I know, right‽ I’m currently working on a refutation of these points that will hopefully reach misinformed creationists.

@@rikardotsamsiyu I would not hold my breath. One of the hardest things to do is to convince people that they have been lied to.

'exposing pseudo scientists like Nye'

@@maximinotovar5798 It's funny, when I read your first comment I actually read it as "exposing pseudo scientists". I only realized what you first wrote when you corrected yourself. Amazing how the mind works. (Also, if you didn't know, if you hover your mouse over your reply, you'll see three dots on the right. If you click on those dots, you'll find an option to edit your reply.)

It doesn't mention it, what we do know is that the whole world was covered with water, in the flood, and that even secular scientists believe that antarctica was once a habitable environment (considering other details, this leads you to believe that the whole world was once blessed with a more habitable climate); knowing that the poles are now frozen today, and that the flood waters rose to a great height, we have reasons to believe that the flood had something to do with the ice age. But honestly I could care less about an ice age in general. A man named Jesus once walked the earth and convinced members of his own family that he was not only God, but that he rose from the dead. If you tried to convince the members of your family that you were God and died and rose from the dead, you wouldn't be able to do it. Jesus managed to do it. That same man spoke of the events of the old testament as historical fact. Even if I didn't have any other reason to believe the Bible, that would be enough for me to believe it. But that's not the only reason I believe it. I wound up reading the Bible by pure chance, accepted God and he wound up proving to me that he exists. After that my heart changed for the better so dramatically that there is no way I can deny that God exists. God doesn't come to you if you don't want him. You have to make an effort to come to him. If you do, he will do something to prove to you that he exists. If you require a lot of proof, then God will make something remarkable happen. I was someone who strongly disbelieved in the supernatural before I became a Christian. I always thought it was better to be super pragmatic, but no mind is a match for God and God completely destroyed my old outlook on life. It was unreal. Now there is nothing that can make me disbelief in God.

@@yougetagoldstar uhm, anything more than a short chapter is trolling , i stopped after " we know the whole earth was covered ... " that is an unsupported assertion not supported by science .chinese history of that time does document a horrible flood , but most people survived , japanese history of that time never mentions any flood.

Watch Chuck Missler....proof of the Bible......

What verse says souls become ashes?

I noticed that, too. It's clear that his is a heart problem. I also noticed that, at the time, he didn't know how radiometric dating worked. When pressed by Ken Ham on all the assumptions that go into radiometric dating, Bill wound up mentioning that we get old dates because the material is old. When you learn how radiometric dating works, you know that age has nothing to with the measurements being procured. The only concrete, scientific aspect to radiometric dating is identifying the type of rock being analyzed and measuring the rate of decay. That's it. Everything else is guesses and suppositions.

That would excite me more than any blockbuster hollywicked movie.

you have VERY low standards for "smart" 🤦 bible belt homeschooling? 🤣🤣 what an e-dyot.

That's a good question. God could have easily done away wth all the evil people and left Noah and his family. But he did it this way in order to leave clear evidence for all succeeding generations to see the Judgment of God upon sin. The flood was Gods judgment on sinful humanity. It created the fossil record. A miracle would not have left any evidence. The whole fossil record is a testament to God's righteous judgement upon sin. It is there to remind us how much God hates sin and that sin has consequences. We should be filled with a holy fear, whenever we see fossils and remember the Flood of Noah's time. God judged the world once and he will do it again later.

Maximino Tovar Good explanation!

The ark also is foretelling Jesus Christ! You need to be in the ark of his TESTAMENT! The NEW TESTAMENT IN HIS BODY AND BLOOD! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you!

No veiw at all in hell total blackness

Why do you say that?

@@tonyvee626 He does not want his fantasy of life created itself for no reason challenged.

@@spamm0145 *Straw man fallacy:* misrepresenting your opponent’s argument to more easily refute it while leaving their actual argument unaddressed. *Example:* - *actual argument:* “life arose naturally from prebiotic materials.” - *misrepresentation:* “you think life created itself? What a fantasy!”

i hope it will be reported to that high hell you are blindly believing like a child 🤦🤦

Of course they did......the Bible is clear on the subject.

Check out these verses. Job 40:15-18, 23 KJV - 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron. ... 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. I believe that dinosaurs lived with man, and I'm not someone who believes in something because I want it to be true. I can't read the verse about a tail like a cedar and not think of the tail of a dinosaur. Also, since fossilization has to happen rapidly, it makes sense that the dinosaurs died in the world wide flood. Also, people have found, proteins, blood vessels, collagen and other intact organic materials in dinosaur fossils. And there is no way those things could last for millions of years. Even after hearing all the desperate attempts by mainstream scientists to explain how those materials could last for tens or hundreds of millions of years, I just can't buy it. Knowing how living things decompose in far less than even a year, there is no way I can believe that living tissue can be preserved for millions of years.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mamwnIB4jaaJkJo

As an honest, scientifically-minded person, all I can say is that abiogenesis (life from non-life) is known to be possible through natural means, but that we do not know how it actually happened on Earth, since we do not expect 4 billion old chemical processes to have left evidence that we can find, today. Therefore, we may never be able to properly establish how it in fact happen, but we can still learn how it *can* happen, and we have. (I'm referring to "RNA World".) As for the things that followed, that the early lifeforms on Earth diversified into all of the various lifeforms that have existed on Earth, and exist today, that is very well established science, and we know how this happens, aswell. That is, the theory of universal common ancestry, aswell as the theory of evolution by natural selection. So, from this perspective, there is no need to invoke some creator entity to explain life on Earth, in any way. However, I do not agree that this is the reason to be an atheist. The reason to be an atheist is that there is no evidence for theism. Thus we should not accept theism as true, just like we don't generally accept other things that aren't evidently true. Furthermore, theism is a ridiculous claim, a childish claim. People don't see this, because they see huge numbers of adults believing it, so it seems perfectly normal, but it is in fact just as ridiculous as believing in fairies or goblins. Perhaps even more silly, since those things are actually more likely to exist than a god.

anti, "As an honest, scientifically-minded person, all I can say is that abiogenesis (life from non-life) is known to be possible through natural means, ..." You just happened to leave out how. No surprise and since you didn't you're not a "scientifically-minded person". You, "....but that we do not know how it actually happened on Earth," after you just said, "(life from non-life) is known to be possible through natural means, ..." You are not honest and you're not logical but you are a dumbass. " Therefore, we may never be able to properly establish how it in fact happen, but we can still learn how it can happen, and we have. (I'm referring to "RNA World".)" We know this, you are full of crap with it is possible but we don't know but we do know but we don't know, blah, blah, blah. "As for the things that followed, that the early lifeforms on Earth diversified into all of the various lifeforms that have existed on Earth.." You're so full of crap, do you really think you're logical, honest, scientific? "So, from this perspective, there is no need to invoke some creator entity to explain life on Earth, in any way." Hey dumbass, you're so stupid, you failed to say how creation happened naturally. If "there is no need to invoke some creator" you could have easily said how creation happened naturally since you can't explain how life from non-life happened naturally, either. "Furthermore, theism is a ridiculous claim, a childish claim." Yeah, got it, you just can't explain how because you're so full of crap. I mean, you are one big dumbass. Those are REAL names you deserve from how stupid your comments are.

I left out how abiogenesis is possible, because I didn't think that the details of that was what we were talking about. I left it out for the sake of brevity, only. It's possible by sugars and phosphates combining through repeated heating and vaporization, to form ribonucleotides, which when in contact with certain clays will spontaneously chain up into RNA. Some RNA can be auto-catalytic self-replicators, so they can copy themselves. These RNA enzymes can evolve and become better and better at reproducing themselves. If they get caught in a lipib bilayer bubble, you now have a cell with an evolving genome. From that point on, evolution can do the rest. And yes, RNA can turn itself into DNA, aswell. "You are not honest and you're not logical but you are a dumbass." And you're clearly an asshole. I have said nothing to deserve this kind of response. "You, "....but that we do not know how it actually happened on Earth," after you just said, "(life from non-life) is known to be possible through natural means, ..."" Yes, you do understand the difference between knowing how something can happen, and knowing how it happened in some specific instance, right? It's by principle the same idea as how we know how it's possible for Pluto to be in its current position (orbital mechanics), but that doesn't mean we've seen Pluto move to its current location. But since we understand how orbital mechanics works, we can infer how it got to where it is, and where it is going. That's shat science does, it makes inferences from the evidence, using testable models. "We know this, you are full of crap with it is possible but we don't know but we do know but we don't know" Try reading it again, if it got you confused. "You're so full of crap, do you really think you're logical, honest, scientific? " Keep attacking me, and ignore the actual subject we're talking about. That way, you're sure to get somewhere. In fact, it doesn't matter how "logical" I am, since this is not about me, it's about what science can demonstrate. The science speaks for itself, I am merely directing you to it. Honest, yes, I am. That's why I am clear about what we know and what we don't know. How about you?

anti, "It's possible by sugars and phosphates combining through repeated heating and vaporization, to form ribonucleotides, which when in contact with certain clays will spontaneously chain up into RNA." Why don't you learn what you're dealing with rather than being stupid? kzbin.info/www/bejne/lau0iZqAYsmLg5Y Watch, I did a while back. www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm Read it, then go teach them something that you know how your RNA did the wonders. creation.com/cairns-smith-detailed-criticisms-of-the-rna-world-hypothesis creation.com/origin-of-life You're in your la-la fantasy land to be so flippant about life starting on its own. Below is what I wrote to a couple of young KZbinrs saying the 2LT didn't apply to evolution. They are as dumb as you are to think life coming about on its own without any mechanism to guide it and also the information needed, to even begin evolving. You're an evo nut case who farts at the details you chose to ignore. You're disgusting. You don't have a scientific mind, your head farts more than your dumb ass. ----------------------------------------------------------- In the 2nd law (2LT): The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass. A closed system exchanges energy but not mass. An open system exchanges energy and mass. There is much you skipped. The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT. The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. You're correct that things on the earth are an open system. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science. The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time. I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it. Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal. With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible. Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen.

No, I'm not going to watch a 90 minute video just becaue you're not going to actually tell me what you're tying to say. "You're in your la-la fantasy land to be so flippant about life starting on its own." No, I will accept however life started, all I want is to actually know the truth about it. We know tah tlife must at some point have come from non-life, because there was no life at the start of the universe (there couldn't have been), and then there was, later on. So at some point, life logically must have come from non-life. All I want is to know how. However, I am also not afraid of not having all of the answers. "Below is what I wrote to a couple of young KZbinrs saying the 2LT didn't apply to evolution." Of course it doesn't apply to evolution, since evolution is not an isolated thermodynamic system, or even a thermodynamic system at all. It is a process. " They are as dumb as you are to think life coming about on its own without any mechanism to guide it and also the information needed, to even begin evolving." It's "stupid" because...? Like I said, life must have come from non-life, at some point. Otherwise, you'd have to propose that life has always existed, and we know that can't be true, because not even matter has always existed, molecuels ha venot always existed, and life is made from molecules. The "RNA World" hypothesis has good experimental support. "You don't have a scientific mind, your head farts more than your dumb ass." How old are you, anyway? 8 years old? "The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation." "Supernatural" cannot affect the natural without by definition being natural, aswell. Otherwise, why isn't an electron "supernatural", for example? The universe doesn't contain any surplus of energy, as far as we can tell, as all negative and positive energy seems to sum up to zero. Therefore, this universe could come from nothing without violating thermodynamics. " If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT." Because there is no surplus of energy in the universe. Sum it all up, adn there is no energy in the universe, so no energy ever came from nothing, it's all been "paid for" by negative energy. As for how, it sure seems like it's a quantum fluctuation that has been scaled up through inflation. It fits the facts. "Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems" That's not true. If that were true, the law wouldn't be stated for isolated systems, only. I know what you mean, in that open systems still "contribute" to the isolated system they belong to, but to argue that open system by itself is also subject to the 2nd law would be to argue that an organism simply cannot exist, but they can. But you have to understand that whether or not a living organism is an open system, "evolution" is not a thermodynamic system at all, it is a process. It's not athing, and it doesn't exist within a thing, either. " there will always be an end result of more entropy" No, absolutely false. Not within an open system. If that were true, nothing would work. "Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it." "Entropy" is not equal to "order", what's why it's called "entropy", not "order". The universe is constantly increasing in entropy. The formation of a crystel, for example, is a chaotic mixture of molecules tha tis ordering itself into a crystal structure. So, order is increasing - but it's entropy it still increasing! That's because order and entropy are separate things, even if they often go hand in hand. "Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder." "Entropy" is a state of a system. Everythigg has some entropy, which can be calculated. Entropy is not a tendency, it's not a force, it's not a law, it's a kind of measurement. A measurement of how much work a system is able to do, how much free energy is available, how many states a system can be in. "Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it. " The machine is a part of the thermodynamic system, and it increases entropy in one location in order to decreases it in another location. But overall, the presence of the machine only hastens the increase of entropy, as more work is being done by the system. (This is all assuming an isolated system.) "Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal. " But all of them are exactly as bound by the laws of thermodyanics. Nothing escapes it. And thermodynamics doens't care about "complexity", in this sense, either. "Complexity" doensn't change how energy fundamentally works. "With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell." No, you would only need the laws of chemistry. They are your "machine". "You never even reached natural selection because that takes life." Not quite, since many things that are not "life" still evolve by natural selection, such as a virus, and such as data in a computer. All you need is a genome that replicates with variation, and some selection pressure, and you have evolution. "You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. " False, since we've tested the steps in lab, and it works. Your word against actual evidence, the evidence obviously wins. "Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order" Entropy is not the same as order or disorder... The sun's energy provides the energy needed to catalyse some chemical reactions, which can allow more complex molecules to form from simpler molecules. That's why the sun is/was important. Nowadays, life uses the sun to power cehemicals reactions to make carbohydrates, in plants. Without the sun giving them this energy, thngs would have to eat eachother for energy, only, which woudl eneventually make us run out of free energy, as this "food ecosystem's" entropy keeps increasing to the point where no energy is available. But the sun keeps feeding new energy into this system. For life to start, we need sugars and phosphates to turn into ribonucleotides. This cannot happen unless you add energy to it. And yes, this can be "unharnesses, undirected" energy, that's perfectly fine. I don't know how energy could really be any other way...

Katrina, I agree about his voice. Some people, whether I agree with them or not, just have good voices to listen to. Yeah, I agree with Ken, but just talking about his voice, it "flows".

Haha I was thinking the same thing. He has a distinct voice like James Earl Jones. He's probably been asked by companies to narrate books on CD. He really is a wreaking ball to the religion of evolution.

Kat M he could do epic movie trailers

Jack44M a claim must be backed by an argument showing your thinking to come to the conclusion you present. We can't simply take you at face value. State why you think he's ignorant. This way you seem more reasonable, if your arguments have merit, rather than merely dogmatic and close minded.

*closed minded

Just research the credentials and achievements of Thomas Kindell and find out whether or not he is truly ignorant.

This guy is just a crowd follower. They are spot it and very easily especially when they can't backup any of their claims. Then there is the other group who take tons and tons of unnecessary information put it in a comment and try to make you spend hours upon hours refuting everything they said. The video planted the seed so we can humbly disagree and sow another seed but we must avoid name-calling and arguing. Paul specifically wrote on this. I believe we should just refute and move on. What God work on them and if they still want to be stubborn so be it. I stick to this model now after spending hours debating people who think they are monkeys. I just read about arguing biblically and understood my words don't have the power to change a person only God does. This is why I despise the comments sections. All it turns into is name calling in mudslinging. I'm not even going to accuse anybody of it right now, I just want all of the Christians here to understand that we are only commissions to plant the seed in the unbelievers head. It is up to them to either let God water that seed or push him away. Either way you have done your job

Troll

When you grow up you will understand what all of the adults do .........science is based on truth, the scientific truth is that intelligent design is the only explanation for all things.

*The Great Dinosaur Deception Exposed - Dr Thomas Kindell* kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6nHnIKEjtidkMk *The Secret History of Dinosaurs* kzbin.info/www/bejne/maunoaSvfNqnitU *Gods existence - Documentary:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3aVkGWsqqmHl9E *Answering the Atheists: Stephen Hawking (Part 1) - Frank Turek* kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6W5gGNjr750rKc *Theory of Everything:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6Wlq2SopM6EiJo *David Berlinski: Rebelious Intellectual Defies Darwinism* kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWmceqahj65qapI kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXa7n6SVqciAbcU *Refuting Textbook Arguments for Evolution - Part 1 * kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4DPZIiMqZ6WfrM *Refuting Textbook Arguments for Evolution - Part 2* kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoe2gHRuiLiLh7s *Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance* kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M *Design in the Universe* kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGWmmHaqi5mcrs0 *Science confirms Creationism:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJKYe4Fog6l8bKM&lc=z222zlwzjw3lxnxwv04t1aokgv32sutiam43lvoqaiq3bk0h00410.1526465924361236 *How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2XYg4qhZZuKpZI *How Consciousness Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnfJYp2fh9WdodE *How Free Agency Points to the Existence of God - J. Warner Wallace* kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppa2lYmfpc6Zmck *Why the Appearance of Design in Biology is Best Explained by the Existence of God* kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4Oak5eMmLBjns0 *Richard Dawkins stumped by simple question by creationist:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5XHnnqApMuVgpI *Creationist (Mark Armitage) Wins Lawsuit and Crushes Evolution* kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZbCiXynYtBpbMU *Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation: * kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4iZlpp-i5udd9k *Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 2: Q&A and Debate:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYLJY2yGmcqhaZI *16 Nearly Impossible Issues for Evolutionists to Answer* kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZaqc4epgdWAmqs *NOAH: the TRUTH is BIGGER than you thought - Trey Smith* kzbin.info/www/bejne/opzXnqCabL6hepo *Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim - Trey Smith* kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6vdaZKDrcihsLs *"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Dr. Frank Turek* kzbin.info/www/bejne/laTKqYyfqrl9hNE *Intelligent Design - It's In The Numbers!* kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJqTgXmajJx1jsU *Answers in Genesis:* answersingenesis.org *Institute for Creation Research:* www.icr.org/homepage/ Creation Seminar 1 - The Age of the Earth kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXyWlptqj5p-pZY Creation Seminar 2 - The Garden of Eden kzbin.info/www/bejne/raXLXq2ajtWLbpI Creation Seminar 3 - Dinosaurs and the Bible (FULL) kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4e3eJaYg9lnnLc Creation Seminar (4 of 7): Lies in the Textbooks kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJCynYttgpqAgqM Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolution kzbin.info/www/bejne/jX-WYnl5mLqfgs0 Creation Seminar (6 of 7) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZfJl4WiabeHatU Creation Seminar (7a of 7): Questions & Answers kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJSohouPochgh5I Creation Seminar (7b of 7): Questions & Answers kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGPKo4aenZmKeq8 Creation Seminar (7c of 7): Questions & Answers kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zou0lYdpgNR-sJI Creation Seminar (7d of 7): Questions & Answers kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGiyY6GQqbmBiNU Creation Seminar (7e of 7): Questions & Answers kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJCmkqiFjpKnn6c? --- Clear discrimination against the truth by the evolutionary mainstream cult: *Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After SOFT TISSUE FOUND ON DINOSAUR FOSSIL:* losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ Who knows what *else* they've found throughout the last 100 years, but kept it under wraps since it destroyed the mainstream narrative lie they try to push on the world?! -- _"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion, a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."_ - *Michael Ruse* (atheist) -- _"I am talking about something much deeper - namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to have a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world..."_ - Thomas Nagel (atheist) -- *The Last Word (1997) p. 130-131* -- _"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."_ - *Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.* - _"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism._ _It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."_ - *Richard Lewontin_ (atheist) -- _"Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’sclosest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’"_ - *Morris, Henry M. (Christian), The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: BakerBook House, 1967.* -- _"…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop"_ - Dr. B. G. Ranganathan (Origins?, p. 15).