All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
The Big Bang
If the big bang was real how did it start? They say it was some explosion out of nothing. If there was and explosion, then wouldn't there be something that caused it? Thats where evolution does not make sense! If things evolved then how come it doesn't still happen? If monkeys used to walk right after they were born, how come baby's don't? My point is, is that if you ask a evolutionist where things began, he would say that some particles formed and started life.
Well where did those particles come from? They would tell you a different answer of some other form of matter. Well where the heck did that matter come from!!! If things evolved, how would it make the stars perfectly in order, or the body, the brain is so complicated. How could it make flesh, and grass? Let alone the sun. The sun is exactly in the right place. If moved even a mile back or forward we would all die. So how could evolution, (which, if it was true it would form perfectly by chance) make the sun in the perfect spot? Only a intelligent designer could have made all this! Thank you for reading this post!
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 33 comments.
The golden rule of the universe: Energy cannot be created or destroyed"
The matter was always there. And evolution is a process that takes thousands upon thousands of years, sometimes billions of years. It is still currently happening, though people are not currently evolving because we don't mate randomly.
And the stars are perfectly aligned because of gravitational force of the universe.
That environmental change itself has two causes. The past 80,000 years is the period in which humanity has spread out of Africa to the rest of the world, and each new place brings its own challenges. It has also been a period of enormous cultural change, and that, too, creates evolutionary pressures. In acknowledgment of these diverse circumstances, the researchers looked in detail at the DNA of four groups of people from around the planet: Yoruba from Africa, Han Chinese and Japanese from Asia, and Europeans.
Various themes emerged. An important one was protection from disease, suspected to be a consequence of the increased risk of infection that living in settlements brings. In this context, for example, various mutations of a gene called G6PD that are thought to offer protection from malaria sprang up independently in different places.
A second theme is response to changes in diet caused by the domestication of plants and animals. One example of this is variation in LCT, a gene involved in the metabolism of lactose, a sugar found in milk. All human babies can metabolise lactose, but only some adults can manage the trick. That fact, and the gene involved, have been known for some time. But Dr Moyzis's team have worked out the details of the evolution of LCT. They suspect that it was responsible for the sudden spread of the Indo-European group of humanity about 4,000 years ago, and also for the more recent spread of the Tutsis in Africa, whose ancestors independently evolved a tolerant version of the gene.
"
(I'm not sure if my last one sent so they're may be a repeat)
A nonreligious organization is much different than a strictly atheist one. UNESCO, WHO, and many others are all nonreligious, that you are correct, but there are people of ALL religions that work for them. I have never heard of a strictly atheist run orphanage, care center, or disaster relief group. I'm not saying they're not out there, I am just saying they are not as prolific as religious ones.
I think this is interesting for a couple of reasons.
One, what atheists claim is good is all subjective. As an atheist, you have no higher standard for what is good and bad (or evil if you like). You were absolutely right when you said that human beings are responsible for their own actions, but what is to determine whether their actions are good or bad? I know right from wrong, because I have a God (a higher authority) above me. You don't. You set your own standards, and, by your own logic, your standards may well be different from another atheist's. So, where do your standards come from? If they come from you, than (according to what you have said) no one has to follow your standards but you. If you truly believe that there is no God, and that we all just came about by chance, then we must be no more than highly evolved animals. This would mean that we (as humans) make up our morals as we go along. Which would mean one person doing something that he believed was morally sound, could be evil by another person's standard. Do you believe that Hitler thought he was doing good when he issued the Holocaust? You bet! He believed that he was cleansing the earth of a 'plague' when he sentenced hundreds of thousands of Jews to death.
This is why I find the absence of atheist orphanages (etc.) interesting. I think Richard Dawkins (who I'm sure you've heard of) sums it up best, saying, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics". Very interesting coming from a scientist and atheist who basically believes in a theory that dispels morals. What is life without morals? Why would someone choose that route? The infamous serial killer Jefferey Dahmer said an interview, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...”
Who are you accountable to?
A nonreligious organization is much different than a strictly atheist one. UNESCO, WHO, and many others are all nonreligious, that you are correct, but there are people of ALL religions that work for them. I have never heard of a strictly atheist run orphanage, care center, or disaster relief group. I'm not saying they're not out there, I am just saying they are not as prolific as religious ones.
I think this is interesting for a couple of reasons.
One, what atheists claim is good is all subjective. As an atheist, you have no higher standard for what is good and bad (or evil if you like). You were absolutely right when you said that human beings are responsible for their own actions, but what is to determine whether their actions are good or bad? I know right from wrong, because I have a God (a higher authority) above me. You don't. You set your own standards, and, by your own logic, your standards may well be different from another atheist's. So, where do your standards come from? If they come from you, than (according to what you have said) no one has to follow your standards but you. If you truly believe that there is no God, and that we all just came about by chance, then we must be no more than highly evolved animals. This would mean that we (as humans) make up our morals as we go along. Which would mean one person doing something that he believed was morally sound, could be evil by another person's standard. Do you believe that Hitler thought he was doing good when he issued the Holocaust? You bet! He believed that he was cleansing the earth of a 'plague' when he sentenced hundreds of thousands of Jews to death.
This is why I find the absence of atheist orphanages (etc.) interesting. I think Richard Dawkins (who I'm sure you've heard of) sums it up best, saying, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics". Very interesting coming from a scientist and atheist who basically believes in a theory that dispels morals. What is life without morals? Why would someone choose that route? The infamous serial killer Jefferey Dahmer said an interview, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...”
Who are you accountable to?
I am sorry if you felt like I was trying to tell you what to believe. I know I can't force you to believe anything. And if I came across like that, than I am sorry. I feel that, generally in society (especially among 'intellectuals'), there is a connotation of unintelligence that accompanies theism and especially creationism. I don't think that you are stupid for not believing in a God, just like I would like to believe I am not stupid for believing in one. I also like to dispel the thought that I am less 'scientific' because of my beliefs. Plenty of good scientists have been theists (Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler...etc. etc.). And yes, I do think you are a bad person, but so am I, and every single one of the billions who live on this planet (but that's another discussion).
Define a good person.
To me, that is someone who rarely (if ever) does something wrong. I know for sure that's not me (and I'd be willing to bet it is not you). But I don't think that just because the fact that you're an atheist automatically makes you a rapist, a cheater, lier, thief or whatever. However (and this is just a side note) I don't see as many athiest charities, health organizations, or orphanages as I do of ones with religious affiliations.
I also thought it was very interesting that you said that if there was a God, he created us and left us alone. That is a possibility, but consider the alternative.
We left God alone.
That we, as a culture, want nothing to do with him. We have taken him out of our schools, removed him from our government (the White House doesn't even acknowledge the National Day of Prayer), he is not predominate in our courts, and he surely isn't present within our scientific community, wouldn't you agree? If there is a God he certainly doesn't force himself into our lives. Maybe this is because we have forced him out of ours.
1 article 0 photos 61 comments
Favorite Quote:
«You are either the best kept secret or just surrounded by blind people.»