Abortion

Criteria for Life
Abortion is a tricky subject to argue about, because people who have no problem with it often can twist words to meet their agenda, For example, They can say a fetus is only alive when it can survive on it's own outside the womb. Anyone who has taken a basic Biology course should know the four criteria of life to be, 1: The organism must contain DNA. 2: The organism must be able to sense changes in its Internal or External Enviroment and respond to those changes. 3: The organism must have a system of breaking down proteins to create energy. 4: The organism must be able to reproduce. These criterion say nothing about surviving outside of the womb. Are fish any less alive because they can't survive outside of water? Or are We any less alive because we can't survive without Oxygen to breathe?

Self-Centered Culture
The basic problem, however, has less to do with their logic about what constitutes life, and more to do with their attitude towards life itself. We live in a culture that is often times very self-centered. The people who advocate abortion think that it is more important for people to satisfy their own selfish desires than to sacrifice their lives for the sake of others, like Jesus did. The fundamental problem is that a lot of people in our society choose to turn away from God, who is the source of Love, and seek their own pleasure and their own will instead of His. This was what Adam did in the garden, and it's what you and I do every time that we sin. When a whole culture turns its back on God and seeks its own selfish desires, it starts to do things like promote abortion. Our culture thinks that it is OK for a woman to kill her child if the woman thinks that it will make her life easier.

Ancient Man

Where Did Cavemen Originate?
Cavemen have been the ever popular target of scientists, (not to mention cartoonists and advertisers) for decades. The Idea of simpleminded, brutish, cave dwellers, (who wield wooden clubs, grunt constantly and pick insects out of each other’s dreads) is so popular that I doubt many people even consider how we got such an idea of ancient mankind. Cavemen did exist, but the idea that they, and other ancient civilizations were anything less than fully human is a deception spread by evolutionists.

Archeology
When archeologists dig down and find an ancient city, they expect it to be simpler than modern cities. And when they find a city below this ancient city, they expect it to be even simpler, (following me Ok?). But as archeologists discover more and more of humanity’s past, they are discovering that this is often not the case. The ancient Mayans were masters of astronomy and mathematics. They had the solar year calculated to be 365.2420 days long. Only just recently have we discovered it to be .0002 days longer than this. In Mesopotamia, a ceramic jar, dating back to 2500 B.C. contained a device that, when filled with grape juice, produced an electric current of 1.5 volts. The ancient Phoenicians visited West Virginia, and left inscriptions on giant stones, as far back as 3000 years ago. Stonehenge, the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China, evolutionists call these findings “mysteries”. But are they? You see, if we are to believe that Mankind has evolved, we should see a gradual increase in technology in all of earth’s cultures, throughout the years. This is because man’s achievements would have always been limited by his mental capacity. But the only way to explain the mysteries of archeology is to admit that man was not limited by his mental capacity at any point in known history.

Limitations of Advancement
Obviously not all cultures were equally advanced, but this is not because of mental limitations, but factors such as quality of life, the availability of food and water, natural resources, perverted religion, and the population of people pursuing advancement, have been shown to keep innovations in a standstill. Take for instance, the middle ages. During the middle ages, quality of life was at rock bottom. People were more concerned with staying alive than inventing the electric toaster. Also, corrupt religious officials kept Galileo from his research. And the scarcities of food and water in some regions of Africa have (kept tribesmen, who have the potential to be just as drop dead brilliant as me, I’m joking of course) from advancing to higher technology for hundreds of years. What about the cultures that did succeed in advancing to amassing heights? One word, extinction. Like the Romans, (who by the end of their empire, had paved roads, international mail, and advanced government) other empires disappeared, and their inventions with them.

The Modern Technology Boom
So what about today? Does the 21st century mess this idea up? Japan is already developing the 4th generation of cell phones, and computers that used to take up an entire room can now fit into your pocket. Believe it or not, I believe that all this, (and more) could have been achieved by mankind in the first hundred years after creation. We have no reason to believe that it did, but it could have. The reason technology has blown through the roof in present times is because of global communication. It weren’t for global communication mankind would not have been able to work together and share ideas. And because of global communication, extinction is no longer a problem, (unless all humans die simultaneously, which I think we would all agree, would be a problem). In the end, there is no historical evidence of any mental evolution of the human race. Even in the days when people lived in caves, mankind was created in the image of God, and shows every evidence of being just as intelligent as modern man.

Evolution: Winning a Defensive Battle

Things have Changed...
Evolution has changed through the years. Back in Darwin’s time, it was thought that macro evolution took place far too slowly to actually see it happen. Darwin originally thought that the little changes we see happening in micro evolution could slowly build up, and over time, cause macro evolution. Unfortunately, this would mean that intermediate links between species would have existed for generations before they were fully evolved into one of the species we see today. Darwin assumed that as people began to dig for fossils, they would find tons of these “links”. Read the words of Dr David Raup, an expert on the fossil record. “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in north America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” This lack of intermediate links has driven scientists to create new scenarios.

Neo-Darwinism
The first evolutionary spin-off was Neo-Darwinism. Since we now know that there are limitations on how much change micro evolution can cause to a creature, (see “Micro Evolution Vs. Marco Evolution”), evolutionists had to think up a way for creatures to evolve that had no limitations. Their answer was mutation. The primary assumption in Neo-Darwinism is that mutations can increase the amount of information on a DNA strand, resulting in more complicated species. Although we have never seen this happen, Neo-Darwinists insist that, if given enough time, these increases in information would happen. Since we know that mutations often result in dramatic changes between parent and offspring, neo-Darwinists also believed that their explanation allowed for less intermediate links.

Punctuated equilibrium
The latest theory is really just a new version of neo-Darwinism. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. As more and more research is done, evolutionists have to deal with the ever growing problem of “missing links”. So few have been found that evolutionists now believe that there is no need to find intermediate links to support their ideas. Instead, there were supposedly periods of time when toxic chemicals and radiation caused massive amounts of mutation. Then, when the radiation and chemicals subsided, whatever creatures were lucky enough to survive with beneficial mutations would live for millions of years without any serious change. Eventually this process would repeat itself, and leave no trace of the evolution that occurred. The problem is that this idea still depends on the fact that mutations can change a creature in a beneficial way, (which is impossible, especially when caused by toxic chemicals and radiation). However, most people accept that it explains the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record.

Excuses, Excuses!
It seems like evolutionists are not able to go out and find evidence to support their ideas, instead, they go out and find evidence that contradicts their ideas, so they continue to modify them. But, if macro evolution has become so void of factual evidence that scientists have to cook up wild stories to try and explain away the lack of evidence, why is it given so much credibility in the scientific community? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory conceived out of a total lack of evidence, that’s all it has going for it! If there is a lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, then wouldn’t it be logical to think that maybe evolution didn’t happen? But most scientists won’t recognize this possibility. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if our researchers are dismissing knowledge in order to hang onto a 200 year old hypothesis, then they can no longer be called scientists, and cannot be considered credible.

DNA

The Explanation At Last
I have noticed, in some of our posts, that DNA has been mentioned in connection with evolution, (or against it,) but hasn't been properly explained yet. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a nucleic acid found in the cells of all living organisms and some viruses. This Nucleic acid acts as a storage device containing the codes to life, or the amino acids to create life with. DNA is composed of strings made of sugars and phosphates wrapped around each other with 'rungs' of units called nucleotides, creating a shape known as a double helix. The double helix runs in long strands wrapped tightly around itself in a linear unit called a chromosome. There are four different types of nucleotides, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. These are grouped into two sets, Adenine and Guanine, and Cytosine and Thymine. Thes are the only possible pairs of nucleotides. So Adenine can't pair with Thymine, and Cytosine doesn't mathc up with Guanine. These pairs then are arranged in various orders determining your eye, hair, or skin color. When somthing evolves, it's a mutation in the DNA itself that causes the creature to have different characteristics. Mutations can be caused by ultraviolet light, radiation, some viruses, or by the organism itself in cellular process such as hyper mutation. I won't go into those processes now, but it is an incredibly complex subject that I will post about later. I have barely scratched the surface here, but you can already see DNA is too complex to have been created by random chance. The first cell created by random chance would have to create its own DNA and proteins, get the cellular sturcture built, and it would have to get it right the first time. If it got it wrong the cell would quickly die. If there is no creator, nobody cna see it die and say something like, "Will maybe if I build it this way it will work better." And these cells can't evolve and make themselves better because they die before the second generation can even be born. Evolutionist say it takes millions of years for something to evolve, not two generations. This is all proof that life was carefully designed and created just a carefully.

Laws That Defy Evolution

Prepare to Defend Your Faith!
Evolution is often thought to be beyond question, and many believe it to be a scientific fact that evolution did produce all life on earth. It might surprise you know that there are multiple scientific laws that fly in the face of macro evolution. As you defend your faith, it will be helpful to know these laws, and to explain them to the opposition. Because in order to be a viable theory, evolution should be consistent with well established laws, and as you will read in this post, it is not.

Biogenesis
In the middle ages, scientists observed that rats and flies were found in the greatest intensity around piles of decaying garbage. Given this fact, they proposed that garbage produced rats and flies! This idea was taken for a fact for hundreds of years. You may have heard of it, its called Spontaneous Generation. Eventually a man named Louis Pasteur rid science of this idiocy, and the Law of Biogenesis was formed. This law says that life only comes from life. Nowhere in known history has this law been broken, which makes sense, considering the complexity of even a single cell. With Macro Evolution, we have regressed back to the middle ages. Only what once was a pile of garbage is now a warm pond, or volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea. The problem is that even in ideal conditions, the odds of forming a single protein, (one of hundreds necessary to life), are so ridiculous, they could never happen given hundreds of trillions of years, let alone a wimpy 6 billion! There is no scientific appeal to Spontaneous Generation beyond the desire to remove God from science, and society.

The First Law of Thermodynamics
It is a proven fact that in any isolated system, energy cannot be created, or destroyed. Imagine a marble rolling up and down the sides of a bowl. At the top of the bowl the marble possesses a certain amount of potential energy, (or potential motion). Gravity acts on the marble and causes it to roll down the side of the bowl. At this point, the marble is losing its potential energy, and gaining kinetic energy, (energy in motion). But once the ball starts rolling up the opposite side of the bowl, it starts losing its speed, (kinetic energy) and gaining potential energy for its next run. Now, you may have caught a problem with this picture. Anyone knows that a marble rolling around in a bowl will eventually stop. This, however, does not mean that energy has been lost. Instead, friction between both the marble and the bowl, and the marble and the air, has taken the marble’s energy and transformed it into heat. So, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, we see that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. So, contrary to evolution, the universe could not have been created by a natural process. We know that time, and energy, and matter could not have existed forever, and we also know that natural processes, (like the big bang) cannot create these things, so we are left with one option; to recognize God as the creator of our universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As I mentioned above, the energy in any system is never created or destroyed, but changes form. It turns out that there is a trend in the way that energy changes form. And this is addressed by our next law. The Second law of thermodynamics says that all potential energy in the universe is slowly changing into non-recoverable, heat energy. So, although we are not losing energy, the useful energy we have is changing into useless heat by processes like friction, and nuclear fusion. Think about it this way. Our petroleum deposits, (which have the potential to cause kinetic energy) are rapidly diminishing, and as we burn this fuel, our engines produce heat, and motion. Even the motion our cars produce is eventually stopped by friction, and this friction produces heat. This heat radiates into space, and is useless. This poses a huge threat to macro evolution’s timeline. Because the older the universe becomes, the more useless heat energy it accumulates, and the less useful energy, (like fuels, or motion) it has left. Our universe shows very little useless energy, and fuel, and motion everywhere. This proves that the universe had a beginning, and shows that that beginning was too recent to defeat the odds of Spontaneous Generation.

They Point to a Creator
As I look back on this post, it becomes apparent how interconnected these laws are. If Macro Evolution were viable, it would be just as interconnected with other corresponding laws. Instead, our scientific laws show how ridiculous the hypothesis of Macro Evolution is, and they point unquestionably, to a supernatural creator.