm of metaphysics or magic. That is why atheist naturalism (which credits nature/matter/energy with autonomous powers, unfettered by the restraints and limitations of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws, which are intrinsic to nature) is really a religion. Even worse, it is not a rational religion, it is one which defies logic, science and reason.

 

The law of cause and effect (which is the fundamental basis of the scientific method) tells us that EVERY natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause. The material universe as a whole is no exception. It had to have a beginning and a cause - it is a contingent thing, it cannot exist without causes. Therefore, it cannot possibly be UNCAUSED. It had to have a sufficient cause to bring it into existence). That is the verdict of science. Science can only look for adequate causes, not non-causes. That is the fundamental principle behind all scientific enquiry. Whereas, if we go back far enough, the very first cause of everything material had to be UNCAUSED (i.e. non-contingent and thus non-material) because it is the FIRST cause. No other cause could have preceded it. If another cause preceded it - it would not be the first cause, it would be only a secondary cause and not FIRST. So the first cause of the material realm couldn't be a natural, contingent entity. That would violate the law of cause and effect. Hence for anyone to propose that the first cause could be a natural thing is illogical, unscientific nonsense.

 

What about the idea that our knowledge is limited, that we cannot know what took place at the beginning of the universe, we cannot know what laws existed? And therefore to propose a supernatural, first cause (God) as the Creator is just a desperate or lazy way of filling a gap in our knowledge? This is the so-called God of the gaps argument.

 

If we trust science, we cannot propose a natural, first cause of the universe as a logical or scientific possibility. We do know that for certain. So that is not a gap in knowledge.

Our present knowledge is sufficient to rule out a natural, first cause of the universe as impossible according to well established, scientific principles.

The law of cause and effect makes scientific research possible. It is only possible because we trust the scientific principle that we can expect to find an adequate cause or causes for EVERY natural occurrence. If we claim we don't know whether the universe had an adequate cause or that a natural first cause is possible, we are ignoring science and stepping outside of science into fantasy. That is ALL we need to know, in order to conclude that the atheist paradigm is fatally flawed.

 

The law of cause and effect is exactly that which, as the basic founding principle of modern science, demolished all pagan, naturalist religions, it demolished belief in the autonomous, creative powers of material things. Atheists apparently want to resurrect that belief.

What is science?

Science is: 'knowledge' through seeking and discovering causes. If anyone claims a natural event happened without an adequate cause - they are anti-science.

 

Therefore, to say "we don't know" what laws existed at the origin of the material universe or that the universe may have always existed, as some atheists do, is utter nonsense. The law of cause and effect pertains to matter/energy and ALL natural occurrences - wherever they may be.

All natural events whether inside or outside of the universe are governed by the law of cause and effect. Just like gravity (which is an inherent property of matter), so the principle of causality is an inherent property of everything in the natural world. . Everything ... means all natural entities, events and effects. All natural things, by their very nature, are contingent, that is a fact, and they can't be anything else.

They can never act independently of causes, to say they can is to invoke magic, it is definitely not science.

 

That then, is our understanding of science, it is not just an opinion or assumption. It is the very basis of the scientific method that we can expect to find an adequate cause of every natural occurrence. To say that there may be some natural occurrences that are not subject to the law of cause and effect is to dispute the scientific method. So atheism has no valid, scientific argument, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

 

Is it possible to know the attributes (or character) of God - the Supernatural, First Cause?

 

The evidence that a natural, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE (because it violates natural laws) should be sufficient for any rational person to conclude that the first cause could not be a natural entity, and therefore has to be supernatural. Furthermore, the first cause HAS to be adequate for the effect.

If an effect of the first cause is the universe, then that cause has to embody the potential and power to produce everything that exists in the universe. Nothing in the universe can be superior to that which ultimately caused the universe.

 

AN EFFECT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN ITS CAUSE.

 

Therefore - if there is life in the universe - the first cause or the universe MUST have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe - the first cause MUST have intelligence.

If there is consciousness in the universe - the first cause MUST be conscious.

If there is law in the universe - the first cause MUST be a lawmaker.

If there are morals in the universe - the first cause MUST be moral.

If there is justice in the universe - the first cause MUST be just.

If there is love in the universe - the first cause MUST be loving.

And so on ...

All the powers, properties and qualities that exist in the universe were created by the first cause, so the first cause must possess the ability to create those attributes. None of those attributes can be greater in any respect than the attributes possessed by that which created them. There is no conceivable natural, origins scenario that is adequate to account for every quality that exist in the universe. Which shows that the so-called big bang, singularity or any other proposed, natural, origins scenario is not possible as a first cause.

 

The Bible says we were made in the image of a Creator God who is the first cause of everything material, including us. The Bible thus reveals and confirms the SCIENTIFIC principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. We cannot have any properties or powers that are superior to that which caused the universe, we have inherited all our attributes from the first cause and are therefore made in the image of that cause (the Creator God, as described in the Bible).

 

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

 

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psalm 14King James Version (KJV)

_____________________________________________

Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022

 

____________________________________________

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin.

Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

 

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.

Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

________________________________________________

 

IS NATURE A GOD?

 

Is nature a god?

Apparently, atheists think so.

Atheists believe that nature is the first cause (creator) of everything, including itself.

 

Atheists believe that nature created itself from nothing ....

‘A Universe from Nothing’ Lawrence Krauss.

“The universe can and will create itself from nothing” Stephen Hawking.

They believe that (Mother) nature has all the creative powers and abilities that monotheistic religions attribute to a creator God.

 

Just how credible is the atheist belief in nature as a godlike entity?

AND - Do atheists have any logical, scientific or rational argument to support the belief that nature has such incredible, creative powers?

The answer to that is NO!

Atheist's religious-like devotion to naturalism is a completely blind faith. It is a faith that cannot be supported by any rational argument because it contradicts logic and scientific laws, as explained below:

 

Something or nothing?

There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?

Existence is a fact!

We know something exists (the physical universe),

but why?

Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?

And where did that something come from?

 

Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, is being proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator. For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, ‘A Universe from Nothing’.

Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’. His ‘nothing’ involves the pre-existence of certain, natural laws and quantum effects. That is certainly not 'nothing'. And his book, with the deceptive title, simply kicks the problem of - why there is something rather than nothing? into the long grass.

 

A well, publicised example of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing was one presented by Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up in a single sentence:

“Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”

 

It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.

In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.

Nothing means absolutely ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.

 

Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.

Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists.

And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in this example ‘gravity’, it cannot be called 'nothing'.

Furthermore, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. And also, How can something pre-exist that which it is a property of?

Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.

“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.

 

Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.

Incredibly, Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this law of cause and effect, which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.

Therefore, Stephen Hawking's natural, 'theory of everything' which he summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence:

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

 

Religion?

Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.

If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.

This means we need to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only remaining question is - which god?

Is the godlike entity a creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim? Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which essentially utilises logic and reason, rather than just relying on blind faith.

 

Why God MUST exist ...

There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.

Everything that exists must be one or the other.

The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.

The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.

They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.

The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.

“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes

It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.

 

Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:

A causes B

B causes C

C causes D

D causes E

‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.

We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.

Why?

Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.

The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

Conclusion …

A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

 

Entropy

The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.

The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.

The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).

As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.

The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.

This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.

However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.

If the material universe was infinite, entropy wouldn’t exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.

The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.

Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.

Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.

That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.

As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.

So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.

This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).

The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was the sin of humankind that corrupted the physical creation, resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...

Scripture: Romans 8:18–25

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."

 

Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.

Why?

Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.

To put it another way …

God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.

 

Creation - an act of will?

For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.

Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.

Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as “I am”. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).

 

Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:

The single, supernatural entity:

1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).

2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).

3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.

In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.

The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).

So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.

All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.

Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.

We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.

We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.

We can love. Thus, our creator must love.

We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.

Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.

This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.

It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.

 

Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?

The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of God’s nature.

For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?

To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.

The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.

Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.

We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.

They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.

 

To sum up:

Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.

God discovered, not invented!

Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.

 

The real character of atheism unmasked.

Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?

Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation story, summed up in a single sentence.

When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers –

“the universe can and will create itself from nothing”

The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...

The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.

 

God’s power.

Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.

This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.

 

What caused God?

Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.

The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.

This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:

“What caused God then?”

This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.

As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.

Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.

It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.

First means 'first', it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.

So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.

God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.

As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).

 

Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?

This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.

Why?

It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.

Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.

Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.

Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.

 

What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?

Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.

It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.

Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.

For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.

As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.

The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.

The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

 

Atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.

Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.

 

Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.

What is the truth?

Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.

Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it.

Unbelievably, atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.

Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.

Because the existence of natural laws which support the necessity of an adequate, first cause is fatal to the atheist cult.

 

The often repeated atheist argument that we just don’t know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism.

'Not knowing' (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the ‘don’t know’ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. Those who ridicule and attack theism are not genuine agnostics, because they come down firmly on the side of atheism. That is not a ‘don’t know’ (agnostic) position.

 

The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ‘not knowing’ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.

And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.

When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” atheists applauded and crowed about ‘science’ making God redundant. How come they didn’t criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didn’t exist. What happened to the: “we just don’t know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bang” argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that “we don’t know what laws existed”. What atheists actually mean to say is that: “we know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we don’t know that laws which destroy our argument existed”.

 

The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.

So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

_____________________________________________

 

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.

Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.

Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.

It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

 

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin. Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

 

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

 

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.

The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

 

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?

And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

 

Shall we analyse it?

"Because there is a law of gravity ....

 

So,

1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?

AND -

2) Where did the law of gravity come from?

AND -

3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

 

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

 

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?

(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

 

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?

AND -

6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?

Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

 

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

 

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, adequate, natural first cause is possible.

The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".

However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.

We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.

The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

 

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).

Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?

Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

 

Here it is again ...

‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

 

So, atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.

AMAZING!

 

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

 

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

 

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.

Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

 

So, now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.

IMPRESSED? I think not!

 

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

 

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.

Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?

That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

 

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?

Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.

They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.

That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.

Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

 

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?

How does that fit in?

 

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.

The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.

So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

 

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.

That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.

Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.

  

An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.

So is it a valid solution?

 

Firstly .....

Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).

Why?

Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.

Secondly ....

It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.

It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.

Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.

The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.

Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?

If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.

The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.

Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.

Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

 

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?

Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.

In addition ....

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.

So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?

Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.

It can only be one of two options,

an uncaused, natural first cause

OR

an uncaused, supernatural first cause.

An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.

Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

 

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….

And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.

We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.

The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

 

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.

SO ....

Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

 

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

 

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.

ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.

Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

 

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.

If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?

Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

 

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

 

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?

Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

 

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.

That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.

By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

 

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.

Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

 

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

 

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

 

Which one would you choose?

 

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?

The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.

So, if you choose the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) it actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

 

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?

OR,

the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennett, Bill Nye, Bill Maher etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

Methinks, there is no contest!

 

We can thus see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

 

The question of purpose ....

A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

 

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.

The development of order requires an organizational element.

To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.

Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws are pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws, just as they cannot change their own inherent properties.

 

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.

If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.

Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!

Bogus science indeed!

This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

 

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?

In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.

Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.

Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.

This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.

Atheists say the exact opposite.

Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

 

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.

There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.

It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.

Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.

Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.

However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

 

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

 

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

 

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

 

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

 

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

 

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

 

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

 

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

 

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

 

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

 

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

 

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.

They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.

However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

 

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre. Not just bizarre, but impossible, unscientific fantasies.

  

What about Christianity and pagan gods?

 

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

 

Do they have a good point?

 

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.

They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.

They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.

In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.

For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

 

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (the ancient Egyptian god Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.

Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator, that is the atheist religion of naturalism.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.

This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

 

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?

How true is that?

 

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

 

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?

If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.

That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.

All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.

That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.

Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.

Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.

So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.

The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.

In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...

The effect cannot be greater than the cause....

So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,

If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.

If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.

If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.

That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

 

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

 

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.

The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.

This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.

That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.

But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.

A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.

Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

  

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

www.nobeliefs.com/freethinkers.htm

Here's to you, Alain!!!

History

 

Marble Falls was founded in 1887 by Adam Rankin Johnson, a former Indian fighter and Confederate general, known as "Stovepipe" Johnson for his Civil War escapades, which included duping the Union army in Newburgh, Indiana, with fake "cannons," constructed from stovepipes and wagon wheels. Johnson had viewed the natural Marble Falls during his pre-war days as a Burnet County surveyor, and had dreamed of building an industrial city, powered by the tumbling Colorado River, not to be confused with the river of the same name in Colorado and Arizona. Despite a "friendly fire" incident which blinded him near the end of the Civil War, General Johnson followed through with his dream, facilitating the construction of a railroad to nearby Granite Mountain in 1884, then (with ten partners, including one son, one nephew and two sons-in-law) platting the townsite and selling lots, beginning July 12, 1887. Johnson built a fine home, a college (soon to be home of the "Falls on the Colorado Museum") and a large factory near the falls. The town grew to a population of 1,800 within ten years.

 

Marble Falls made history in 1917 by electing Ophelia Crosby "Birdie" Harwood as the nation's first woman mayor, three years before women were allowed to vote.

 

When the Max Starcke Dam was completed in 1951, the marble falls which had given the town its name were submerged under the new Lake Marble Falls. While the town's economy struggled through the drought of the 1950s, a new economy based on tourism and retirement began to grow in the 1970s. During the last thirty years, Marble Falls has grown into the retail and entertainment center for the Highland Lakes area, and continues to attract tourists, retirees and new businesses.[8]

 

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Falls,_Texas

  

HILL COUNTRY

 

"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.

 

Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.

 

But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.

 

In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area

 

Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryh02

  

Bluebonnets have been loved since man first trod the vast prairies of Texas. Indians wove fascinating folk tales around them. The early-day Spanish priests gathered the seeds and grew them around their missions. This practice gave rise to the myth that the padres had brought the plant from Spain, but this cannot be true since the two predominant species of bluebonnets are found growing naturally only in Texas and at no other location in the world.

 

As historian Jack Maguire so aptly wrote, "It's not only the state flower but also a kind of floral trademark almost as well known to outsiders as cowboy boots and the Stetson hat." He goes on to affirm that "The bluebonnet is to Texas what the shamrock is to Ireland, the cherry blossom to Japan, the lily to France, the rose to England and the tulip to Holland."

 

The ballad of our singing governor, the late W. Lee O'Daniel, goes, "you may be on the plains or the mountains or down where the sea breezes blow, but bluebonnets are one of the prime factors that make the state the most beautiful land that we know.

  

Aggie Horticulture

Why must God exist?

There are only 2 basic options for the origin of the universe .... an uncaused, supernatural first cause of the universe OR an uncaused, natural first cause of the universe. If you categorically reject the former (as atheists do), you have no option but to accept the latter by default. It is an intellectually dishonest cop-out to say atheism is merely a lack of belief.

Atheists cannot simply deny and attack the concept of a supernatural first cause without justifying the only alternative. That is not intellectually credible or rational.

 

Firstly ...

We know that the universe has not always existed, we know it had a beginning and it is 'running down' from an original peak of energy potential at its beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) confirms that. So we know the universe had an origin.

 

Secondly .....

What about matter itself?

Can matter have always existed? The simple answer is no.

Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effects is very long, it had to have a beginning at some point.

A basic principle of the scientific method is that we can expect to find an adequate cause for every natural occurrence. All scientific research is based on that premise.

To propose a non-contingent, natural occurrence or entity as the originator of the universe (as atheists are forced to do), is unscientific fantasy.

 

Thirdly ....

A supernatural first cause (God) is not a contingent entity. It is not natural, and is not bound by natural laws which govern matter and all natural events. In fact, as the first cause of matter/energy, it is also the author of the laws that govern matter/energy. It cannot be subject to laws it has created.

As the very first cause, it also cannot have had any preceding cause, so we know it cannot be a contingent entity.

Why? Because ...first means first, not second or third. If something is first, nothing preceded it. It must have always existed and must have had within itself the means of its own existence. It could not have relied on anything else for its existence. So the supernatural, first cause (a creator God) has to be eternally, self-existent and necessary.

It also has to have the powers and ability to create everything else that exists in the universe. As the original cause, it has to be an adequate cause of everything ...of all causes and effects that follow it, forever. That means - it has to have the powers, properties and qualities sufficient to create: time, matter/energy, natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness and every characteristic that humans have. Because we, as a mere effect of the first cause, cannot be greater than that which ultimately caused us.

 

So God is the non-contingent, self-existent, necessary, supernatural, first cause of everything in the universe.

That is the logical conclusion of the understanding and application of natural laws.

 

ATHEIST BELIEF IN A NATURAL FIRST CAUSE VIOLATES NATURAL LAW.

THUS ATHEISM IS ILLOGICAL, AND ANTI-SCIENCE.

 

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

 

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:

A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.

'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.

Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.

We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.

We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

 

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

 

What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.

It is patently obvious there can only be one supernatural first cause.

The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.

If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.

If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.

So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Many thanks to JP Freethinker and Monica Heinrichs for their help in ID.

Grief Series, 2007

Erwin Olaf Springveld (1959-2023) is internationally renowned as one of the most prominent Dutch photographic artists, praised for his distinctive staging, unique lighting, perfectionism, and controversial subjects. He was a freethinker, and the pursuit of personal freedom was the foundation of everything he did—whether it concerned identity, sexuality, and gender, the human body in all its manifestations, nightlife, or equal rights for everyone.

The exhibition is a journey through Erwin Olaf's rich oeuvre, beginning with his journalistic, handheld black-and-white reportages from the early 1980s. These reveal all his engagement, with subjects such as gay rights demonstrations. His love of light and composition is clearly visible; his desire for greater control led him to his next step: staged studio photography.

 

Erwin Olaf - Freedom, exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam from October 11, 2025, to March 1, 2026.

Another holiday pic, since school started again I've just less time to take new ones, and also I don't really have inspiration at the moment. Not sure if I need to rotate this photo! :S

 

This is a church at Syros island in Greece, except Vatican City this is perhaps one of the most beautiful I've ever seen.

I'm a freethinker btw, like most people in Holland.

 

Ok, back to my homework now! ;)

Item # PP140

Off-Beat

Poppy Parker™ Dressed Doll

The City Sweetheart Collection

Approx. Ship Date: August

Suggested Retail: $135.00 US

Available Via Dealers

 

Edition Size: 900

Head Sculpt: Poppy Parker

Body Type: Poppy 1.5

Foot Sculpt: High-heeled

Skin Tone: FR White

Hair Color: Paper White

Eyelashes: Yes, Hand-applied

Quickswitch: No

 

The Story:

 

Any well-read gal of the 60s knew about author Lance Steinberg's mind-altering poetry and Poppy Parker was fascinated by his ideas! Steinberg's poignant texts appealed to a whole generation of teens and freethinkers of the time, bringing forth deep introspection and reflections about the state of things in 1960s America, often leading to dreams of better days ahead and peace in the world! As she recounts in her memoirs, one of Poppy's most humbling moments was the day she finally got to meet him in person and he was just as starstruck with her as she was with him, both laughing over how they followed each other's careers without knowing. That day, Poppy Parker knew she had made it in the world when Lance invited her to join him at an impromptu reading of his work at one of New York's hippest underground clubs! Poppy felt right at home in that crowd and loved every moment of it!

 

Included:

 

12" fully articulated doll with fully rooted hair and hand-applied eyelashes

Fashion (capri length jeans, striped top, trench coat)

Black high-heeled shoes

Sunglasses

Handbag

1960s inspired pendant necklace

Cuff bracelet and small hoop earrings

Alternate pair of hands

Doll stand

Bonus Accessory: miniature "poetry book"

  

The doll pictured is a prototype. Final fabrics, colors and textures may vary slightly. For adult collectors ages 15 and up only.

The progressive, evolution story

is one huge MISTAKE

which, ironically,

depends on MISTAKES

as its mechanism ...

Mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

So that the whole human genome

is created from billions of mistakes.

 

If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.

 

EVOLUTION .....

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....

the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

 

So, what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

 

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.

 

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.

But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

 

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

 

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.

 

Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

 

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

 

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

 

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.

 

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

 

Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.

If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you wouldn't expect it to improve the operation of the machine.

 

Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations as much as everyone else. You won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents, you won't get them deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution a helping hand.

Evolutionists know that mutations are very risky and likely to be harmful, and not something anyone should desire.

Yet, perversely, they still present them as the agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. Incredible!

 

People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

 

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

 

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

 

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.

 

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

 

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series ... of mistakes ... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc.

 

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.

That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

All this from an original, single, living cell.

If, for example, there is no genetic information for bones in the original living cell, how could copying mistakes of the original, limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely new information?

 

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

 

Conclusion:

 

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

 

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

 

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils.

 

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

 

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

 

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

 

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

 

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

 

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

 

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

 

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

 

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

 

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

When no evidence is cited as evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

 

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

 

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

 

Nebraska Man (a pig),

 

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

 

Orce man (a donkey),

 

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

 

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

 

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

 

Peking Man (a monkey),

 

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

 

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

 

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

 

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

 

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

 

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

 

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

 

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

Want to publish a science paper?

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

 

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

 

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

 

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

 

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

 

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

 

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... presented as more evidence for human evolution.

 

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

 

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

 

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

 

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

 

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

DNA.

The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.

 

It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.

Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.

 

Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?

Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.

However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.

 

Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

 

Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.

That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,

Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

 

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.

For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.

You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.

The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.

So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.

Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.

 

It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.

 

For example:

1.The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life) is not universally valid.

 

2.They have no explanation for where the first, genetic information came from.

 

3.They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.

 

4.They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.

 

5.They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.

 

6.They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.

 

7.They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).

 

8.They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.

 

9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.

 

10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.

 

11.They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.

 

There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.

It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.

 

We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.

That is another great MISTAKE!

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

MULTI® CLOTHING BRAND L.L.C

www.multiclothingbrand.com

BE A MESSAGE WEARING A MESSAGE.

A REGISTERED TRADEMARK BRAND.