Atheists believe there is no such thing as God, of course. Because this, they by default believe that all things are a product of random, undirected natural processes. Let's put their belief into a nutshell:

       With this simple analogy, we do not need to invoke the atheist's magical powers of time. Naturally (pun intended), they believe that time is the hero and makes the implausible and even the impossible, not only possible, but inevitable. In a nutshell, atheists must believe (do they really?) that matter simply obeying the laws of nature ultimately results in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Michaelangelo's statue of king David, cell phones, genetic information, and the space shuttle. When asked in debate why they believe it is rational to believe such a thing, and what observable example of anything known to be of ever-increasing and self-designing complexity, the atheist simply ignores the question and typically turns their sights on the Bible to criticize it. This is understandable, since it is not rational to believe such a thing and no physical evidence supports such an absurdity. Angered by the question, they turn on the Bible. I understand their frustration well.

 

 

       Last night I was debating some atheists in a PalTalk chat room. When I entered, one of them was on the microphone telling the room how evolution is a scientific fact and providing a few scanty details of why this is so. I got into the debate, and asked how their claim was evidence of evolution. When it was their turn to use the microphone in the chat room, they were unwilling to explain how it was evidence of evolution, but instead put forth a 2 minute diatribe of how ignorant and non-scientific creationists are because they deny the obvious fact of evolution. A few others in the chat room did exactly the same thing - make a claim, such as that changes to allele frequency over time is evolution, then when asked how it is evidence or a mechanism for evolution, they provide no explanation and instead provide a 2 minute long diatribe of how evolution is true and creationists are ignorant. After 30 minutes of this repeated failure of the evolutionists to support their claims, they got tired of being cornered for their inability to do so, and asked me for evidence of my "invisible magic man" having created life. So, I explained to them a single example of Irreducible Complexity of the many which could be provided - the fact that the machinery that decodes the genetic information in the DNA to produce proteins is itself encoded in the DNA.

       The fact that the machinery which translates the genetic information to produce proteins is itself comprised of proteins is a game-ender for evolution theory. Since the machinery is a product of it's own translation, the DNA, the codes for proteins, and the environment of the cell which includes all of the rest of the features of the cell, must exist in order for the translation of protein codes to take

place. The components must already exist, fully-formed and fully functional, for any of them to exist. This is interdependency which cannot be broken, and therefore Irreducible Complexity. The components could not have evolved piecemeal. Let's imagine that the DNA is like a book coded in a specific digital language (DNA code is digital by the way). Encoded in that book is the machinery which is able to decode the book. In order to decode the book, you must retrieve the information which allows you to produce the decoder machine. The problem is, that since this information is encoded in the book, you cannot translate the code to produce this machinery unless the decoding machinery already exists outside of the source of information which produces the decoder!

 

       What this means in short is that not only did the components exist together in the beginning, but the entire cell did as well because these components require the cell to exist. Since the cell exists all together and fully functioning, and since the cell contains the genome for the entire organism, it follows that the entire organism existed, fully-formed and fully functional in the beginning with no transition or intermediary steps involved whatsoever. One might as well say that the cow came into existence at once, eating grass, swishing it's tail, completely unaware of the fact that it did not exist a nanosecond ago. This is Special Creation, and science has provided empirical evidence of it.

Having provided this single example of Irreducible Complexity which also evidences Special Creation, the evolutionists in the chat room were unable to even address the issue, and simply got on the microphone, one after another, and claimed I had not provided evidence of creation, and insisted that I do so. They would not even discuss my example. I suppose their only defence was to outright dismiss my example, claim I had provided nothing, and demand that I did. I suspect this is because they were both unable to discuss the subject for lack of knowledge about it biologically, and also because they were dumbfounded that such evidence actually exists. The humorous aspect the the failure of every atheist in the room to actually debate evidences is that they actually go to chat rooms, bring up evolution, claim it is a science fact, and mock you for believing in creation.

       Apparently, Sky Daddy must have something going, if someone like myself, who has no formal education in biology, is capable of acquiring enough knowledge of it on my own that prevents atheists, even genuine biologists, from being able to debunk what He has created with their pseudo scientific fantasy.

       The proponents of evolution and it's necessary brother, uniformitarianism, must concoct some pretty bizarre ideas, even geological processes, to explain the folded mountains and strata of the earth. Take a look at these mountains in British Columbia. They are severely folded like an accordion. This can only be because the mountain was soft sedimentary material when it was rapidly uplifted. Being soft and moist, the horizontal pressure of the continent squeezed the material so that it rose as a fully uplifted mountain before gravity could drain the water out of it and the material concrete into stone! Gravity would have no problem removing the majority of the water from this mountain in a matter of months, much less hundreds or even millions of years. Moreover, these folded strata are littered with fossils of rapidly buried creatures which are not distorted by or like the stone, meaning their bones are not bent like the strata, which verifies that the material had not concreted into stone before the strata were folded and the mountain was uplifted.

       You may also notice that the top of the mountain in the center of the image has had it's top sheared off. This is because while the mountain was still soft material being uplifted, it was under water at the time, and it's top encountered a high speed current of water near or at the surface of the ocean which ate away the top of the mountain - another feature of these mountains that could only happen if the mountain were soft sediments while it was being uplifted. In fact, the majority of mountains still have some or much loose sedimentary material upon them, which could not exist if the mountains were millions of years old. In only thousands, there should be no loose material on the top of any mountain, since the continents are eroding into the seas at a rate of 280 billion tons annually.

 

       To explain such mountains, and there are many, uniformitarianists must argue for absurdities. They must claim that the mountains were squeezed up out of the earth "fully formed" with folded strata in place. This means they must (if they stick to their own claims) believe that the stone was bend by pressure and heat of 300C (about 500F) or more and uplifted, fossils in place and all. I've even had evolutionists make this very claim to me during debate. This requires them to believe a number of things have occurred not only for which there is no evidence, but also which the evidence refutes. Consider: If the folding took place deep in the earth with fossils in place, the fossil bones would be bent like the stone, but they are not. I have yet to see a single fossil which has bones bent by heat and pressure. If any exist, they must be so rare that nobody bothers to discuss them. More absurd than this, the uniformitarian must believe that there is some mystical geological process which causes massive volumes of sedimentary strata to be pulled down into the earth to a depth where the temperature could be great enough for the stone to be folded without crumbling, then pushed up to become a mountain rising thousands of feet into the atmosphere.
 

       It does not take a genius to see the absurdity of believing this has taken place in all of the earth's mountain ranges. We do have areas which have been pushed down, and we have places where the continents have been pushed up. This is to be expected during the movement of the continents during the Noachian Flood. However, the idea that this material was "pushed" down to such depth and then up again is stretching the imagination to say the least. The best, and only logical explanation for folded mountains is that they were uplifted during the Noachian Flood while their material was still soft and malleable. The Noachian Flood is a geological certainty, evidenced in a great many ways. To believe ready-made mountains were pushed up out of the earth with folded strata and non-bent fossils is a fantasy that even uniformitarianists should scoff. I somehow believe they do scoff at themselves at times, but shrug their shoulders and satisfy their disbelief in their own ideas by simply saying to themselves, "Oh well. It happened anyway."

Neph