Questioning Stefan Molyneux

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Stefan Molyneux makes a rational and logical case for atheism against agnosticism and theism in his book Against the Gods?. Let us pretend that there is indeed no God. How does Stefan solve the problem of our existence? Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? If Stefan applied his self-professed rational thinking intellectualism to the theory of Evolution versus actual science, he would find that Evolution is a much larger impossibility than the existence of God.

In his book, Stefan brings up unicorns as a means of constructing a straw man in attempt at proving his point. However, he only succeeds in demonstrating his ignorance on the matter. Since I have already written on the truth and reality of Unicorns, I will not address it again here. However, I will address scientific impossibilities that leave Stefan, and those like him, with the impossible task of explaining precisely how and why we exist if there is no God and since the theory of Evolution is completely and entirely bankrupt.

Pretty much every text book from grade school through university says something along these lines: "Millions of years ago there was nothing. Nothing means nothing. Then all the dust and dirt in the galaxy began to come together to form a ball smaller than a period on this page. It began spinning faster and faster until it exploded."

#1. If nothing means nothing, where did all the dirt and dust come from?

#2. If nothing means nothing, what caused all the dirt and dust to come together? Where did gravity come from?

#3. What caused the ball to start spinning? Where did the energy come from?

#4. Why aren't all the planets and moons in the universe moving in the same direction? The Law of Inertia states than any object in motion, any pieces that fall off or break off from that object will continue spinning in the same direction until they encounter resistance. Nothing means nothing. That means that when it explodes, those pieces will move outward from the center. The farther out those pieces travel, the further they are apart from each other. There are no objects for them to collide with in order to change their direction. Ergo, everything in the universe should be spinning in the same direction.

#5. If nothing means nothing, how do you explain the fact that our universe obeys the laws of mathematics? Where did numbers and the laws of mathematics come from? We did not invent numbers or mathematics; we discovered them. They are the same everywhere you go.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwCl0ymTfg)

As stated in the last post, the Laws of Thermodynamics all on their own destroy the theory of Evolution. The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot create itself. Matter does not possess creative power or ability. Ergo, you can scrap the Big Bang theory. The second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends toward chaos and disorder. Ergo, you can scrap the theory of Evolution, which claims that everything is getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger. Atheists and Evolutionists need to remember and pay attention to every law that governs our universe, which utterly obliterate the theory of Evolution. Reprehensibly, Atheists and Evolutionists conveniently forget or ignore these laws in order to press their non-science nonsense.

Not only does real science (that which we can test and observe and repeat) of what we can observe about our universe disprove the fabulous fantasy of Evolution, but so too does simple mathematical equations combined with those real scientific observations:

#1. It is a scientific fact that the sun burns off X amount of gas every day. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The sun was once so big that it would have touched the Earth.

#2. It is a scientific fact that the moon is moving away from the Earth by X amount of distance every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tall dinosaurs (previously called dragons) would have been mooned. There is a scientific law, called the Inverse Square Law, that states if you half the distance you quadruple the effect. If you were to move the moon in half of its current distance, the Earth would be flooded twice a day due to the effects of the moon on the water. If you use the rate at which the moon is moving away from the Earth, at only 1.4 million years, let alone "billions" of years, the Earth and the moon would have occupied the same space. Do you remember that law about two objects occupying the same space?

#3. It is a scientific fact that the Earth is slowing down by X amount every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The Earth would have been spinning so fast at one time that everything on the surface would have been thrown off into outer space. Before you attempt to argue the egregious and erroneous theory that gravity would have been increased, try thinking about a merry-go-round. The faster you get that thing going, what happens? You get forced to the outside. Gravity does not increase.

#4. Consider a spinning wheel. It is a scientific fact that the outside of the wheel has to turn faster than the inside of the wheel. Now go take a look at the Milky Way, or any number of our other spiral galaxies. They are spinning in the reverse. Ergo, you have a problem. If our universe were only 1 million years old, the Milky Way would not look the way it currently does.

#5. It is a scientific fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying; it is getting weaker. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you go back only 1 million years, you have a problem. Earth's magnetic field would have been so strong that it would have ripped the iron from your blood.

#6. It is a scientific fact that Jupiter emits twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. Neptune emits even more. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. How do these planets still have warmth and energy if they are "millions," let alone "billions," of years old? It is impossible! Secular "scientists" cannot even explain this. The evidence contradicts their theory. As Agatha Christie said, "Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory―let the theory go."

Here are just a couple of things that science used to teach and believe many, many years ago (because they refused to believe the Bible):

1. the earth was flat
2. only 1,100 stars
3. earth sat on a large animal
4. nothing—science was ignorant on the subject of invisible elements in creation
5. all stars were the same
6. light was fixed in a place
7. air was weightless
8. winds blew straight
9. sick people must be bled (This is how one of the Presidents of the USA died.)
10. the ocean floor was flat
11. oceans fed by only by rivers and rain
12. hands washed in still water

This is what science knows today, and the passage of Scripture that it is found in. Bear in mind that parts of the Bible were written anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.

1. the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
2. incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
3. free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
4. creation made of invisible elements—atoms (Hebrews 11:3)
5. each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
6. light moves (Job 38:19-20)
7. air has weight (Job 28:25)
8. winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
9. blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
10. ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
11. ocean contains springs (Job 28:6)
12. when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)

In the 1920s, science discovered that space is expanding, precisely as recorded in the Bible (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Zechariah 12:1). In the 1930s "science" came up with the Big Bang theory, assuming that the expansion meant that if you were to reverse it you would arrive at a single point in time much like a drawing on single-point perspective. However, not once did these "scientists" ever put their thinking caps on and consider the problems with such a concept, as addressed in the first five points listed above.

Here are some questions to stimulate your thinking process and to get you started on thinking rationally, logically, objectively, intellectually, and correctly for yourself rather than being spoon-fed a fantastically fabulous imaginative fairy tale such as Evolution.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining the English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macro-evolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
27. When, where, why, and how did matter create DNA, which is an intricately complex language system?
28. When, where, why, how, and from what did numbers evolve? Why does our entire physical world obey the laws of mathematics?

Here are a handful of quotes from Atheists and Evolutionists on the ridiculousness and impossibility of the theory of Evolution:

“I will lay it on the line, there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” –Dr. Colin Patterson

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” –Sir. Arthur Keith

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” –Francis Crick

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” –David Raup

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” –Stephen J. Gould

Stefan fails to grasp the supernatural element presented by Evolution, an element that is one hundred times more supernatural than the existence of God (and requires greater faith than the belief in God) and one hundred times more impossible than the existence of God. Atheists claim that gods do not exist; theists accept that He does. The evidence supports our position, as any rational thinking intellectual can easily deduce.