Why is it that Atheists and Evolutionists/Dwarinist accuse Creationists of "Blind Faith"?

Question

Ironically, it takes "Blind Faith" to "believe" that the Origin of Life began with a "Big Bang", an explosion from nothing...
It takes "Blind Faith" to "believe" that the Origin of Species is the result of a "primordial ooze"...from nothing
It takes "Blind Faith" to "believe" that the complexity of cells and the multiplicity of species is the result of random chance over millions of years. The odds are astronomical. One conservative value is 10 to the 210th power for accidentlly-synthesizing left amino acids for one small protein molecule! Thats 210 zeros after it!!! DNA is a whole another game... the chances of the sequences arranging it self in the right sequence for just one cell is even more astronomical and thus doesnt become chance but rather an impossibility... and amino acids to arrange itself in the right sequence is out of the question. Thus requiring faith.
It takes "Blind Faith" to "believe" that Evolution is the reason we are here. Look around you! You were CREATED!!!

secretsauce you answered my question as if it was all about Evolution... Maybe you have the misunderstanding. I simply pointed out facts in reference to my question using chance. You might not like this but EVOLUTION IS RANDOM CHANCE! There is no irrefutable proof of Evolution and that is why it will stay controversial.
Check out the site below. Well known scholars and scientist have doubts and skepticism about Evolution. There are even more examples of reputable scientists that denounce Evolution for lack of evidence.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

I would like to point out some (there are alot more resources and references out there) sites for those who are interested in refuting the claim of Evolution. This is looking at the Creation's evidence against Evolution,

http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/
http://evolution-facts.org/

Answer 1

I'm sorry but after reading some of the responses I had to comment on the inaccuracy of the claims of evolution.

The Big Bang Theory resulted from a supposed hot and dense state but that had to come from something? It didn't always exists because if it did then why couldnt have God always existed? Its both based on a belief system

If life started simply, it is not possible for it to become complex...
Go read about DNA and RNA.

The suggestion that amino acids - which develop spontaneously under the right conditions - came together and at some point developed into a self-replicating, self-improving molecule that went on to develop into the first _SIMPLE_ cellular life is ludicrious and based upon the faith that this somehow happened by chance.

At some point? The chance of anything you have mentioned is astronomical go reread your sources.


Under the right conditions? What conditions? Conditions that were suitable for life on Earth? There is no evidence what so ever. And if you are referring to some experiment done in the 50s or anytime recently... well that was proven false.

So eventually it led to SIMPLE cellular life? Uh cells are complex. It is impossible for cells to have spontanteously arise, let alone from a single cell which is still complex. Go look at simple cells like bacteria -- very very complex no chance of randomness. It doesn't happen today and didn't happen before. Its all by intelligent design. Look at the DNA, it has enormous amounts of information even for a so called "SIMPLE" cell. Before making posts about evidence for evolution go read about the evidence against evolution. There is far more evidence against then for evolution.

Microevolution can be proven and verifiable but it has NOT BEEN PROVEN to lead to Macroevolution. This is the whole premise of evolution that some how by chance microevolution lead to macroevolution and the multiplicity of species.

The claim that humans came from apes can be disproven by one irrefutable fact. In order for the DNA in a ape to become the DNA of human it would have the same length. Last time I researched DNA, DNA strands don't change lengths. This indicates that the DNA present now were present at the Origin of the Species which God created.

Everything in this universe and this world right down to our cells and DNA point toward an Intelligent Designer, God!

Why is it so hard to believe in God? When you are willing to believe in astronomical chances that go beyond the realm of possibility? When you are willing to make assumptions and claim that we came about 'somehow'?

People who believe in Evolution say there are lots of evidence for it. Ya there is evidence for MICROEVOLUTION NOT MACROEVOLUTION. Read up on the difference before posting evidence for evolution for the source of all species.

Answer 2

Shall we answer this point by point? Lets!

1) "the Origin of Life began with a "Big Bang", an explosion from nothing..."

Not true. The Big Bang theory actually relates to the birth of the Universe in its current state. And the idea is that the Universe was in a different state prior to the Big Bang - not that matter didn't exist before it. Basically, the Big Bang makes no claims about the origin of life OR the creation of matter from nothing.

2) "...complexity of cells and the multiplicity of species...DNA is a whole another game... right sequence for just one cell..."

I've cut it short because it just rants about the same thing. The idea is that life started very simply, not in anyway as complex as it is now. Nobody is claiming that a single cell, complete with DNA, RNA, X amount of organelles, mitochondria, etc - arose in an instant as the first living organism. What IS suggested is that amino acids - which develop spontaneously under the right conditions - came together and at some point developed into a self-replicating, self-improving molecule that went on to develop into the first _SIMPLE_ cellular life.

THAT does not require blind faith at all, unless you do not understand biology.

3) "EVOLUTION IS RANDOM CHANCE"

You've basically said there that because you've just refuted Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis - completely unrelated to evolution I might add - that you've disproved evolution theory.

One thing that you MUST understand before you go off on one is that evolution is NOT based on random chance, it is based upon physical and biological limitations and boundries and that natural selection is the process of choosing only life that has the potential to survive better than others.

My advice to you is to read up on the subjects that you argue against BEFORE arguing against them. I notice that a lot of what you've said bares resemblance to Kent Hovind's "teaching". This man has been proven to have basically, been lying through his teeth in debates where he "proves evolutionists wrong". He doesn't prove anything except that he's willing to do anything (except pay taxes of course) in an attempt to prove that God created everything.

Answer 3

You are basically committing the same crime they are. The fact is that many atheists simply do not understand the spiritual evidence that you have the proves to you that there is a God. They come on here and say there is no evidence, and that you are crazy, but you know from your own personal experience that they are wrong. People who are religious have experiences and feelings that people who are not do not have, and that is their evidence (although I am amazed at how many religious people have no idea about this). Whether or not these experiences and feelings are legitimate is irrelevant, because someone who does not have them cannot diagnose something they do not fully understand or experience themselves.

The truth is that Darwinists are the same. Many of them have an understanding of science that you obviously do not have. You obviously don't really have any sort of realistic grasp on what evolution is, or what evidence exists to support it, or even any basic understanding on how statistics work (the "odds" you are using to show the unlikelihood of random chance are reciprocal, and are easily turned around to show the statistical unlikelihood of God). Yet you come in here and try to argue science, even though you don't really understand the concepts involved. What is the difference between that and an atheist arguing with you that God doesn't exist?

It is true that some Darwinists also do not have a full understanding of evolution, but simply believe because the scientists say so. That is an act of faith, to be sure. That does not make them wrong any more than you believing in God on faith makes you wrong. The truth is that there are a lot of religious people on here that don't seem to know a thing about religion. It is no different. I think you can do better than this.

Answer 4

Well first of all the theories of evolution and the big bang are separate. The big bang is the theory for the start of the universe and evolution is the theory about the development of life on earth.

Secondly, neither theory suggests that something came from nothing. Big bang theory says nothing about what was there beforehand.

Thirdly there is evidence to support both these theories so there is no need for blind faith. Although there is insufficient proof to prove the theories conclusively.

As for the start of life on earth, I'm not very familiar with the subject, I thought life might have started with the formation of self replicating RNA. I assume you mean the probability is 1 in 10^210 and I would like to know where you got this number from. My thinking was that much smaller molecules were built first.

Answer 5

I understand your point of view, but what you have to understand is the idea of logic.

Logically, an explosion in space is possible because we have seen such explosions (though not as big) in history.

Logically, we can infer that cells can change and cause a multiplicity of species because of adaptation and fossils discovered that prove that some creatures have dramatically changed in appearance, etc. over the years.

And logically, amino acids form themselves as a biological fuction, with no "divine intervention" to help it along.

It takes a great sum of imagination and blind faith to say, "Yes, I think that miracles occured like water into wine and a man rising from the dead three days after his death." This cannot be proven, as nothing but 12 men writing a story about it is evidence.

I understand what you're trying to say as far as creation, because the human body and nature itself is extremely compex and beautiful and it's hard to believe that anything like that can "just happen." However, we are a complex machine, and I find it difficult to believe that while cancer, murder, rape, etc. can all exist, that there is a just God in the sky watching over us.

I didn't lose my faith due to any dramatic incident. I just don't buy it, when science provides a logical and more valid answer than "Poof. Life."

Answer 6

First of all, calm down. Why couldn't have God created the Big Bang? Being a student of evolution, does not make one a heathen. Yes, we base our ideas on the formation of the world by looking at the fossil record because that is the only evidence that we have. God couldn't have created the Dinosaurs? Primitive man? That's not a possibility? Could it be that the fossils found on earth are a test of faith? Yes, your right about the odds of creating life are astronmical, but that is why we are so obsess with it, because it is a miracle no matter how you look at it and God had something to do with it to make it work out that way.

Answer 7

nicely, enable's see... Evolution works via path and mistake, 'admitting' failure via letting persons and not using a required constructive mutation or those with a wrong one to die off and/or fail to reproduce. Creationists, in the event that they are to be coherent, could deny themselves a ability to make the main of their mistake. So i assume catching up on their incoherence is probably previous the psychological ability of maximum creationists. via addressing their question to atheists, on the severe opposite variety of their very own perception so a techniques as fundamentalism and literal (and particularly stubbornly constrained) interpretation of the bible; they extra or much less experience empowered to take on the unmovable merchandise with their 'impossible to stand up to' stress; different than that they are in basic terms like 15 3 hundred and sixty 5 days old toddlers leaping in the hoop against Georges St-Pierre... So... no. they won't learn. in any different case they could have already got understood some issues.

Answer 8

Because your understanding of evolution is quite wrong. (Sorry this is long ... but there are two *fundamental* errors you are making.)

First, evolution has nothing to do with the Origin of Life, or with the Big Bang. Those are two theories that are in much earlier stages of development than the Theory of Evolution (the Darwinian theory), which is *much* more strongly developed and supported by evidence. The Big Bang theory could be absolutely false while Darwin's theory of evolution could still be absolutely true (or vice versa) ... they are not related or dependent on each other in any way. Similarly, any theory about the Origin of Life is completely independent of the Theory of Evolution, which explains how the first life form evolved to the diversity of life we see around us.

So you don't even understand the *scope* of what Evolution (and Darwinism) does and does not claim to explain. It's like blaming Evolution for questions in Quantum theory, or the Theory of Relativity.

> "One conservative value is 10 to the 210th power for accidentlly-synthesizing left amino acids for one small protein molecule!"

And there's your biggest misunderstanding.

That reasoning starts with a single protein (like, say, a specific protein found in a certain strain of bacteria found in the gut of a squirrel), counting the amino acids, and computing the odds that that *exact* sequence of amino acids would come about by "accidentally synthesizing". This is incredibly absurd!

First, evolution doesn't have to produce that *exact* protein molecule (that exact amino acid sequence). There are thousands of different variations on that same protein molecule (different variations on that amino acid sequence that would do an equivalent function), and *billions* of different proteins in the world. It is absurd to pick just one of them and compute the odds of that *specific* protein (that specific amino acid sequence) occuring by random chance.

Second, EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM CHANCE! That's the *entire point* of Darwinism! (And is is amazing how creationists are just unable to understand this BASIC point!) Darwin showed how the natural process of *survival* selects those variations that produce some advantage. That process of "survival of the fittest" is both relentless and NOT random. That's the *entire point*!

So it is absurd to point to a single outcome of that long process (a single protein molecule), and calculate some ridiculously low odds for it ... because evolution is not just some chemicals sitting in a jar constructing proteins by trial and error until it hits on a specific sequence.

So your argument is based on a complete, utter, fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Look around you! ... And THINK!!! You EVOLVED!!!!

(And BTW, it is also quite consistent to say you were CREATED using the process of EVOLUTION ... just as it is perfectly consistent to say you were CREATED using the process of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION. If you really believe in an almighty God ... instead of limiting God to the literal reading of a book meant to explain creation to humans (of 500 B.C.) ... God can use any process He wants! And if you really look around you, it sure *looks* like He used evolution to create humans (and all species) and sexual reproduction to create you.)

Answer 9

I agree with you, but don't expect to get very many people who agree with you here on Yahoo! Answers.

Have you read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel? He is a journalist who interviewed several scientists about intelligent design. Each scientist is a specialist in a different field relating to the beginning of the universe or biology. They give scientific examples of flaws in the theory of evolution and give odds on many of the criteria that need to exist for life to be possible. When you combine all the odds for all the different criteria, it is beyond astronomical.

Answer 10

You are distorting things as typical of creationists. I suppose you are just repeating some stuff Henry Morris, Duane Gish and such creationists concocted to confuse the issues. You display ignorance of science here. You must thouroughly understand anything before you can refute it effectively. I used to get from the library 2 books favorable to creationism and 2 favorable to evolution. When I'd compared them, I'd get 4 more such books. I've seen the arguments you blindly repeat here and refutations of them by scientists. I recommend that you do as I did, and if you are logical, you will see creationists utter nonsense that is easily refuted.