Up@dawn 2.0

Sunday, November 29, 2015

The Big Bang & Evolution

Many scientists are completely convinced that a single enormous explosion of energy and light brought our entire universe into being. It has become known as the Big Bang Theory. This is supposed to convey that there was a singular start to everything that was brought into existence, without a creator. 

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen." The universe had a beginning; it did not always exist.

Since, the universe had a beginning, there must have been a cause. While some scientists seem to be fully convinced that this creation must have been from the Big Bang, none of them have been able to give a cause for the explosion of light and matter out of nowhere. If time never existed beforehand, then how did the Big Bang decide when to come into existence? This makes no kind of sense!

Some argue that the universe created itself from the law of gravity. First, let me define Isaac Newton's law of gravity. Newton's law of universal gravitation states "that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." Stephen Hawking makes the claim that "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Well, this statement in itself is misleading, because gravity is not nothing. Since, Hawking tells us that there was already a law of gravity in place before the big bang, then where did it come from? Who created it? How did it all come about? He says the universe can "create itself out of nothing", what nothing is he talking about? GRAVITY IS NOT NOTHING.

The fact that if dark energy was just slightly bigger, we wouldn't have even existed, amazes me. How can the universe possibly create itself so perfectly and precisely? An intelligent designer must have created it. This is not from no accident that we are here today. This universe is so mysteries because of the existence of God. No scientist will ever be able to discover the truth about creation; it's beyond our human understanding & limits.

Things do not just pop in and out of existence! Someone must have had to create our universe for it to work in such an orderly fashion.

The idea that our whole universe emerged in a single moment without any CAUSE and CREATOR, makes absolutely no sense!!

Then we have Evolution...

There is absolutely no proof for evolution! From where/who did we evolve from??? Life does not just rise from non-life. It can't just be by pure chance that everything seemed to work right, and somehow the right chemicals just happened to be in the right place, time, arrangement, conditions, etc. 

Charles Darwin seemed to be in doubt for a second when he asked the question, "Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Well, simply because species were created by a God in an orderly fashion to be of their own kind, which is why nature is NOT in confusion. 

If we have evolved from apes, based on the Darwin Evolution, how come there are still apes today? Why do we not see apes turning into humans? Sounds ridiculous! Apes and humans are totally different genetically. 
This is an illustration of Darwin's origin of species theory

Species may vary within their kind, but NEVER have we seen species change into another. Not one scientific experiment with mutation has been able to produce new species! No one has ever observed a creature evolve into another kind of creature.

Scientists have discovered ZERO transitional fossils that show the development of one species to another species. Even one of the most famous evolutionist, Dr. Colin Patterson, said in his book, Evolution, “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” There is NO PROOF!

The odds of one cell assembling itself are extremely low that it wouldn’t even make sense for us to discuss it. I will leave you to decide on that matter on your own by reading this excerpt from Jonathan Gray's book, The Forbidden Secret:
Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

The human brain alone "contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.” This information is from a PBS documentary describing the human brain. The human brain is super complex. How on Earth did it just somehow magically evolve on its own??? 

If it was all evolution, which part of our human body evolved first? In order for just blood to clot, a large amount of steps need to be successfully completed. How the heck did that process evolve??? Our DNA is extremely complex that there is no possible way it could’ve just evolved on its own by mere accident.
If you can solve Perry Marshall’s Riddle right here, then you could maybe proof evolution, but I highly doubt it. The riddle goes like this:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

There is NO PROOF that humans have existed for millions and millions of years. No bones or graves are that old.

Evolution can’t tell us why Earth is the only planet suitable to support life.

Darwin once asked, if God created us, then who created God? I could easily turn that question around, and ask him if the universe created us, then who created the universe?

The Big Bang & Evolution are based on faith NOT truth. Science has not been able to discover the truth yet. Not enough evidence exist to support the claims!


  1. I'm sorry, but your post is badly uninformed from top to bottom. "Blind faith?" Laughably ironic. But the issue is evidence, not "proof"; and the evidence of our shared lineage with all other life on earth is overwhelming.

    "There is no way DNA could have evolved..." How can anyone possibly know that?

    "Who created the universe?" begs the biggest question of all. Replying that a divine mind created it simply dodges the issue, swapping one ultimately unexplained "cause" for another. I'd invite you to revisit Russell and Mill on this point.

    No credible religious faith is threatened by the fact of evolution.

    1. Hey Dr. Phil,
      Thanks for replying!
      This post was in no way meant to offend anyone; I'm so sorry if it was taken that way. I was trying to express why I feel the way I do about the big bang and evolution. In the process of doing my research, I found it hard to understand why people can be so sure of evolution, when not enough evidence exist to support it. Scientists haven’t yet been able to understand creation. How can anyone be so sure that God doesn't and cannot exist?
      This is all from my point of view, so please try to understand where I'm coming from as well. I can never grasp the idea of a creation without a creator. From my own experiences in life, I can say with all confidence that God does exist.
      There was a point in my life when I didn’t believe in an existence of a God. I began to think for myself. Something just didn’t feel right; something was missing in my life. I felt like my life had no purpose and meaning. My disbelief in God did not last for too long.
      I got on my knees one day and asked him to relieve himself, whoever he was, in any way if he really did exist. I meant it; I was angry and confused. I was planning on taking my life. I was going through difficult situations. I was willing to truly surrender to a God if he really did exist, and if not I was willing to take my life. I received an answer on that very same day; it was no coincidence. I surrendered my life to Christ. From that point on, I never denied his existence. God has worked wonders in my life from that day on. My life was completely turned around. I feel happy and complete. I am telling you this, so you can understand why I think the way I do. I can never believe in the big bang or evolution, because to me they mean nothing if God is not in the picture.
      I can never describe how I feel in scientific terms, but God is very well alive.
      I was not created by chance. I was created by an intelligent designer for a purpose, and my life does mean something.
      Religion is in conflict with biological evolution. I truly respect everyone's ideas and beliefs, and I try to understand where everyone is coming from. That's exactly why I always ask and do research about this. I understand that I may have come out as being closed-minded, but this is really not the case at all.
      I don't expect everyone to feel the same way I do. I most definitely respect everyone for who they are and what they believe in. I understand that we are all different, and that is okay.
      Again, I apologize if this has offended anyone. That was not at all the intention here.

  2. No offense taken, Mariem.

    Again, no credible religious faith is threatened by the fact of evolution. The evidence for it is powerful, but it leaves the question of ultimate origins a glorious mystery with plenty of room for religious speculation that respects what we HAVE learned about our cosmos. "There is a grandeur in this view of life." Rather than repudiate it, let's build from it. May I suggest a holiday read, to that end? Carl Sagan's "Varieties of Scientific Experience" both respects the religious impulse AND finds it substantially gratified in the ongoing expansion of our natural understanding of the universe.

    How amazing, that we've come to ask ourselves the most basic questions about our origins and have also now finally begun to study the natural conditions of our own existence. Let's continue that study, rather than impede or preempt it with premature supernatural assumptions that would crush what Uncle Albert called our "holy curiosity."* Let's proceed on the assumption that if we have an intelligent creator, He/She/It/[?] is also the creator of the laws and processes of nature... and of our insatiable drive to know them scientifically.

    “Evolution sceptic: Professor Haldane, even given the billions of years that you say were available for evolution, I simply cannot believe it is possible to go from a single cell to a complicated human body, with its trillions of cells organized into bones and muscles and nerves, a heart that pumps without ceasing for decades, miles and miles of blood vessels and kidney tubules, and a brain capable of thinking and talking and feeling. JBS: But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

    *"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

    1. P.S. Check out this link from our site: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html?wpsrc=sp_all_article_storypromo

    2. Yes, I love this quote by Einstein Dr. Phil, but just because I believe in God doesn't mean I have lost that holy curiosity.

      For me, God and evolution do not mix. I understand that some Christians and other religions may believe that God has guided a process of evolution, but I do not believe that to be true. Yes, I am a Christian, but I do not believe in what some other Christians have to say about that. Let me explain why I don't think God has guided a process of evolution.

      According to evolution, “hominids would have been evolving over millions of years, getting a little more “human” like over the years until eventually the first fully human man was born." Those who believe in theistic evolution would then say that's when God would have said “okay, we now have 'man', and I'll call him 'Adam'. Genesis 2:7 says “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground”, then it goes on to say that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".
      God couldn't have possibly breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils as a fetus, because he was not "alive". If he was developing in the womb up to that point like theistic evolution suggests, then wouldn't he be alive before God breathed life into him? This would then of course make no sense.

      Then we have Eve…

      In Genesis 2:21-22, the bible says "Eve was created by God putting Adam into a deep sleep, taking out one of his ribs and creating Eve from that rib". Theistic Evolution does not think that Eve was created from Adam. At this point, there is no point in believing in the bible, for those who are Christians, if they are going to deny what it says.
      If God had really used evolution, he would have explained that to Moses in simple non-scientific terms.

      That's why God and evolution cannot mix.

      These are pretty awesome sources I have checked out and made sense to me:
      -Top Ten Proofs Evolution is scientifically impossible: http://www.toptenproofs.com/product.php?id=9

      -Top Ten Proofs Theistic Evolution is not Biblical: http://www.toptenproofs.com/product.php?id=13

  3. "If God had really used evolution, he would have explained that to Moses in simple non-scientific terms."

    I think I just might agree with you about this, Mariem. Carl Sagan makes a similar point in the "Varieties" book I mentioned above. Of course, he and I draw different conclusions from yours as to the ultimate implication of divine silence with respect to science (and, well, everything).

    God "could have made absolutely clear-cut evidence of His existence" with a few scriptural "phrases that we would recognize today that could not have been recognized then." Phrases like: "The sun is a star." Or, "a body in motion tends to remain in motion." Or, "Thou shalt not travel faster than light." Or, "Two strands entwined is the secret of life." But instead, silence.

    Perhaps the silence bespeaks absence, perhaps it supports Darwin's own judgment that supernaturalism eludes human understanding. In any event, it does not support relinquishing our most reliable tool for discovering truths about our universe. Science is not perfect, but it's a lot more reliable and intelligible than superstition inherited from a pre-scientific tradition.

    "Darwin's insight that life evolved over the eons through natural selection was not just better science than Genesis, it also afforded a deeper, more satisfying spiritual experience. He believed that the little we do know about nature suggests that we know even less about God." Amen.

    Being religious does not have to mean being anti-scientific. But being anti-scientific does tend to shut down curiosity, holy and otherwise. Sapere aude! And good luck.

  4. Just noticing, this is a duplicate post from Nov. 21. Why the duplication?

    1. I absolutely agree with you Dr. Phil, believing in God does not have to mean being anti-scientific. I love science, but it doesn't always make sense to me. Science in general has helped us in many ways, and made life much easier and better. I never claimed to hate science, but like you said it is not perfect.
      Science leaves us with many gaps sometimes, and it is not always accurate.

      The reason I have a duplicate is because I know we had to do three different installments. I kinda did it all in one, so I wanted to make sure you see that I have done all my three installments in one and posted a final one. I will delete the other one now.

      I enjoyed philosophy very much. Thank you!

    2. I absolutely agree with you Dr. Phil, believing in God does not have to mean being anti-scientific. I love science, but it doesn't always make sense to me. Science in general has helped us in many ways, and made life much easier and better. I never claimed to hate science, but like you said it is not perfect.
      Science leaves us with many gaps sometimes, and it is not always accurate.

      The reason I have a duplicate is because I know we had to do three different installments. I kinda did it all in one, so I wanted to make sure you see that I have done all my three installments in one and posted a final one. I will delete the other one now.

      I enjoyed philosophy very much. Thank you!

  5. Science leaves progressively fewer gaps, it is self-correcting and actually embraces its fallibility. That's how we learn. That's how science works.

    "There is no other species on Earth that does science. It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be." Cosmos