Science Disproves Evolution

ddallen · Jul 9, 2013

Pahu said:

Why do you believe that? Where did that primordial super dense atom come from?

Science Proves God

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown).

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

You say that before the beginning of the universe there was nothing!
When the universe started in the inaccurately named 'Big Bang' both space and time started. There is no such thing as before the big bang - time did not exist there was no before. What do you mean by nothing existed. Nothing means that a volume of space is empty of everything. Before the big bang there was no space - in essence nothing did not exist.
How did the primordial super dense atom come into existence - the question does not make sense as it implies a time before which the atom did not exist - as, back to my earlier point - time did not exist. To say it was created or that it always existed are both meaningless and the answer is one that I doubt humans will find for a very long time.
As to life - how did that start - nobody knows! No scientist will conclusively say how life started because we do not know.
What we do know is that when it started, evolution brought changes that eventually gave rise to mankind. Evolution is a fact, and a well proven fact, how life started is unknown.
Sorry for the length I do get a bit carried away and ramble sometimes!

megaman125 · Jul 9, 2013

ddallen said:

You say that before the beginning of the universe there was nothing!
When the universe started in the inaccurately named 'Big Bang' both space and time started. There is no such thing as before the big bang - time did not exist there was no before. What do you mean by nothing existed. Nothing means that a volume of space is empty of everything. Before the big bang there was no space - in essence nothing did not exist.
How did the primordial super dense atom come into existence - the question does not make sense as it implies a time before which the atom did not exist - as, back to my earlier point - time did not exist. To say it was created or that it always existed are both meaningless and the answer is one that I doubt humans will find for a very long time.
As to life - how did that start - nobody knows! No scientist will conclusively say how life started because we do not know.
What we do know is that when it started, evolution brought changes that eventually gave rise to mankind. Evolution is a fact, and a well proven fact, how life started is unknown.
Sorry for the length I do get a bit carried away and ramble sometimes!

Hey look, reasons I didn't believe the big bang when I was an atheist. Guess what, this same silliness still isn't appealing to me.

Pahu · Jul 9, 2013

ddallen said:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Why do you believe that is true?

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

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

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

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

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it 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 Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

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

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

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

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

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

Scientists Speak About Evolution

Grey · Jul 9, 2013

Pahu said:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Each one of those was assumptions.

Nice quotes, been hard working those quote mines 24/7?

Pahu · Jul 9, 2013

Originally Posted by Pahu

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Grey said:

Based on known physics.

megaman125 · Jul 9, 2013

Grey said:

Atheist logic 101: Christians are quote mining, therefore they're wrong, the Bible's wrong, Christianity is wrong, Christians are wrong, and no matter what fallacies atheists use, atheists are always right, and you just have to accept it.

That actually sums up several of these topics.

Grey · Jul 9, 2013

Pahu said:

Originally Posted by Pahu

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Based on known physics.

No, particularly 11, why? Because science doesn't include magic.

Grey · Jul 9, 2013

megaman125 said:

What count of strawmen are we at now?

megaman125 · Jul 9, 2013

Grey said:

"billions of years" is just "science's" way of saying "magic." Of course, that isn't actually science, hence the quotes around that too.

Grey said:

So you ran out of meaningful things to say and that's all you can do now?

Grey · Jul 9, 2013

megaman125 said:

When have I ever said that megaman? Please quote me, lest your claim not become a lie and therefore a sin.

megaman125 · Jul 9, 2013

Grey said:

I never claimed you used those exact words. It's the behavior of the atheists. That's the way you come off, and in fact you just did it again with this post.

Grey · Jul 9, 2013

megaman125 said:

Ah the fine print, a half lie then. I've never said, nor believed that atheism or Christianity influence whether or not you are smarter or not. To assume so would be arrogant.

megaman125 · Jul 9, 2013

1. That's not close to what I said.
2. As I said in my last post, it isn't about your exact words, it's about your attitude and how you come off.

Grey said:

And there's that example of #2. You keep trying to frame me for some nonsense of me "lying." Then you talk about other people being arrogant. Then it's some big mystery to the atheists why they're so disliked in society.

Grey · Jul 9, 2013

If you wish to express an opinion say it, say I'm arrogant, but don't use a clearly false broadly encompassing statement.

megaman125 · Jul 9, 2013

Grey said:

Well, I tend to use those broad encompassing statements when:

1. There's multiple different atheists in the discussion. And...
2. After my conversations and interactions with well over a thousand atheists on the internet, and having 98% of them fit those broad encompassing statement.

If my broad encompassing statements don't apply to you, or you don't think they apply to you, great. In all honesty though, from my point of view, at best I'd only consider you a slight step above that 98% I was talking about.

After all my conversations and interactions with atheists on the internet, I've noticed a lot of patterns. And I'm not talking about similarities, but it feels like it's a bunch of exact duplicates. The things you say, and the arguments the 98% present are so repetitive, and it's not that the Christians don't have a valid argument against them despite what the 98% like to think, and it's that sort of mentallity why the 98% get the response from Christians that they do.

So when I say or do things or act a certain way, it's because from my view, you're acting like that 98%. Could I be wrong in my presumtions? Sure. Have you done anything to make me not consider you a part of the 98%? Not really.

ddallen · Jul 10, 2013

Pahu said:

Originally Posted by Pahu

1. The universe exists. True
2. The universe had a beginning. Probably True
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. There was no before - time started with the big bang
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. Unsupportable argument - cannot be known and so is an assumption
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing. See above
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause. Quantum mechanics proves that particles can and do pop into existence randomly across the know universe - it is perfectly natural
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural. Why? This is an assumption - accurately - the cause is unknown
8. Life exists. True
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis). Stated by Pasteur - disproved by Miller and Urey - though I don't think we can conclusively say either way yet the Miller-Urey experiment is still controversial
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause. Any cause known to humans kind at present
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural. Unsupportable argument - cannot be known and so is an assumption

Based on known physics.

Why, if science cannot answer a question do people automatically assume a supernatural cause?
If, as the argument goes, there must be a creator as everything has to be created - who created the creator? it is a self repeating endless progression?

Bryancampbell · Jul 10, 2013

My simple question to people who believe in evolution is...why do we still have monkeys to this day?

ddallen · Jul 10, 2013

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). Agreed - the universe is 13 - 14 billion years old (by current scientific understanding). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Assumption - all we can say is that the observable universe is everything we know to exist. Mathematically it can be shown that there is a possibility that we exist in a multiverse - though it cannot be proven. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Then how did God arise? Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? The Big Bang It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. Self defeating argument. You state infinity cannot be crossed therefore there must exist an entity that did cross infinity to cause the start of time/space. To go one step further - if time and space did not exist then neither infinity nor eternity could exist. Conclusion - the primordial atom existed - it expanded causing the universe, as we know it, to exist

ddallen · Jul 10, 2013

Bryancampbell said:

Humans did not evolve from monkeys - humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor

Bryancampbell · Jul 10, 2013

ddallen said:

But then how is it possible that our mental capacity is so much higher, and the only way we can get a monkey with a higher mental capacity is by exposing them to humans. But......wait......if they share a common ancestor....Then dolphins are related to fish and invertebrates cuz they share similar qualities....I don't know man out sounds weird to me

Science Disproves Evolution

ddallen

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Pahu

Senior Member

Grey

Guest

Pahu

Senior Member

megaman125

Guest

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Grey

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Grey

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Grey

Guest

megaman125

Guest

ddallen

Guest

Bryancampbell

Guest

ddallen

Guest

ddallen

Guest

Bryancampbell

Guest