Big Bang to Man Evolution Is Atheistic Mythology

 Atheists often argue that atheism has no mythology, but when you think about it, the Big Bang to Man evolutionary story is really just a story with atheistic roots. They try to claim that it is scientific, but in reality, it is still atheistic.

Inherently Atheistic 

Big Bang to Man Evolution is atheistic because it leaves God out of the picture. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry, and most of biology, this line of thinking is not trying to understand how things work, but rather how they originated. There is a big difference between the two and its effect on conclusions about whether or not you include God. Much of this story has its origins among atheists who were talking about universal common descent evolution long before Charles Darwin was even born. For example, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin was talking about it.

Napoleon was informed by Marquis De Laplace, who was an atheist, that his explanation of the solar system's beginnings did not require the involvement of God. While it is true that a Catholic priest proposed the concept of the Big Bang, he had already disregarded the Biblical account of creation and embraced atheistic ideas and conclusions. Therefore, the narrative of the Big Bang leading to the existence of mankind was either formulated by atheists or individuals influenced by their ideologies.

You don't have to be an atheist except these theories

Though one need not be an atheist to accept the Big Bang to human evolution story, some who believe in God and accept this narrative hold contradictory views without acknowledging the inconsistency. Humans often cling to mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously, accepting what we were taught rather than logically analyzing our positions.

The connection goes beyond the concept origins

The link between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory and atheism extends beyond the origins of these concepts. Fundamentally, this historical model presumes absolute naturalism, excluding God as an explanation without first examining the evidence. As such, it represents an atheistic philosophical view of history. Moreover, it is the sole historical model of Earth's and the universe's evolution consistent with atheistic worldviews.

This view of history attempts to explain our existence without invoking God. The reaction to creation science and intelligent design clearly demonstrates this naturalistic perspective. These ideas are immediately rejected by institutional science and those adhering unquestioningly to the naturalistic historical view. Online discussions quickly reveal that notions of intelligent involvement in human origins are dismissed out of hand, often treated on par with believing in a flat earth. This dismissal is not merely figurative but frequently quite literal.

Artificially inserting God

Yes, you can artificially insert God into this model, but it is just an artificial insertion. This entire model of history is completely naturalistic, there is no place in it for God. Trying to believe both, is literally trying to believe two things there are logically exclusive. While it is possible to imagine God using this theoretical process to create everything, It is not logically consistent to do so. This model of history was designed from its inception for the most part to explain our existence apart from God. To insert him you have to relegate God to an agency that leaves no detectable traces and is nothing but a God of the gaps. This is not the God of the Bible, but one made up so that people can have it both ways.

Conclusion

The Big Bang to human evolution narrative is essentially an atheistic myth. This perspective on the origins of the universe and life is rooted in atheism. A close examination of the history and philosophy behind it reveals an inherently atheistic worldview. For atheists, it represents the sole coherent explanation for existence. To be an intellectually consistent atheist, one must accept this account of cosmic and biological origins. At its core, the Big Bang to human evolution story is atheistic mythology.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The Term Evolution as Used by Evolutionists.

 Naturally, evolutionists use the word “evolution” a lot, but the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis, which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life. Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the first three, to the fourth way they use it.

Sometimes evolutionists will simply tell you that evolution is just changes over time and that organisms do indeed change over time. Now, this is the strict dictionary definition of the word “evolution” and by this definition, we all individually evolve over our lifetimes. However, there is way more to the idea of biological evolution than this. In fact, it is not the idea of evolution that creationists would disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Any evolutionist who uses the word “evolution” in this manner within the context of biological evolution is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.

There are times when evolutionists will tell you that evolution is just changes in the frequency of gene varieties over time. Now while this is a legitimate biological usage of the term, most of the time when the word “evolution” is used particularly in the context of “the theory of evolution” it is not limited to this simplistic definition. Once again, this is a usage of the word “evolution” in the context of biology that creationists would not disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Once again, using the word “evolution” this way is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.

Yet another approach is to equate evolution and adaptation. Now adaptation does qualify as evolution under the two earlier definitions. However, it is not the full extent of what the theory of evolution refers to. It is true that as organisms of the same kind have diversified into different environments, they have developed new species, in the sense that they become isolated breeding populations. Interestingly enough if Charles Darwin had stopped there it would have been a legitimate scientific work. The problem is that he speculated not just about the origin of species but on the universal common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionists will routinely point to evidence of adaptation such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics and insects developing resistance to pesticides. However, in both cases, the resistance is a result of damage being done to the gene producing the particular enzyme that is being attacked by the antibiotic or pesticide. The enzyme in question does not work as well as it used to, but the resistant variety takes over because the nonresistant population is killed off. These results do not demonstrate the type of change that universal common descent requires for it to be viable.

The final way evolutionists used the word “evolution” is by referring to the theory of evolution, which is specifically dealing with universal common descent. This is where the real disagreement is, this is also where actual science is departed from, and atheistic mythology takes over. The primary evidence put forward for the universal common descent of all life on Earth is physical and genetic similarities between different kinds of organisms. It ignores the fact that these similarities can be accounted for by a common designer. Furthermore, there is no degree of difference even between humans and chimps that would be considered evidence against common ancestry, which makes the entire notion unfalsifiable. Furthermore, it has never been demonstrated that natural selection or any other naturalistic process is capable of producing the new complex specific information that would have to come about for universal common descent to be correct. For example, fish do not have lungs but to have evolved into amphibians they would have had to develop them. Despite a lack of any evidence that this is even possible, universal common descent is used to interpret biological and fossil data in a manner that makes it look as if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there is no actual evidence that it works.

Consequently, evolutionists used the word evolution in different ways to confuse the real issue. When talking with an evolutionist, it is necessary to ask them what they mean by evolution. Meanwhile, it is important for creationists to always clarify the word evolution so that they cannot twist what we are saying. When we refer to universal common descent, always use the term “universal common descent” or “universal common descent evolution.” Doing so will force the discussion to remain on the real topic of concern and not to get off on any of these other side points that result from evolutionist word games.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Is the Word Evolutionist a Derogatory Term

 If you have done any online discussion about universal common descent evolution, you will notice that the proponents of evolution tend to denounce the term evolutionist. They will often claim that it does not exist even though a simple Google search shows that it is accepted as a word by multiple dictionaries. They usually go on to claim that it is only used by creationists as a derogatory term to make evolution sound like it is just a belief system.

First of all, this claim is not true. Not only is the word “evolutionist” found in dictionaries as referring to “a person who believes in the theory of evolution” but it is used simply as a general term for those who accept the theory of universal common descent evolution, and often the entire Big Bang to man story. This is because while not identical they are part of the same overall view of history. So, it is not intended to be derogatory nor imply anything about the theory itself, it is simply a general descriptive term for those who accept that particular theory.

Furthermore, evolutionists reject this label while also refusing to supply an objective alternative term that they will accept. This is mainly because they want to equate their view of history to science, consequently, many of them reject any term other than scientists. This Is it inherently biased notion.

As a result, we have a situation, where we have a word that is well recognized as referring to the adherences to and promoters of universal common descent evolution, but they reject it at the same time refusing to supply an objective alternative. This allows them to complain every time they are called evolutionists making conversation difficult at even this basic level. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of evolutionary wordplay.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Theory Shown Wrong

The theory that human chromosome 2 is fusion from two chimp chromosomes has been shown to wrong.

 

The claim man evolved from a common ancestor with apes has bee recently supported by that claim that the human chromosome 2 is  an end to end fusion of chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. This theory was proposed as a way to explain the fact that humans 46 chromosomes and all  apes 48. The evidence for the theory is rather weak because if the DNA sequences were originally centromere, and telomere sites they would are highly degraded possible time span.

 

This claim ignores the fact that such a mutation would probably render the individual infertile with rest of his species and if he or she were lucky enough to find a mate with the same fused chromosome the offspring that would be produced would have trouble finding a compatible mates So survival od such a mutation let alone dominance is highly improbable.

 

Furthermore there are no cases in mammals identified as telomere-to-telomere fusion. Chromosome fusions documented in living mammals involves satellite DNA . The fact is that telomeres have end caps called the shelterin protein complex that prevent  telomere-to-telomere fusion.

 

Chromosome fusion theory has another in the fact that DNA sequences in the area around the alleged  human chromosome 2 fusion site lack the  expected similarity between humans and chimps. There is even unexplained "missing"  chimp DNA in the area. To make it worsts alleged fusion site is surrounded by many functional genes that are not in the ends of the ends of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A or 2B.

 

The final fatal flaw in the chromosome 2 fusion theory is that the alleged fusion site is inside the DDX11L2 gene.  This gene contains three primary exons and serves several regulatory functions. In fact it is a highly expressed and complicated gene not found in apes.

 

If the human chromosome 2  were indeed a result of an end to end fusion from two chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b were would expect to find the fusion site in fairly good shape and surrounded by DNA sequences highly similar between humans and chimps but we do not. We also find a unique highly functional gene going right across the alleged fusion site. Thus this so called evidence for a human-chimpanzee common ancestor and human evolution can be considered falsified, that is has been shown to be wrong.

 

Reference

 

Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding 
Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion

 

Study ages the Rhine River 5 million years.

Study ages the Rhine River 5 million years.

Previously been dated at 10 million years the Rhine River has now been redated by a new study based on fossils of at a site associated with  now adds an extra 5 million years to the river's estimated age for a total of 15 million years. The orrgional darw was most likely based on erosion rate but this study shows the fact that dating sites by the fossils at them supersedes other dating methods.

Using fossil dating first of all requires assuming evolution ass wellas the accuratcy of the methods used the fossil types to begin with. That this supremacy of fossil dating causes renders the concept of fauna succession totally un-testable by eliminating any way of objectively producing a relive date for fossil sites that could be used to test it.

Shuch problems are inherent in all methods used to date the past.  A method bthat ecomes the standard for judging the results of other methods also  becomes totally un-testable. Even worst it can result in circular reasoning when the date derived by a given method are used to support the assumptions of the dating method. In this case fossil dating which assumes evolution is used to date rocks and these dates are then used to support evolution, thus the circular reasoning.

Two Additional Genes Help Increase the Complexity of the Human Brain

Two Additional Genes Help Increase the Complexity of the Human Brain

A gene called SRGAP2 that is found in humans, primates and other mammals helps control the rate of the development of the brain. A big difference occurs in Humans who have two similar genes that help increase complexity of the human brain by slowing its development.

These additional genes were place in mice and the proteins thney made bound the SRGAP2 protein slowing the rate of their brains leading to the mice growing additional neuron connections. This shows that these two uniquely human genes make  a huge differencet on human brain development making them an important difference between humans and apes.

One thing this study shows that is not stated is the fact that it is a great illustration of the fact that every biological study is interpreted with is obvious evolutionary spin. In this case the evolutionary spin is the claim that these additional are a result of a SRGAP2 duplication 3.5 million ago followed by the duplication duplicating to 2.5 million years ago to form the second additional gene.

What the hard facts are that humans share the SRGAP2 with primates and other mammals producing a protein the regulated the rate of brain development. Humans also have two similar additional shorter genes; one of these two genes is shorter than the other; that slow the brain’s growth rate as regulated by the SRGAP2 protein increasing the human brain’s time of growth allowing it time to make more connections. The references to gene duplications how ever are 100% interpretation based entirely on evolutionary assumptions.

Creation and Genetics

Creation and Genetics
When you look a recent genetic data is is amazing how well it supports the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve; The Flood; and the dispersion from Babel. Once You strip away the Evolutionary assumptions human DNA patterns are a perfect match to the Biblical account.

Red Deer Cave people could be separate human species

Red Deer Cave people could be separate human species

Whether or not they are technically classified as a separate human species they were still human beings. From a creationist perspective they would be off chutes of the human race that live during the post flood ice age about 5000 thousand years ago. The relatively few individuals found and the degree of fragmentation of the remains makes claiming them to be an entirely separate human species a bit of a stretch. They could have just as well have been a small isolated family group whose traits could be a result of inbreeding.

Antibiotics Resistance existed before Antibiotics

IT has bee claimed for years now the growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution in action. But a  recent study now shows that antibiotics resistance existed long before the antibiotics were invented.

After studying the DNA in bacteria found in permafrost that had been dated to 30,000 years and the researchers found the same set of genes that are responsible for antibiotics resistance showing that the predated the antibiotics. This shows that antibiotics resistance did not evolve in response to antibiotics but was already present in the population.

Note that the date above is based on uniformitarian assumption in Flood geology this would be 4000-5000 years ago but still old enough to prove the point/

The net result is that antibiotics resistance can no longer be claimed as evolution in action. It does represent an shift in the population but not new information added to the genome but long existing information come into dominance. This is exactly what creationists have been saying all along.

Chicken and Egg Riddle Solved Scientifically

Researchers in Britain have found scientific evidence has been found that scientifically answers famous chicken and egg riddle. What these scientists found is that protein found in eggshells called ovocledidin-17 and is important for it to harden quickly is found in chickens' ovaries.

The logical unbiased conclusion is that the Chicken had to come before the egg, so as to produce the ovocledidin-17 for the first eggshell. However the evolutionary philosophical position of researchers forces them to be unable to accept this unbiased conclusion. This show the affect a scientist’s biases has on their conclusions.

Interestingly enough Biblical creation agrees with logical unbiased conclusion that the Chicken came before the egg.

“Walking” Lung Fish – Evolution or Creation

By studying the African lungfish called Protopterus annectens, evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin drew conclusions about the origin of walking. These lungfish can breath air and move across land using its fins. By placing these fish in a tank designed to allow them the filming of lungfish locomotion they found that the fish pushes it self across the bottom of the tank with its rear fins. Sometime they did so in a hoping and other times in a walking type motion.

What really surprised them what that the fish’s find lacked the structure expected for this type of locomotion. Their fins have the same basic structure as found in swimming   lobe-finned fish like the coelacanth. The fact that their gate is more similar to bipedal motion than four lagged motion is also interesting

The evolutionary bias in this study is abundantly clear. They are starting with the assumption that land animals evolved from fish and draw their conclusion based on this presupposition. . Shubin himself stated, "If you showed me the skeleton of this creature and asked me to make a bet on whether it walks or not, I would have bet it couldn't," Their fins seem like the furthest thing from walking appendages possible." So the results surprised them because it was not what they expected but never fear Evolution theory is flexible that any result can be turned into support for the evolutionary model.

From a creation perspective these fish show evidence of being designed to do what they do. They have the strength to move despite the fact that their fin structure suggests they should not.

How Creationists and Evolutionists could Benefit from Each Other

Creationists and evolutionists are opposite sides of the question of origins. So while full-fledged cooperation is impossible they can still benefit from each other. This is because both sides nave a different perspective from which they see things. There are three main ways in which this difference in perspective is helpful.

Creationists and evolutionists are not always looking for the same things when looking at the same phenomenon. Because of this each side will often acquire different lines of data that both sides can benefit from.

Creationists and evolutionists often see different things in the same data. This can benefit both sides by showing a different perspective than the one is use to,

Since creationists and evolutionists are on opposite side of the same issue they are naturally more critical of the other side than of their own making it easier to see problems. This is not to say that ether side is uncritical of their own side but that an honest criticism from a different perspective is helpful.

This would be nice if it happened in reality but by and large it does not. Some times it can happen in isolated cases but not on in the general case because of the degree of antagonism on both sides. A major problem is the fact that Evolutionists refuse to accept any Creation Science research as legitimate scientific research. As a result Creation Science criticism of evolutionist theories is usually ignored. This lack of respect on the part of evolutionists makes it hard for creationists to take their criticism of  Creation Science research seriously. There in lies the problem these mutual benefits require mutual respect something that does not exist.

Why Creation Science is important

Creation Science is the science of origins from a Biblical perspective. So from a Biblical perspective is helps provide a scientific of origins. This is important for having a complete and consistent Biblical world view. A strait forward reading of the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth and the Universe were created in one week just few thousand years ago and Creation Science shows this view to be scientifically feasible.

Creation Science has produced a considerable amount of research in Archaeology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Geology, History, Information Theory, Paleontology, Physics, and much more.

Research in Archaeology, and History evidence shows human history to be consistent with the Bible. Research in Astronomy, and Cosmology have shown that the universe can be only a few thousand years old from Earth’s perspective. Research in Geology has shown that Noah’s Flood could have occurred as described in Genesis and the Earth to be just a few thousand years old. Research in Biology and Paleontology have shown problems with naturalistic models of the origin for life as well as showing the need for a supernatural intelligent origin for life. Research in Chemistry, Information Theory, and Physics, have provided the needed theory for the other researchers.

The Manner in Which Creationists Use the Term Evolutionist Explained

Creationists have often use the term Evolution to refer to entire naturalistic view of origins that starts with the Big Bang and goes to Man. Creationists will also use the term Evolutionist to refer to proponents of the Big Bang to Man view of origins.

The way Creationist use the terms “Evolution” and “Evolutionist” has recently come under attack. The claim is that evolution only refers to biological evolution and that Creationists are ether ignorant or misrepresenting the term Evolution. It further claims that abiogenesis, planetary formation, stellar formation and the Big Bang are all independent disciplines unrelated to evolution.

Creationists fully understand that these are different disciplines nor is Evolution being misrepresent because it is wrong to claim that they are unrelated to biological evolution. They form one complete view of origins and are referred to as evolution by main stream sources like NASA and the NSF. They use distinguishing terms like biological evolution, chemical evolution, planetary evolution, stellar evolution cosmic evolution.

Biological evolution refers to the development of life. Chemical evolution refers to the origin of life. Planetary evolution refers to formation and development of planetary bodies. Stellar evolution refers to the formation, development and death of stars. Cosmic evolution refers to the beginning, development and possible end of the universe. Some times this by itself refers the entire Big Bang to man concept.

Note that these are all labeled evolution so it is not inappropriate to refer to them all collectively as Evolution its proponents as Evolutionists. The terms Evolution and Evolutionists are often used by Creationists simply do to a lack of better terms.

I have also used the terms General Evolution and General Evolution theory to help avoid confusion.

References

Center for Chemical Evolution

Missing Link Sought in Planetary EvolutionNASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

ChandraEducational MaterialsStellar Evolution

Cosmic EvolutionHistory, Culture,and Human Destiny

Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind

The Science of Life Called Biology

Biology is the science that studies life and living organisms. Life is that which undergo metabolism, grows and reproduce. A living cell is the basic functional unit of life. An organism is a contiguous living system.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the information storage device of living cells. Amazingly DNA is actually a digitally encoded information storage system and the compact encoded information storage system known to exist. There is no known place of higher information density than in DNA.

Living cell are the most basic functional unit of life and but despite this they are still highly complex organized systems of information, structure, molecular machines and much more. Each cell has a level of complexity similar to a city but possesses more organization making even the simplest living cell more complex and organized than any man made machine.  

Single-cell life includes organisms that are made of only one cell. Examples include bacteria, single cell animals and single celled plants such as blue green algae. Multi-cellular life includes organisms consisting of multiple cells usually billions such as plants animals and people.

No mater how the process is described there is essentially only two possible origins for life: A naturalistic origin called abiogenesis or a supernaturally intelligently designed origin. Other suggestions don’t actually solve the problem but merely move it some place else in the Universe.

Abiogenesis has the problem of overcoming the overwhelming gap in organized complexity between a living cell and the chemical constituents that make up a cell. Furthermore no natural process actually demonstrated to exist can accomplish the task but known natural processes indicate that it can not happen. Going from non living chemicals to a living cell requires reducing entropy by an immense amount and statistical thermodynamics shows that natural processes tend to go towards increased entropy; which is the opposite direction of that needed for abiogenesis. Now adding energy can decrease entropy it only does so if applied in a sufficiently organized manner and no known natural process can apply energy in a sufficiently organized manner to achieve abiogenesis suggesting that abiogenesis is impossible. 

A supernaturally intelligently designed origin of life does not have these problems.  First of all it is known that intelligents can create complex organized systems because humans do so. Second it is known that intelligents can encode a functioning genome because human scientists have done so. Intelligents does have a sufficient degree of organized complexity to create a living cell. Furthermore the intelligents that started life in the universe would have to be from out side it and thus would be supernatural.

Evolutionists will often claim that evolution is just change over time in the inherited traits found in a population. If this were really all that was meant by evolution there would be no issue since creationists agree that there is change over time in the inherited traits of a population.

The real dispute is with the idea that observed variations can start with one cell and produce all life found on earth including man. Going from microbe to man requires adding a lot of information by nothing but than mutations and natural selection. The Evolutionist argument is that given enough time mutations and natural selection can produce any thing, however such large degrees of change has never actually been observed. They are however a necessary assumption for a totally naturalistic origin of current living systems.

Science Education

A basic knowledge of science is important for understanding the world around us and since science affects most aspect of life so some knowledge of it is needed to get along. It helps students with an interest in science to pursue a scientific career by helping them discover that interest.

The problem with science education for example many pre collage science classes are taught by teachers who did not major or minor in math or science so as a result classes are often of low quality a often uninteresting.  As a result children are often thought only facts and theory and are often not taught how to actually do science.

They often not thought how to critically evaluate scientific claims.

Even worst some times political agendas get in the way of teaching science, a good example is the teaching of man caused global warming without presenting the other side except in ridicule. Furthermore science and other topics are usually taught in a way that encourages conformity which can a actually discourage independent thinking. As a result many people can not think out side the box of what they were taught and it is the independent thinkers and that tend make the great discoveries.

This shows up big time in the way origin is taught in public school science class. Big bang to man Evolution is taught as fact. Efforts to change this to date have been blocked by the courts. Big bang to man Evolution is further pushed by TV programs and other media were in most cases if Creation Science or Intelligent Design are mention all it is in ridicule. As a result people are bombarded by Big bang to man Evolution giving them the impression that it is proven fact despite scientific reasons for questioning it. As a result some people develop a condescending attitude towards Creation Science while actually being ignorant of it, producing an arrogant ignorance that makes an intelligent discussion impossible

References

Parents Understand Importance of Science
But Student Achievement Lags Parental Expectations