Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself or has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12

Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13 The universe cannot have created itself!

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

c. The universe WAS created

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created.

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/...93-scientific-evidence-against-evolution.html
 
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!


http://www.changinglivesonline.org/...93-scientific-evidence-against-evolution.html
 
EVIDENCE 3: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. These 'links' are conspicuous by their absence.

After over a hundred years of intensive research into the fossil record the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." 2

What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links?Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?
 
EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence (in the fossil record etc.) of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even an imaginary process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!
 
EVIDENCE 5: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." 9

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"7

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.
 
EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37,500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action.
Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!
 
EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"5

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”10

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Let's now put this in its larger context. Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!
 
How does evolution occur? — That is, what natural processes bring new types of organisms into being? Expressed more technically, one might ask, what are the genetic processes that have produced the various forms that scientists recognize and assign scientific names? This is the question considered in the analysis of evolutionary theory presented on this website. There is, of course, a great mass of literature already available on this topic. But my own, more than 20-year investigation of that literature has convinced me that certain widely accepted claims about the nature of evolutionary processes represent little more than unsubstantiated dogma, as unsupported by replicable experiment as the events described in Genesis.

I readily admit that many of the claims made by my fellow evolutionary biologists are in fact correct and entirely reasonable. But some are inconsistent with fact and, in my opinion, the corresponding aspects of evolutionary theory need adjustment. By collecting all the relevant facts together here, I hope to lead you to the same conclusion. It remains true, as R. S. Crane liked to say, that "there is no authority but evidence." On this website I have gathered evidence of all sorts that seemed to have any direct bearing on the question at hand. Moreover, I have tried to present that evidence in such a way that a non-biologist can understand it, so long as he or she reads the information in the order that it is presented. I have done so because I believe the issues considered here are of vital concern, not only to the few people who call themselves evolutionary biologists, but also to humanity as a whole.

For the last 150 years, we biologists have been defending a fortress built by Charles Darwin. We have spent our energies hurling back the assaults of the creationist infidels and shoring up a slowly crumbling foundation that once seemed based on the hard bedrock of direct observation. But an ocean of data, accumulating since 1859, has been slowly lapping away at the rotting stone beneath Darwin's castle, undermining its moldering walls, making it an ever more dangerous place to reside.

Thomas Henry Huxley

As Darwin's most eloquent proponent, T. H. Huxley, once said, "Every great truth begins as heresy and ends as superstition." In the case of evolutionary theory, Huxley appears to have been right. Many of the facts presented in the discussion of evolution on this website do indeed suggest that certain elements of Darwin's heresy can now best be interpreted as a kind of superstition. It was Huxley, too, who warned us not to "pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." I will argue that certain important tenets of modern evolutionary theory actually do fall into this category.

Full article here:

http://www.macroevolution.net/introduction.html
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Science without a proof is an argument, sure.

Design theory is an argument without a proof, sure.

Belief in the arguments lacking a proof such as something from nothing, and spontaneous life from an unproved soup is belief in science fiction. Defending said science fiction in a dogmatic fashion without questioning the assumptions of science is a religion.

If your mind was open, that should help.

Good luck with your personal faith in science fiction arguments lacking proof...
More...

Yes, science without proof is an argument, and for good reason.

But "Design theory"...?? lol, you mean intelligent design blind guessing.... is no argument, and for good reason.

Frantically posting ID's own false assertions and misinformation 9 times on the trot is no argument either.
It's one thing to have an open mind, but yours as a creationist is all over the floor.
 
Could you make a logical argument with a logical proof to show how ID arguments posted are wrong?

I didn't think so...

Quote from stu:

Yes, science without proof is an argument, and for good reason.

But "Design theory"...?? lol, you mean intelligent design blind guessing.... is no argument, and for good reason.

Frantically posting ID's own false assertions and misinformation 9 times on the trot is no argument either.
It's one thing to have an open mind, but yours as a creationist is all over the floor.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top