God created the world. Evolution, must be a joke right?

Question

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, agnostics and atheists alike. You think evolution is the only explination for our beign here? Does not even begin the explain the miracle of life.

Ok so according to evolution we all came from an single celled organism. Reasonable, where did that cell come from?
Another cell? and that one from another? Ooops, we hit small dead end.
So I suppose evolution cant be the only explination since it never goes around to saying how things were created. They only explain how they changed, but never created. Matter didint just pop out of nowhere, this is where evolution is very vauge.

Therefore we must keep an open mind, that maybe theres more to this world than what we just see with our own eyes.
It actually makes logical sence you know than evolution, which never explains how we got here. Beliving in something you can't physically see, called faith. Is a form of love that we can all do. This is a reason he never shows himself in our face.
EAJ?

eaj means, so what do you think? Evolution A Joke? lol, i ran out of space

I dont have a problem beliving evolution exists, its obiously there, one of Gods amazing creations, but its just sad that its put in front of him sometimes. People beliving its the only explination for us existing

ooo i see, Abiogenesis, life forming from matter. OOk, that matter must have just popped out of nowhere. Thanks

Oh and saying God must have come from another God and trying to use my argument against me in a different fashion. God is spiritual, not matter. A totally different thing than what our meat is made off.

Logic, science and reasoning not my strongest point?

I logic that because nothing can spring out of nothing, that there must be something where all missing in this world, mainly another type of dimension or something, something dominant than matter, something that can look down on us like ants.

and besides, having pure Logic and no Faith is bad. They are like 2 sides of the same coin, both balancing each other out. I have enough brains to think, but I also have faith to use my thinking with.

Some people just miss the faith part

Mr.Tom sir, no one made God, if someone or something made God he would not be God

Answer 1

The Myth of our Age

Jesus warned us, "Take heed that no man deceive you." 1 And we do, indeed, live in the Age of Deceit. Our entire society is totally driven by many myths, none more basic or insidious than the convictions of Evolution, the religion of our age. (Dismissing for this discussion the observations of microevolution, the variations within species, but rather using the term in its connotative sense, referring, in fact, to biogenesis: the notion that we are all the result of a series of cosmic accidents.)

The ancient cultures worshiped gods of wood and stone. It is difficult to comprehend the insanity of paganism: who can tally the blood that has been spilled on the altars of the gods who are not and the demons who are! We, however, in our contemporary paganism, have invented the most insulting "god" of all. Instead of ascribing the awesome magnificence of the Creation to any of the false gods of the past, we have chosen to ascribe it all to randomness, or chance. That has to be the most insulting ascription of all: we have decided that no Designer was necessary - it all "just happened." "First there was nothing. Then it exploded!"2

The premise that we are all simply the accidental result of random chance underlies our entire culture, not just biology: the fields of psychology, our social and political sciences, our media, our entertainments, and, of course, the forced inculcation of our children in the government schools.

But there is a glimmer of good news.

The good news is that there is a rising awareness that Evolution is bad science. Science purports to follow the evidence, relying on empirical verification for its conjectures. And it is increasingly evident that the evidence is mercilessly denying randomness as an explanation for the elegant designs embodied in the machinery of the universe. The writings of Denton, Behe, Johnson, Dempski, and Meyer have turned the thinking world upside down.3 The rebuttals have come from virtually every field of science: paleontology, physics and, quite conclusively, microbiology. Interestingly, perhaps the most compelling refutations come from one of the newest of the sciences: the information sciences, the field which has given us advanced communications and computers.

The Spectrum of the Possible

William Dempski has exquisitely profiled the spectrum of possibilities from certainty, "a probability of 1.0," to impossibility, "a probability of 0." (All events, by definition, lie between these two boundary conditions.) Figure 1 summarizes this spectrum:

When events are characterized by a high degree of certainty, we call them "scientific laws," such as gravity, etc. Most events, however, are characterized by some level of uncertainty, and the exploration of their likelihoods occupy the attention of statisticians, businessmen, and professional investigators dealing with the circumstances in the "real world."

When we encounter events that are extremely improbable - that is, highly unlikely to have occurred by unaided chance alone - we attribute them to deliberate design. If we walked into the kitchen and found a scattering of alphabet soup letters on the floor that spelled out a meaningful sentence, we would recognize that it was the deliberate handiwork of someone doing the spelling. Cryptography is also an example of exploring discoveries which are highly improbable to be attributed to chance as the rival conjecture.

If we encountered a series of ostensibly "random" letters, but discovered that some systematic transformation rendered them into a meaningful sentence, we would infer that someone had hidden that message there deliberately. Random chance would be deemed too unlikely to have caused that unaided.

The forensic debates in a courtroom also typically deal with rendering random chance as the unlikely contributor to the evidence which points to deliberate intent or design.

The discovery that our DNA codes are three-out-of-four, error-correcting codes, which are stored, retrieved, copied, and processed to instruct machines to fabricate the complex proteins that make up living organisms, has rendered any attribution to unaided chance as absurd in the extreme. (For those of our readers with advanced technical aptitudes, we strongly recommend the writings of William Dempski listed in the bibliography at the end of this article.)

Irreducible Complexity

Michael Behe has upset the comfort of the Darwinists by highlighting a design attribute that he terms "irreducible complexity." Consider, as an example, the familiar household mousetrap in figure 2.

This simple device consists of five essential parts: (1) a platform which holds (2) a hammer driven by (3) a spring when restrained by (4) a holding bar until released by (5) a catch. This basic design has defied attempts to simplify it further, or to reduce its complexity. The significant feature is that with only four of the five parts one cannot catch 4/5ths as many mice! Its function depends on each of its essential elements, each of which involve substantial precision in their specification. "Natural selection" cannot operate until there is something to select from.

Behe then presents an example of "irreducible complexity" from nature by reviewing the tiny motor that powers the flagellum, which propels a bacterium through the water:

Figure 3: This tiny mechanism, positioned to penetrate the bacterium's protective outer membrane, consists of over 40 parts - each of which are essential to its functioning. Figure 4 presents a functional equivalent: with any of its 40 parts missing, this mechanism would not be functional and would be a casualty in the processes of "natural selection" postulated by the Darwinists. The bacterium, dependent upon its locomotion, would be likewise.

So how did it come about? All the Darwinists can do is assert rather than explain.

The Miniature City

Darwinists love to postulate the "simple cell." With the advent of modern microbiology, we now know "there ain't any such thing." Even the simplest cell is complex beyond our imagining.

As Michael Denton has pointed out, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."4

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

All by chance? All without a Designer? (How do you define "absurd?")

When I was at the Ford Motor Company, one of our proudest assets was the famous River Rouge Plant in Dearborn. It was the largest totally integrated manufacturing facility in the world. With 97 miles of railroad within the plant, raw iron ore and limestone entered one end; the necessary steel, glass, and paint were manufactured within the facility. The entire cars (including the engines on automated lines) were fabricated within the plant, and new Mustangs came out the other end. Yet this entire complex pales in comparison to the elegant high order of design demonstrated in the simplest cell, which can also replicate itself in a matter of hours.

The Darwinian Bankruptcy

An elegant design is more than the parts themselves: it involves information. It requires information input external to the design itself - and the deliberate involvement of a Designer.

The Darwinians cannot explain the origin of life because they cannot account for the origin of information. The technology that provides language - semantics and syntax, for example - is quite distinct from the technology of the ink and paper it may be written on. The physical features of the circuits in a computer provide no clue about the design of the software that resides within it. It is profoundly significant that the Title of the Creator is the Logos - The Word:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3

Answer 2

The fault in your reasoning is that you ask a theory to prove explain something outside of its bounds. I'm trying to think of a decent comparison. Here's what I've got.

Carbon dioxide emissions are a major factor contributing to global warming. However, the planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles before there were machines giving off this excess CO2. Since burning fossils fuels doesn't explain the prior instances of global warming, it also shouldn't be taken as the explanation for the current global warming.

In this case, the argument is that because emissions don't explain an instance outside of the valid time frame, it can't be the current cause. No, it's not the best comparison, but it's what I could think of on the fly. Another one is that you wouldn't expect me to explain why magnets attract each other using the theory of gravity.

It looks like you've gone and discarded a theory based on a faulty argument just to wed yourself to another unprovable guess. If you want to do that, fine. Then leave the science to us.

Answer 3

We don't claim that we know yet how things got started in the first place. However, just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we're going to just stop searching and say "Well, I don't know any more than this, so an invisible, magical super-being living in the sky must have done it." And I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the idea of just assuming that something (for which there is not one single scrap of evidence) exists. And believing in this thing with no evidence based on "faith" is not OK with me. If there's a God out there, there is not a single reason at all that he can't show himself to us. Not one. It wouldn't take that much effort on his part. "Faith" is overrated. All through the Bible, God had no problem showing himself to people on a regular basis. It wasn't until science advanced to the point where it was able to explain things that used to be called "miracles", that suddenly the tune was changed to "now you need to believe in God based on faith ALONE. He won't show himself to you."
"You need to just have faith" is just an excuse that people came up with to explain why "God" was no longer "showing himself".

Answer 4

ok, this question was asked a couple of hours before as well. But it is based on a false assumption: that atheists believe the theory of evolution explains the existence of life. ToE assumes the existence of life. So where did life come from? That's a good question. I think there are scientific explanations for it, but even if there are not, that would not discredit Evolution one bit. It is not a joke simply because it is not a theory of everything! Well, you know that. But for some reason you think I don't know that.

Answer 5

"why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history" -_- 1) Writing had to be invented. 2) Humans were'nt around from the beginning 3) You are ignoring geology. "Evolutionists claim that man evolved over billions of years (that's billions with a "B"). If there were any truth to these false claims by unscrupulous scientists, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions." Yes. Evolving. That means we weren't aways as we are now and we were'nt keeping a record. They do have things such as early tools, homes cave paintings, pottery, graves and bones of our ancestors. "Ironically, they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such longevity" 1) That is not an example of irony 2) That is also a lie. There is evidence. It's why people believe it. Ugh... "The Israelites were used as slave labor by Pharaoh to build the pyramids." No evidence of that or what the bible says of them wandering the desert and what not. There is more proof that humans had been evolving before then. "The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome" There have been more than six world powers and they have also been important in changing the world and it's culture.

Answer 6

I believe in evolution because it's basically already been proven, but there are too many Christians out there for it to become a Law from a Theory. But I also believe that evolution and the creation of life was not random. It seems too complex to me for it to be random. There must be some kind of intelligence behind it, whether it was God or our own bored souls that made life up. That's just what I think.

Answer 7

OK, the issue with evolution being cause or used by God is problematic because evolution says death caused man to come into existance (innumerable generations of change and death resulting in mankind). However, the Bible clearly states in Genesis that man caused death through his sin.

So, the two are incompatible.

Answer 8

I'm really beating a completely dead, emabarassed, completely humiliated horse, but seriously, who made God? Ooops, we hit a giant, elephant in the room, bigger than Beth's (Dog's woman) knockers dead end. Evolution IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To this date, THERE IS NO GOOD EXPLANATION AS TO HOW LIFE ORIGINATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This, to the shock and dismay of some folks, does not disprove evolution. No one has ever explained the origin of life. Maybe no one ever will. And really, saying God (or fill in the blank with any supernatural being) "created" life is not an answer. Answers include not just who, but also how. So, to answer your question, it is not evolution, but you who can be considered the joke.

Answer 9

The theory of God has been around since the time of man (more than 150,000 years), not religion (about 10,000 years).
The theory of evolution has been around for a few years (since1859 maybe longer).
Seeing how they didn't have much time to answer all your questions, I think you should be a little more patient.
What are you afraid of, maybe they will find a God (maybe you won't like him).

Answer 10

please then answer who made god?

Scientists can show you evolution, can you show me god?

Scientists admit whole heartedly that we don't know what was before the big bang, but we have a theoritical proof of what happened after. could it all be wrong? yep. but we would in short time accept that something is wrong and find the right answer that we can prove.

We don't know how life started. we only have ideas and guess and we are testing those guesses trying to make life ourselves.
Who knows in the next thousand years we might just get it right.

Answer 11

--IT IS INDEED one of the greatest jokes played on mankind:

*** g94 9/8 p. 32 ‘One of the Great Jokes of History’ ***

‘One of the Great Jokes of History’

“I MYSELF am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” Those were the words of British broadcaster and writer Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-90) in lectures he gave at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He added: “I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example.”