Atheistic logic…”Life was created from nothing.”


Atheistic logic…”Life was created from nothing.”

The theory of evolution is an assumption and personal subjective opinion. It is not a true science but rather a pseudoscience. Evolution assumes that life somehow was formed from…non-life, that by random chance the right chemicals (created from nothing)happened to be in the right place, (from nothing) in the right arrangement,( from nothing) at the right time,( from nothing )under the right conditions, (from nothing )and by some unknown electrochemical process(from nothing created itself! This assumption is contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that “All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganization, disarrangement and less complexity.” American Scientist, Vol. 43, Oct. 1955, p.595
Evolution is also contrary to The Law of Biogenesis which states that a new life form is being designed, but life itself has not been created from non-life.

Check out the Steven Hawking’s latest brain storm, that life was formed from nothing. What a genius! He knows more than the laws of science!

13 thoughts on “Atheistic logic…”Life was created from nothing.”

  1. “Atheistic logic…”Life was created from nothing.” ”

    Incorrect. This is neither the atheist position nor the scientific one.

    It’s fine if you disagree with science. But at least get it right so you know what you’re opposed to.

      • What a physicist means when they say ‘nothing’ is not what a layperson means when they say ‘nothing’. Again, if you want to oppose science, at least try and understand science so you know what you’re against.

      • “Evolution is not science.”

        Ah, okay. Glad to know I’m talking to someone who doesn’t understand science. Thanks. I won’t waste my time trying to correct your delusions then.

    • I disagree with evolution which is a pseudoscience based on assumptions,presumptions, and opinions and not absolute evidence. Creationists have an argument for evidences as well so you know the argument is really interpretative isnt it? The world rejects God and this is the end times and so it shall be but woe to the world because of the sin of unbelief for soon tribulation will shake everything on this earth that can be shaken.

      • “I disagree with evolution which is a pseudoscience based on assumptions,presumptions, and opinions”

        You disagree with evolution because you don’t understand it, you don’t understand science, and you believe your religion.

  2. Evolution does not claim that life came from non-life. I know this is a pedantic correction, but the process of going from non-life to life is called abiogenesis. Nearly nothing is known about what the abiogenesis event on Earth (if indeed it was on Earth) was like. But there are a number of model of how it could happen.
    The reason I make that correction is because even if you think that the step from non-life to life is a nonsense process, you cannot in step tar evolution with that brush. Evolution is about diversity within life.

    Evolution is also not a pseudoscience. It is an underpinning concept in all of biology. It is verified in genetics, archaeology and paleo-archaeology, morphology, anatomy and even in experiment. There is even a sound logical underpinning to evolution that Darwin put into his book, which I can’t now find, but it approximates to this
    1. Life reproduces with variation i.e. offspring are not exactly like their parents
    2. Things with beneficial variations will either survive or reproduce more successfully
    3. Things that either survive or reproduce more successfully become more abundant
    Conc. Beneficial variations become more abundant.

    If you take this, together with the fact that there is no cross-species boundary (i.e. some sort of barrier in genetics that stops an offspring becoming too genetically different from a distance ancestor) evolution is the logical conclusion.

    Couple the logic with the evidence and you have a fact, not an opinion. You have something objective, not subjective.

    I’m not sure how you get from evolution to Big Bang Cosmology, but you did, so I’ll address that too. The universe does not violate the laws of entropy (the 2nd law). What is the entropy level of nothingness? How can you know that the universe has a lower entropy level? The thing that it might be considered a challenge to is the 1st law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. But, as it happens, the more we measure the universe the more we are finding that its sum energy is zero (because there is such a thing as negative energy).

    Also, biogenesis was given its counter–abiogenesis–part by Thomas Huxley in 1870.

  3. If I may, I’d like to ask why, exactly, you think so many scientists–and basically everyone in biology–are convinced of evolution. Even the religious ones. What is there for the scientists to gain about accepting evolution? I’m not saying it’s true just because scientists say it is, I’m just curious about why you think they’re lying to you (or, why you think you’ve done a better job of assessing the data evidence).
    And, while we’re on evidence: what about the Ardipithecus and Australopithecines and early hominid fossils aren’t evidence? What about genetic data (i.e. you can map genetic data of different animals and it falls into a family tree) isn’t evidence for evolution? What about ring species and other speciation events aren’t evidence for evolution? The E. coli experiment? Fossil lineages of horses and giraffes? Common ancestry? Isolation and distribution (e.g. the marsupials are in Australia; Penguins are at one pole but not the other… etc)?

    • First of all, when examining evidence one must look at all evidence not just a biased side. This is not done in the scientific community. They have erred from the scientific method. The evidence is based on interpretation and not facts. Watch what these scientists say….”may have”, “possible could have”, “we think that” …ect

      Stay tuned as I am in the process of creating a blog just to deal with the atheist agenda.

      • You’re telling me that you don’t accept the evidence of evolution because scientists have the humility to err their language?
        Tell me, what is the evidence that supports the otherside? What evidence is science ignoring.
        Lastly, atheist agenda aside, what do religious people who accept evolution get from it? What is their agenda?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s