The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design – Darwinism Debunked

What a sad, sad world it must be for those who cannot see the intelligence that created the world we live in. To look at the intricate beauty of life all around us down to the smallest microbe, and not see that there is an intelligence far superior to our own involved in its creation is very sad, indeed.

The following video sets forth a compelling case for the scientific concept of Intelligent Design as opposed to Darwinism.

61 Responses

  1. Ah yes! An intelligence you will never or see or know but yet clergy and so-called scientists will The Discovery Institute will claim they know it because they are the “experts” and we must take their word for it on faith.

    Faith is the acceptance of certain claims without any evidence. I will watch this video with great interest later. However, the fact that a “designer” needs to be proved is an oxymoron.

    If there is a creator of some kind there would be no doubt about his, her, it’s existence.

  2. What’s sad is that reasonably intelligent people actually can believe that a perfect being is actually involved in our everday affairs. Evolution has been witnessed in the lab, get a life, use your brain, and stop perpetuating nonsense.

    • If you watched the video, you would understand that evolution is a part of the scientific miracle of existence, not the sole cause. Wake up.

    • what is not sad, is that here are extremley intelligent scientist, who have been on the darwin bandwagon and THROUGH science, have found proof and come to the only rational conclusion, that is that we and the planet we live on WAS designed and in an amazing way. evolution does occur, but not in the manner in which darwin claims. evolution is simply slow changes over time. if a frog grows fins to swim in water, it is STILL a frog, just one that has adapted to it’s environment. and there is a God who cares about our everyday affairs, thankfully. what is sad is that there are people wandering around lost, not tapping into that power and the love He has for you. but satan is the great deceiver, and he is pretty happy about that.

      • Unfortunately, the proof for Intelligent Design has been debunked. Now the only proof for ID is observations that humans are capable of creating new things. What an observation! Now come up with a testable theory as to how humans’ abilities to create things implies that a superhuman force can create humans.

        Your definition of evolution is pretty much the same as Darwin’s definition, but he said gradual change in favor of sounding less educated by saying slow change. Maybe you should actually learn the principles of evolution.

    • Evolution in the laboratory? Show me the evidence of the process of evolution in any species, anywhere on the planet. The truly intelligent people recognize that there is no evidence for evolution that stands up to true, unbiased, scientific standards. Evolution is as much about theology as religion demanding that you believe that all of the laws of physics don’t apply to evolution.

    • “Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”

  3. Good post.

    If there is a creator of some kind there would be no doubt about his, her, it’s existence.

    Mike – that’s an interesting proposal but its based on an assumption. In other words, you’re imposing your own idea on what the creator must conform with.

    I think it would be good to pursue that train of thought though. “If there is a creator, then …?”

    Will you necessarily be able to set your own limits? Are others who have encountered evidence for a creator necessarily wrong (before you’ve discussed their reasons)? Is it possible that some people have had true insights about the creator that you have not been able to have yet?

    That’s the nature of wisdom. It’s not like something we get at a drive-up window or an ATM. Wisdom goes beyond a simple acquisition of empirical facts — and it takes reflection, patience and effort.

    Some intelligent persons recognize evidence of a creator. Why ridicule that before understanding what they’re saying?

    • Can someone please try to refute evolution by saying something relevant, as opposed to just spewing off pointless rhetorical questions?

      There is very little wisdom in Intelligent Design. First of all, there are no empirical facts to support ID other than the fact that humans can create things. Secondly, wisdom is impossible with ID if reflection takes place. If a person takes the time to reflect on how the world came to be, then ID makes no sense-unless, of course, that person has failed to look at any real scientific evidence for anything. The only effort required to gain wisdom of Intelligent Design is reading the Bible.

      The nature of wisdom to someone who believes in Intelligent Design: no significant evidence for anything, no critical thinking, and blind acceptance of a book thousands of years old that also has no proof for any historical or scientific evidence.

      • Brian,

        You are so wrong. Give me your emperical facts supporting the beginning of life without ID. There are a group of intelligent men in that video who gave relevant information as to why the believe the beginning of life was with ID and why happenstance does not explain it.
        As far as the Bible having ‘no proof for any historical or scientific evidence’, you are way off base. Here is a book written over a period of thousands of years that has a flow as if one person wrote it instead of the many men who did write it. The manuscripts backing the historical accuracy of Scripture is overwhelming. Do some study before spewing pointless inaccuracies.

      • I would put it another way around firstly.
        There is no proof of life appearing by chance as Darwinism states. The mathematical probabilities of even the smallest protein appearing by chance is 10 with 64-139 zeroes which is more than the total number of particles in our universe and the chance of a single cell appearing by chance is 10 with 40 000 zeroes. It effectively states that life could not appear as Darwin and his henchmen told us. When you see an artifact mad eby man you immediately know it was made by soemone and not created by chance. A single protein, I would not mention RNA or DNA is so much more complex than anything we have produced and telling that these appeared by chance is a sign of either complete ignorance or another belief which substituted religion.
        Scientists did not produce life in labs, they did not prove evolution in labs. On the contrary they have achieved nothing of the kind. They have been bombarding drozofilas flies for decades with mutagens and the only thing they have achieved is a huge number of freak flies who would not survive outside of their labs.
        For 150 years darwinists tried to prove what cannot be proven. The life is so complex and so all parts of live beings are so interrelated that it could not appear gradually and by chance. Life looks designed and it is.

  4. i have always found it interesting that those who oppose intelligent design hang their hats on scientific data that holds no proof either. there is absolutely no proof that we sprang to life from a puddle of goo or on the backs of crystal and every attempt to recreate those situations, has come up empty, as they always will. i also find it interesting that people will believe science as the end all be all for proof, when most of what they claim about creation is simply theory STATED as fact. they believe theory on the “faith” of some person, yet harass intelligent design people for the same thing, only the faith is in God as the creator. to me, a rational person what makes more sense…we sprang to life from goo and everything we see today is the result of random accident OR that it was created from a superior being who is precise and orderly…hmmmm…lets look at nature, outterspace, is the earth and nature random as a rule or orderly… i believe animals evolve, yes, do i believe that one species morphs into another no, chickens do not turn into eagles no matter how much time you give them, darwin rejected God, as did his father… therefore his line of thought was to prove creation without God, and in his mind, and in others of the same school of thought, he did. what is interesting is, there are things science will not ever explain because they cannot. and also, with PROOF, the darwin theory has been PROVEN false in many instances. i think that those who reject intelligent design will not admit to a creator, because to even do so would lend them to acknowledge God and if they do that….then they are also placing themselves under His authority and they refuse to do that, so they cling to darwin’s explanation. if i do not acknowledge God, then He does not exist. which is too bad…….

    • Are you for real? At least learn more about Evolution before you say that people “sprang to life from a puddle of goo or on the backs of crystal”. If you were truly interested in disproving those who choose to believe in Evolution over ID, then you had better learn the facts about Evolution before going on a rant about how you are right with no valid proof.

      I choose to believe in Evolution not because I completely reject the idea that there is a god, but because I am not one to read things from the bible and accept everything word for word when they are not logical. I am open to being religious, but because religion has never offered me answers that can be proven, I choose to believe in things that can be held up in the scientific community and things that have evidential proof. A book where the male savior comes from parthenogenesis will just not cut it for me.

      • To add to what Kristin said, since I know you don’t understand what parthenogenesis is: parthenogenesis is an extremely rare occurrence where a female egg mutates and can fertilize another egg in the same woman. It’s asexual reproduction for humans. Unfortunately, this would be impossible, since the child would have to be female. Perhaps Mary had a genetic mutation, such as the mutations present in evolutionary theories, that could have caused her to produce semen as well? If you really believe that God was able to impregnate a virgin woman, then you should get your head checked.

        Genome studies have shown that there are profound similarities in the genetic code of humans and apes. Furthermore, similarities are found with basically every animal at some point. This is supported by the fact that basically all animals undergo the same developmental processes. Once enough cells are available, they start to divide and form distinct tissue layers, which are later specialized into organs and other parts of the body. Does ID explain why human embryos have a tail during development? Evolution does. Over long periods of time, more complex life forms are able to evolve out of pre-existing simpler life forms. This is why developing human embryos exhibit characteristics of other animals on the same branch of their “evolutionary tree,” starting at the cell and slowly developing towards a human. It seems almost impossible that a small sperm and egg could form a cell that eventually divides into a human being. However, if this is possible, why isn’t it possible that single-celled organisms were able to develop into humans over an extremely long period of time?

        Evolution has only been proven false by pseudosciences, whose allegations have then been proven false. Therefore, there are no legitimate contradictions to evolutionary theory. Also, if you believe that God created everything, how can you still believe in evolution? If animals did have to make adaptations (evolve), why didn’t God just give them the adaptations to begin with? And why would animals go extinct? If animals were predesigned to be perfectly fit to their environments, dinosaurs would still be among us. Sounds like your intelligent designer isn’t all that intelligent.

      • By the way, word believe and the truth has nothing in common. When you say you believe it means you follow some kind of religion which is religion of Evolution. Evolution is a failed theory that has not been able to provide proof for 150 years. My opinion based upon a huge number of materials I have read and not on some kind of Discovery channel programming.
        Another thing is what you call evolution? Is it life appearance or evolution of life after the life actually appeared. The fact is that scientists practically have not been able to find intermediate forms leading from one kind to another in gradual succession. All animals appear completely formed. I would not even go into life appearance discussion as I already posted reply above.

  5. I think that was a satire of the typical atheist response … or at least I hope that wasn’t a serious post.

    • The person signed on as ihategod has now been blocked. I will not waste my time with someone who comes to this forum intending to disrupt. The last comment he/she made was intentionally false, accusing me of using obscenities in my response, which I did not do. This is the typical ploy of a disruptor, and will not be tolerated. Worthwhile debate is encouraged, but disruptors will be vanquished!

  6. Refusal or inability to learn. It is built in It is more commonly known as STUPID. iT IS BUILT IN as a survival mechanism. To bad for most of us.

    “Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex.”[57]

    • Let’s face it. We do not understand all of creation. We are just scratching the surface. A bit of arrogance in thinking that we do tends to cloud one’s perception.

      For example, the biotechs engineering GMOs think that they know enough to declare their transgenic organisms “subsantially equivalent” to normal ones. Yet, the process of genetic engineering is so random that only a few survive the actual process, and the only way that they tell if the transformation is successful is if the plant lives, and if it looks like other plants of its kind.

      The genetic engineering process is haphazard at best, and no one really knows the effects on the environment or health that will result from this all too arrogant experiment.

      In other words, by thinking that they know all there is to know about the organisms they work with, we are flooded with the biggest experiment in existence – the adulteration of a system of checks and balances put in place by our Creator, and designed for the benefit of man. We simply do not know what the outcome will be of our meddling with the basic foundation of life because this foundation is simply more complex than we know.

      • The evidence leans much, much more strongly in favor of evolution than creation. Evolution has explained a lot more than it has perplexed. There is no evidence of design. It is offered without evidence for alleged failures of evolutionary theory, when one could posit aliens which would be more likely.

        Ms. Peterson says, “…sad, sad….sad…” Yeah, science is “sad” in a certain sense – it leads to the conclusion that we will all eventually die and be dead forever. No one likes it, but that’s the way it is. People are so afraid of that fact that they will invent and try to believe fairy tales to the contrary of “everlasting life”.

  7. The amazing thing to me is that this article was not submitted by R. Klein

  8. I’ll conclude that Bruce D. prefers a conclusion and then fits the data to that end.

    The evidence leans much, much more strongly in favor of evolution than creation.

    We should accept, with this assertion, that you’ve weighed the evidence for creation. But, you’ll claim later that there is no evidence of design. Can you define what design is? Can you define purpose, plan, intent as products of intelligence? How about defining intelligence and how you recognize it from non-intelligent processes?

    Evolution has explained a lot more than it has perplexed.

    A theory is falsified when the predictions it makes end up as “perplexing” and not real. Anyone should see that many evolutionary predictions have failed. Thus, the theory should be falsified by now. But it continues to be defended by those who have a vested interest in its atheistic conclusions.

    … one could posit aliens which would be more likely (than creation).

    In the same response where you claim that there is no evidence of design, you simultaneously claim that there is more evidence for alien involvement on earth. You use the term “more likely” which is a measure of probability. You’re willing to accept that there are beings which have influenced the development of life on earth when science provides no empirical evidence of their existence.

    So, you’re willing to weigh invisible or imaginary evidence and then criticize religion as “fairy tales”.

    I’ll draw my conclusion. Evolutionism is pseudoscience used to support an atheistic bias. The person who claims to be unafraid of non-existence is too shallow and disinterested in the perennial human questions to even consider the immediate impact of his death (on his loved ones, if he has any?) …

    So, that’s evolutionism in all its glory. Nihilistic, inhuman, irrational and useless. The honest ones will champion all of those “values” — self-assured about their own meaninglessness, but demanding some kind of attention and respect for what they have to say.

  9. Just thought I’d let yo know that I have watched the video and dissected it on my blog.

  10. I only needed to watch about 20 minutes of this movie to realize that it truly does not debunk Dawinian Evolution. The flagellum is not a result of intelligent design.
    Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Science is natural explanation for natural phenomena. When you throw a supernatural being, ie god, into the mix, it is no longer science.

    If you can take the time to watch the above posted video, you should make an effort to watch this NOVA segment which addresses all of the issues that these so called scientists of intelligent design cannot answer while evolution can.

    There will always be a dispute between people about this, so one should take it upon them self to get the facts from both sides of the argument.

    • Okay, Kristin, I’ll watch about 20 minutes of it :)

    • The difference between the ID video and the NOVA video is that I actually learned something from the NOVA video. Instead of refuting ID’s arguments with plausible explanations like I did, they just proved ID’s arguments themselves to be flawed. That second video did a great job demonstrating that ID is definitely just a political loophole to promote creationism. Also, the Intelligent Design proponents themselves showed the hypocrisy involved with the theory. This was especially the case when Behe’s theory that the immune system could not have evolved was contradicted by the stack of books placed in front of him – books, I’m sure, that he accidentally “overlooked” when stating that there was no evolutionary basis for the immune system. I suppose that Intelligent Design would make sense to someone who has no grasp of the concept of evolution and whose main source of factual information is the Bible.

      At the end of the day, people will believe what they want to believe. Most people will look at fossil records, vestigial bone structures, and small adaptations among the same species as profound evidence for evolution. Others, despite all facts, will continue to believe that God is responsible for the modern world. It’s stunning that a person can still believe in ID, even with no evidence to support it; and in the face of surmountable evidence that screams evolution. Maybe one of these days supporters of Intelligent Design will start looking at the facts and stop impeding progress.

  11. I have some problems with this video. If finches can make adaptations to their beaks to enhance survival, why can’t bacteria? There are massive amounts of bacteria; it is entirely possible that millions of bacteria combined different aspects of the flagellum’s mechanism. The ones that were lacking in parts stayed immobile, while a select few who managed to combine all the necessary parts were able to move, and therefore survived. Sure, this would take a while to happen, but the whole concept of evolution is based on gradual change over time. The co-option argument would just make this process of adaptation shorter, since some of the mechanisms were preexisting.

    To me, this video just picks and chooses what can evolve and what can’t. It is not absurd to think that over millions of years, bacteria were able to evolve and eventually generate a flagellum. It’s the same concept that works for minor adaptations among living animals. Several different types of bacteria were probably present, the majority of which were immobile because they had failed to properly create a flagellum. But a select few did have the right mechanism. These ones could move, so they eventually were able to survive, leaving us with bacteria today that do possess a flagellum.

    Another problem with this video is that it only takes the current-day cell understanding into account. The cell also could have undergone changes. Elements combine to form compounds, which eventually (over an extremely long time) form primitive cells. These cells continue to adapt, increasing their efficiency and capabilities over time. They even become more efficient by taking in other cells (i.e. mitochondria, which have DNA that is distinctly different from the surrounding cell). Cells with increased capabilities (such as respiration through the mitochondrion) have developed a biological advantage, thus they outlive their opponents, and the modern-day cell eventually forms.

    Supporters of Intelligent Design approach evolution like physics. Everyone knows there are discrepancies between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. However, this doesn’t mean that macroscopic evolutionary changes are independent of cellular changes. The same evolutionary forces driving large-scale physical changes could definitely also be responsible for the complexity within each type of cell. People just need to realize that cells have not always contained the complexity that they have today. This is demonstrated by the fact that eukaryotic cells have a significantly larger number of organelles over prokaryotic cells.

    This video states that “the argument for intelligent design is based on the observation of facts.” It seems like the only facts that proponents for Intelligent Design are observing are humans’ capabilities to design.The fact that humans created binary code to produce amazing things on computers does not at all imply that a God created DNA to produce amazing complexity in the world. Things like DNA and cells are made up of the elements: they are not synthetic in origin, so you cannot come to the conclusion that a greater being “must” have created these things.

    I watched the entire video and was not convinced of anything. If you allow yourself to accept the fact that the earth has been around for as long as it has (4.5 billion years), then it is definitely plausible that we could have evolved to our current state of complexity. On the surface, it seems easier to believe that a God created everything than to believe that we have evolved out of nothing. But if you stop and think about it, God is the more absurd explanation.

    Does it make sense that a single being, which has been in existence since before time, understood all the complex things we know today about the world? Did this God have an innate understanding of chemical interactions, of DNA sequencing and replication, or of the human brain? The fact that a single being could possess all the knowledge that we humans are still struggling to understand seems more farfetched to me.

    Also, if you look at the way the universe was created, it doesn’t seem very intelligent. Why would this God create all these lifeless, uninhabitable planets? Nothing will ever be found on them. It seems to me like a waste of resources. Not everything in the world is catered to maximum efficiency. So the fact that a single being could create such complex organisms, but also use creative powers so inefficiently, seems like a paradox to me.

    I have thought about it for years. I used to be religious so I have a definite grasp of creationism and Intelligent Design. I’ve used as much critical thinking and objectivity as possible in my thoughts. And I’ve come to the conclusion that long-term evolution of everything today makes far more sense than God.

  12. Such words as “random, chance, probability” are based on one thing. People are so extremely limited in knowledge and understanding of the operations of the Universe, that they can, at best, only “guestimate” why most of the things that they observe happen or exist the way they do.

    Everything that happens in the Universe, appears to happen by cause and effect. Everything. Pure randomness is something that has not been observed anywhere, and is so remote to our thinking that we virtually cannot comprehend it.

    All the technology of man, from the basic, simple wheel to the most complicated electronic inventions… all of it comes from observations man has made in the Universe around him. There is no machine or invention that man has thought up on his own without first observing something similar in the Universe around him. Even the inventions that have come about by accident have all been shown to have their basis in nature.

    One thing that man does reasonably well is to take the operations of nature that he DOES understand, and put them together in ways that nature seems to have passed by. Man uses what he sees in nature and intelligently designs many things – cars, computers, nuclear power plants, medical inventions, etc. etc..

    Everything in the Universe operates by cause and effect. What was the cause that caused man to make his inventions? What was the cause that caused man to have intelligent design? What was the cause that caused the cause? And what caused all the causes? Because the result was intelligent design – cars, computers, nuclear power plants, medical inventions, etc. etc.. And man is just starting to find out and utilize the “technology” that is inherent in nature and the Universe.

    So there is intelligent design that first was outside of man, then was in man, then was used by man. Everything happens by cause and effect. There is no real random.

    • Well first off, many people have better ideas then “guestimations” as to why things happen. Their estimates are based on as much research as they can possibly find. The problem with a lot of the issues for which you are implying scientists “guestimate” is that the issues are untestable. No one will ever know for sure exactly how and when the universe came into existence. But scientists base their assertions on the fact that collisions of particles can temporarily result in matter, whereas supporters of Intelligent Design just base their assertions on the Bible.

      Also, random events do occur, on the smallest of levels. Electrons move randomly in the absence of a preexisting electric field. Electrons are part of atoms, which are the building blocks of life. Since atoms comprise everything in the Universe, random events are constantly occurring.

      Another thing: I feel that you’re selling inventors short. A lot of human inventions have come from having no previous observations on the subject. That’s called innovation.

      Just because you have no understanding of science doesn’t mean no one does. People who actually understand how the world works tend to have a pretty good idea of how things started. Their reasoning for their beliefs is supported by evidence. All Intelligent Design is supported by are illogical conclusions and rhetorical questions that have absolutely no credibility.

      • You are missing the point.

        Electrons move randomly according to one of the human meanings for the word “random.” But they do not move randomly, ever, in the sense of pure randomness. Their movement is always caused by some force that acts on them or that has acted on them in the past. Just because we don’t fully understand the causative forces or how they work, does not make them non-existent.

        All inventors have previous observation of subjects they invent. The fact that they “spontaneously” invent something that they were not directly thinking of, shows that there are causes that move inventors into effects, causes that they are often not aware of – just the same as there were causes that brought them into existence, causes they were not aware of before they existed, and still may not be aware of.

        If people understood how the world worked, meteorologists would make accurate predictions every time, doctors would cure all the patients, and money would be entirely useless because everybody would have long since figured out how to get all the things he wanted without the use of money.

        When are some of you folks going to wake up to the fact that humanity barely knows anything about anything in the Universe?

      • Supporters of Intelligent Design, who base their assertions on the Bible, are basing their assertions on a Book that should not be able to exist because of the way it came into being, and because of the way it fits human nature, and because of the different authors who record things the same way. The odds against such a book existing are tremendously great. The odds against it being one of the most widely read books in the world are greater still.

        Which historians will you trust? And if you base your trust on historians, why not the historians of the Bible, who were there when the things that the Bible records happened.

        People who want the truth should be accepting of the facts as they are stated in the Bible. Instead they would rather accept non-fact called theories. Why are people so foolish?

  13. Why would logical people put all of their trust into the bible? I mean, it’s not even reliable, books have been removed from the bible by the church because they do not fit what is “ideal” by their standards.

    Black, I don’t think you understand the fact that people who go to college, or who those who are capable of taking an unbiased view, not religiously skewed view of the world, have an open mind about learning about different theories, religions and ideals would never place all their faith in your so called facts of the bible. When you read it fundamentally, it just doesn’t make sense. There are some people who can read the bible and accept everything that was written, however, there are those who would rather read something backed up by scientific theories or laws which can be proven instead of blindly accepting everything word for word from a two thousand year old story book. So to “people like us” who are seeking tangible proof, you are the fool.

    • No, you don’t understand anything about the Universe. Just by changing the definition of random doesn’t mean electrons don’t move randomly. In fact, their random movement creates attractive and repulsive forces. Once attractive and repulsive forces have been created, electron movement is somewhat directed. But before that they move randomly.

      I’m not saying that inventors “spontaneously” create things. I’m saying inventors can create things without having prior experience with the subject, such as electricity and the internet. The first light bulb was not created after seeing a fluorescent light, because no other light bulbs existed! The inventors of the internet did not base their invention on observations of a pre-existing world wide web. Therefore you are wrong again. You’re also contradictory in saying that inventors all have previous observations of the subjects they invent. If they have previous observations of what they’re inventing, then it’s already been invented.

      I hope you know meteorologists do make accurate predictions based on given weather patterns. And they’re usually pretty accurate. Please understand that humans are not in control of nature. If a meteorologist predicts sunny and 65 degrees, just because it’s overcast and 62 doesn’t mean he knows nothing about the world.

      It seems like you’re just misinterpreting what I said about knowing how the world works (seems like you’re a fan of misinterpretation, eh?). I was not in any way implying that we know everything there is to know. If you would have read my previous comment you would know that. This is why not all diseases have been cured: because we’re still trying to find safe ways to prevent and treat illness. As for your little economics argument, you are a moron. What does that even mean? Are you implying that if a person doesn’t want to pay for a car, he can just build it himself, creating all the materials needed for the car from scratch? Because if he knew that he didn’t have to pay for everything, he could go harvest all the metal ores he needed from the ground, synthesize the plastics himself, weld all the metal together, vulcanize his own rubber for tires, and then put all the pieces together one by one. This would take years, but at least it shows he was able to get what he needed without any money.

      We know a lot about the universe. But the universe is so large and complex that in the grand scheme of things we know very little about the universe. You, on the other hand, know absolutely NOTHING about the universe.

      The odds that the Bible exists are not as low as you’d think, considering it’s just a combination of letters and stories written an unspecified time ago by unspecified authors in unspecified locations for the most part. What does seem highly improbable to be is that there are still people ignorant enough to accept what the Bible says as fact. Kudos to you and other creationists for beating the odds.

      You have no idea when the Bible was written. From what I remember in Catholic school, the first Gospels were not written until 50 years after Jesus’ death, at the closest approximation. Now I do know that memories are very malleable and unreliable, so it’s probable that the majority of the accounts of Jesus never actually happened. Also, there were over 20 other gospels not selected for the Bible. In addition, only 1 of the Gospels (John) explicitly says Jesus is God.

      The New Testament Gospels are a collection of the 4 most consistent accounts of Jesus’ life. And there are even inconsistencies among those four. My point? The Bible includes only the stories with the most consistency. And since there is hardly any consistency among written accounts of Jesus’ life, how can you assume it to be historical fact? Now if you believe the Bible with all its inconsistencies is fact, will you accept that WWII started in 1900, or that Martin Luther King, Jr. was white?

      I haven’t even gotten started on the Old Testament. First of all, not written for Christians, but for Jews. The Old Testament God is quite mean: he punishes those who go astray and lays down laws that permit execution for certain crimes. On the other hand, the New Testament God is quite the guy. He forgives all, and even sent a son to die for all humanity! The OT God, on the other hand, nearly convinced Abraham to kill his son.

      Now what could explain the discrepancies between the OT God and the NT God? Context!! Whenever the Old Testament was written, the Jewish community really had no sense of morality. They needed a “believable” story to scare followers into behaving. Interestingly enough, the same scare tactics are used today in certain Christian denominations. At the time the New Testament was written, Christians were being prosecuted by the Romans for their beliefs. Therefore, a forgiving God was presented, one who would forgive all their sins and let them go to Heaven. The creators of the Bible wanted people to gain solace in knowing that they would die for their beliefs. The punishing God from the Old Testament and the all-forgiving God from the New Testament are irreconcilable. Therefore, believing in both the Old and New Testaments is…..polytheism!!!

      My definition of a historian is someone who focuses on a certain time period, examines the causes and effects of events from that time period, and who forms conclusions based on his/her observations of the events that occurred during the specific time period. Who exactly would you name as the “historians” of the Bible? These stories were passed down for hundreds or thousands of years. People made changes to the stories to fit their beliefs and their situation. I don’t see how someone with a normal degree of intelligence could believe that stories passed down for thousands of years, with numerous editions made throughout the years, could be accepted as historical fact.

      People who want the truth should use a little tool called critical thinking. Intelligence helps too.

      • Again, there is no random. The things we all call random, are things that we simply do not see the cause of, because we are so remote in our understanding. They are not random. There was something that caused them to exist or happen. And it was done orderly according to all the laws of nature and the Universe. No random. Only weakness of observation.

        In fact, in the Theory(ies) of Evolution, the idea of “natural selection” is a self-contradictory term. Pure random doesn’t do any selecting. It can’t because it is random. It is in essence just the opposite of selection. So the folks who use such a term are the folks who are trying to stretch themselves out of their own nature into something that simply doesn’t exist.

    • The only things proven about the Theory of Evolution: 1) that it is a theory… has basis in supposition… has basis in hypothesis… but has no basis in fact, outside of… 2) the parts of it that are ongoing in the present, and can be described by many other kinds theories and operations besides the Theory of Evolution; 3) the fact that the proponents of it have built it up to be something it is not, and have deceived the minds of many who aren’t very interested in it anyway.

      The Bible is based on eye witness accounts. The fact that they are almost 2,000 years old, or older, doesn’t make them any less valid.

      The fact that there are millions of people, today, who trust the Bible, millions who have felt the moving of the Holy Spirit within themselves and seen it among others outside themselves, is something that is scientifically way stronger than a Theory that hasn’t been proven for decades upon decades, and has even been shown to not be provable.

      There is no random. There is only cause and effect, action and reaction. The Universe is totally organized.

      • Black, you don’t make any sense, but you are good at incorporating the word “random” into every single thing you write. If something causes each supposedly random thing to happen, what random thing caused the random occurrence of a god, who randomly was innately able to know everything about all of existence, while humans are still scraping the surface? You cannot find one single piece of evidence anywhere to answer that question.

        As usual, you are wrong. Maybe you don’t believe that random events are possible (imagine that, unable to grasp a somewhat complicated thought), but they are. Ever heard of transposons? I doubt it. Transposons are genes that can move from place to place in a single cell. Their movements and their result location are both random. Transposons are also responsible for a lot of mutations, because they can disrupt the sequence of codons that are responsible for proteins. Let me make it clear: this occurs randomly.

        It’s funny you should mention weakness of observation, because that’s basically why Intelligent Design still exists. Failure to observe transition fossils, failure to observe similarities between species, failure to observe vestigial structures that would not be there if a designer had created humans.

        The theory of evolution is a theory in the same sense as the theory of gravity. There’s no way to officially prove or disprove gravity or evolution, but the theories stand correct when tested. If you actually pay attention to scientific findings, there have been no discoveries that evolution has failed to explain.

        And there is no way the Bible is based on eye witness accounts. Maybe loosely, but nothing was written as it was occurring. Most Old Testament stories were passed down orally for a long time until eventually written down. The Gospels, definitely the most important part of the Bible for Christians, was not written until a minimum 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. The Bible is definitely an invalid source of history.

        You can’t compare a feeling to a scientific theory. And you definitely can’t put a scientific measure on a feeling. I guess that just goes back to your lack of scientific knowledge.

        I’m not against people believing in God. In fact, I think it’s a good thing for people to have, if they need it. Religion isn’t for everyone in my opinion. My problems stems from people who are so set that the Bible is fact that they refuse to acknowledge any science. I have no problem with reading the Bible, but please, don’t take it literally. There are a lot of good messages in the Bible that apply to pretty much everyone’s lives. That does not make it a historical document.

  14. There is a big difference between religion and faith in a Creator. Religions are institutions that are put here to herd people into believing what some man or woman says they should believe.

    There is no doubt that there is a power that we don’t understand. To think differently is to believe that man knows it all, and that is simply not true. We don’t know it all.

    Some of us choose to believe in a Creator, some don’t. This does not make one person stupid or less intelligent than the other. It is a difference of opinion, based on individual experience.

    Therefore, statements such as “People who want the truth should use a little tool called critical thinking. Intelligence helps too” are correct, however, this should be applied in an unbiased fashion, and not trotted out to belittle someone who does not agree with a certain point of view. Also, accusing people of not having an open mind when they do not agree with a certain point of view is also a backhanded insult to intelligence.

    How about having a conversation that respects each other’s right to believe what he/she wants without throwing backhanded insults around? After all, if one has to resort to insults to prove one’s point, then that person must not have that strong of a case.

    • Barbara,
      I was not in any way implying that those with faith are less intelligent. I was Catholic for about 18 years, and basically my entire family is Catholic. I have nothing against people who believe in a deity.

      I agree with you that we don’t know it all. And we never will. There’s no way to know exactly how or when things started. If this video had been about the Big Bang vs. the Genesis story, I would not have even bothered, because in my opinion that’s a pointless argument to have.

      My problem is not even with people who disagree with a certain point of view. It’s okay to disagree on a point of view, as long as the person views the issue from both sides. Problems arise when people are too narrow-minded to even look at the other side’s argument. Often both sides of the argument are guilty in this case. I tried not to be, so I watched the entire video you posted. I looked at the arguing points that Intelligent Design makes, and I found answers to them through science. Belittling arises when supporters of Intelligent Design make their arguments without even acknowledging the other side of the argument. If someone, such as the scientists in the video, has a good grasp of science and supports Intelligent Design, that’s fine with me. I was able to find answers for the questions they weren’t able to answer through my studies of science.

      I did not come here to offend. I came here to shed some light on the scientific side of the argument. When one of the posters on here continued to argue my points without effectively addressing the points I made, then I ridiculed that person in one or two posts.

      Also, considering the amount of “belittling” I’ve done on here to the amount of scientific knowledge I’ve presented, I wouldn’t say I lack a strong argument.

  15. Hi Brian,

    I appreciate your understanding and clarification in this matter. Thank you!

  16. Actually, the Theory of Evolution itself is more of a proponent of Intelligent Design and God than anyone that touts the Theory. In fact, because Christian religious leaders use faith more than they use logic, the logic of the Theory of Evolution probably predicts God and Intelligent Design way more than Christian religious leaders’ logic does. Here’s what I mean.

    The Theory of Evolution suggests that over a great length of time – perhaps millions of years – life came about and grew into what we see that it is today. The idea is that the first single unit of life became a living cell, and that this cell divided and formed more cells which also divided, and so on.

    Would the first single-celled unit of life (I would say creature, but that sounds too much like Creation and Intelligent Design.) perceive a human being if it stared the human in the face? Would a single-celled microbe of today at all comprehend a human being? And what’s to say that there have not been and are not branches of the evolutionary tree that have evolved farther beyond man than man has evolved beyond a microbe?

    There are many books and many scientists who show that the Theory of Evolution as it is being applied is is flawed. There are many questions about nature Evolution can’t seem to answer. In fact, there is so much in the Universe that doesn’t match the Theory, that the Theory has remained a theory all these years up to today.

    The Theory of Evolution, at its UNSTATED core, suggests that a form of life evolved that was so far beyond what man is now that it could control and change all space and time into something other than what space/time was in the first place. This life form controlled space/time to make itself to always have existed, and did away with Evolution entirely. It adopted all life as a relative of Itself, and made life into what it is today. All It wants is for us, the weaker, less capable species, to recognize It for what It is, and then to join It in control of all things. Lots of things in nature back this up.

    The theory of Evolution is so flawed that it is ridiculous. Anybody who blindly follows it after examining it, is overwhelmingly flawed, even beyond the Theory itself.

    • I’m having trouble figuring out what to say, because most of your post is absolute nonsense. It does make sense that the church uses faith more than they do logic, though.

      To answer one of your questions: “Would the first single-celled unit of life (I would say creature, but that sounds too much like Creation and Intelligent Design.) perceive a human being if it stared the human in the face? Would a single-celled microbe of today at all comprehend a human being?”

      No. A single-celled organism would not have developed eyes. Great question. Were you going somewhere with that question?

      “And what’s to say that there have not been and are not branches of the evolutionary tree that have evolved farther beyond man than man has evolved beyond a microbe?”

      Well, considering that this earth is 4.5 billion years old, and in that time humans are the most complex organisms we know of, could it be that you’re just overestimating how quickly evolution takes place?

      As to that sentence about why the theory of evolution is still a theory: did you even read the last post I made? The theory of evolution is a theory in the same sense that the theory of gravity is still a theory. Since there’s no way to actually prove them (you can’t just plant a cell and watch it evolve into a human), theories remain theories until proven otherwise. Therefore, if evidence had been found that proved evolution wrong, it would no longer be considered theory. But since all discoveries that have been made have been consistent with the theory of evolution, it remains a theory. Please learn the scientific definition of a theory for future clarification.

      It’s a good thing the theory of evolution has an unstated core for you to grossly misinterpret. Are you insinuating that life has evolved beyond man (to a god)? There are some problems with this “idea.” Notice I didn’t call it a theory, because it has already been proven wrong by common sense.

      How could an organism with cells that have mortal limitations evolve into an immortal being?God could not go from cellular to non-cellular.

      Why would the evolution of a god occur so much faster than the evolution of other things?

      If God did evolve, then microbes were already present when God began evolving. Could you explain to me how a God created the world, while at the same time was evolving along with the rest of life? This absurd idea you came up with actually disproves the possibility of Intelligent Design. God could not create something that eventually would create God.

      What would God have evolved from? Did this god evolve from a human?

      Regardless of what this god evolved from, what characteristics did it randomly develop that gave it an advantage over other creatures? Omniscience and omnipresence? I’m pretty sure these things will never result from evolution, mainly because it’s impossible. An organism cannot spontaneously be everywhere at once and know everything at once. Evolution is bound to physical characteristics.

      How large would this god have to be to contain all the possible knowledge in the world? The human brain is extremely complex, and can hold a lot of knowledge, but to possess infinite amounts of knowledge, the brain would have to be infinitely larger.

      Where does this god exist? If god developed from the same things humans developed from, god could not leave this planet. So how he could have created other planets (which would have been previously created under your logic) while still somewhere on earth? I’m pretty sure there’s no evidence of such a creature anywhere on earth.

      And finally, if this were true and God evolved as an advantage to other species, why is there only one God? The point of natural selection is that species with a biological advantage reproduce and eventually outlast competing species that lack those advantages.Humans would be the only species capable of rivaling god, so if god had the ultimate advantage, why does the human race still exist? Also, if god had been biologically successful, the god would reproduce. There would be a countless amount of gods, running around the earth with giant brains who can be everywhere on earth at once. Sounds to me like polytheism!

      Oh, and nothing in nature backs up any of what you said. There is no possible way a god could have evolved from the same things humans evolve from, become so powerful and so successful that this god was able to reverse time to where there was nothing, and then create everything again. How pointless would that be! So next time you try and merge your views with scientific views, I suggest you don’t. Your little idea there managed to contradict Intelligent Design, monotheism, and even itself. Now THAT is overwhelmingly flawed.

      • Also, God just wants us to accept His power and join Him in control of all things? Sounds like a pretty selfish God, especially if you think God has any current involvement with human affairs. If God is involved, then he sure does a poor job protecting his followers. God does not take care of his own. You can’t really blame Him though, if I had to care of over 6 billion people, I wouldn’t care about individuals, either.

      • Why is it so hard for someone who believes in Evolution, to believe that a form of life might have developed that is so far beyond man that man could not conceive of much (if any) of what it is about?

        Let’s say that microbes and people both evolved. People understand many things about microbes. Microbes understand nothing about people.

        Yet, as people are so far beyond microbes that microbes understand nothing about them, why is it such a hard stretch to believe that there is a God that is so far beyond people that people can not conceive of Him except when He reveals Himself to them?

        Doesn’t the Theory of Relativity allow for the possibility that someday man just might evolve to a point where he would be several orders of intelligence and capability beyond where he is today? So why is it so hard to believe that this has not happened somewhere in the Universe with some being already?

        In standard, everyday life, we see things deteriorate at an alarming rate. The older they get, the more they deteriorate – rust, corrode, wear out, die. If Evolution is real, it has done a miraculous thing! It has gone from not-living, to microbe to man in such a gigantic period of time that mountains have decayed to valleys, that rocks have turned to dust, and that no living thing could ever hope to approach in number of years of life. If such a thing as this could happen, why rule out the idea that something like God could evolve, since that is where the evolution of man would be headed anyway?

        In nature there are many things that are difficult to assign properly to Evolutionary existence. They just don’t fit into any Evolutionary model.. Yet many of these things fall right into place if viewed from the standpoint of Intelligent Design and God. So, why not consider the idea that there is possibly an evolved God?

        We know a little about space time. We are just starting to figure out ways for manipulating space time. A form of man that had evolved several orders beyond present-day man might be able to actually time travel and teleport. Evolution suggests, somewhat, that man might be headed there.

        I want what I want NOW. So, why should God wait for evolution to do its work over millions and billions of years, when, in His capacity as God He can control all time and space, make Himself to always have existed, get rid of something as slow and backward as Evolution – making it to never have existed – and replace it with something far better?

        And what is the something that God would be replacing Evolution with? A method for taking all of us forward to be with Him, something like He is. A way to take all of us who did not and could not evolve into something like a God, to be moved into God likeness.

        The whole idea of Evolution is fantastic. So why not carry it to its ultimate conclusion? A conclusion that answers the question of Evolution and non-existence of Evolution alike. A conclusion that ties together the things the evolutionist sees with the things the Christian sees while not harming either of them.

  17. The microbe-man comparison is very poor. Microbes lack the tools required for identification of greater beings. Humans, with all their complexity, do have that capability. And this is where religious people and atheists differ. Atheists look for proof of a greater being, and find no such proof. Religious people believe there is proof in everything around them. But really, this is not proof of anything.

    You cannot prove the existence of god merely by suggesting that something so incredible has happened that it is beyond human comprehension. You’re just making up ideas with no way to prove or disprove them. But it’s pointless arguing this because religious people are convinced god has revealed himself to them.

    Let me reiterate: evolution does not suggest that man will evolve to god. That is just absurd. Life on this planet will never be able to teleport or time travel through body alone. If ways of manipulating time and space are discovered, they will be man-made, not evolved.

    No, the Theory of Relativity does not at all suggest that something could evolve beyond man beyond man’s comprehension. What the Theory of Relativity suggests is that the speed of light is constant, so time and space have to be manipulated to allow for light to travel at constant speed. You just proved that you have no understanding of science, you just threw in a scientific theory of which you had no knowledge to make it seem like you had a scientific argument.

    If the forces of nature drive erosion and decomposition over time, why can’t they drive the process of evolution too? Why are the forces of nature limited to inanimate objects? You are still misinterpreting the theory of evolution. In no way does it imply that a life form will evolve beyond the capabilities of man. Unfortunately, you have no grasp of the concept.

    Why would an evolved god gain control of space and time? Even if that happened, which is impossible, why would that god erase all the progress that had already happened? Plus, if this god did erase everything, do away with evolution, and then replace everything without the ability to evolve, what is the point of that? God would not be creating anything in his own image, just recreating what was already there. So in a sense the god is just copying the products of nature. Stop reasoning through these nonsensical profound statements and start reasoning through empirical data.

    Oh, and let’s stop beating around the bush. What facets of life are left unexplained by evolution, yet explained by god?

  18. Just had a thought that might clarify a bit. It is like we are in a box. We know what is in the box with us, we have a lot of it figured out. What we don’t know is what is outside the box, since we have never been there. We really have no clue, yet think that anything outside the box must be exactly like what is in the box. Not necessarily true.

    We have our reality, and think that everything must conform to that reality (the box) because it is the only reality we know. I believe it is time to attempt to think outside the box.

  19. I thought that was a fascinating comment by Black. I had never thought about that before. I find it logical and reasonable.

    The microbe-man comparison is very poor. Microbes lack the tools required for identification of greater beings.

    How do you know that you possess the tools to identify more highly-evolved beings? You (supposedly) came from microbes. They are not as perceptive as you. But can you claim to be the most perceptive possible being in existence now?

    Atheists look for proof of a greater being, and find no such proof.

    But in the evolutionary model, they are searching for proof in the way microbes struggle for survival. It’s just a function of mutations and natural selection — it’s evolved-matter “looking for proof”. It has not been proven that this matter is adequate to the task.

    Religious people believe there is proof in everything around them. But really, this is not proof of anything.

    Unless they can see a deeper reality that atheists cannot see. A blind person may claim that color does not exist. Why? Because he sees no evidence at all that there is such a thing as color. Should he trust people who claim that there are colors? They could all be deceived or lying.

    You cannot prove the existence of god merely by suggesting that something so incredible has happened that it is beyond human comprehension.

    No, but we can prove that there are things beyond human comprehension (the lived experience of infinity, for example). We can see that evolution is inadequate to explain many things in nature.

    But it’s pointless arguing this because religious people are convinced god has revealed himself to them.

    This is evidence that people have made claims. Is every one of them deluded? All it takes is one out of 4 billion to be correct. That’s a big problem to solve because you have to search and interview everyone and find reasons for why they are wrong about what they experience about God.

    Let me reiterate: evolution does not suggest that man will evolve to god. That is just absurd.

    Not more absurd than the microbe to man story.

    • I’m done arguing about this. It’s frustrating to listen to your responses to my points. If you can’t accept that the physical cannot possibly involve into the metaphysical, you’re hopeless. I tried to be open-minded but you creationists are so stubborn in your views that it’s just irritating to read the absurd stuff you claim. Now I know I didn’t come here to belittle, but the comments I’ve read from you and Black have been some of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life, if not the stupidest. As science makes new discoveries, good luck avoiding factual evidence. It’ll just get harder and harder. In the meantime, I hope you thoroughly enjoy ignorance. But hey, as long as God provides, what’s the use in knowing anything?

      • Brian,

        It is frustrating when you cannot force someone to believe what you want them to, isn’t it? A few others and I believe in a Creator, and you do not. A disagreement, nothing more. So why are you so angry?

        This is the same type of sentiment that forces evolution down our children’s throats in public school without the other side even allowed a hearing. Both sides are not presented because the evolutionist side believes that they have the only answer, and that everyone should believe as they do. NOT!

        That type of thinking is no better than the powers that be trying to force the NWO down our throats because they believe that is the only way.

        Information is presented, then people can make up their own minds. It is not up to anyone to drag them kicking and screaming into a way of thinking that is predetermined for them.

        The bottom line is, you have your way, and others have theirs. If that bothers you, then I believe that is your problem, not ours.

      • Brian, God is providing a way for you to come, right now, into His eternal love and life. Won’t you please reconsider?

        You have shown by your statements and replies that God Himself would regard you as a valued friend, if only you would accept Him and the helpers in this little forum that He has provided for you.

        Come, join us and Him in joy, peace, and even glory, forever.

  20. Barbara, thank you for the opportunity in this forum.

    • You’re quite welcome, Black.

    • Thanks, but no thanks. I had considered God. I was Catholic for 17-18 years. I even believed in creationism – when I was in middle school.

      Now that I don’t have God, I don’t feel a void inside. In fact, I see, hear, and feel nothing any different. If someone feels that faith is beneficial to them, that’s great. Be religious. But for me and my beliefs I don’t feel that I need God in my life.

      And Barbara, I was not trying to shove my beliefs down your throats. I was trying to prevent a side of the argument that I’m sure none of you have considered. But after seeing all the responses to my statements it’s evident you still haven’t paid any attention to the scientific arguments. So you believe in the Bible, I’ll believe in science. Agree to disagree.

  21. The reason creationists fail at disproving Evolution as scientific fact, is that creationists use the wrong science.

    Evolutionary Science has proven over and over that Evolution is impossible, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Many of the other sciences join Evolutionary Science to help disprove Evolution, and add to the disproving of it.

    This doesn’t bother the evolutionary scientist at all. Why not? Why does he continue to scream that Science proves Evolution? And why is he right? Because the evolutionary scientist never uses Evolutionary Science to prove evolution. Not in this modern day and age. He uses another form of science to prove Evolution, the only form of science that could ever come close to proving the existence of Evolution.

    The evolutionist uses Political Science to prove the existence of Evolution. And if he claims that such accusation is absurd, he is using Political Science to its fullest.

    Until creationists start to understand this, they may never have a shot at disproving Evolution.

    • Wow, there’s a lot of nonsense in that post.

      First and foremost, the goal of creationists, if they really care about the truth, should not be to disprove evolution. Rather, it should be to embark on a journey to discover the truth, whatever that truth maybe.

      The theory of evolution started with observations, which then led to hypothesis, why have then been proven to be accurate. Until observations go against the theory of evolution we should assume it is true. If observations go against it, then we have to review the theory and modify it, just like Einstein did when he expanded upon the gravitation theory of Newton.

      Creationists on the other hand search for the truth backwards. They claim to have the truth, then search for ways to prove it. This is not science.

      Proponents of intelligent design have shown no prove of their theory. They do not publish papers in peer reviewed journals. In essence, they are not serious.

      Another important point is that the theory of evolution does not go against the idea of God. On the contrary, it defines a much more powerful God than the Creationist God. The God of evolution is so much more powerful because out of a simple formula he was able to create the potential for an unlimited amount of lifeforms. He does not need to watch over them, or to interact. The God of creationism is weak. He needs to constantly enter in the picture to change this or that. To add a frog, to eliminate a dinosaur, etc…

      I am agnostic, and I do not believe in the necessity of a God. However, if there is a God, I assume that he would be all powerful and that he would choose the powerful tool of evolution instead of the weaker tool of creationism.

      You keep repeating that the theory of evolution has been proven wrong. Could you give us some concrete examples? I know of none.

      • See!? It’s just like I said. Evolutionists want their Evolution so badly, that when they can’t prove it by evolutionary science, they prove it by political science – propaganda-style hollering, louder and louder, “Evolution is true, true, true! Everything else is false, false, false!”

        In this forum, PA, on June 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm said: “The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.”

        What is the 4-step process in evolution?

        Observations: there are many wonderful observations, including those in the video.

        Hypothesis: this is great, because it stimulates thinking on the observations, in all kinds of directions.

        Experiments: only the tiniest fraction of possible experiments has been done. When you combine this with the fact that NOBODY lived, or could live, through the eons of time that it would take for experimenting on evolution realistically, and when you consider that NOBODY could come close to estimating accurately (except by accident, and without realizing what he had done) what might have happened through all those eons of time that evolutionists suggest must be there, experimentation must forever remain incomplete.

        Conclusion: evolutionary science, at best, will forever remain in the realms of “we just don’t know.” In the future, someone may invent a Time-Viewer connected to a Super-Duper-Super Computer, so they can record what really happened in the past.

        On the other hand, Bible religion is NOT about proving Intelligent Design through scientific methods. As stated in the Conclusion above, such proof must forever remain elusive. But the video, along with its 2 companion videos, provides way more evidence in favor of some form of Intelligent Design over some evolutionary process, even if that I.D. is simply the nature of the Universe itself. Why? Because it shows how INTELLIGENTLY nature operates around us.

        Bible scholars have something way more concrete about God and Intelligent Design than science. Because of this, they don’t have time to waste on trying to prove that which is scientifically unprovable in any direction. They have 2 basic things that beat science out hands down:

        1. They have the recorded statements of eye witnesses to the facts, statements recorded in the Bible;

        2. They have the evidence in their own spirits and hearts of the Intelligent Designer communicating with them, spiritually, because He comes spiritually to those who BELIEVE Him.

        If you happen to believe the extremely hard to believe notion of evolution, and if you happen to NOT believe the much more logical and easily believable idea of Intelligent Design (watch the video), then you are a very strong believer, indeed. God, the Intelligent Designer would enjoy having you with Him – not so much for His sake, but as a method for keeping your spirit alive when your body fails. But He doesn’t force faith or life on anyone. You need to come of your own free will.

        So, if you haven’t yet joined us in believing God, won’t you reconsider, now? Join us in LIFE forevermore, and later, in the new Universe that God is creating for all who believe in Him.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: