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

Carbon Dioxide Pollution Myth

Based on the presumption of global warming the Environmental Protection Agency has decreed carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant and have started regulating it accordingly. This is totally stupid since the notion of carbon dioxide being an air pollutant could not be more absurd because carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring atmospheric gas that is used by plants and produced by people and animals. Furthermore plants thrive on higher levels of carbon dioxide. It poses no danger to people or animals  because we breathe it in and out in every breath of your life with no affects.

When you look at other planets carbon dioxide is is shown to the most natural atmospheric gas for terrestrial planetary. There are three terrestrial planets in the Solar system with substantial atmospheres two of them Mars and Venus have predominately carbon dioxide atmospheres. Even Earth would have a nitrogen / carbon dioxide atmosphere if plants did not produce lots of free oxygen. So once again the idea of dioxide as a pollutant is absurd.

So isn’t climate change or global warming or what ever the name of the week may be dagerous? Now if you ignore the fact that the computer models used to support man caused global warming make the thermodynamically impossible assumption that as the global temperature raises the amount of heat lost to space is reduced and if you ignore Climate Gate which shows that climate data has been manipulated. Even if you ignore all this and take the proponents of global warming at their word, they are only predicting a rise in temperature comparable to that of the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period was actually beneficial allowing the Vikings to reach America and helping Europe recover from the black plaque and producing increased food production and prosperity.  So once again carbon idea of dioxide being a pollutant is absurd.

So why did the EPA take such a ludicrous step? The answer is Cap and Trade. President Obama could not get congress to pass Cap and Trade; a scam that would enrich those behind the plan at the expense of the U.S. economy. After congress refused to pass Cap and Trade seeing it as a job killer during a time of high unemployment President Obama used the EPA to do get it by way of regulation. The EPA ruling carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant is President Obama’s way of doing this.

References

Thermodynamics In Physics

Global Warming Fraud and Its Affect on Science

Science corrupted - YouTube

The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science

Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails - YouTube