The Flickr Atheistnaturalism Image Generatr

Why do many atheists support the absurd notion that everything came from nothing?

It is evident that ‘something’ must have always existed.
A child can understand why the other scenario; that everything came from nothing of its own volition, is preposterous.
So, why do prominent atheists now support such a crazy idea?
Is it because they are forced to?
Is it an acknowledgement that the sensible option logically supports the existence of a creator?

How?
Because, if something has always existed….

We know that eternally existent ‘something’, must be non-contingent (uncaused).

We know, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the ‘something’ cannot be a natural entity.
Because we know, from that Law, that natural things, being subject to entropy, are temporal (with a beginning) and temporary (declining in potential).

We also know from the Law of Cause and Effect that everything temporal is an effect which requires an adequate cause (is contingent).
We know the cause of everything temporal, temporary and contingent (its creator) can only be the ‘something’ that has always existed (not subject to entropy).
We know from the Law of Cause and Effect that a contingent effect (everything caused) cannot be superior, in any way, to that which ultimately caused it.
We know, therefore, that the ‘something’, which has always existed, which caused everything else that exists, cannot be inferior, in any way, to anything it caused.

Informed atheists are aware that fundamental principles and natural laws, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect, are fatal to all, natural, origin scenarios.
They realise that the only escape from this dilemma is to deny the basic, logical premise; that something has always existed.
They know, if ‘something’ has always existed, due to entropy and contingency, it couldn’t possibly be a natural entity.
Consequently, the only way they can defend their ideological commitment to naturalism, is to propose that everything came from nothing!!!
Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have all presented this bizarre notion as their ‘scientific’ answer to the origin of the universe.

However, even if we ignore the fact that this idea is nonsensical, it still doesn’t solve their problem of how to demonstrate the origin of everything by purely, natural processes, and it certainly can’t be construed as scientific.
Why?
a) The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created. That precludes any natural means by which something could come from nothing.

b) The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that, whatever came from nothing, would require a peak of energy potential and order from the outset. It could not just gradually develop from something simple.

c) Whatever atheists propose came from nothing, would obviously be temporal. Therefore, the Law of Cause and Effect tells us it must be contingent and would require a cause. Furthermore, that cause would require a previous cause, etc. etc. ad infinitum. (So, although they won’t admit it, this decisively refutes their ‘everything from nothing’ proposal and confirms the logical premise that something has always existed. And, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out an infinite regression or chain of temporal causes, [because the chain would be subject to deterioration through entropy], we know that the something cannot be a natural entity.)
This simple fact alone, demolishes the ‘everything from nothing’ story.

d) The Law of Cause and Effect also tells us that, whatever came from nothing, could not be something simple.
Remember, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
The Universe is not simple. So, the original, first cause of the universe must embody all the order and complexity together with every quality and potential inherent in the universe
So, we are forced by logic, and the application of fundamental laws of nature, to conclude that there is no natural alternative to a supreme being.
____________________________________

Everything from nothing?
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
In simple terms:
Something cannot give more than it possesses.
Nothing possesses absolutely nothing, therefore can give nothing, i.e. nothing can come from nothing, 0+0=0.
Ergo, everything cannot come from nothing.
Hence, the atheist ‘something from nothing’ story is proven impossible!

The origin of life?
If you think the original cause of life is just chemistry, the effect will be chemistry, nothing more.
If the end result is intelligent life, the original cause must be intelligent life.
It doesn’t matter how many intermediate stages you may think it has taken from the original cause to the end result, the end result can never be greater than its original cause. So, whether you believe in direct creation or some evolutionary process, it makes no difference to the characteristics of the original cause. All we have to do is to make a comparison of the end result with the original cause, to assess the abilities/qualities of the original, first cause.

The effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Ergo, according to the law of cause and effect we were made in the image of the original cause (Creator). Which is exactly what the Bible has declared all along.

However, the first cause (Creator) is not just equal to us, it has to be enormously superior, because it existed before us, is uncreated (infinite), and has the ability to create us, and everything else that exists.


Why God MUST exist ...
Is the inescapable verdict of logic and natural laws ...
There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.
Everything that exists must be one or the other.
The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.
The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.
They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes
It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.

Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:
A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.
We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.
Why?
Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.
The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
Conclusion …
A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

Atheist myths debunked.
The development of order.

One of many questions’ atheists are unable to answer is:
Why is there order in the universe?
Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.

There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.
Among these are:
The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.
These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ‘naturalism’ - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.

Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.

The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.
In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.
The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.

The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.
What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?
For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?
They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.
How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldn’t.

Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:

An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:
“Oh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.
Quoting me:
"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "

“Really? Where does it state this?”

Quoting me again:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."

“Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system”.

My reply:
You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."

I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.
Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.

Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.

Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.
Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesn’t violate the Second Law because the Earth is an ‘open system’ which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.
They claim that the law of entropy only applies to ‘closed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
So, what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?
Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.
To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.
Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...”

“So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?”

My reply:
“You wrote:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"

Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.
Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.
There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.

Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.
Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.
The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.
That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.

If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?
According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.

I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:
We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?

The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.”

Atheist reply:
“You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.

Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.

But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.
entropysimple.oxy.edu/”

My reply:
You wrote:
"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."

There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?

You wrote:
"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."

You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."
You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!
The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.
Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.
You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.
If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.
Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.

Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."

“Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.

If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.

You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.
That really is astonishing!
All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.”

My reply:
You wrote:
"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."

No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.
I'm afraid you have been sussed.
You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.
You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.

You wrote:
"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"

What sort of damn-fool answer is that?
I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"
IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?
Please answer the question.
Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.
No wonder you don't want to answer.

**************************************************
Four and a half years later.
I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?

The full debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768
___________________________________
Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is ‘quantum mechanics’.
Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.
This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.
Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesn’t mean a direct cause doesn’t exist.
For example:
It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.
So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there is no cause.

Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441

Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.
Rapid strata formation - field evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.

For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.

IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.

For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.

However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.

But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.

It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.

Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.

So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.

Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.

Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.

Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.

All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk


The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/47971464278

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact, as we will show later, is that there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

Classical Darwinism: Evolution by creeps.
What was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Put simply ...
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the gradual transformation of a first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis, or duplication, of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged, multi-million year timescale.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from that which is already there, it cannot create any new information.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But, because Darwinism had so quickly and widely acquired a status more akin to an ideology than objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science. Thus classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism could not be supported scientifically, and should not even merit the status of a scientific theory, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) would require the creation of new, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been consigned to the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea as unscientific nonsense, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so important, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which depended on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

Enter Neo-Darwinism: Evolution by freaks.

Because the majority of the public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was undoubtedly a crank, all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the ‘theory’ had been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The true fact that classical Darwinism had always been demonstrably wrong and was fatally flawed from the outset, was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and who were the real champions of science, continued to be ridiculed and vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and the establishment.

The new developments were portrayed simply as an updating of the ‘theory’. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with Darwin’s original idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge ....
A sort of progressive evolution of the whole idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So, what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the (ludicrous) idea that random mutations (which are accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

However, there is no evidence for it, and it should be classed as unscientific nonsense, it defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

It is understandable that people can be confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. It is a disgrace that evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

Such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is being hoodwinked and lied to. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution, and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations, capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that the distinguished entomologist, W R Thompson wrote in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... “the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.”

Micro-evolution is just the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes, outside the extent of the existing gene pool, requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, constructive, genetic information. That is essential for ‘macro’ evolution. And that is a massive problem.

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. Therefore, micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. Apart from the idea that both require natural selection, there is no other connection, whatever evolutionists may claim.

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various, dog breeds, for example, are just limited micro-evolution (selection of existing, genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and fully, informed evolutionists know that is an irrefutable fact.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the incredible idea that everything in the genome of humans, and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) , is purely the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic, copying mistakes..... mutations accrued upon previous mutations, and on - and on - and on.

Although evolutionists don’t like to state it this way, Neo-Darwinism actually proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series of cumulative mistakes ... mistakes upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc. In other words, the complete genome of every living thing is made up of nothing more than an incredibly long chain of mistakes. That is the mind-boggling truth about the neo-Darwinian, evolution story. For obvious reasons, it is something evolutionists would prefer you not to think about too much.

When we do think about it, we soon realise that what is actually being proposed is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created entirely from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.
That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, reproductive organs, or something like the process of insect metamorphosis, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool.

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single, living cell into humans by an incredibly, vast accumulation of these imaginary, beneficial mutations.

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Evolution - multi-million year timescale debunked.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

Punctuated Equilibrium: Evolution by Jerks.
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
_____________________________________________
A pig, a horse and a donkey!

The pig ....
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans. Highly imaginative artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc.
Having been 'discovered' 3 years prior to the Scopes Trial, it was resurrected, and given renewed publicity, shortly before the trial - presumably, in order to influence the trial and convince the public of the scientific evidence for evolution.. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... also hailed as ‘scientific’ evidence for human evolution.

The donkey ....
Orce man, loudly proclaimed by evolutionists to be scientific evidence of an early hominid, based on the discovery of a tiny fragment of skullcap. This is now believed to have most likely come from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as it was claimed. A symposium which had been planned to discuss this alleged human 'missing link' had to be embarrassingly cancelled when it was identified as being very similar to a donkey skull.
_________________________________________

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

www.trueorigin.org/

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".

The real theory of everything
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561/in/dat...

The rainbow symbol has been hi-jacked.
Reclaim the rainbow for God.

I will set my bow in the clouds,
and it shall be the sign of a covenant
between me, and between the earth. Genesis 9:13

God put us on Earth to do what He wants, NOT what we want.

The equality deceit.
We hear a lot today about equality, which sounds admirable. And true equality certainly is admirable and a God-given right. However, false equality is not admirable, it can be discriminatory against truth, goodness and, if enforced by the state, can result in an evil tyranny. Error should never be equated with truth and evil should never be equated with good.
So what is true equality?
Every human person is of equal value and should be equally respected and cared for, regardless of gender, colour, race, disability, wealth, influence, intelligence or power. That is true equality.
What is false equality?
False equality is the idea that everything any human person does or believes, is equally valid. The idea that all lifestyles, beliefs, traditions or cultures (that are not against whatever the state decides should be legal) are equally valid and worthy of equal respect.

Christianity is conducive to the success and welfare of the State and society.
Saint Augustine.
“Let those who say that the teachings of Christ are harmful to the State find armies with soldiers who live up to the standards of the teachings of Jesus. Let them provide governors, husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, kings, judges, taxpayers and tax collectors who can compare to those who take Christian teachings to heart. Then let them dare to say that such teaching is contrary to the welfare of the State! Indeed, under no circumstances can they fail to realize that this teaching is the greatest safeguard of the State when faithfully observed.” (“Epis. 138 ad Marcellinum,” in Opera Omnia, vol. 2, in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, col. 532.)

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. This example displays several geological features observed in sedimentary rock formations.

This natural example of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

The Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action. Where the water movement is very turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed 17/01/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Mulltiple strata/layers and several, geological features are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

What is atheism?
Modern atheists say that atheism is the non-belief in ALL deities (gods). They also say things like; atheism does not require any beliefs - similar to not believing in fairies. Some even say that atheism is like not being a stamp collector or not engaging in some other hobby.
However, many people would disagree with the idea that atheism doesn't require any beliefs, or is not in itself a type of ideology/religion. The Bible proclaims that such atheism is irrational nonsense (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God).

So which view is correct?

Is it rational or feasible to reject ALL deities, and could such a rejection be described as simply a non-belief, similar to not believing in fairies?
Rejecting all deities seems fine at first glance. However, if we bother to consider what it really means, we soon realise that rejecting ALMOST all deities could be feasible - BUT not EVERY deity, because there is one particular exception..

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that all deities (gods) are NOT the same. They can’t all be lumped together. There is one particular deity that is fundamentally different from all the others. There is one particular deity that it is not credible for any rational person to reject or dismiss. This may seem like a bold statement but, as we will see, it is not logically possible to reject the deity (God) that is regarded as the ‘Creator’ or supernatural, first cause of the universe.

Why?

Because, if you reject the supernatural, first cause, you have no option but to transfer all the creative powers and godlike attributes of the supernatural, first cause to nature or the natural/material realm. This means you effectively deify nature.
So by attempting to eliminate one deity - a supernatural, first cause (God) - you simply create another deity with similar, godlike powers (such as Mother Nature) to replace it.
Therefore, no rational person can honestly reject belief in a creator god. The only question is; which god best fits the bill of being the creator of the universe?
Is it the supernatural, first cause monotheists call ‘God’- or a natural, first cause - a material god of nature?

So we are left with the option of choosing which creator god (first cause) to believe in? Either - a supernatural, first cause (God) - or a natural, first cause (a material, pagan style god)? We do not have the choice or luxury of believing in neither, there is no other option. This reveals the atheist claim that it is rational, feasible or logical to reject ALL deities as completely bogus.

A most crucial question in this matter is ….
Why is there something rather than nothing?
It seems the most logical viewpoint would be the idea of eternal nothingness – i.e. total non- existence - that there is not, never was and never has been, the existence of anything. However, it is not that easy, we don’t have that option, because something definitely does exist and thus we are forced to face the question of why and how something exists here and now, rather than an eternal, infinite nothingness?
We are left with only two options for where the ‘something’ we know as the material universe came from? - It either came from:
1) An eternally, pre-existing nothingness.
OR
2) An eternally, pre-existing something.
The first option of something tangible/material arising of its own volition from absolute and complete nothingness is not logically credible. It is safe to say it is a certain impossibility. There is no rational argument that can be made for such a scenario. Which means that we are forced to accept the second option (an eternally pre-existing something) as the only credible possibility for the origin of everything that now exists.
If the ‘something’ that eternally pre-existed the material universe has always existed, it must be entirely self-sufficient in its ability to exist. Which means it is eternally self-existent, i.e. not dependent on anything else, other than itself, for its origin or its continued existence. It always has, and always will exist.
In other words, it is non-contingent and completely independent and autonomous. Nothing can effect, cause or prevent its existence in any way.
It also has to be the first cause of everything else that exists. Without it nothing else could exist.

What does science tell us?
Science tells us that all material entities are regulated by natural laws - natural laws are based on the properties of natural/material things. Natural laws allow scientists to make predictions concerning the behaviour of all natural entities. It is obvious that natural things can never exceed the limits of their own inherent properties which natural laws describe. One natural law, that is actually the founding principle behind all scientific research, is the Law of Cause and Effect. It tells us that every natural effect/entity has to have a sufficient or adequate cause. A causeless, natural entity is impossible according to science, science cannot entertain such a prospect, because scientific research is based on looking for a sufficient cause or causes of EVERY natural occurrence. Scientists expect every natural occurrence to be contingent - to be adequately caused. Science cannot look for non-causes. That would be a nonsense. The dilemma here for atheists is that the first cause of everything had to be uncaused, it had to be eternally self-existent, it could not be contingent, it could not be subject to the limits of any natural laws, it had to be entirely autonomous and self-sufficient. It could not rely on causes or anything else for its existence, it had to contain within itself everything it required to exist and furthermore to bring everything else that exists into existence.

Atheism is not just a rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, it is also the BELIEF (by default) in the only other option ... a NATURAL first cause.
Atheists may call their natural, first cause - a big bang, a quantum fluctuation of nothing, a singularity, a cyclical universe, a self-creating universe, string theory, or any other fantastical invention.
It makes no difference, because none of them can be UNCAUSED and none of them are ADEQUATE as a first cause of everything that exists in the universe. They are all contingent and all inferior to the end result, and consequently ALL are disqualified as possible, first causes by the Law of Cause and Effect.

So atheists simply transfer the creative powers, properties and qualities, that theists attribute to a Supernatural, First Cause (God), to a natural entity. In other words, they effectively deify matter/energy and credit matter/energy with godlike, creative powers. Thus atheism is simply a revamped version of the discredited beliefs of pagan naturalism.
Remember the pagan belief in the all powerful Sun god (Ra), or the Moon god, Mother Nature etc.? EXACTLY!

A natural first cause is an impossibility, there is no such thing as an UNCAUSED NATURAL event or entity.
That is not my opinion, it is the verdict of science, which is founded on the principle that every natural effect/event/entity requires an adequate cause. There is no exception to that rule. Which means any scenario atheists propose as a natural, first cause cannot be regarded as scientific. They are all unscientific nonsense.
People may be surprised to hear that, because we are conditioned by the popular media and incessant, atheist hype to believe that such proposed, natural causes are a scientific version of origins. It is complete hogwash, they all violate scientific principles without exception, and have got nothing to do with science. The public is being cynically conned and manipulated. All atheist, naturalistic, origin scenarios are based purely on ideology and the pagan religion of naturalism, and that is the true nature of atheism.

Pagan naturalism was soundly debunked by the onset of modern science and the understanding that all natural occurrences are contingent - that all natural occurrences MUST have an adequate cause and are subject to, and limited by, natural laws based on the inherent properties of matter/energy. The idea that nature/material things are some sort of power unto themselves - that they are all powerful, autonomous, non-contingent entities which can behave with impunity unrestricted by natural laws etc., that things can just happen the due to the vagaries of Mother Nature etc. was demonstrated by science to be nonsense. Regardless of this, modern atheists are intent on reviving pagan naturalism in a different guise. We have to wonder why?

The law of cause and effect is the basis of science. If you deny it, you step outside of science into the realm of metaphysics or magic. That is why atheist naturalism (which credits nature/matter/energy with autonomous powers, unfettered by the restraints and limitations of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws, which are intrinsic to nature) is really a religion. Even worse, it is not a rational religion, it is one which defies logic, science and reason.

The law of cause and effect (which is the fundamental basis of the scientific method) tells us that EVERY natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause. The material universe as a whole is no exception. It had to have a beginning and a cause - it is a contingent thing, it cannot exist without causes. Therefore, it cannot possibly be UNCAUSED. It had to have a sufficient cause to bring it into existence). That is the verdict of science. Science can only look for adequate causes, not non-causes. That is the fundamental principle behind all scientific enquiry. Whereas, if we go back far enough, the very first cause of everything material had to be UNCAUSED (i.e. non-contingent and thus non-material) because it is the FIRST cause. No other cause could have preceded it. If another cause preceded it - it would not be the first cause, it would be only a secondary cause and not FIRST. So the first cause of the material realm couldn't be a natural, contingent entity. That would violate the law of cause and effect. Hence for anyone to propose that the first cause could be a natural thing is illogical, unscientific nonsense.

Atheists are very fond of repeating the claim that the idea of a creator God/religion is just a human invention.
Christians would say that the existence of a creator God is revealed and confirmed by His revelation to mankind. But whether you accept the revelation argument or not, the claim that God is a human invention is clearly wrong and silly. Because, regardless of revelation, the existence of God is an inevitable conclusion reached by logic and the application of natural laws and principles of science.
So rather than God being a human invention, the existence of God should be described as a discovery. Revelation, scriptures or religious texts are not essential for the knowledge that a creator God must exist. That is a true discovery that can be reached independently of revelation by any sensible, rational, objective person through simple logic and respect for natural laws and science.

What about the idea that our knowledge is limited, that we cannot know what took place at the beginning of the universe, we cannot know what laws existed? And therefore to propose a supernatural, first cause (God) as the Creator is just a desperate or lazy way of filling a gap in our knowledge? This is the so-called God-of-the-gaps argument.

If we trust science, we simply cannot propose a natural, first cause of the universe as a logical or scientific possibility. We do KNOW that for certain. There is no gap in knowledge as far as that fact is concerned. Our present knowledge is sufficient to rule out a natural, first cause of the universe as impossible according to well established, scientific principles.
The law of cause and effect makes scientific research possible. It is only possible because we trust the scientific principle that we can expect to find an adequate cause or causes for EVERY natural occurrence.
If, like atheists, we want to claim we don't or cannot know whether the universe had an adequate cause - or to claim that a natural first cause could be possible, we are ignoring science and stepping outside of science into fantasy.
That is ALL we need to know, in order to conclude that the atheist paradigm is fatally flawed.

The law of cause and effect is exactly that which, as the basic founding principle of modern science, demolished all pagan, naturalist religions, it demolished belief in the autonomous, creative powers of material things. Atheists apparently want to resurrect that belief.
Science is: 'knowledge' through seeking and discovering causes. If anyone claims a natural event happened without an adequate cause - they are anti-science.

Therefore, to say "we don't know" what laws existed at the origin of the material universe, as some atheists do, is utter nonsense. The law of cause and effect pertains to matter/energy and ALL natural occurrences - wherever they may be.
All natural events whether inside or outside of the universe are governed by the law of cause and effect. Just like gravity (which is an inherent property of matter), so the principle of causality is an inherent property of everything in the natural world. . Everything ... means all natural entities, events and effects. All natural things, by their very nature, are contingent, that is a fact, and they can't be anything else.
They can never act independently of causes, to say they can is to invoke magic, it is definitely not science.

That then, is our understanding of science, it is not just an opinion or assumption. It is the very basis of the scientific method that we can expect to find an adequate cause of every natural occurrence. To say that there may be some natural occurrences that are not subject to the law of cause and effect is to dispute the scientific method. So atheism has no valid, scientific argument, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Is it possible to know the attributes (or character) of God - the Supernatural, First Cause?

The evidence that a natural, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE (because it violates natural laws) should be sufficient for any rational person to conclude that the first cause could not be a natural entity, and therefore has to be supernatural. Furthermore, the first cause HAS to be adequate for the effect.
If an effect of the first cause is the universe, then that cause has to embody the potential and power to produce everything that exists in the universe. Nothing in the universe can be superior to that which ultimately caused the universe.

AN EFFECT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN ITS CAUSE.

Therefore - if there is life in the universe - the first cause or the universe MUST have life.
If there is intelligence in the universe - the first cause MUST have intelligence.
If there is consciousness in the universe - the first cause MUST be conscious.
If there is law in the universe - the first cause MUST be a lawmaker.
If there are morals in the universe - the first cause MUST be moral.
If there is justice in the universe - the first cause MUST be just.
If there is love in the universe - the first cause MUST be loving.
And so on ...
All the powers, properties and qualities that exist in the universe were created by the first cause, so the first cause must possess the ability to create those attributes. None of those attributes can be greater in any respect than the attributes possessed by that which created them. There is no conceivable natural, origins scenario that is adequate to account for every quality that exist in the universe. Which shows that the so-called big bang, singularity or any other proposed, natural, origins scenario is not possible as a first cause.

The Bible says we were made in the image of a Creator God who is the first cause of everything material, including us. The Bible thus reveals and confirms the SCIENTIFIC principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. We cannot have any properties or powers that are superior to that which caused the universe, we have inherited all our attributes from the first cause and are therefore made in the image of that cause (the Creator God, as described in the Bible).

Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022


What about the idea proposed by some atheists that quantum mechanics or a so-called god-particle are the answer to the origin of the universe and of everything from nothing without the need for any cause?

We can say quite categorically that quantum effects haven't got anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause, micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.

However, the atheist mentality seems to be that if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible to a credulous public.
Just make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, and then people will believe anything is possible.
This is exactly the same little-by-little criteria that atheists apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

What makes them think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

Atheists obviously think …. OK, people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, but what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible.
What if we could find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle (a substitute for God)? A supernatural, first cause (a creator God) would then be made redundant.
Problem solved - apparently!
People will think that, even if the problem of the origin of everything without a cause hasn’t been solved completely, at least 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
Of course, if anyone stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t possibly come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved it and, predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.

So atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.

Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

There is a continuing debate among theoretical physicists about how the stuff (matter/energy) of the universe could have originated of its own accord, out of 'nothing' (the elusive, so-called ‘theory of everything’). However, the most important question in this debate: Where did information come from? Has been largely ignored, but this is absolutely CRUCIAL - because the universe, as we know it, could not exist without information. The laws of nature, are indicative of order, they govern and control the whole material universe, and extremely complex information is essential for all life.
Information is rightly called the third fundamental property of the universe.
So we have to wonder why the crucial question of the origin of information is excluded from the 'theory of everything' debate?

Isn't it ironic that atheists, rely almost entirely on non-physical means such as; mental processes, information and mathematical equations to formulate their so-called 'Theories' of 'Everything' which then completely exclude all non-physical entities?
They are 'Theories of Everything' that don't include an explanation of EVERYTHING, only physical entities. So they are NOT theories of everything at all, the whole description is a misnomer and completely misleading. It can only be construed as a device intended to deceive.

Without a credible explanation for the origin of information - any proposed theory of 'everything' would, in fact, be a theory of only some things, while excluding others ... and therefore absolutely useless.

Life requires information from the very outset, even the tiniest, most primitive cell is packed with complex information (coded in DNA), and the means of interpreting it.
Life could not exist without information. The first life on earth (regardless of how you believe it originated) needed complex information right from the very start, this is certain and beyond any dispute. The well established, law of biogenesis definitely rules out the idea that life can arise of its own accord from sterile matter, but atheists refuse to accept that law (which has never been refuted) and have perversely invented their own law of 'abiogenesis', which says the exact opposite.
However, even if we accept the ridiculous (unscientific) claim that the law of biogenesis is not valid, we are left with the major problem of how information arose in the alleged, first, living cell? Was the information for life just floating about in the ether waiting to alight on the right mixture of chemicals in some primordial soup? I think not! (but atheists have not yet been able to propose any better explanation).
Even if such an incredible thing were possible, the question would still remain as to how this information originated within the universe? Where did it come from, and why? Hence for any atheist (or evolutionist), the origin of DNA code itself, and the information it contains, is an impossible dilemma.
The unanswerable question for atheism is, which came first, information or matter?
Information cannot possibly create itself, but neither can matter. To suggest that either of them originated, of their own accord, from nothing, is self-evidently, utter nonsense and completely unscientific.
(Atheists will never be able to answer this question because the only logical option is - - a non-contingent first cause of all the material realm, which is eternally pre-existent, intelligent, non-material and therefore not subject to natural laws which govern all natural entities, i.e. a Supernatural Creator God).

Amazingly, we were told by ‘experts’ in 2004 that the discovery of the simple sugar glycoldehide in a gas cloud (known as Sagittarius B2 allegedly detected light years away in the middle of our galaxy) could explain the origin of DNA & life. (Daily Mirror newspaper, UK, 22/9/2004)
This is comparable to claiming that, if a component for making ink were to be discovered in outer space, it would explain how the complete works of Shakespeare could have originated spontaneously, of their own accord - and some people call that science - - incredible!

Make no mistake, atheism is just another religion.
Atheists are very fond of telling us what they don’t believe, but just what do they believe?

Because they reject an eternal, pre-existent, non-material first cause, every atheist is obliged to believe the preposterous notion that, the potential and information for life, as well as all the laws of nature, must have been an intrinsic property of the first matter/energy, when this matter/energy arose by its own power, and of its own volition, out of absolutely nothing, at the beginning of everything!!!! (albeit contrary to logic, common sense, and the laws of nature that govern all matter).
Surely this must be the ultimate miracle to outdo all other miracles.
Supporters of this bizarre, magical belief are very fond of describing atheism as “the only rational viewpoint,” - - -
They call such a belief rational? - - -
What do you think?

Atheists cannot accept that any information pre-existed the material. Therefore, matter not only had to create itself, but also its own governing laws & information, from nothing, and so the god of the atheist religion of naturalism is credited with even more creative powers than those usually attributed to an eternally pre-existing, Supernatural God.
In other words, ‘matter’ is automatically ascribed by atheist belief as a self-created, intelligent entity.
(This is completely contrary to logic, and to natural laws which describe the inherent properties and behaviour of matter and all natural occurrences, without exception).

“It’s just unbelievable what unbelievers are willing to believe, in order to be unbelievers” (Dr. Duane Gish)

Consider this ...
Long, long, long ago, in an eternal void of nothingness, a tiny cosmic egg arose of its own volition. Then, all of a sudden, the egg accidentally exploded and proceeded to expand until it became the whole universe and everything within it.
(This is the atheistic, ‘Big Bang’, fairy story of creation in a nutshell - - - or should that be eggshell?). But where could this cosmic egg have come from? - - - who knows? - - - perhaps a cosmic chicken laid it? - - - if so - - - where did the cosmic chicken come from? - - - don’t even ask! - - - because the only thing we are absolutely sure of is that we are still waiting for any ‘Big Bang’ supporter to propose a better solution. - - - Please don’t hold your breath!
The best they have come up with so far, is that the 'nothing' in which the cosmic egg emerged, wasn't really nothing, but 'something', i.e. SPACE. But, any fool can see that this is just a device to make a ridiculous belief sound plausible. It is obviously not plausible, because they then have to explain how space (which is not nothing, but just a part of the contingent, material realm) originated, which takes the whole ridiculous idea back to square one.

Since information is not a physical element (and as information is a fundamental constituent of the universe and an essential feature of all life) to assert that the universe is composed solely of matter and energy is clearly wrong.
The speculated ‘Big Bang’ explosion is an accidental, purposeless and destructive event, with no directing/organising, informational component whatsoever. As it is not possible for such a ‘Big Bang’ or any other undirected release of energy to create useful information (or any sort of order) it is patently obvious that this ‘Big Bang’ story of creation is erroneous.

Where has wisdom gone?
For all our modern knowledge and technology, ancient man had a wisdom in these matters which far surpasses modern ideas.
It is now more than 2 thousand years ago that Christ's Apostle John delivered the ultimate ‘theory of everything’. He understood (like many of his predecessors) that the most important factor in the question of origins is information: “In the beginning was the word” [(word: logos) = information]. John 1; 1. (the 'Word' is applied by John to Jesus Christ as true God and true man - meaning the universe was created by the Word (Jesus), by means of God's word - intelligent, constructive information).

All sensible people realise that information just had to come first, nothing constructive or creative can occur without information. Science tells us that, any input of raw energy alone, tends to increase entropy. Only organised or directed energy (energy with an informational component) can temporarily reverse or reduce the effects of entropy.
Without information, nothing material could exist in its present form.
Information derives only from an intelligent source, so only information from a pre-existing, supernatural, intelligent source could bring everything material into being, organise and control its construction and behaviour, and maintain its continued existence.
So the essential, single, first cause had to be both uncaused and intelligent.
There is no other logical option.

Belief in God did not just evolve (as some atheists keep telling us) as a means for ‘ignorant’, ‘primitive’, ‘superstitious’ humans to explain things they could not understand.
On the contrary, ancient man (from the time of Adam) fully understood (better than many of the so-called experts today) that the material universe does not contain within itself any possible means of creating itself and its essential, regulatory information, out of nothing.
A non-contingent, pre-existing, supernatural (non-material), eternal, infinite and omnipotent force had to be responsible for creating it. An essential element of that force is a supreme intelligence which has to be the original source of all information.

“ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE. IN HIM WAS LIFE
AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN” John 1: 3-4.

In this computer age, people are again beginning to understand the particular relevance of information.
A computer (the hardware) processes and stores information (the software). Without any software programming, the hardware would be useless.
As Chuck Missler points out in his book ‘Cosmic Codes; “software has no mass. (its embodiment may have weight, but the software doesn’t. It simply codes information)”.
A computer disk loaded with a million bytes of software will weigh no more than a blank disk and the information it contains can be sent invisibly through the airwaves from one point to another.
To quote Chuck Missler again “if you and I were meeting face-to-face, I would still not be able to see the real you. I would only see the temporary residence you are occupying. The real you, your personality - - call it soul, spirit, whatever - - is not visible. It is software not hardware. The codes - - your history, your accumulated responses to the events of your life, your attitudes - - are all simply informational, not physical. It is software only and software has no mass”. According to Einstein, time is a physical property - - - “that which has no mass has no time. You are eternal, that is what the Bible has declared all along. You are eternal whether you like it or not” Chuck Missler, Cosmic Codes. 1999. Koinonia house.

The information for life ....
Atheists and evolutionists have no idea how the first, genetic information originated. They claim the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

Atheists and evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code originated. However that is not the major problem. The impression is given to the public, that evolutionists only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved. That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit. It is far from the truth, as they very well know.
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information, storage medium was formed (the hardware), it tells us nothing about the origin of the information (the software) it expresses.

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA.
DNA is not information in itself. Just like the alphabet, it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient, storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries. Therefore, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear atheists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any atheist or evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means?

ATHEISTS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT ....
It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.

Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.

Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.

This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (the atheist's so-called law of abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated - and also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.

For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So there has to be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

So atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they have to explain where that predisposition for life comes from?

It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.

Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.

Thus the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.

The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

So if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?

Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong - period.

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15818838060

The universe from nothing?

The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.

One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.

So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

Confused or what?

So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.

Why would they need such a smokescreen?

Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.

In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.

The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux of the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?

So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@

THE QUANTUM EFFECTS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRICK ...
What about the idea presented by some atheists that the answer to the origin of the universe lies in quantum mechanics and the so-called 'God' particle?

It is common sense that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

The reasoning of those who propose quantum effects as a possible origin of the universe seems to be that, if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible. If you make something as small, as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
It is a similar reasoning to that applied to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

But what makes anyone think it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

Nevertheless, some atheists apparently still think …. that, although people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?-
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible to the public.
We could even find a particle which we could nickname the ‘God’ particle. Problem solved - apparently!
People will at least think that, even if we haven’t solved it completely, we are well on the way to solving it.
And, of course, if anyone still stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but some atheists loved it and, predictably, the secular, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God, because it is clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So those atheists who try to persuade people that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shoot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.

An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains. The end result - the universe - cannot be greater in any respect than that which ultimately caused it. The properties of the first cause of the universe must at the very least, be equal to every property that exists in the universe.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.
Furthermore, quantum effects are not uncaused. They are part of a caused, contingent universe and are just as reliant on causes as the universe itself.

So those atheists who think they can replace God with quantum mechanics are entirely wrong, they are interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
The nickname the God particle actually originates from a book by Lederman.

Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse... which I think might offend some people” Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown.”

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

As fossil hunters jet off to exotic places in the relentless search for ape-men fossils and the ever elusive 'missing links', down in the basement of the British museum of Natural History, virtually undisturbed for more than a century, languishes an amazing fossil which could dramatically overturn current views of human history. This fossil from Grande Terre in Guadeloupe was acquired by the museum in 1812, and publically displayed as a curiosity. However, in the latter part of the 19th century the fossil was removed from public display and has not been exhibited since. It is somewhat extraordinary that (although the specimen has been in its possession for over 200 years at the time of writing) the museum is not able to provide a proper technical report or any stock photographs of this specimen, despite its potential scientific importance.

This remarkable specimen is comprised of a skeleton of a human female solidly embedded in a block of lower Miocene limestone (lower Miocene rock was formed around 25 million years ago according to uniformitarian dating). The skeleton displays all the characteristics of having been embedded in the limestone sediment whilst the sediment was still in a fluid state, and the rock has subsequently hardened around it. If this is so, then this 100% human fossil would be dated at least 22 million years older than the oldest alleged 'ape-man' fossil yet discovered. Not surprisingly, some evolutionists have dismissed the skeleton as a later, intrusive burial. But have produced no convincing evidence for this claim. Surely therefore, it is time to commission a proper objective study of the fossil by sedimentologists, forensic scientists and other highly qualified experts so that the matter can be fairly assessed. It is deplorable that such a fascinating and scientifically valuable specimen should now lay ignored, forgotten and unseen in a publicly owned museum.

Unfortunately, this specimen is just one of many other extremely interesting human ancestor fossils which have been summarily dismissed for superficial reasons, and then quietly forgotten, apparently because they do not fit in with preconceived ideas about human evolution.
This is in stark contrast to the massive publicity and highly imaginative claims which regularly accompany extremely fragmentary and dubious 'ape-men' finds (see 'Jiggery Pokery' www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15703065445 ).

Some other examples of forgotten fossil ancestors.
Casteneldo.
Parts of a human skull were found in Pliocene clay strata, followed by the discovery of the scattered remains of 2 children and a human female skeleton in the same deposits. The layers above the finds were intact and undisturbed. 2 experts who studied the find were convinced that they were genuine Pliocene specimens. Even so, they were later dismissed by evolutionists as intrusive burials on the grounds that the bones were not fully fossilised. However, lack of fossilisation is not unknown in clay deposits and the undisturbed upper layers and scattered nature of the finds rule out intrusive burial. But these human bones would be too far old to fit the ape to human evolution story, so the intrusive burial claim had to be accepted regardless of the evidence. Hence the Casteneldo specimens are now conveniently forgotten or ignored.

Calaveras skull.
A fossilised human skull and part of a lower jaw were discovered encased in cemented Pliocene gravel 130 feet below the surface at bald hill, California. Several experts who examined and investigated the find (including the state geologist prof. Whitney) were convinced that the remains and circumstances of the find were genuine. Human tools and other artifacts were quite frequently found by geologists in the same deposits. But this human skull would be far too old for evolutionists to accept. So it was dismissed by evolutionist 'expert' opinion as a practical joke, on the grounds that it closely resembled modern Indian skulls!! And had a calcerous surface coating similar to some other skulls which had been found in caves. Although there was no evidence for such a practical joke, Calaveras does not appear in any human evolution charts and is now totally ignored.

Foxhall jaw.
A human jaw was found in the 'red crag' layer near Ipswich (late Pliocene). Numerous stone tools were also found in a layer below the jaw. The tool discoveries were verified by a special commission of experts. Drawings were made of the jaw, but unfortunately the jawbone itself disappeared. The disappearance of the jaw was considered sufficient reason for the evolutionary establishment to reject it as a possible human ancestor. This was very convenient, as once again it would have been too old to fit the ape to human evolution story. However, although the very dubious, monkey-like, Peking man fossils have also disappeared, Peking man is still widely cited as a human ancestor in books, charts and museum displays etc.
Double standards indeed!

More examples:
The Olmo skull, the Galley Hill skeleton, the Clichy skeleton, the Abbeville jaw, the Natchez pelvis.
There is not space to give full details of these and others here, but they are all 100% human remains found in deposits dated as far too old (by uniformitarian/geologic column dating) to fit the ape to human evolution theory. So consequently, it is really no surprise that they have all been rejected and forgotten.

Evolutionist 'experts' reject all these and other examples that are incongruous to the human, evolution story.
That would be fine if we could trust them to be objective. However, we have seen from the history of the promotion of Darwinism that evolutionists are far from impartial or objective.
We have seen evolution 'experts' endorsing the Piltdown Man fake for over 40 years, we have seen that they endorsed Nebraska Man - (which was not a man or ape, but a single tooth from a peccary) and used it as evidence supporting evolution in the famous Scopes Trial, we have seen that they endorsed South West Colorado Man - which was a tooth from a horse, they also endorsed Orce Man - which was the skullcap from a donkey, they endorsed the very dubious Java Man fossil, and continued to endorse it even after the man who found it (Dr. Dubois) admitted it was from a giant gibbon. So evidence against evolution is in no way given equal treatment by evolutionists as evidence for.
Therefore, the fact that evolutionists and notorious evolutionist websites, such as talkorigins, refute ALL incongruous fossil evidence against evolution cannot be taken seriously. Only an impartial assessment by persons with no ideological axe to grind should be acceptable.

So we can conclude from all this that the human evolution story is not as clear cut as we are usually led to believe. It is certainly an area where preconceived ideas and wishful thinking dominate. Where ideology frequently takes precedence over scientific objectivity. And where contradictory evidence is ensured a minimum of publicity, and inconvenient skeletons are guaranteed to be quickly shoved into proverbial closets, never to be seen or mentioned again.

Evolutionists are notorious for presenting dubious, and even faked evidence, supporting evolution to the public.
Bizarrely, here is an example of evolutionists actually faking evidence AGAINST evolution, in an attempt to discredit the genuine evidence and arguments against evolution, by muddying the waters.
Also. no doubt, to try to embarrass scientists who don't accept there is any good evidence for progressive evolution.
Onyate Man - Fossil of man being eaten by a dinosaur, the alleged cover-up ...
www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

Antediluvian reptiles - Dinosaurs before the Flood.

Knowledge about dinosaurs didn't suddenly begin in the 19th century - or with the popularisation of evolution, as some would have us believe.
So what were dinosaurs called before Richard Owen coined the term 'dinosaur' in 1842?

They were already well known creatures.
They were documented for thousands of years in literature, historical documents, art, the Bible, folklore and stories - in cultures and civilisations all around the world.
Their previous, generic name (in English) was 'dragon'.

It is obvious that 'dragons' were not simply the imaginary or mythical creatures that evolutionists imply.
Some people (who should know better) try to make a distinction between dinosaurs and dragons, as though they were not the same creatures. They insist that dragons were just imaginary, but dinosaurs are real.

Dragon was simply the name given to dinosaurs before the word 'dinosaur' (meaning terrible lizard) was invented.

Why do some wish to deny the fact that dragons and dinosaurs are the same?

It can only be because they would have to explain how ancient people, throughout history, and in all nations and cultures, knew that such creatures as dinosaurs existed and what they looked like? They were not all expert palaeontologists.
The accounts of dragons in literature and art, and even official documents, demonstrate that ancient people knew dragons/dinosaurs as real, living creatures they had actual experience of.
creationwiki.org/File:Dragon_Book.jpg

Why are we not told that?
See forbidden history:
www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurfacts-owen.html

Why are we lied to in the name of science?
www.nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html

Choose your god?
Today, many people call themselves atheists, and it is frequently argued that atheism is the only rational viewpoint.
However, it is also often said that there is no such thing as a real atheist.
This is supported by the Bible which declares: “the fool in his heart hath said there is no God.”

So which view is correct?

If we give just a little thought to this matter, we can see that there is no argument at all as to whether the qualities and properties usually attributable to God actually exist.
This is certain and beyond dispute.
So really the only disagreement is over the source or origin of these attributes.

Furthermore, we can see that there are only 2 possible alternative sources of these attributes.

It is self evident that something material can never come out of (absolute) nothing of its own accord (First Law of Thermodynamics & Law of Cause and Effect). (Something cannot create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation to do so).
We know that something material exists (i.e. the universe), therefore something must have always existed, something must be eternal and have had no beginning. This eternal something, can only be:

1. A force or power independent of the material, and thus the Creator of the material, OR
2. The material itself.

So an eternal nature must be possessed by,
EITHER:
1. A Supernatural Power.
OR
2. Matter/energy.

Consequently, all the other qualities, powers and potentialities which exist in the universe must have originally derived from ONE OR OTHER of these two proposed 'eternal' sources.

Some of the qualities existing in the material world.
Laws of Nature, Life, Information & means of information storage (DNA etc.), Consciousness, Intelligence, Design, Order, Motion, Love, Choice, Good, Beauty, Emotion, Kindness, Personality, Morality, Awareness, Justice, Wisdom, Hope, Joy, skill, etc.

There is no disagreement that these qualities are present in the universe.
The only dispute is over the source or origin of these qualities.
THEREFORE ....
Is the stuff of the universe (matter/energy) eternal?
Does this 'eternal matter' intrinsically possess all the above qualities, or the inherent potential to produce them of its own volition?
OR
Is there a power greater than, pre-existing and independent of, the material?
A Supernatural Creator of the material, possessor and originator of all the above attributes evident in the material creation?

IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OR THE OTHER
SO THIS IS THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT, AND IT IS AN AGE-OLD DISAGREEMENT.

No atheist would attempt to claim that mankind is the originator of all these qualities.
We are not eternal, we did not create ourselves or the universe, something greater than us essentially exists.
Is that something a Supernatural Creator God?
Or a purely material power which must intrinsically possess all the qualities, powers & potentialities usually attributed to a Supernatural Creator God?
- - A material god? - - A pagan god!

SO THE CHOICE IS CLEAR,- -
WE MUST FACE THE FACTS! - -
ATHEISM (or even agnosticism) IS NOT AN OPTION.
YOU MUST PAY HOMAGE TO A POWER WHICH IS GREATER THAN YOURSELF,

EITHER:
The Creator God of the Bible,
OR,
The material pagan god or gods' (represented by: Mother Earth, Nature, the Sun, Moon, or idols of stone, wood etc.) which you must necessarily imbue with the SAME ATTRIBUTES.

Atheism = the religion of Pagan Naturalism.
SO NOW CHOOSE YOUR GOD?

Footnote:
An eternally, self-existent universe, or any uncaused, natural entity with no beginning is not possible.
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent with no beginning.
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent.
Contingency is an inherent property of all natural entities. They have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes.
The nearest you could get to eternally, existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would have to be a non-contingent, eternally existent, first cause. A long chain of causes and effects simply pushes a first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
What about an eternally, cyclical universe?
It is obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is unscientific nonsense. As well as the Law of Cause and Effect - the Second Law of Thermodynamics also rules it out
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most fundamentalist atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in some sort of beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.

So an eternally existent, god of 'matter/energy' is demonstrably IMPOSSIBLE... that leaves only one POSSIBLE choice of god - the supernatural, creator God, as described in the Bible.

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk


FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions