Arguement for creation, and arguement against evolution.

1. 59

   cagedncrazyposted 9 years ago

   I think finding proof that the is a god is an easy challenge. Most people say, "oh science disproves religion" but i believe science proves that there is a god. God can be found everywhere if you look hard enough. Coincidentally my proof of god, disproves notions of evolution, yet proves notions of cosmology.
   
   If you really think about evolution, is it possible? Take the bee for example, and lets trace the path it would have to take from the primordial ooze, to being a bee. So first it is an single cell organism, which makes a conscious decision that it wants to become more. So lets say it becomes a tiny fish. From this point, it either makes a conscious decision on whether to grow wing like fins, or be a regular fish. This fish would then have to make another conscious decision on jumping out of the water, and learn how to breathe. But wouldn't that fish die within minutes? Yes, but lets say it lives. Skip along a few dozen other conscious decisions(Ie grow lungs, get rid of its swim bladder, grow some legs and wings), and you end up with the bee. When does the bee make a crucial conscious agreement with flowering plants, "ill help you, if i can eat off of you?"
   
   Ask any person who believes in evolution, and ask them how flowering plants came about. They will not be able to answer you. The whole theory of the primordial ooze is just that, a theory. Why do people put so much faith, in something that can be easily disproved? Because they think the thought of god is irrational, and is a sort of crutch for the emotionally weak.
   
   Another example is a fish that lives in lakes with hippos. Without the hippos, the fish would die. So lets trace this fishes life through evolution. So its a fish in the primordial ooze, and makes a decision to jump out of the water, grow legs, lungs, new sensory organs, and new sexual organs. It then walks from the ocean, over to the hippos and asks them if they can live off of them(they agree). Then it devolves back into a fish and jumps in and lives with the hippos until present day.
   
   Another thing i think evolution cant explain, is that all through nature, there's a male and female. Two forces that depend on each other, just like the bee and the tree, for survival. So again, there would have been a conscious decision for asexual single organism, to say "hey, i'm lonely, i should duplicate into two different beings, in which the both of us will depend on each other so we can exist as a species.
   
   The main thing i am arguing, is that a fish cant become a dog. As soon as the fish had the conscious decision to jump out of water, it would die. If it succeeded, then what conscious decision does it make to become a completely new species? How can scientists say the humans evolved from monkeys, if monkeys have two more chromosomes than humans? Why would we lose two chromosomes through evolution?
   
   One last argument i find very intriguing, is the argument that the big bang theory happened, which i believe to be true. In mythology there is an ongoing battle between the gods. The gods in mythology were the planets. If a planet got close enough to another planet, then a large arch of lightning would be discharged(hint hint Zeus, Saturn the biggest planet in the solar system). The theory of the big bang theory was created when a astrology looked out and saw other universes. Interesting enough, it seemed that the universe were expanding. If you were to retract all of those universes back, it would come to a point. The connection between mythology and cosmology, is that mythology talks about a time where the planets were close together, meaning it is plausible that humans were here since the beginning.
   
   If you look even further you only prove god even more. You look back into history, and you'll find that man was around during the time of dinosaurs, that coal can be made in a day, and that the great flood that created the grand canyon, could have happened within a week. It is interesting when an atheist becomes a theist by his discoveries.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      White Teethposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ehead.html
      
      
      
      This is a nonsense statement to anybody with a science background. I think maybe people watch too many courtroom TV shows in this country and feel they are qualified to argue anything.
      
      Pretty much all university science departments on the planet accept evolution as the basis of biology. Most people that are most vocal against evolution also believe the Earth isn't older than ten thousand years or so. This is also contrary to every science department in the world.
      
      The Catholic church even accepts evolution...
      
      There is really no point to "argue" it, except that there is a vocal movement in the US trying to change K-12 science education to remove evolution, dinosaurs, carbon-14 dating, and anything else contrary to their view that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old.

      replyreport