Re:About atheism (Score 1)

"Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else."

If there is such a long series of small chances that make the new creature, would we not find a long series of bones proving that? Or maybe even just one 'linking' step?

"The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened."

This is such an overwhelming lie that it makes me sick to look at it. Every major 'proof' of evolution has been disproven. Evolution changes the age of the earth all the time and adds new things to help try to prove itself where as, creation sticks to the Bible which has not changed since it's beginning. There has yet to be a single contradiction found and nothing in it has ever been proven incorrect. It follows along many other historical documents and geological discoverys.

"Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection. Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, which initiated the universe."

Wow, he mentions the laws of physics but his statement is contradictory. The top part breaks, yet again, the second law of physics. Nothing gets better when left to itself over time. Later he talks about the big bang that initiated the universe. Well, how did the matter that makes up the universe start? E=MC^2 is einstines equation that means that energy is equal to matter times a constant squared. This suggests many things including that the quantity of energy and matter is fixed and cannot be created. So where did it start?

Now if I were to get even more into the big bang, it says that all matter came into one spot and began spinning very fast. Then it broke apart and chunks of rock and other things were flung about the universe. Now the third law of phyics says that if an object is spinning and peices break off then the pieces would spin in the same direction. In our solar system alone we see moons and planets spinning in all directions. How does that work? Maybe over time the law of physics just... doesn't count? I love how 'science' works, eh?

Here's a quote from the book that article is based on...

"[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the entire Encylapedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or for times over."

"If it's unreasonable to believe that an encylopedia could have originated without intelligence, then it's just as unreasonable to believe that life could have originated without intelligence." and "To illustrate further, the amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead's valume of DNA is staggering. It is the equivalent information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from the earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content." - Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati.

By the way, to check the laws of physics you can click here.