• Existence of God, Rob Robinson, Science and the Bible

    Posted on August 28th, 2013

    Written by Rob Robinson

    Tags

    , ,

    Without God: All Things Move Towards Disorder and Chaos

    Without God: All Things Move Towards Disorder and Chaos

    People will thank the earth, the sky, and the things on the earth for their existence, but not thank the God who made them. Such foolishness is irreconcilable to a rationally thinking man. If a person was born on the earth and had absolutely no contact with another human being while he was advancing in years, if he had never heard a single word on creationism or evolution, this person would logically and reasonably conclude that someone made this beautiful world that he lives in. It is a fairy tale and a foolish myth to conclude that the universe exists of its own volition. There are far more objects on the earth that are less complicated than the Cosmos, and yet no sane person has ever declared that any of these things are self-created or accidentally caused.

    The complexity of the atom, the intricacies of the cell, the amazing structure of complex gas and matter which have formed the planets and stars, are immensely complicated. Applied mathematicians specialize in the computation of certain events and actions that exist by chance. It has rightly been stated that the mathematical possibility that a single cell could have come into existence by itself is beyond chance. Even with billions of years of evolutionary processes, order never comes out of disorder. Try placing a cord from your iPhone in a drawer for a few days and see what happens. Place two socks in the dryer and notice how many come out of the dryer. All things on the earth and in the universe move towards chaos by themselves. The order that governs the universe today requires a massive power and intelligence to cause and keep the universe in a state of order.

  • Evolution Refuted by Their Own Evidence

    Evolution Refuted by Their Own Evidence

    There is a very good reason that Evolution is called “The theory of Evolution”

    Theory: “An uncertain belief that is at present unprovable, that is being used to explain something that is based on a general set of principles that are as yet unexplained.

    Evolution is simply a group of ideas that are being used to prove that life originated from a series of mutations. The problem with the present “theory” is that after 100 years, there is still no solid empirical evidence that conclusively proves the theory of evolution.

    Often, you will hear those that claim to be experts in evolution, put forth statements that appear to be authoritative and conclusive. What we discover in reality is that these are unprovable ideas that have no real scientific basis.

    In January of 2009, a publication called “15 Evolutionary Gems” listed what they called “a succinct briefing on why evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated”. Written by Henry Gee, Rory Howlett and Philip Campbell, this publication describes itself as “a resource from nature for those wishing to spread awareness of evidence for evolution by natural selection”.

    In reality, the 15 points made by these three men are nothing more than foolishness and pandering to the lost cause that evolution is conclusive and absolute. I originally intended on refuting all 15 of the claims for evidence that these three men have published as evolutionary facts. Upon examination of the first “proof” that they offered, it became so apparent that all of these claims are utterly ridiculous with no real scientific or rational basis, I ended my article on this subject after the first proof from their publication. To continue to refute all 15 is really a waste of your time and mine. In every case, all of the points of “eidence” that are presented by these men, are as easily refuted as the first example I gave here.

  • Origin of the Universe, Which One Takes More Faith?

    Origin of the Universe, Which One Takes More Faith?

    Atheists often criticize Christians in that they formerly believed that the Sun orbited the earth, prior to the 19th century. Until the recent past, Atheists believed that the universe was eternal, that it has always exited and always will exist.

    Today, scientists understand that the Universe had a finite beginning, and eventually it will have an ending.

    This leaves us with only two legitimate and logical explanations for the origin of the universe:

    Someone created the universe.
    The Universe created itself.
    Which of these two possibilities are more logical?

    Let us imagine that the universe arose out of some spontaneous uncontrolled mechanism, whereby it eventually developed, over billions of years of course, into all the life forms that we see present today.

    So, we would say: “In the beginning, there was nothing, then it exploded, and became everything that we can see, and everything that we cannot see…”

    Or, “In the beginning God created the universe…”

    Which of these takes more faith?

  • Irreducibly Complex Systems “Didn’t Plan to Evolve”

    Irreducibly Complex Systems “Didn’t Plan to Evolve”

    In his Youtube video, the author of “QualiaSoup”, seeks to make his case that Irreducibly complex organisms are not so irreducibly complex. The author takes the listener through a series of mental gymnastics in which he asks the participant to accept his assumptions that explain why irreducibly complex systems such as the human eye, could have evolved.

    In an explanation of the mouse trap, an irreducibly complex system, the author states that by removing the mechanism from the base and attaching it to another base, we have rendered the mechanism non-irreduciblly complex.

    In a quickly passed over statement immediately after the mousetrap example, the author states:

    “A mousetrap is made with a goal in mind, evolution has no such goals, living mouse catchers didn’t plan to evolve that way…” (Excerpt from Qualiasoup You tube video)

    In other words, the complexity of the human eye, was not planned. In evolutionary thought, a human eye, as amazing and complex as it is, just happened by accident. The author asks us to accept that it was never the goal of any irreducibly complex system, to become whatever it became, it just happened to end up that way by chance.

  • The Universe Appears Designed, Because It Was

    The Universe Appears Designed, Because It Was

    What if the materialistic view of the universe is not true? What if there is an intelligence at work that caused these delicate and finely tuned absolutes to exist, so that life would be possible? It seems logical and reasonable to me as an intelligent man that the rational answer for a universe that appears to have been designed this way, is that it was designed this way.

    No one in the scientific community today can prove that every feature of the universe came about strictly by material cause. During the past two hundred years, evidence for Intelligent Design has been growing in the areas of how scientists explain the existence of the universe and the origin of life itself. Advances in the areas of Microbiology have revealed that a simple single celled organism, is not so simple. Upon examination of the microscopic components within a cell, a reasonably thinking person would come to the conclusion that they were viewing the handiwork of a master engineer.

  • The Ultimate Evolutionary Process

    The Ultimate Evolutionary Process

    Men and women debate the theory of Evolution, verses the creation of the universe by an almighty, wise and wonderful God. The Bible ignores the subject of trying to prove the existence of God, for to do so, it claims is “Foolishness”, since the evidence of His existence is all around us in the things that He has made.
    Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…

    The geologic record contains not one shred of evidence that any intermediary species in some evolutionary process, became a different species. Yet the astronomical record reveals that the conditions to which all the Galaxies in the universe were formed, were made under fluctuations in the ratio of temperature to matter that were “perfect” and “just right” for life to exist. If fluctuations in these ratios of temperature to matter were too large, the universe would consist of massive black holes. If the fluctuations were too small, there would never have been the formation of a single star. Scientists call this phenomenon the “Goldilocks Condition”. Someone created this perfect balance between matter and temperature, to make life possible, not just on the Earth, but in the entire Universe, so that the Earth would contain an environment suited for human beings, once they were created and placed here.

  • The Law of Human Nature

    The Law of Human Nature

    Have you considered the fact that inside of you there exists a law that you have no control over, that tells you something is right or wrong? We commonly refer to this law as “our conscience”. People who do not have a consciousness that something is wrong are called “Sociopaths”. This is the ability to do absolutely anything, no matter how heinous, and yet feel not guilt or remorse for the act. A person becomes a sociopath by repeatedly doing things that they know are wrong, until they can not longer feel any guilt for having done them.

    The real question here is: “Why is this Moral Law present in us?”

    After all, none of us is perfect and we should not expect anyone else to be perfect. Yet, when someone acts in a certain way, or does a particular thing that displeases us, we might say “that is wrong”. Why do we evaluate the behavior of someone over and above the actual act itself and determine if it is right or wrong?

    There are two principles at work every day in all our lives: One, the fact that people should behave a certain way in a civilized society. Two, The way in which they actually do act.

  • Evolutionist: Appearance of Intelligent Design an ‘Illusion’

    Evolutionist: Appearance of Intelligent Design an ‘Illusion’

    Ever since scientists discovered the appearance of intelligent design in the cell structure of all living things, most biologists have stated that this “appearance of design is simply an illusion”.

    Although the structure and functioning of the cell appears to be designed by an intelligence, biologists insist that the cell evolved and was not actually designed.

    From the first discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, scientists have been aware that DNA stores information within itself that contains a four character chemical alphabet. This is the crucial information that a cell requires to transmit, build and assemble the protein molecules that every living cell needs to survive.

    This information within the DNA of the cell is a written language that is very similar to the written language of a computer code that directs the function of every computer system. Depending on the arrangement of this chemical alphabet, the DNA molecules relay this information to the cell for building proteins that make life possible.

    Atheists and humanists Richard Dawkins has stated that “The machine code of the genes is uncanny computer-like.” The amazing fact is that this computer code of the cell is so sophisticated that it is even more advanced than the human written computer code found in every software program that exists. The founder of Microsoft Bill Gates, has stated that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

  • Creation v. Evolution, Jesus v. Science, Rob Robinson, Science and the Bible

    Posted on October 12th, 2010

    Written by Rob Robinson

    Tags

    , , ,

    Why Evolution is a Lie

    Why Evolution is a Lie

    When a person sees someone behaving in a way that does not please him, he is not just claiming that that behavior does not please himself, he is saying that there is a standard of behavior that is universally known and should be expected. The one scolded understand that there is this standard that is expected and does not argue that it is correct, but simply that they do not wish to conform to the standard. He makes an excuse for why he should be able to do this thing, while all the while knowing in his own being that his behavior is wrong. This law of right and wrong is known by all men and is a part of the nature of all human beings. This is a characteristic that is not common to all other animals or organic things. It is known by the smallest child from their birth as evidence that children know how to lie from the inception of their life and will deny wrong doing while all the while their guilt is completely apparent on their face and in their actions.

    Where did this moral law and awareness of right and wrong come from? Even in societies that are not religious, even amongst our atheists friends, they admit there is a law of right an wrong. Some would argue that certain societies in history had completely different moral laws than our present society. There are differences in societies, but the fact is, the basic structure of right and wrong is the same for all people for all time. From the most ancient culture to the present, universally man has an internal law and awareness that certain things are not right and some sense of what things are right and just. Is there any society that admires cowardice? Is there any record of any culture who cultivates and admires betrayal?

  • Creation v. Evolution, Creation v. Intelligent Design

    Posted on September 29th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    , ,

    Intelligent Design v. Evolution, The Debate Continues

    Intelligent Design v. Evolution, The Debate Continues

    Modesto, California is embroiled in a debate about whether a science teacher will be permitted to teach the theory of intelligent design alongside evolution in his classes. Last month, Roosevelt Junior High teacher Mark Ferrante told parents on back-to school night he planned to do just that, to give his students a balanced understanding of the arguments involved. Modesto City Schools district has said that it won’t happen.

    “He will not be teaching intelligent design. He has been instructed to teach the state standards and intelligent design is not in the state standards,” Modesto City Schools spokeswoman Emily Lawrence said last week.

    The school board decided a decade ago not to teach intelligent design, but today it is divided. Trustee Nancy Cline wrote in an email, “The current curriculum states that the evolution of man, Darwinism, must be taught as a theory. I feel we do our students a disservice by not helping them become critical thinkers when we forbid the teaching of competing scientific theories, such as intelligent design.”

  • Controversial Subjects, Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on August 26th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    Problems With Evolution: The Gene Myth

    Problems With Evolution: The Gene Myth

    Biological variation is, in part, transmitted from parent to progeny. Tall individuals tend to have tall offspring, fast individuals tend to have fast offspring, and so forth. This transmission process is key to the action of natural selection. Those trait variations that are successful in transmitting themselves to the next generation, by definition, survived while those that failed would disappear from the population. So long as traits are transmitted, evolutionists argue that natural selection is inevitable. In other words, whatever it is that determines your traits is also transmitted to your offspring. Therefore, if you have evolutionarily successful traits then you will have more offspring, and they will receive your successful traits. But how are the traits defined and transmitted? Darwin didn’t quite know how but in the twentieth century it seemed obvious—via the genes. According to the merger of modern genetics and evolution, it was all in the genes. They determined your traits and they were passed on to your offspring. This view fit evolutionary theory and was quickly accepted as an unquestionable scientific fact.
    There is only one problem: it is false.

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on August 17th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    The Phantom Menace of Creationism

    The Phantom Menace of Creationism

    Conspiracy theorist Lauri Lebo, writing at Religion Dispatches, seeks to defend once more hercloudy thesis that by criticizing a move in Louisiana to teach creationism in public schools, Bruce Chapman revealed Discovery Institute’s secret plot to support teaching creationism in public schools. Even as conspiracy theories go, this one lacks plausibility. I wrote here earlier that Ms. Lebo, a journalist with a specialty in these issues, is presumably aware of the “enormous differences” between creationism on one hand and intelligent design (or even mere Darwin doubting) on the other. She assures us she does know the difference but there’s still no evidence of that in her latest column. Instead she thinks she has found a smoking gun, linking Discovery Institute with creationism, in our definition of intelligent design. According to the definition, the theory holds “that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

    Writes Lauri Lebo: No matter how many times they deny it, intelligent design relies on the supernatural. They can hide it in the passive voice all they want, but when you talk about an “intelligent cause” you are talking about a creator. And that makes it (wait for it) creationism.
    Actually, nothing in that definition, or in the scientific evidence, indicates the intelligent cause must be supernatural in the sense we normally give to that word. And even if the definition did speak of a “supernatural intelligent cause,” ID would not be relying on the supernatural but arguing for it.

  • Creation v. Evolution, Science

    Posted on August 3rd, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    Scientific Experiment Show Plants Have Intelligence

    Scientific Experiment Show Plants Have Intelligence

    Do plants think? They don’t have brains or even neurons. But when scientists shined a light onto a leaf at the bottom of a plant, the entire plant “knew” how to react. Their studies uncovered evidence that plants not only have complex internal interactions, but that these are remarkably well-constructed to adapt for survival. The experiments were conducted on the thale cress plant. This relative of mustard and cabbage has become a model for plant experiments and plant genetic analyses. The researchers discovered that when certain biochemicals in the leaves were stressed with excess light intensity, they initiated a cascade of chemical communication that coursed through the whole plant along bundle sheath cells.
    These cells have long been known as photosynthetically active and tightly arranged around leaf veins. Thus, these cells pull at least quadruple duty: they protect leaf veins, support leaf structure, perform photosynthesis, and transmit electrochemical signals that activate specific biochemical switches in cells throughout the plant. Curious as to how the leaf collected the light data from its environment, translated it into relevant information, and then transmitted that information to the rest of the plant, the researchers tried to track plant responses that occurred in the dark after all experimental lights were turned off. Researcher Stanislaw Karpinski, of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Poland, toldBBC News that “the changes proceeded when the light was off… This was a complete surprise.”1

  • Bible Studies, Creation v. Evolution, Rob Robinson

    Posted on June 23rd, 2010

    Written by Rob Robinson

    Tags

    ,

    Creation v. Evolution Problems

    Creation v. Evolution Problems

    It is a mistake for Christians to compromise in the area of Creation v Evolution. Even worse is to ignore the issues of creationism and evolution and pretend that they do not matter. Our nation was founded on Creation principles and it was taught in every school. Today evolution is taught in nearly every school, it dominates in the opinions of the media and every public institution. If you believe in Creationism, you are viewed as a right wing religious fanatic. The teaching of evolution has spread secular humanism faster than any other method that is used. First of all, Evolution is not science, it is really Philosophy or Religion. Evolutionist admit that no one has ever observed real evolution ever take place. (from one creature to a more complex creature) Many thousands of animals have become extinct in the last few thousand years but not one new animal has evolved. Evolutionists believe that this process of evolving took place millions of years ago and cannot be observed today. Unfortunately, none of these theories can be tested or proven, that is why evolution is not science, it is theory.

  • Archeology, Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on June 23rd, 2010

    Written by Rob Robinson

    Tags

    ,

    Ancient Man No Different From Modern Man

    Ancient Man No Different From Modern Man

    In this interesting study from the National Academy of Science, studies show that in comparing the DNA of ancient man with the DNA of modern man, there is very little difference. This would be impossible if the Theory of Evolution were true. As there has never been found any transitional species in the fossil record, there is now conclusive evidence that there is also no evolutionary process in the development of man. The facts of science are that man today is virtually identical with the first man. This means that human beings did not evolve from apes and give strong evidence that man was created fully formed by an intelligent being.

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on June 4th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    If Evolution is True, How Could the Human Brain Evolve?

    If Evolution is True, How Could the Human Brain Evolve?

    Question: The human brain is extremely complex. It is noted that we only use a portion of its capabilities. From an evolutionary standpoint, why and how would such a complex organ evolve? I would think evolution would produce a brain that is used to 70-90% of total capacity, yet ours are not. Is this an erroneous assumption? Is it a valid statement that when God created us, Adam was using much more of his brain than we are today?

  • Creation v. Intelligent Design, Science and the Bible

    Posted on May 27th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    “Artificial Life” or Intelligently Designed Plagiarism?

    “Artificial Life” or Intelligently Designed Plagiarism?

    The operative phrase above is, “They copied this code.” Venter and his team showed they can successfully identify the code necessary for a living bacterial cell. They sequenced the code, imported the code into a computer, and then outputted it. But we still don’t even understand how all the parts of a bacterial cell work. As biochemist Russell Doolittle wrote in a Nature paper titled “Microbial genomes multiply”:
    in each of the completely sequenced genomes so far there are vast numbers of putative genes for proteins of unknown function. It is precisely this point — the large number of putative genes with no known function — that has been the biggest surprise in genome sequencing…In every genome examined so far, at least a quarter of the genes remain ‘hypothetical,’ in that no function can be ascribed. After such a long history of biochemical and genetic examination, how could there be so much in the way of unknown equipment?
    Learning how to import the right code from a bacterial chromosome into a new bacterial chromosome doesn’t mean we fully understand all aspects of the code or the proteins and structures it encodes.

  • Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on May 23rd, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    A Hairy Evolution Story

    A Hairy Evolution Story

    May 20, 2010 — A mammal hair was found in amber. It is claimed to be 100 million years old, but it is identical to modern mammal hair. What is the meaning of this find? How should it be interpreted? It may say more about the modern evolutionist than about evolution itself.
    New Scientist told the story. The title read like a crime scene: “CSI 100 million years BC: oldest mammalian hair found.” Romain Vullo at the University of Rennes I in France discovered the hair in a piece of amber (petrified tree sap) in southern France. This is the oldest sample of mammal hair ever found, the article said.

  • Older Posts Yeah! There are more posts, check them out.