ANSWERS: 100
  • Because they are afraid of religion, especially Christianity. They are so afraid that they are out to try and convert the masses beliving that they are automatically smarter then everyone who belives in God. (Not all of them but the most vocal ones. AKA Richard Dawkins, not even a real scientist anymore, more of an anti-religious crusader.)
    • Friartuck
      Not projecting there at all are you...?
  • Because the world is full of hypocrites who have nothing better to do than contradict what they have previously said... no offense meant, but most people are hypocrites
  • Edited, Update: Because maybe they're trying to prove their point of his non-existence. An atheist also has a tough time here and there. When met with christians and other believers. So in an argument they might try to stand their point of him not existing. They want to prove and backup their believe.
  • Because they want everyone to know that they don't believe in God, so that people who do can start arguing with them, and then they will have someone to talk to! lol. What ever, they'll figure it out eventually, I don't really think they are going to hell for being ignorant.
  • I guess that some of them find annoying the large amount of time and money that humans dedicate to God and religion. They probably think that time spent on religion should be spent on more realistic, constructive problem solving affairs.
  • When they talk to you about God, they are using that word to mean "the belief you have that I don't share". They don't probably mean "God", because, as you just said, they are athiest. Who are they talking to? Is someone constantly after them to defend their position? Or are they trying to convert someone?
  • I don't know the answer, but I have found the question fascinating and propelling as well as valid.
  • I am an atheist myself and I don't talk about God unless asked. How was the observation "atheists talk so much about God" made? I mean, I visit AB all the time and I don't see any atheists mentioning their beliefs in the "Movie stars and Celebrities" section. When you see atheists debating about the existence of God, you often see it in forums that involve religious topics, where everyone else is "talking so much about God" in the first place. This sounds to me like "Why would a Christian spend so much time and energy talking about "God" when they already believe that "God" exists in the first place and there's no need to convert them anymore?"
  • Because people who believe in God vote, and that affects all of us. If someone believes there is an imaginary friend in the sky who answers prayers and grants wishes and wanted the blood sacrifice of his son (AKA himself), or that this god wants us to kill infidels and will reward us with 72 virgins when we die, then we obviously have a problem if these same people are voting for leaders of a nation.
  • EDIT: Another way to phrase your question could be, "Why do Atheists care about religion?" This guy answers that question wonderfully.
  • A biblical perspective would show that what is against God, hates God, therefore is busy working against God all the time in till the end. I'm not an atheist, but in the past have been friends with a person who was angry that his grandma died, and became one. Is that true athiesm or is it actual anger at who you hold responsible for bad things happening? hmmmm. A true athiest, I would think, probably considers others to be living in a fantasy land or something. I LOVE America, we are free to believe or disbelieve. Exactly what God says. But, always remember.. if you think there is no God, and you are wrong, the consequences are much more severe.
  • I believe that as humans, (generally speaking) we have an inherent desire to believe that we are always right in our personal beliefs, thus we seek to sway others into accepting or adopting our beliefs as their own. It isn't enough for us to simply hold to our own isms and allow others to do the same in kind. The mindset of the world seems to be, "If you aren't with me, you are against me". Neutrality seems to no longer be an option, and diplomacy seems to be a long forgotten art. Wolfen: As one the least confrontational, and one of the most intelligent people I know, you sure opened a can of worms with this one. Hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride. LOL
  • You can't make any generalizations about atheists, just as you can't make any generalizations about non-bowlers. I know a lot of atheists and none of them have any interest in converting anyone else. I don't think of them as a group, that they somehow have something in commo. Even people like Dawkins are just defending their own view point. It seems that there are a lot of Christians in this country who believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be opposed to them. Christianity, and it's precursor Zoroastianism, are based on the idea of duality: good and evil, right and wrong, heaven and hell, if you are not with us, you are against us. Certainly a viable survival strategy 2000 years ago. Not so much now.
  • This person sounds conflicted to me, although some people (usually extroverts) talk and talk to process their thoughts.
  • Many atheists simply do not, or cannot accept the common concept of what is presented to them as 'God'. On the other hand, they are also confused as to why others can so easily accept what is illogical to them.... hence the discussion.
  • I have friends that call themselves "athiests", but I know that they really do believe in God. One of them has even told me (while he was drunk) that he says he doesn't believe in God for attention. I think this is the case with a lot of younger athiests. But,....believe it or not athiesm is a faith, and why would an athiest not try to demonstrate his/her disbelief, just like a chistian tries to prove their belief.
  • "Why would an Atheist spend so much time and energy talking about "God", when they don't believe that "God" exists in the first place?" ... This is a VERY GOOD question ... and the answer is: I don't know! Thank you.
  • How much time would an Atheist have to spend talking about Deity in order for it to be considered "so much time and energy"? What portion of their time? Non-Christians often end up talking about the Christian god, because Christianity is the largest faith group. Its practices are all around us, and some Christians insist on attempting to enshrine them in the law for everyone to follow.
  • You can't really say that about all atheists. I'm an athesit, myself, and do not like to talk about God that much. Sure I don't mind it but saying that is like us saying "All Christians are dumb" (Which, ofcourse, isn't true) So you shouldn't really go making thinsg up liek that. It all depends on the individual.
  • Possibly because they feel that by talking against religion will help strenthen their beliefs, just as a religious person may often talk about God to strengthen their beliefs. When people try to ask my stance on religion, I've never known whether to say I'm agnostic or atheist, but the truth is that I just don't really even care to worry about it.
  • Because they want you to know he doesnt exists the way your religion puts it.
  • For the same reason christians spend so much time talking about evolution and science
  • Because they want to know why there are child molestations, suicides, innocent victims of crimes,etc. if God is suppose to be such a loving God. One thing we have in common is that, no one was asked to be born to this world, as a child you do as you are told, but as you get older, you realize you can make your own decisions. You simply choose to believe or you don't, it's that simple.
  • I agree with CWH im an Athiest and hardly any of my questions are God related where did you come across these observations?
  • Because atheism is a belief system like any other. Some atheist people feel they need to spread their beliefs around in exactly the same way they see relgious people doing it. It's a war of ideas. How quickly people become the very thing they hate.
  • Because some think that the belief in God is dangerous and are trying to save people from religion.
  • Most don't. Just the newbies probably do, cos they think it's cool to say "I don't believe in God, so there". True Atheists don't HAVE to "prove" anything.
  • I am an atheist but I find religion fascinating - from an outsiders point of view. The fact that so many people believe in something I find utterly unbelievable is very interesting, and I am always happy to talk to people about it; at least to those who can talk about it reasonably. I am also interested in why religions arose in the first place, and the differences between them, because they have played such a large part in history. In the same way, I don't like wars, but I still spend a certain amount of time talking about them, as they are such a large part of life.
  • I spent about 15 seconds toady discussing God. Will try to spend less tomorrow. Hope you spend more time helping humanity - other then forcing God on them of course.
  • I have never understood why so many who disagree with God, either in the existence of or the type of, hang out on the religious sections of AB. There are thousands, literally, of sections but we(as humans)always migrate to the sections we disagree (for a lack of better word) with. As a Christian, I don't go to the Athiest, Wiccan, Muslim, and so on sections. I do get an update almost daily of new questions and do go to those sections but mostly to check out the answers. I will give a helpfull rating if someone is obviously giving their own opinions and almost always give thumbs up on the question. This is because I truly believe that there are no stupid questions-although glenbob is pushing it!! It does seem that when a question asks for a Christian answer that they (unbelievers) come and downrate the honest opinions just because they don't agree and can't be caught-that probably has a lot to do with it. They can down rate and nobody knows who is doing the down rating so just to be mean they do it. Plus, they answer/comment with silly, sometimes offensive words, just to try and get a negative response. Now I am NOT saying that ALL non beleivers do this, but they are the FIRST to cry foul when they feel they are being persecuted for their opinions. I learned a long time ago that those who cheat at cards are the first ones to accuse others of cheating. Those who lie are the ones to accuse others of lying. Great question, hope this helps your inquiry. God Bless, <:))))<><
  • They talk about it because they know inside God is real. It says that in the bible that God gave us a conscience to know that this world has a creator and that no one can or will be able to use that as an excuse when we stand before God. An evolutionist once said " I know there is a God but, If I believe in Him I wont be able to keep on doing the wrong things I like to do" We like to live our own way, Its natural. If we believe in God then we have to take a look at our lives and admit that we are sinners.
  • My theory is that they're trying to convince you to believe there is no God also.
  • I believe that an agnostic is someone that doesn't believe in God but believes that there is something out there. I think atheists believe that there is no God and nothing else either.
  • I agree. Atheism is an illogical position since no one can be absolutely certain one way or the other and if they are wrong they have everything to lose.
  • From the notes that I have gathered, Atheism doesn't believe that a god exists, point blank. Agnostic cannot prove either way that there is or is not a god, and has more of a "there is no way to know" standpoint, and obviously doesn't believe one way or the other. They are in itself, two separate viewpoints, and two different things.
  • As an atheist, I simply do not believe in God because there is no proof at all that God exist. Believing in God is actually much more illogical than not believing in God. You have been taught to believe in God by people who had no proof whatsoever. I care about something that I do not believe in because there are religious people out there who try to force their view down everybody's throat. There are also ridiculous exceptions being made and allowed only because people have certain beliefs. One example is that Jehova's witnesses just let their kids die rathr than allowing blood transfusion. Which is child abuse. If any parent without religious beliefs lets their child bleed to death, this is called child abuse. If JW parents demand their child is to die and let their kid bleed to death then we need to respect that??? Children are stuck with their parents false beliefs, whether they like it or not. And nobody is doing anything about it- just because they think they need to respect religion. Believing in God is not any more logic than believing in the tooth fairy. THis was my honest anwer although I expect being downrated for my honesty because of my opinion, I am sure some people do not express their honest view on here because they want to keep their points.
  • One of the highest virtues of a human is a capability of believing. To believe in God, one requires faith. The faith is a gift of God; one can not obtain it any other way. To each human the measure of faith is given, quote from Bible, Romans 12:3 (NIV) “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.” Speaking from experience, I was an atheist brought up in a communist regime. I had no God exposure of any kind in any of my teaching or studies. Although my parents were Christians, they did not dare to practice it while I was growing up for fear of retribution. I think the greatest miracle of all is that God can, in a moment, turn an unbelieving heart unto a believing one. The greatest power in the universe available to us, “The FAITH”, and yes, faith recognize it’s source. Scripture speaks of it as even a minute amount; size of the mustard seed can move a mountains’ quote from Bible, Matthew 17:20 “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." I know it’s allegorically speaking, but truth often is. The Bible specifically points to faith as being a requirement, and with out it, we can not please God. Hebrews 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” That passage from state of un-belief unto a belief is caused by that “measure of faith” that I mentioned at the beginning, which we all have. The moment is called by some “borne again” “begotten by God” etc… Quote from the Bible, Gospel of John Chap 3:3 Of course – it helps to have believing parents, community and general faith based exposure is a definite bonus. But those that are outside the faith based community reporting that they too, found faith in God because they paid attention to a longing that was inside of them, void that only God could fill, and when He did – they recognized it. Often long before reading the Bible, or being “witnessed” by other believers. Faith is a real thing, you can’t pretend you have it, any more then you can pretend how to swim or play an instrument. To be an atheist, in my case meant to believe that there is no God; and that if any good is to come my way, I need to look after my self as a number 1. That, in it self is also evidence of faith, it just needed some redirection in order to take off.
  • Atheism is simply the lack of theism, which is a specific belief in one or more deities. If you don't happen to hold that belief, then you are an atheist, whether you identify yourself by that word or not. If you don't know and don't care, you still fit into the category of "atheist" - just look at the word's construction and it's clear. Agnostic means the lack of claiming to know one way or the other; they are still atheists, but most don't use the word because ignorant bigots have so demonized it that it's not desirable to identify oneself that way. Claiming that atheism is a reaction to theism is silly. That's like saying that not believing in leprechauns is reactionary towards people who do. Um, no, sorry. I just don't happen to believe in leprechauns.
  • What I don't understand is the almost evangelical zeal of many atheists to get everyone over to their side...if you don't believe, fine, but why try and convince everyone to be an atheist? What do you gain from it, except company? (now watch me lose points....expressing an opinion is not always welcome)
  • I am an athiest. I have not had any form of belief in a deity like thing since I was in pre-school with an imaginary friend. I have no feelings of god or anything resembling a god. However, I can see some people using athiesm partialy as a reaction against religion, more than a reaction against theism. I don't care what other people believe in, and I really think that believing in a god or other deity can help some people. However, I do not like religion. It has, and still is, used to control people. It corrupts good people and messages. It has started more wars, and been responsible for more deaths than we can comprehend. It has, as karl marx once said, become the opiate of the masses. Reverance is a private thing, and doesn't belong on TV, or in mega-churches. Many of the past prophets have noted this, and people have ignored it. It is in the bible, just past "Don't Covet thy neighbor's oxen" if I remember right.
  • I think that the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is clear. Atheist don't believe in any higher power. Agnostics are essentially undecided. And I think that you're incorrect in saying that Atheists care about something they don't believe in. Atheists believe that faith is a waste of time, as much as you (assumption here) believe its important. They don't care about a higher power, they care about the impact of Faith and Religion on people. I think you've just confused exactly WHAT Atheists care about. By all means correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm an Agnostic so I'm not taking sides and I definatley don't want to get into a debate about this.
  • You ask why care about something you don't beleive, may i redirect your question to those who do NOT want evolution taught in school??
  • I thought agnostic meant that you don't believe in organized religion. I'm not atheist but it makes sense that people would not believe in God. People who belive in God don't really have proof that he exists, that why it's called faith. I think that atheist don't believe in God and it's not a big deal until people try to make them feel less than for being who they are. But I see where you're coming from.
  • I'm sure it must seem like an atheist is always talking about religion, but truly, that's only because we only identify ourselves as atheists when the topic of conversation is religion. I mean, when else would we bring that up? It's not like we sit around at home and gossip about religious people. And I'm sure you have had MANY non-religious conversations with atheists without even knowing it. There is no common denominator among atheists other than their having opted out from religion. We each have complex interest and satisfying lives of our very own. The problem is, a lot of people assume straight away that everyone else is religious and will act accordingly. A person who doesn't want to be automatically lumped into that category, or who wants to clarify some misconceptions that are being thrown around about people who are not religious, might speak up in this context. And then they're immediately accused of being obsessed with religion! Isn't that weird? I would think the people who wear the religious symbols and go to services every week are a little more obsessed, right? But it's exactly that kind of invisibility, where simply identifying ourselves is treated like some kind of crusade, is exactly why it's important for atheists to continue to point out that yes, we're around, we're perfectly normal, and we're not hideous baby-eating monsters just because we don't go to church/temple/mosques. In the case of political discussions it is actually worth expending some energy to protect our rights of self-determination and freedom from religious rule. I guess that's one good reason to expend "so much" energy, in self-defense. But if church and state were more seperate in my parts, I'd be content to never discuss that whole "god" thing again.
  • For me - I don't believe in God just as much as I don't believe in unicorns. Rarely do I discuss the fact that I don't believe in unicorns, or that other people shouldn't believe in unicorns. But, if the whole world started saying "unicorns are great!" "Hey, you did well! But guess what? It's not because you worked hard, it's because of the UNICORN!" "You can't fall in love with him! The unicorn says so!" "I'm going to kill you now, the unicorn told me to..." then I would start talking about it more.
  • That is one of the best questions I've seen on this board. I think they mainly like to antagonize believers, which is just spiteful. I don't believe in a lot of things, but I don't go out of my way to badger and pick fights with those who do. Live and let Live. More people should live by that rule. also, notice Christianity is the only religion that is fair game when it comes to religion bashing.
  • Atheists in the root believe there is no god because logic, evidence and fact ,so far, leads you to that answer but cannot prove for a fact that there is not one. I myself talk about religion a lot because i don’t understand how people can blindly follow things that to me are so weird and not needed. I don’t mean to do it out of disrespect its just curiosity. The only way to find out is it ask. Though some people have an elitist attitude when it comes to atheism and there just as bad as the religious zealot type. I really dislike those types in whatever they choose to believe. I hope the person you speak of is teh curiuos type.
  • I don't talk about god unless someone else starts to, first.
  • For me, I get so sick of hearing religious people talk about god, or try to talk about god to me. I had the witnesses come to my door just this morning. I am sick of hearing god has a plan, yet noone can see it or know it. God can do anything, well why doesnt he do anything? If he does do something name it? If you dont want me to question your faith, shut up about it. If I tell you i have a motorbike i expect you to ask what sort.
  • An atheist can be defined as somebody that does not have a belief in the existence of a "God" or "gods". This kind of atheists do not usually spent much time and energy talking about "God", unless under external constraint (in a missionary environment). An atheist can also be defined as somebody that does have a belief in the inexistence of a "God" or "gods". If this kind of atheist was missionary oriented, it would eventually spend much time and energy talking about "God". The use of the concept of "God" would be for the sake of the negation of it.
  • Often an atheist (like myself) has come from the position of having been religious. We can be a bit like recovering smokers! Also, I find myself reacting strongly when religious folk insist on propagating ignorance or outright untruths in support of their particular belief - for two reasons - 1. their god is supposed to be against that sort of thing and 2. it is as if their faith is so weak they need the lies to prop it up and that frustrates me.
  • The only person who can truely answer that is an atheist. Logically though normally when one spends a bunch of time on something it is because they really want to know the truth and are uncertain about their own beliefs about something.
  • I spent most of my atheistic life not thinking nor talking much about the God concept, because: 1. It didn't seem interesting 2. It seemed harmless for others to believe it 3. It seemed futile to try to change people's minds about it But lately, all three of these have changed. 1. It is interesting to me how people can so readily apply one standard for justifying their faith-based beliefs, but insist on evidence for all their other beliefs. 2. The practice of justifying beliefs on faith (in whole or in part) seems increasingly dangerous. Faith is not publicly testable, so it inevitably leads to unresolvable differences of belief. Evidence, on the other hand... 3. Of course, people's minds can change.
  • because there is a lot of social harm in acting through the mentality of many religions. for me, it's not god that is of concern but what people say and do in the name of god. many religions have built into the belief system intolerance or superiority of their teachings, leaving little room for thinking "outside the box". in my view, sprituality is about personal growth and in turn mental and emotional growth of others as well. it is not somthing that can be prescribed in a set of rules or rituals. learning and growing is a highly personal journey and must be achieved through responsibility and awareness. this cant be done through simple faith that there is a god or going to church or reciting prayers or following a set of rules. the emphasis of these actions leave a hollow set of procedures, yet leave out the spirit of the teachings. i respect many philosophical aspects of social conduct of monothestic religions, but there are also countless flaws in these religions that i believe far outweigh the good. i suppose it's also a political view. i am liberal and am hopeful that man can become better through experience and learning, but others feel we are natural sinners and need constant damage controls in place.
  • I think this is a very good question. They seem to be very curious.
  • How many people have knocked on your front door asking that you not believe in God?
  • As stated before by others I don't think many atheists do. I feel the need to talk about religion myself because I think it is harming society and the evolution of mankind.
  • Trying to convince the rest of us that God doesn't exist maybe?
  • The same reason that some "religious" folk on AB spend time taking shots at other religions. I don't mind discussion from either side but sometimes it gets downright rude.
  • Atheist? The absolute pure atheist - how many are actually around? No matter beliver or not most of us just flip-flop. It is the religions that lead to much fighting. Because like politics they could be used to control and direct the mass to their own ends.
  • i think athiests are natural debators...they must question every law and authority figure--including god.
  • because atheism is their belief system and they are trying to convert others to that belief system.
  • I often wondered that myself. Maybe, some of these folks are trying to figure out if what they believe is accurate for themselves. Or they are drowned by people trying to change them that talking about God is a way to remind themselves that he is not a part of their existance. I am not sure.
  • Why would a flower sprout from a tiney seed and beautiful petals, only to whither and die? When you can answer this, Grasshopper, you will have enlightnement.
  • Well, As an Atheist, I despise the belief of god. And, I try to make other people realize how foolish they are to believe in god. It's just fake, theres no other way to put it. Its a 'Feel good' cure to the fear of death. It just really angers me when important decisions are influenced by a belief in, whats best put, "A magical being whom has magical powers". Especially when it's related to the belief of people high in the government. I hope to help stomp out the science-less, Fact-less, Sense-less belief of religion before i die.
  • Because God created them so there will be / they will have no doubt about it.What goes around comes around. God give them life they will always question about God.
  • Because you're idea of "god" is to force you're tired religion on us while claiming that we are intruding on you're rights.
  • Because most if not all aspects of religion(s) are entirely fundamentally based, this being the reason for athiests to prove there point that there, Is & Was no such thing as a messiah/god. As you may well know, Christians are deeply consumed by religion & belief & again this is why top atheists such as Richard Dawkins(one of the world top athiests & scholars) tour the globe doing lectures & writting books on the matter to open peoples eyes to the misconceptions of religion
  • Atheists know that God exists, they just run from Him.
  • In my opinion i believe everyone wants to belong.. we are a social animal, and to belong is one of our most naturalest desires.. religion has split the world in two the religious and the non religious... the religious try so desperately to convert non believers and some go so far as to castrate those who will not be turned.. and atheists find themselves being kicked out of their homes, being somewhat hated by their family or looked down upon by so many.. Why do atheists talk so much about it? because it threatens their very right to belong =/. And it is a natural tendency to try and persuade people to your cause... because then you belong.. if im wrong do please forgive me :).
  • well religion is a facinating subject and a world shapeing force. even if your atheist it can affect you greatly
  • watch ZEITGEIST Acompilation of facts to not be fooled by people in power that keep the sheep in line,think about it there is an imagianary man in the clouds that is looking down watching everything and he created all 200.000 animal species,and everything that exists and he needs lots of money every sunday,oh yea and tax free of course,and he never can get enough money so his buddies like jimmey swagert snivel and sweat and beg for more money they just need more and more, like the budget for halliburton the CEO MAKES 44.000.000 YES 44 MILLION A YEAR 1 GUY WOW YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK .THE NEXT FAKE IS ALLAH AND THE DUMB FOOLS PRAYING 6 TIMES A DAY TO WHAT i have not seen aneyone float down yet and i wont hold my breath,ok blind faith faith, man wrote the bibble ,coran, THE SUN OF MAN,I WONDER IF THE SUNSET EXPLAINES HOW THE SON(sun) WALKED ON WATER OR DOES THAT MAKE TOO MUTCH SENSE.
  • all things in this world are controlled. imagine a big ship in a big sea with full load such as goods,foods, and other stuff but without a captain to control it.. the ship will be up side down and create havoc..how bout this world? full of complex system and so on..take time to see your environment and think, who made all this?
  • A Good Atheist wouldn't.
  • No sweat. Agnosticism is an epistemological point of view, claiming that it is not (does not seem to be) possible to know anything about X (in this case, I guess, primarily God and/or gods). Atheism is more simple: basically, not believing, for some reason or other, in the existence of some God (gods) or other. Most of us, I guess, are ”relative” atheists, in the sense that we don't believe in most of the gods profferred worldwide and in history. So (to give an answer): if you don't believe in (any) gods, the basic choice (or pregiven stance, if you never even heard about gods), is to be an ”atheist”, literally a ”non-believer in gods”. Agnosticism, by contrast, is a quite sophisticated stance, when you (a) have heard of a God or gods, (b) think you understand what is meant by these terms, and (c) think that there are not (and, perhaps, cannot be) any good reasons for believing in this God and/or gods. I would say the agnostics have their work cut out for them, no less than theists, deists and their ilk. Then again, some ”atheists” are not pure non-believers in this way, but have a firm belief that there IS no God (of any kind): i.e. (beware: logic ahead!) they do not only not believe that there is a god, they believe that there is no god!. Now, proving this positive belief might be difficult, even if you should happen to have any clear idea what to look for (which I guess we don't have). So this is the real question, I suppose: why deny the existence of something you deny the existence of? Not a silly question, in fact, but a deep and interesting one. (Brief comical interlude from ”Waiting for God” (from memory): ”God! The bastard! He doesn't exist!” So – and this is the question here, I guess – why blame or curse someone who you do not believe to exist? Why hate Santa Claus, the poor giver of Christmas gifts, once youv'e moved out of your parents' home?) The reason for caring about and denying the existence of God, instead of simply forgetting all about it (or about Santa Claus), might be that you see that belief in God and a divine moral order causes a lot of unnecessary pain and self-righteousness (”with god on our side…” etc.), when people want to judge and rule others in the name of a God, his wishes and rules – which none of us (let's face it!) knows ANYTHING about. If you think you do, where did you get this information from? And would you trust it in any everyday context? So, WHY not just be an agnostic? Because it is a supposedly more sophisticated position, which still gives too much credit to what is, by all defensible standards, simply wishful thinking: that there is a God backing up the moral order which happens to be of my liking (whether I am a christian, taliban, hindu or what have you). The agnostic says: these MIGHT all be right, we simply cannot know. The atheist, in so far as he cares at all, says: there doesn't seem to be any good reason to believe in any of this, so why not just let it go: and since most of these beliefs seems to be explicable on historical, psychological and sociological grounds, why look for any deeper truth here? The truth of the matter, as far as we can responsibly judge, is that ”we simply don't know” (insofar as we are even supposed to understand) . So let us take it from there. What do you think: what should we do? Do not point to heaven, do not point to your Book, do not let your heart dictate Truth: let's just try and talk about it.
  • Of course you don't get it, since you are ignorant of the entire idea of atheism, than you wouldn't understand in the first place. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, agnosticism is the idea of not knowing if there is a god.
  • I'm Atheist for my own personal reasons. But I do not go around picking fights with people who do believe in G-d or G-ds. I do a lot of studying in religion and I find most people don't even practice their religion correctly. They just go around assuming and judging. Probably most Atheist feel like believers are going to come and say, Hey your going to Hell. And this is where they want to be like, Blah blah blah. I don't like thoughs Atheist. If someone says I'm going to Hell, great, because I know they will be Judged one day and I don't care. Keep up the good work and keep asking questions. Good job.
  • Imagine you are in a room full of athiests. And everyone was attacking you for being a believer. And you cannot leave the room. What would you do? Try and convince the room that God does exist. Well, we athiests are in a world full of believers. And they do attack us all the time. The only way to defend ourselves is to the undertsnad their religion and their God better than they do so you can answer them back and try to shut them up. Evenually, we athiests end up with more knowledge about your religion than you do. In fact the believers don't really know a lot about their religion because they blindly believe whatever the "good book" and the pastor tell them. And I am sure you will agree that even though the Bible is the most important book for Christians, Christianity is not limited to the Bible. So, when the athiest discover things about religion that believers have overlooked, they feel compelled to share it with the world. The idea is not to turn you into an athiest. The idea is to help you understand your religion better. Of course, we don't succeed because you take offense the minute we start questioning your belief. The problem is that religion is for those who never ask questions. Because those who ask can never believe. And those who believe, never ask. Start questioning, and you will find so many answers that you will be bursting to share them with the world. And then you will know why we athiest love to talk about God. Simply because we know more about God then you do!
  • http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/126775
  • im an athiest, but i think maybe people talk about religion so much because they dont really understand faith in something that cant be seen. the unknown is a great talking point. as for athiests who constantly talk negetively about religions constantly, they are just insecure, dont worry about them
  • Some confuse Atheist and Agnostic. I don't "want" to believe in god, but deep down I think I do.... so I search and search and search and search... You'll often find me (in rl) trying to disprove god, yet I have a few bibles and religion is one of my favorite topics of discussion.
  • Maybe for the same reason Christians spend so much time and energy explaining, proving and arguing the reality of a God that they believe is real in the first place.
  • I don't talk about God unless someone asks me about it.
  • The world is divided between: - theists - atheists - everyone else Theist and atheists are people who are concerned about God's existence or nonexistence. Everyone else does not bother about God.
  • because they try to rationalize if there was a god why does this or that happen.they try to blame god for things that are mans own fault. oddly enough most atheist were believers at one time,but something in there life happened that caused them to rebel against the lord. alot of time in life when there are things that we (mankind) cannot explain happen, we tend to blame god or say there must not be a god. as far as science is concered, if you reseach deep enough you will find evolution is flawed. the more you learn of how our(science)contradicts itself,you will learn there is one answer,one Lord Jesus,one God.
  • Why do other religions try to shove their religion down your throat? Many people in other religions (i'm not saying everyone) say their Christian or w/e without actually knowing anything about the religion. I don't know about you, but the atheists i know have read the bible and studied other religions. it's not as if they've just decided one day, "Hmmm this is stupid, i think i'll just say i don't believe in God anymore." It's so that when you walk up to them and ask why they don't believe in God they can give you a strait forward reason. Know their stuff. Have a point and purpose for not believing. They're different and i respect their stand.
  • Well, I think it's important that beliefs are challenged, especially beliefs such as in God and religion which I percieve as harmful to human development. I personally challenge religions such as Christianity because I disagree with a LOT of it's morality and I like to debate the subject with people to see why they don't. The suggestion that anything should not be questioned is strange to me anyway, since I believe EVERYTHING you believe should be questioned constantly. Debating a subject helps you go through this process and iron out your conclusion.
  • I am an atheist that invests time and energy in the god delusion because it is my attempt at making the world a better place to live in. If my common sense can contribute to helping a person see theism for the nonsense that it is, then I've done good. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
  • I've found that Atheists avoid those kind of confrontations like the plague, and that it's Believers that can't leave them alone about it.
  • I respect that of everyone and their beliefs. But one of my thoughts on an athiest, not to offend anyone, is that they might spend time and energy talking about God because they want to prove that there is no God. To me, atheist knows that God exist, but chooses to not believe that God does due to that of the atheist own personal self.
  • Maybe it's a cry for help. They want to believe, but their blind conviction stops them.
  • I don't
  • simply because we try to enlighten other but they never seem to listen well as the saying goes "you cannot awaken those who are pretending to be asleep"
  • Because God is the most well-known divine entity, and shooting that down is the biggest start.
  • Some people have disbeliefs but deep down they want to believe. Maybe because they feel that there is more to life than what they see with their eyes. Of course there is, I mean, look around in your community and all the charities and organizations that are doing cool things to make their world a better place to live. Athiest should investigate and research instead of saying, "God doesn't exist." Maybe somewhere along the road, they'll find him.
  • This proof is discussed in three parts which make up the whole. Evolutionists make three claims to support their position that things do change over time. The claims are: that genetic information changes beneficially by random chance over time; that natural selection and survival of the fittest are driving these mutational changes “upward” to produce greater intelligence and complexity; and, that the adaptation of species to new environments demonstrates evolution at work. Genetics Evolutionists say that biological life forms change in an “upward” direction, becoming more and more complex, through spontaneous mutation of genetic information. However, the word mutation means by definition “copying error.” A mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from the parents. Mutations are errors in copying the genetic codes. You may copy something perfectly or imperfectly, but you cannot copy something more perfectly. If we copy something perfectly, then there is no change from one generation to the next. If we copy something imperfectly, then the information is degraded or corrupted and the next generation will suffer from the imperfections of the copying processes. Gene pools contain lots of information but “new” genes, that are “new pieces of information,” are never produced. New information does not come into existence without the input from a greater outside intelligence. Mutations are random and not directed. Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. Neither is new information produced simply from an input of undirected energy. The addition of excess undirected energy will accomplish nothing beneficial; it will destroy the previously existing system. For example: if a computer designed to operate on 110 volt electricity is plugged into a 220 volt power supply it will destroy the computer. But, all that we did was to add excess undirected energy into the computers’ system. The Laws of Genetics are conservative, not creative; these laws only allow for the copying or rearranging of previously existing information which is then passed on in new combinations to the next generation. Even ardent evolutionists like, Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, have admitted that there are no transitional life forms found in the fossil record. None! Random mutations produce microevolution, which is only variation within a created kind. Random mutations cannot produce macroevolution, which would be the supposed change from one kind into a different kind. Genetic research which has attempted to force spontaneous mutations has proven to be futile in producing beneficial mutations. Evolutionists cannot adequately answer the question: “Where did the original information that is being copied come from?” Since 1910, over 3,000 mutations in Fruit Flies have been documented, yet there is no documentation of a Fruit Fly evolving into something else. Do things change over time? Consider ants, horseshoe crabs, bats or algae. Many ant species appear in amber from the Dominican Republic, which evolutionists claim is 25 to 40 million years old. Yet they look exactly the same as they do today. Fossil horseshoe crabs claimed to be 150 million years old are identical to those found alive. The oldest skeleton of a fossil bat, dated as Eocene by evolutionists and supposedly 50 million years old, looks exactly like the skeleton of modern bats. The “oldest” fossils found on earth are said to be blue-green algae colonies one billion years old; yet these fossil colonies seem to be duplicates of living colonies. There has been an often touted story told by evolutionists about the supposed evolutionary changes that occurred in the English Peppered Moth. They declared that this story “proved” that evolution could be seen at work in nature. The story goes something like this. During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, the English Peppered Moth changed from a mixed population of individuals that were mostly white with black specks and fewer black individuals with white specks to a population that was mostly black with only a few white. The idea was that coal burning had darkened the tree trunks and buildings in England and that the white individuals stood out against the dark background and the black individuals were camouflaged; thus, whiter individuals were eliminated by birds eating them first and the black were protected and they propagated an ever larger percentage of the total population. The story is, however, a total hoax! In the 1950’s, a British physician, Bernard Kettlewell, wanted to try to prove that evolution was true and that natural selection was at work in nature as Darwin had believed. In order to get his proof he tried to release English Peppered Moths during the day near trees with bark of various colors. He wrote an article for the Scientific American magazine and declared that his experiment was evidence of Darwin’s predictions. His article has become the foundation of hundreds of textbook references to evolution at work in nature. In the 1980’s evidence was given that this story is a hoax. First, English Peppered Moths are nocturnal and do not fly around during the day when birds might see them. Dr. Kettlewell had to wake the moths up, and in their confusion of seeing daylight, more landed on him than on the nearby trees. Second, the Moths do not land on the trunks of trees where they might be seen by predators (if they were out in the daytime) because they live in the canopies of trees where they are well hidden. Third, the photographs of these moths sitting on tree trunks and reproduced in countless textbooks were staged. The moths were actually dead and had to be glued onto the trees in order to take the now famous photographs. What does the English Peppered Moth teach us about natural selection? They demonstrate the fixity of species and the natural and easily understood lateral adaptation allowed within a gene pool, fully consistent with the creationist position. The structure of the moth did not change over time. This moth illustrates lateral adaptation, not progressive evolution. We may summarize the factual information about mutations in these five statements. First, mutations are harmful, since they are, by definition, copying errors. Only a perfect copy of previously existing information is desirable. Anything else is a copying error, and that means that the information will become worse, not better, over time. Second, mutations are rare and beneficial ones are unknown. You can’t get better than perfection. Any copy must either remain perfect, or if a change does occur, then that change would have to go “downhill.” Consider these examples. What happens when a story is retold from one person to another in a string of ten people? Do we end up with the original story? If an original cartoon and caption are copied 100 times prior to your receiving it, are the lines a little wavy? Are there black specks on the paper that were not on the original? Has the picture improved or gotten worse for copying? What would happen if a blind, tone-deaf person were to randomly change the tension of the strings on a perfectly tuned piano? Would the piano stay in tune? Would he ever get it back in perfect tune by random chance? These are useful examples of what happens when mutations occur. Third, mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing ones. We have never seen a new organ appear fully developed and ready to use. We have seen existing organs become deformed and unusable through mutation. Fourth, mutations do not accumulate; that is, they do not build, or have an additive effect, one after another to form a chain of major evolutionary changes. Any change that does occur is diluted in the very next generation so that there is no long term net beneficial effect. Fifth, mutations lead to the wrong kind of change. What occurs is only the deterioration and corruption of the previous information, not the building up of information and structures. The Laws of Genetics do not fit with the random chance progressively “upward” increase in either intelligence or complexity which the theories of evolution would require. The Laws of Genetics were written by the Creator to maintain and preserve the information that He had encoded in the original kinds as described in Genesis Chapter One. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest Evolutionists claim that the driving force for the progressive upward increase in complexity and intelligence of living organisms is due to natural selection and survival of the fittest, “nature red [bloody] in tooth and claw” as Charles Darwin put it. Is this position correct, logical or even plausible? Natural selection was first a creationist argument! William Edward Blyth (1818-1873) in 1835, 24 years before Charles Darwin, stated that natural selection was only a conservative process that removes defective organisms and keeps species pure and strong. Dr. Thomas Huxley, M.D., and known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” in England, chastised Darwin for not giving Blyth the credit for the concept. Even though Darwin verbally agreed with Huxley that he should have given Blyth the credit, Darwin refused to do so in print. Creation believing scientists of the past four hundred years have consistently said that natural selection and survival of the fittest were the methods designed by God to preserve the purity of the created kinds, thus preserving the kinds as closely as possible to the design with which God started. By weeding out the genetically defective, the older and the infirm individuals in a population, those remaining were healthy and strong versus weak and extinct. Wildlife management research done around the world has proven that natural selection and survival of the fittest do not work in nature to produce progressive “upward” evolution, but rather that these mechanisms in nature work to preserve and maintain the purity of the kind. Predators, which are said to be the ones who “weed” out a population, do not take the defective or infirm only; predators are opportunistic hunters and take any individual, including the best and strongest, regardless of their condition. Predators do not go out and make value judgments. Predators (lions) do not look at the individuals in a herd (antelope) and say to themselves, “That one is genetically defective.” Or, “That one is old, so I’ll take that one.” Predators take prey based upon the opportunity to catch it. If the strongest and most intelligent member of a herd makes a mental mistake and gets isolated from the herd, the predators will take that one first. When a Killer Whale swims through a school of fish it is not the survival of the fittest; it is the survival of the most fortunate - the survival of the luckiest. Evolutionists propose that the following formula describes their myth: Mutations Cause Change + Nature Causes Change = Observed Evolution. What is the real formula? Adaptation + Imagination = The Myth of Evolution. Interestingly enough, recent research in the Galapagos Islands, which made Charles Darwin so famous, has shown that small populations often lead to extinction rather than speciation and this has caused evolutionists to demand ever increasing land areas to be set aside in order to prevent extinction from a lack of biodiversity. This would seem to go counter to the prior evolutionary belief that it was isolation in new environments which was the cause of new species. Evolutionists claim that over time things get bigger, better, faster and smarter. The physical record shows, however, that plants and animals in the past were bigger than they are today. Consider the cockroach, dragonfly and Chambered Nautilus. Today, cockroaches grow up to 2 3/4 inches long, but in the fossil record they are often up to 18 inches long. Today, we have dragonflies that are up to six inches across in wingspan, but in the fossil record we find them with wingspans of up to 50 inches across. Today, chambered nautiluses grow to be 10 ½ inches in diameter, but in the fossil record we find them up to eight feet in diameter. So, things aren’t getting bigger, better, faster and smarter. They are getting smaller, worse, slower and dumber. Adaptation of Species Evolutionists claim that adaptation of species to new environments proves that evolution occurs. It is true that intelligent outside manipulation of breeding can produce new combinations which yield a new specific variety, or sometimes called a “race,” of a “kind” of species. The variety produced can only be maintained, however, if the outside intelligence (human beings) continues to guide the breeding process in order to maintain the purity of that variety. As everyone knows, dogs and cats are indiscriminate breeders and, if left to their own devices, will produce a “Heinz 57” kind every time. You can take the two biggest horses you can find and they will not continue to give birth to ever larger horses. There is a limit which cannot be exceeded. This also works in the opposite direction. If it is possible to breed ever smaller dogs down to “miniature,” and then “toy;” shouldn’t it be possible to continue the process until dogs became so small that eventually a breed of invisible dogs were produced? This, of course, is nonsense. There is a limit to how small a species may get and still remain viable. What Charles Darwin observed in the 1800’s was the artificial selection that produced many of the purebred varieties that we see today. Artificial selection occurs when people decide which animal or plant will breed with another. Darwin knew that if he stated that artificial selection was occurring in nature by random chance no one would believe him. Therefore, he wrote deceptively that “natural selection” was the driving force of evolution. Please refer to the comment on the Galapagos Islands above concerning the effect of environment on species. Lateral adaptation within a gene pool is consistent with the creationist position; gene pools may be “pushed” to the edge of the envelope by human breeders but one kind never becomes a different kind. Pure breeding and hybridization have produced extremes at the edge of the gene pool; but the sugar content of sugar beets and the speed of racehorses have been maximized by breeding in the past and very little additional change is genetically possible in the future. The ability of life forms to adapt to new environments actually demonstrates that they were designed/created. Only the farsightedness of a perfect Creator could take into consideration all the future factors and design plants and animals to be able to survive under so many varied conditions. Proof #2—Evolutionists Claim That the Fossil Record “Proves” Evolution. Does it? The evolutionist uses a false form of circular reasoning to “prove” that he is correct. First, he starts with the assumption that he is correct, by faith. Second, he goes to the other side of the circle, digs up fossils from different places around the world and arranges them in the order he “wants” them to be in. Last, he goes back around the circle and says, “You see, the fossils prove that I am right.” This logic is patently illogical. When the Greeks developed the science of logic 2,500 years ago, they called this kind of reasoning a tautology; that it was circular reasoning that falls under its own weight, that it was patently illogical. If you allow me to rearrange the evidence I can prove anything I want to, can’t I? You cannot rearrange the evidence and then claim proof for anything! If you remember little else from this material, remember this! One of the single greatest differences between a creation-believing scientist and an evolution-believing scientist is that the creationist does not rearrange his evidence and the evolutionist does! The creationist has no incentive to want to rearrange the evidence. No matter what the evidence is, no matter where the evidence is found, as long as it is found honestly, the creationist has no incentive to move it. We may not understand it now; we may not have the correct interpretation of it now; we may never understand it until He comes back to tell us what it is all about; but we believe that whatever is found honestly will be consistent with a Creator God and we have no incentive to rearrange the evidence. The evolutionist must rearrange his evidence before he claims proof; and that is a monstrous difference! The evolutionist claims that the fossil evidence is the slow and gradual accumulation over millions and billions of supposed years of dead plants and animals. These remains are supposedly contained in layers which are “in the right [evolutionary] order.” This order is supposed to be the order found in the typical Geologic Time Column or Geologic Time Scale so often printed in evolutionary science textbooks. This series of fossil bearing rock layers starts with the present at the top and goes down, or “back in time,” billions of supposed years. These charts typically show that single-celled creatures came from nonliving matter (rocks) by random chance; that once alive, these single-celled creatures inherently became multiple-celled creatures; that multiple-celled creatures eventually evolved into man. What is the truth about the rock layers? The truth is that there is not one location on earth where you can take a pick and a shovel and, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the “perfect [evolutionary]” order which the evolutionist’s claim them to be in. The Geologic Column does not exist in nature; it only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who chose to believe it. The Geologic Time Column is nothing more than evolutionary speculation and arbitrary opinion. No where in the world is it to be found! To be fair, there are 26 locations of the surface of the earth where the major layers may be found in the ”textbook” order, however, that is only if you look at them from a couple of miles away. If you look at them up close and personal there are many discrepancies to be found in those layers. More importantly, if there are only 26 locations on the surface of the earth where the layers may be found in the order shown in the textbooks, what do you do about the other million locations on earth where the layers cannot be found in the textbook order? What do we find in the real world? We find that the rock layers are out of order, upside down, interlaced and missing. Most often we find only two to four layers in any one location. Often these layers are not in the “right” order according to evolutionists. Often we find “older” layers on top of “younger” layers. One such example is Heart Mountain in Wyoming, where the top two layers of the mountain are upside down, according to evolutionary philosophy, and there is 300 million years supposed years missing in between. How can this be? The evolutionist replies that this is an example of “overthrust.” Overthrust is supposed to be a place where a large section of rock layers have been broken off by seismic activity and then pushed up and over the adjacent rock layers. True overthrust is rare and easily detected because when it does occur it leaves a layer of broken rock pieces between the layers of rock which are moving against each other. Note, however, that the amount of pressure necessary to push large volumes of rock up and over other layers would be enough pressure to pulverize the rock being pushed. Also, most “out of order” rock layers do not even have dust in between then. Overthrust cannot explain the many rock layers which are found “out of order” all over the world. You only find fossils in sedimentary rock. The word sedimentary comes from the word sediment, which is what remains at the bottom of a glass of water after you throw dirt into it. Sedimentary rock was mud which dried out into hard rock. Sediment comes basically from water-carried material, although a small amount may be formed from windblown debris. I would like for you to consider the following statement and then I will ask you a question. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the entire earth’s surface is covered with dried-out mud layers containing trillions of dead plants and animals that all drowned. Does that sound like the result of slow and gradual accumulation over millions and billions of supposed years? Or, does that sound like what we would expect to find as the result of a recent rapid one year long worldwide flood? The fossil evidence is best understood as trillions of dead plants and animals which drowned in a recent flood. Only a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah could produce the rock layers which we find covering the earth today. Many of the fossil layers are found in highly folded or convoluted shapes. Have you ever tried to bend hard flat rock layers? Hard rock does not bend, it breaks. These folded layers of material demonstrate that they were formed by water deposition, and then folded by tectonic activity while they were still wet; and only after they were folded did they dry out into hard rock (Please see Psalm 104:8). Eighty to eighty-five percent of the rock layers found on the surface of the earth do not have even three of the layers in the “correct [evolutionary] order.” Research conducted in sedimentation laboratories at Colorado State University and in France proves conclusively that in nature sedimentary layers do not form slowly one on top of the other as evolutionists claim; but, rather that sedimentary layers form by growing sideways as the result of sorting by size and velocity as they are extended by water deposition flowing in a specific direction. This is well documented revolutionary research refuting evolutionary thinking. Have you ever been to a limestone cave full of stalactites and stalagmites? If you go to Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky or Luray Caverns in Virginia, you will be told that it takes perhaps 10 to 20 million years for a limestone cave to form. Does it? In the basement of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., stalactites up to five feet long were formed in only 45 years. So, I guess it doesn’t take 20 million years to get a limestone cave. At Carlsbad Caverns, the body of a dead bat was found encased in a rapidly growing stalagmite. The body of the bat had not had enough time to decompose before it was covered up. Recent research has demonstrated that in natural caves stalactites and stalagmites grow an average of four inches per year. Is fossilization a slow process or a fast process? Does it take millions of years to get a fossil? After something is alive and then dies there are only three requirements for fossilization to take place. The dead plant or animal must be buried rapidly. This is obvious in order to prevent decay on the surface. While wind does bury things, it also unburies things just as fast. Only water buries things quickly and buries them well. Next, there must be no oxygen present or decay will still occur. Last, the cavity must remain undisturbed, otherwise oxygen would get in and whatever had not already fossilized would decay. Fossil fish have been discovered in northern South America and even their gills were preserved. The gills of a dead fish are the first thing to decompose and are usually completely gone within four days. These fish must have been fossilized in less than four days or their gills would not have been preserved. A man-made hat, a Fedora, was found fossilized after only 40 years on the island of Tasmania. Another hat, a Bowler, was found in New Zealand in 1946. It had fossilized in only 60 years. Next to the Bowler, we found a whole ham fossilized. In 1903, at Eureka Springs, Arkansas, we found a bag full of ground flour; the bag and flour were fossilized. Apparently fossilization must be a rapid process. There is a category of fossilized material known as polystrate fossils. The word poly means “many” and strate refers to “layers.” These are fossils which are found to penetrate through two or more layers of the fossil record, meaning that they supposedly existed in two or more of the evolutionary time frames. Polystrate fossils are usually tree trunks, stumps or roots, although they may be bone(s). We find millions of fossilized tree trunks all over the world which “penetrate” multiple layers of the fossil record. Could these trees have lived for millions of years while these layers formed around them? No. The existence of polystrate fossils shows that the fossil record accumulated very quickly. Human artifacts have been found in rock layers dating supposedly as far back as 400 to 500 million years. Over 300 man-made stone tools were found during the California Gold Rush Period (1850 to 1890). They were found in gold bearing gravels and are cataloged at the University of California, Berkeley. The gravels were supposedly 9 to 55 million years old. In 1937, a ceramic spoon was found in a piece of Pennsylvania medium grade coal. In 1889, a fired clay human figurine was discovered in Nampa, Idaho, 320 feet below the surface of the ground, supposedly making this doll 12 million years old. In 1912, in the city of Thomas, Oklahoma, in the middle of a mid-Pennsylvania aged anthracite coal seam, a small black iron pot was found. According to evolutionists, the coal seam was 300 million supposed years old. In Utah, a fossil hunter found the matching top and bottom pieces of a fossil showing a number 9 1/2 man’s sandal or moccasin print crushing to death two baby Trilobites. According to evolutionists, the rock is Cambrian Limestone supposedly 500 to 600 million years ago. Near Glen Rose, Texas, a metal hammer head with a wooden handle attached has been found in a layer of sedimentary rock that evolutionists insist is 400 to 500 million years old. These findings clearly refute the claim by evolutionists that humans evolved from apes four million supposed years ago in East Central Africa. Proof #3—Evolutionists Claim That Homology “Proves” Evolution. Does It? The study of similar structures is called Homology. The evolutionists claim that random chance has produced similar structures by the inherent ability of matter to achieve optimum design without an outside guiding force. The evolutionists think that the existence of similar structures is caused by common heritage, a common ancestor. The structure of a man’s hand, a bat’s wing, a whale’s flipper and a horse’s leg are indeed similar. This would also be expected if creation were true. The study of molecular homology does not show, as so often claimed by the liberal media, a 96 to 99% similarity between the genetic structure of apes and humans. In reality the whole DNA of ape and man is not nearly that close. According to the prestigious evolutionist magazine Nature, September, 2005, and only considering the genes and not all the intergenic components of the genomes of apes and humans (they are only comparing 3% of the total information in the genomes), there is only an 83% similarity of genes between apes and humans. Even more troublesome for evolutionists, apes only produce 29% the same proteins as humans, while 71% of the proteins are different. To make matters worse for evolutionists, using “their” chosen method of determining genetic similarity between apes and humans; people are 50% the same as bananas, 88% the same as rats, 60% the same as chickens, and 88% the same as Sea-squirts. Using the evolutionists’ chosen method of genetic comparison, who does this make us closer to? A similar study of Cytochrome C, a universal protein needed for aerobic respiration, clearly shows that every life form is unique, different and unrelated to any other life forms. The argument from Homology was initially a creationist argument which proponents said that the existence of similar structures showed a common designer not a common ancestry. Designed complex structures and systems do not occur by random chance. When many different engineers are given a design problem and a common goal of finding the “best” design, they will all head in the direction of the same optimum design. Examples of common optimum design are everywhere, for example; cars and ladders. The similarity of structural appearance between ape and man does not indicate spiritual equivalence. What we do see in nature is a convergence upon a common design. The structural engineering term is “the conservation of engineering design from common desired end function.” Apes and men have a similar design probably because God had similar body function in mind. God had perfect designs and He simply used them in many awe-inspiring variations. Proof #4—Evolutionists Claim That Ranking “Proves” Evolution. Does It? Evolutionists claim that “ranking,” the ability to place things in a logical order or sequence by size or shape, proves that evolution is true. Classic illustrations of this technique include the “Horse Series” and “The Road To Man” presentations. The proof method of “ranking,” however, is the second worst method of proof in all of science. The “Horse Series” was thrown out decades ago and no self-respecting evolutionist would claim it to be true today. Eohippus is now classified as a form of Rock Badger. Eohippus and Equus remains have been found within the same sedimentary rock layer, proving that they lived at the same time. What does ranking prove? If I line up a room full of people using only their height as the guide for where they belong in the line, what have I proven? I have only proved that people come in different heights and that I have the ability and intelligence to arrange them by height. If I line up a room full of people only by their birth month and day only (not year), what have I proven? I have proven that people are born on different days of the year and that I have the ability and intelligence to arrange them by the month and day of their birth. Ranking proves nothing about the relationship between any two people in either scenario. I have proven nothing about their heritage. I have not proven that any two of them are related in anyway. I have not proven that any one of them is married to another; that any one of them is a mother, father, son or daughter. The proof by ranking is a useless method of proof. If I place a unicycle next to bicycle next to motorcycle next to an automobile, did I just prove that unicycles evolved into automobiles? If I place a Sand Dollar next to a Frisbee next to a hubcap next to a wheel, did I just prove that Sand Dollars evolved into wheels? No. I have shown that the “Proof by Ranking” is a totally fallacious argument. I would also caution anyone to be wary of artists’ renderings as they are dependent upon the preconceived worldview of the artist. For example, while it was later found out that the fossil tooth from what was initially called Nebraska Man had actually come from an extinct species of pig, a drawing was done in 1922 that showed what Nebraska Man, Nebraska Woman, their clothing and tools looked like. If you give the same skull to two different artists, one believes in evolution and the other in creation, the evolutionist might draw a gorilla, but the creationist might draw a human being. Proof #5—Evolutionists Claim That Vestigial And Retrogressive Organs And Structures “Prove” Evolution. Do They? Evolutionists claim that the existence of so-called “vestigial organs,” which are those organs that are supposed to be no longer needed because we have evolved past their usefulness, proves that evolution has occurred. The German anatomist Dr. Robert Wiedersheim, in his book The Structure of Man an Index to His Past History, 1895, listed 186 (86 vestigial and 100 retrogressive) organs or structures in the human body which were either no longer needed or were atrophying from lack of use. A partial list of the organs and structures he claimed to be vestigial or retrogressive includes: the appendix, the coccyx, the little toes, the parathyroid, the thymus, the pituitary, the pineal and wisdom teeth. Charles Darwin claimed, in his book The Origin of Species (1859 and modified later in 1874), that vestigial organs were essential to the proof for evolution and came either from disuse or natural selection. His premise was that, if a nonfunctional organ was present in a man’s body, and was both present and still functional in a monkey’s body, it showed that man descended from monkeys. He claimed that vestigial organs demonstrated the atrophying of organs which were no longer needed as they had been bypassed by evolutionary progression. The creationist points out that the argument that these organs are vestigial, actually stifles scientific and medical research and discovery. Science can only deal with the present and is not able to say anything about the non-existence of a function. To assert that an organ is vestigial is equal to an attempt to prove that no function exists for that organ. The correct scientific statement would be that no function has as yet been observed for a particular organ. Today, all 186 of the organs or structures present on Wiedersheim’s list are known to have one or more specific uses or functions. The first group are those organs which have been incorrectly identified as useless but are now known to have a specific function such as the pineal gland, the pituitary gland and the lachrymal glands. The second group are those organs which are small and have only limited roles such as the wisdom teeth, the small toes and certain veins. The third group are those organs or structures which function only during certain stages in life such as the notochord, the posterior cardinal veins and the ducts of Cuvier. The fourth group are those organs which are developmental “remnants” of the reproductive structures of the opposite sex such as male nipples, male Mullerian ducts and female Wolffian ducts. These structures are not evolutionary remnants; rather they form prior to the sexual differentiation that occurs in the development of the human embryo. If a true vestigial organ or structure did exist, it could show that it was needed and useful at the time of creation; but, that it is either no longer needed, or that it was “switched off” by some genetic change which was triggered by the environmental changes at the time of the Flood of Noah, or that it does not function because of degrading mutations over time (a by-product of the consequences of human sin). Proof #6—Evolutionists Claim That Embryonic Recapitulation “Proves” Evolution. Does It? The ardent evolutionist, Dr. Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), was raised to believe in Christianity. But, after reading Darwin’s The Origin of Species in 1860, he became “Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent.” Haeckel was responsible for inventing several grand frauds. By 1868 many evolutionists were worried about the lack of evidence for Darwin’s theory. Haeckel decided to manufacture some evidence. He had begun to draw a “family tree” for mankind. He became worried about the large gap at the bottom between living organisms and nonliving materials. To “complete” his chart, he decided to create an entire series of organisms that he called Moneron (plural for Monera). These were supposed to be the first single cell organisms to have ever evolved into existence in the supposed primordial sea. He said that they were: “... not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple homogeneous matter … nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.” In 1868, he published over 30 drawings of these creatures complete with their reproductive cycle illustrated. Dr. Thomas Huxley, M.D., “Darwin’s Bulldog in England,” claimed to have discovered the creature alive in the sediments of the North Atlantic. Unfortunately for them, in 1875, the chemist, John Buchanan, proved that what Huxley had claimed to have found was nothing more than amorphous gypsum that had precipitated out of sea-water when it had come into contact with the alcohol in the container in which Huxley had placed the sample. Haeckel refused to admit the fraud and reprinted the fraudulent drawings in the edition of his book Natural History of Creation in 1883. Haeckel’s frauds continued with his attempt to prove that the only difference between apes and people was that people could talk. He even went so far as to have an artist, Gabriel Marx, draw the nonexistent ape-man Pithecanthropus alalus (speechless ape-man). The evidence for any such creature has never been found, but Haeckel claimed that it was the prehuman that had inhabited Europe. Haeckel promulgated his most famous fraud called “The Biogenetic Law,” or the law of embryonic recapitulation, in his book Natural History of Creation, first published in 1868. This idea is often repeated in a summary statement which says, “ontogeny recapitulates (begets) phylogeny.” This is the idea that (Ontogeny) the biological development of the individual (recapitulates) repeats briefly (phylogeny) the evolutionary development of the individual. This false concept proposed that in the womb a human baby passes through the various evolutionary stages of previous life forms and is only born human. His idea was that a human baby starts to develop in a fish stage which then passes through an amphibian stage, then a reptilian stage, then a mammalian stage and is only born human. In his book, The Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century, Haeckel wrote: “When we see that, at a certain stage, the embryos of man and the ape, the dog and the rabbit, the pig and the sheep, though recognizable as higher vertebrates, cannot be distinguished from each other, the fact can only be elucidated by assuming a common parentage.” [Emphasis added] Charles Darwin believed his disciple’s fraud and continued to claim that the supposed biogenetic law was the single most important evidence for common descent. On page 9 of his book, The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote: “The [human] embryo itself at a very early period can hardly be distinguished from that of other members of the vertebrate kingdom.” [Emphasis added] In 1874, Professor Wilhelm His, Sr., uncovered the fraud. Haeckel had stolen the embryonic drawings of two legitimate embryologists, T. L. W. Bischoff (1845) and A. Ecker (1851-1859), and fraudulently changed the drawings to manufacture the evidence for supposed human evolution since he could not support the concept with real anatomical evidence. In 1875, Haeckel was put on trial by an academic court of his peers at the University of Jena. He was convicted of stealing and lying, and lost his tenured position in the biology department. He confessed: “… a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr. Brass’s [one of his critics] sense of the word) “falsified” - all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughtsman may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.” [Emphasis added] “I should feel utterly condemned … were it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge.” [Emphasis added] In 1909, Haeckel admitted his forgery in writing. In an article published in Science magazine, May 15, 1998, Dr. Michael K. Richardson (an evolutionist), wrote: “The core scientific issue remains unchanged: Haeckel’s drawings of 1874 are substantially fabricated. In support of this view, I note that his oldest ‘fish’ image is made up of bits and pieces from different animals - some of them mythical. It is not unreasonable to characterize this as ‘faking.’ … Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in many British and American biology textbooks today.” [Emphasis added] At the trial in 1875, Haeckel also tried to excuse his actions by saying that spontaneous generation (evolution) was true, not because it had been proven in a laboratory, but because otherwise: “It would be necessary to believe in a creator.” [Emphasis added] Keith Stewart Thomson wrote “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated” for the American Scientist, Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 273: “Surely the ‘Biogenetic Law’ is as dead as a doornail.” No evolutionary embryologist would support Haeckel’s “Biogenetic Law” as being a law or even being a valid idea. However, the promulgation of Haeckel’s fraud has been the justification for many of the evils of this world. His fraud continues to be used by abortionists to convince women that they are only aborting a fish. Adolf Hitler found in Haeckel’s fraud the basis for his racism and killed millions using the so-called Biogenetic Law as his justification. Proof #7—Evolutionists Tell Stories about How Evolution “Could” Have Happened and Claim That These Stories “Prove” Evolution. Do They? Evolutionists make up pretty stories to try and make their theories sound plausible. Here is one example from Charles Darwin’s own writings in an early edition of The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 184. This section was removed from later editions after Darwin was criticized by his fellow evolutionists for obvious reasons: “In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely opened mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” [Emphasis added] Such stories were also contrived by Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley to promote their views in favor of white supremacy, in support of human racism and in justification of their chauvinistic sexism. In The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York; A. L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178, Darwin wrote: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” [Emphasis added] On page 326, he continued: “It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” [Emphasis added] In echoing Darwin’s sentiments recorded above, Thomas Huxley wrote in his Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, New York: Appleton, 1871 p. 20: “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.” [Emphasis added] Henry Fairfield Osborn was a disciple of Thomas Huxley. He would eventually become the President of the American Museum of Natural History’s Board of Trustees from 1908 to 1933. He would continue to strongly promote the evolutionary theories and the racism of his mentor. In an article in the Museum’s own magazine, ("The Evolution of Human Races," Natural History, April 1980, p. 129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue) he wrote: “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics ... but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens.” [Emphasis added] There are many other such stories which are promulgated by modern evolutionists. The made-up story that the fossil baring layers are in “the right order” thus proving evolution is one. The Geological Time Column or Time Scale is contrived by rearranging the layers found around the world and assembling a mythological column. 75 to 80 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by sedimentary rock containing fossils. Yet, 80 to 85 percent of those sedimentary layers do not have even three of the layers shown in the typical school textbook diagram of the Column. Evolutionists sometimes have a problem swallowing their own stories at times about this myth. Concerning the very method used by evolutionists to “date” their fossil finds, as well as the layers in which they occur, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History drew attention to the problem of circular reasoning used by evolutionists in his book, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985, p. 51-52, with the following statement: “[Evolutionary] Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ...” “And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” Story-telling can reach its zenith in double-talk. Here is an example from Dr. J. E. O’Rourke writing for the American Journal of Science. ("Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.) "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." [Emphasis added] As a final example of story-telling, let us talk about comets. Anyone may check this out for themselves with the aid of a personal computer. Just buy a program on the solar system. The computer will show you where the comets are at any time - past, present or future. We have never found a short-period comet, defined as a comet with an orbit of less than 200 years, that could exist in orbit around the sun for more than about 10,000 years without being destroyed. If the solar system is more than 10,000 years old, then we should no longer have any comets. The few long-period comets that exist would be destroyed in less than 100,000 years. What is the evolutionary response to this information? The response comes from a Dutch evolutionary astronomer named Dr. Jan Oort who theorized that there “must” be a cloud of pre-comets located one to one and a half light years out from the sun beyond the orbit of Pluto. As comets are being destroyed in the inner solar system, the gravitational pull of the sun then supposedly causes some of these pre-comets to be pulled out of this “cloud” into the solar system, thus producing a continuous stream of new comets to take the place of the old ones which are continuously being destroyed. The obvious question would be, “Have we seen the supposed Oort Cloud?” No! No confirmed direct observations of the supposed Oort cloud have ever been made. Evolutionary astronomers only believe it to be the source of all comets entering the inner solar system. It is only a story made up to placate the problem of only having short-period comets in the solar system. Such stories have no part in intellectually honest scientific endeavors nor in a Christian Biblical worldview. Proof #8—Evolutionists Claim That the Earth and Universe Are Very Old, Thus “Proving” Evolution. Is the Universe Old? Evolutionists claim that the earth is obviously old and that the fossil materials are the result of slow and gradual accumulation of sedimentary layers over supposed millions and billions of years of time. If this were true, why are there no meteorites found in the sedimentary layers? Every year about 600 significant meteorites pass through the earth’s atmosphere and hit the earth. On average, 30% of them will hit land and be preserved. If the sedimentary layers covering the earth are supposed to represent 600 million years of earth history, we should find 108 billion meteorites in the sedimentary layers. Wouldn’t the lack of meteorites within the fossil materials indicate that the layers all formed during the one year event called Noah’s Flood? Evolutionists claim that the universe is obviously old because it is supposedly 12 to 20 billion light-years in radius, and for light to travel such a distance the universe must be equally old. The major reason for this conclusion is the acceptance of one of the Big Bang “theories” and that any previous explosion would cause an expanding universe. The “proof” usually given for accepting an expanding universe is based upon the observed red shift of light, caused by the Doppler Effect. The idea being that if stars and galaxies are moving away from our solar system due to some Big Bang, then the color of the light they emit will be “stretched” or elongated toward the red “end” of the visible light spectrum. The Doppler Effect would also cause light being emitted from an object moving towards us (there are only a few of those) to be shifted (compressed to a shorter length) towards the blue “end” of the light spectrum. Most people are “taken in” by this reasoning. However, never confuse distance as measured in light-years as equal to time, it is only a distance! I know of at least eight valid scientific explanations which could, in part or in whole, account for a universe which is 12 to 20 billion light years across and still only be 6,000 years old. The following is a list of short explanations for the physical evidence of red shift of light as observed in the universe, without having to have the universe expand. I am not endorsing any one of these ideas as being the correct one. There may be truth in any one of these; or a combination of these; or even in another idea which we haven’t yet understood, but is actually correct. These explanations are just food for thought until the Creator chooses to reveal the actual truth to us. 1. When God created the Sun, the Moon and the stars He could have simply created all the interconnecting light beams at the same time. Although not totally satisfying, and while it begs many questions, this is a possibility. I definitely do not endorse this view. 2. If Einstein were correct and space is curved, then light could travel across a 12 to 20 billion light-year distance in a matter of a few thousand years. 3. Space is not a true vacuum. As light travels across space it will eventually hit gas or dust particles. When it does, the object will be warmed by radiant heating. The light will then be re-emitted from a warmer object. This in turn will cause the light to be shifted toward the “redder” “end” of the light spectrum. Thus the light will appear to us as though red shift had taken place, when indeed it has not. 4. Einstein also said that light is bent by the force of gravity as it travels by “heavy objects,” meaning stars and galaxies. Today, we know he was correct. We have large quantities of photos, many taken by the Hubble astronomy satellite, which clearly show that light is often bent by gravity as it travels through space. Gravity actually acts as a lens (called a Gravitational Lens) and bends light the same way that a glass lens bends visible light. If the speed of light is a constant, when light is bent it must travel a greater distance, and in order to maintain speed it must shift to a “redder” (a longer) wave length; producing a red shift without an expanding universe. 5. A fairly recent idea in science is that perhaps the speed of light is not a true constant, which it is not. Please see the article on our website at www.creationworldview.org concerning the last few decades of research on this subject. The speed of light only appears to be constant today, but has in fact, been faster in the past. The speed of light has been measured for over 325 years and the data supports such an idea. It all goes back to 1982 in an article written by Dr. Barry Setterfield of Australia entitled “The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe.” The data indicates that the speed of light could have been nearly infinite in speed less than 10,000 years ago, thus allowing light to traverse a 12 to 20 billion light-year distance in only a few thousand years. There are evolutionary scientists who agree with this conclusion. In 1987, the Russian theoretical physicist, Dr. V. S. Troitskii working at the Radio-physical Research Institute in Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, postulated that a huge decay in the speed of light had occurred over time. Dr. Troitskii wrote that the speed of light could have been 10 million times faster in the past compared to what it is today. His work is found in the British journal Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (1987) 389-411 "Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe." In addition, since 1999 experiments have been conducted by evolution believing physicists in Holland, Germany, Australia, and the United States (Texas A&M, Princeton and Harvard) demonstrating that light can be accelerated, decelerated and even stopped and started again. Light speed is not a constant and a light-year is at best a variable yardstick and at worse a useless yardstick. 6. Dr. Russell Humphreys has recently proposed that the solution is found by using Relativity Theory and the Scripture. Although too complex for this short explanation, he proposes that since the creation, the universe has experienced “Gravitational Time Dilation.” While this idea will be argued for a long time to come, many of his ideas are sound in concept and could help to explain why we have a universe that is only 6,000 years old, but appears to be 12 to 20 billion light-years across. 7. The Second Law of Thermodynamics stipulates that all physical entities spontaneously degrade over time. Why should light be the only physical entity in the entire university that would be exempt from the Second Law? It cannot be exempt! Light is subject to the effect of the Second Law; therefore, light speed must diminish over time. This would cause light to "slow down" in its frequency, which, in turn, would appear to us as red shift even though no red shift has occurred. 8. The Law of Gravity affects every location in the universe. There is no such thing as “zero gravity.” Even in the most remote spot in the universe microgravity still exists. It is not a question of whether gravity exists at any one place; it is only a question of how much gravity exists at any one place. Everyone knows that the speed of light defers depending upon the medium that it is traveling through, i.e., light travels slightly slower through water than through air or a vacuum. As light travels through the universe it passes through areas that have much higher and much lower concentrations of gravity, i.e., gravity is less dense between galaxies, much denser inside galaxies and very dense inside solar systems. We are only able to measure the speed of light inside our solar system. We are not able to measure it between stars, solar systems, galaxies nor throughout the universe. Light speed should be faster in areas of lower gravity density and slower when passing through areas of higher gravity density. We may think of this as areas of more or less resistance. Consequently, the speed of light would have been much faster initially as it began to cross the universe, but would be slowing down over time. Finally, it would slow to the speed that we perceive it here and now. Evolutionary claims that the universe and all it contains are old go on and on. The truth is that such claims are unsubstantiated. There is not one irrefutable piece of evidence to “prove” that the earth and universe are old. There are no reliable radiometric dating technologies. Carbon 14, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, etc. do not work! These highly relied upon methods start with five false assumptions, and Carbon 14 starts with seven false assumptions. They are totally unreliable. Paleontology is no help to evolutionists. You cannot date the fossils based upon the sedimentary rock layers that they were found in; and then turn around and date the layers based upon the fossils that they contain. The claims of great age are based solely upon the evolutionists’ belief system. There are over 200 scientific Geochronometers (earth time clocks/universe time clocks) that indicate that the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are young, much too young for evolution to be a possibility. A few examples of these are as follows: 1. The rapid decay of the earth’s magnetic field 2. The existence of high pressure natural gas contained within sedimentary (porous) rock layers 3. The existence of Short-period Comets 4. The rapid heat loss of the earth and moon 5. The rapid recession rate of the moon 6. The “lumpy” rings of Saturn and Uranus 7. The existence of Barred Spiral Galaxies 8. The rapid continental erosion rates 9. The salt content of the oceans 10. There is too much Helium contained within the earth’s crustal rocks 11. The accumulation of about 4,500 years of sediments at the mouths of all major rivers 12. The active volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon Io, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus 13. The existence of Thorium 230 and Uranium 236 on the surface of the moon 14. The annual addition on average of one cubic mile of Juvenile Water to the earth’s surface 15. Fresh dinosaur blood and flesh have been found inside T. rex bones 16. There are far too few Supernovas in the universe 17. The existence of millions of tightly folded unbroken sedimentary rock layers around the world 18. The absence of meteorites in the sedimentary rock layers containing fossils 19. The lack of Helium in the earth’s atmosphere 20. The rapid growth of stalactites and stalagmites 21. The lack of soil horizons between sedimentary rock layers 22. The lack of V-shaped erosion marks in sedimentary rock layers 23. The lack of animal and plant burrows in sedimentary rock layers 24. The existence of billions of polystrate fossils in the sedimentary rock layers 25. “The Winding Up Dilemma” - galaxies rotate too fast to be billions of years old If there were only one Geochronometer showing that the earth or universe were young, then it could be claimed that creationists are wrong. If there were several Geochronometers that show that the earth and universe are young, then we would have established an interesting trend. When there are over 200 Geochronometers that are in agreement; that the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are young; then we have substantial “proof” contrary to the opinion of evolutionists. Proof #9 - Evolutionists Claim That Genetic Studies “Prove” Evolution. Do They? Evolutionists claim that the study of genetics demonstrates the mechanism by which progressive "upward" macroevolution takes place. The Laws of Genetics, however, are conservative, not creative. No evolutionary believing scientist may speak and have evolution occur at his beckoned command; nor have we ever seen an evolutionary believing scientist speak and see a new gene appear at the bottom of a test tube. What does the creationist claim? Modern genetic research has shown that there is even a repair mechanism within the genetic materials to repair slightly damaged information and take corrective measures to combat mutational copying errors. Anything less than a perfect copy proves, in the long run, to be less fit rather than more fit for survival. It takes phenomenal faith to believe that the DNA molecule could come into existence by random chance. How much more faith does it take to believe that a corrective mechanism to the first randomly generated mechanism could arise by random chance? What if we were to spend billions of dollars and utilize many millions of man hours and finally "create life" in a test tube; what would we have proven? We would have proven that it takes a great amount of outside intelligence; massive amounts of information and energy; an ordering process to "create life;" and, that it did not happen by random chance. Proof #10 (?) - The “Tenth” Proof?: Evolutionists Claim That the Imperfection of Nature Proves Evolution. Does It? There is a new “tenth proof” for evolution that is being fostered by some evolutionists. Although it is not being widely supported, it is accepted by several very prominent personalities in the field of evolutionary theorists. The new "Proof" goes like this: plants and animals are not perfect, they contain imperfections; a perfect creator would make things that are perfect; therefore, the existence of life that is imperfect shows that there was no creator. The main proponent of this idea was the late Marxist from Harvard, Dr. Stephen J. Gould. In an article for Discover magazine in May, 1981, he wrote: “The second argument - that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution - strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms - the camber of a gull’s wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history - the evidence of descent - is the mark of evolution. Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent.” [Emphasis added] Dr. Gould then attached this “proof from imperfection” to the argument from Homology. Homology may be defined as: similar structures among creatures are evidence that they had a common ancestor with the same feature. Homology is actually evidence that the Creator chose to use similar structures to achieve similar results. Gould continued in his Discover article: “Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case.” This is a great faith statement. The logic is most peculiar and convoluted. Evolutionists have dogmatically believed that the mechanisms of natural selection, survival of the fittest, Uniformitarianism, etc., were causing life forms to irreversibly evolve in an “upward” progression. Now, evolutionists would want us to believe that you can have your cake and eat it, too. They want to blame the imperfections of life upon the nonexistence of a creator rather than upon the happenstance of random chance. It is impossible for evolutionists to make such dogmatic statements about things that are “perfect” or “imperfect.” How would a human being know if something were perfect? We have no basis, no standard, by which to make such a claim. We strive for “optimum” designs, but we are incapable of knowing if we have achieved them. Even if we derive mathematical constraints they were subjectively derived. Ultimately, “perfect” and “optimum” for a human design is subjective and nothing more than opinion. A “perfect” creation is one that completely fulfills the purpose of its creator. Dr. Gould could not create a living cell, much less a rat’s forelimb. Furthermore, he was totally ignorant of the global, cosmic and eternal purposes of the Creation. Therefore, Gould’s opinion about how they should have been designed was hopelessly arrogant, ignorant and irrelevant. There are lots of complex structures, these structures contain many similarities, they are clearly well designed, yet evolutionists claim that they show evidence of less than perfect design. Since all the complex systems whose origin we have observed were created by intelligent agents (human beings), since they contain countless similar structures, and are virtually all "imperfect," the best, most scientific, explanation of complex structures whose origin we have not observed, e.g., the forelimbs of rats, the wings of bats, is that they, too, were created by an intelligent agent. Appeal to random processes as an agent is not even remotely supported by the present data. Every "Proof" of evolution involves willful deception, just as God says it will. There is hope, for we are told that there will come a time when the Creator will enter into human history and restore imperfection back to perfection once again (2 Peter 3:3-7). In the same way, evolutionists will speak of “convergence,” the supposed reason that explains why some creatures have very similar structures but cannot be directly related (wings for insects and mammals). Evolutionists use “convergence” when they cannot fit things on their tree of evolutionary ascent. Homology only proves evolution if it were to come from common ancestry, but when it cannot you call it “convergence” by natural selection toward an “optimum” design. Evolutionists want it both ways and they pick the one that suites them at the time. We have never seen a complex system built or assembled by random chance. Mutations are harmful and produce negative outcomes. Mutations are the result of the “bondage to decay.” The evolutionists’ beliefs are illogical, irrational, unreasonable and not based on evidence. The evolutionist is missing the point of what is the better substantiated view of the known data. The correct view would be that the Creator did in fact make all things perfect, but that something happened after the creation; sin entered into the universe. This event brought imperfection into the creation and like a snowball rolling downhill imperfection has continuously gotten worse. There is hope, however, for we are told that there will come a time when the Creator will enter into human history and restore imperfection back to perfection once again (2 Peter 3:3-7).
  • for the same reason satan spends so much time and energy trying to get us to follow him. this is satans world right now , until God sends HIS SON back to destroy him. as wicked as the world has gotten, shouldn't be much longer!!!!!!!!
  • we are not talking about a deity! We don't believe in deities! We are only interested in the what the followers of this deity, do in his name, as far as the politics they involve themselves in, that eventually involve us! And then we will have plenty to say! PLUS the fact the christians are always after us, to convert us! If we wanted to be believers, we would be! In other words, believe what you want to believe, but stay out of politics, and the government, and leave us alone, and you are welcome to do whatever you want to do!
  • I can't speak for all atheists, but I do so because I have a vested interest in there being as few ignorant, irrational people on the planet as possible.
  • Sam Harris said it much more succinctly than I ever could...: "Atheism is nothing more than that noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy