Red Pilling Atheists

"People don't alter their beliefs easily. . . . Many people refuse to accept an irrefutable truth simply because that truth puts them in the wrong." —Kemka, The Orville S1E4

This statement is absolutely 100% true. Unless people have a desire to know the truth, they will willfully embrace their ignorance and deny all evidence to the contrary. Most people are stubborn and full of pride, refusing to acknowledge, let alone admit, that they have believed wrongly. Individuals like myself are rare and unique. Regardless of how I was raised, what I was taught, or what I presently believe, I always keep my eyes open to the evidence and am always studying in order to arrive at the truth and correct my beliefs (religious and otherwise).

"On the sub-nuclear scale, it is quite natural for quantum fluctuations to create matter and energy where none exist." —Isaac, The Orville S1E4

This sentiment, as with the Big Bang theory, completely contradicts and contravenes the first Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass), which states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Science does not support the Big Bang theory. Ergo, you can scrap the Big Bang theory and theories similar to the "Steady-State" or "Continuous Creation" theory. If the Big Bang theory were scientific, then Atheists should have no problem answering these questions:

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 of dirt and dust 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 further out those pieces travel, the farther 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)

Likewise, the theory of Evolution completely contradicts and contravenes the second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increasing Entropy), which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Science does not support the theory of Evolution, either. Ergo, you can scrap the theory of Evolution, which claims that everything is getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger; that from chaos came order. If the theory of Evolution were scientific, then Atheists should have no problem answering these questions:

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?

"Matter and energy cannot create themselves, yet here we are as a result of matter and energy creating themselves." "Everything in the universe tends toward chaos and disorder, yet here we are, getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger, as the result of chaos becoming order." Such beliefs as the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution belong to anti-intellectual individuals who refuse to use their brains to think about what it is they are saying and how it contradicts reality. A so-called "scientific" statement made in complete contradiction to and/or ignorance of science is asinine foolishness. Atheists willfully lie to themselves, trying to convince themselves against all reality.

In fact, several Atheists have admitted to the fact that there is zero evidence to support 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 [i.e., "Matter and energy cannot create themselves, yet here we are as a result of matter and energy creating themselves."]

“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

There is only one right answer for our existence and the existence of the entire universe. Either the Bible is true, stating that God is eternal and created everything from nothing, or else Atheism is true, stating that dirt is eternal and created everything from nothing and that every living creature evolved from a molten rock. Both logic and common sense tell every individual which answer is the truth, yet pride and stubbornness keeps certain individuals from accepting the truth simply because they do not like what the answer means: that they are responsible for all their actions before a higher power. The truth of this can be seen in this quote:

“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” –G. Richard Bozarth

If the Bible is not true, if the Bible is not supernatural in origin, if the Bible is not the Word of God, then how do Atheists account for the fact that before science got the answers correct, the Bible taught numerous scientific truths? 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 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)

Here are a few more scientific facts taught in the Bible:

1. ocean currents (Psalm 8:8)
2. the earth is wearing out (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:11), as stated by the second Law of Thermodynamics
3.  the hydrologic cycle (Job 28:26; Psalm 135:7; Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3; Amos 9:6)
4. circumcision of boys on the eighth day due to coagulation of the blood being the highest (Genesis 17:12)

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.

It is interesting to note how many of the great scientists of history were Bible-believing Christians. Most areas of mathematics and science were founded by men who believed what their Bibles said. For example: when the Bible spoke of the ocean containing mountains and valleys, Matthew Maury believed it and founded oceanography. Here is just a small sampling of the many areas of mathematics and science that were founded by Christians.

1.	Antiseptic Surgery	Joseph Lister
2.	Bacteriology	Louis Pasteur
3.	Calculus	Isaac Newton
4.	Celestial Mechanics	Johannes Kepler
5.	Chemistry	Robert Boyle
6.	Comparative Anatomy	Georges Cuvier
7.	Computer Science	Charles Babbage
8.	Dimensional Analysis	Lord Rayleigh
9.	Dynamics	Isaac Newton
10.	Electronics	John Ambrose Fleming
11.	Electrodynamics	James Clerk Maxwell
12.	Electromagnetics	Michael Faraday
13.	Energetics	Lord Kelvin
14.	Entomology	Henri Fabre
15.	Field Theory	Michael Faraday
16.	Fluid Mechanics	George Stokes
17.	Galactic Astronomy	Sir William Herschel
18.	Gas Dynamics	Robert Boyle
19.	Genetics	Gregor Mendel
20.	Glacial Geology	Louis Agassiz
21.	Gynecology	James Simpson
22.	Hydrography	Matthew Maury
23.	Hydrostatics	Blaise Pascal
24.	Ichthyology	Louis Agassiz
25.	Isotopic Chemistry	William Ramsey
26.	Model Analysis	Lord Rayleigh
27.	Natural History	John Ray
28.	Non-Euclidian Geometry	Bernard Riemann
29.	Oceanography	Matthew Maury
30.	Optical Mineralogy	David Brewster

Science is experimentation (testing) and observation using empirical evidence (the five senses). If you cannot test and observe it, then it is not science! If it begins and ends with a hypothesis, then it is not science! I challenge you, Atheists, to:

1. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of matter (dirt) creating DNA.
2. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of life magically appearing from a hot molten rock being rained upon.
3. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of one species (flamingo) transitioning into another species (elephant).

Here are more scientific facts that intellectually dishonest Atheists are unable to answer; real science that we can test, observe, and repeat, applying simple mathematics to determine the falsehood of "millions" of years:

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."

On forgetting origins and the past...

"If enough time passes. Even Earth is a little fuzzy on some of its own history." —Commander Kelly Grayson, The Orville S1E4

This fact is nowhere illustrated more clearly than the examination of dinosaurs (a.k.a., dragons) and the false information we are told about them today. We are told that they died out "millions" of years ago, despite evidence to the contrary from every continent and country around the world. Before the word "dinosaur" was coined, these skeletons were called "dragons." In fact, historical accounts of encounters with dragons bear remarkably striking similarities in their descriptions to what we call "dinosaurs" today. If they did not walk with men, and if men could not have possibly seen them with their own eyes, how do Atheists account for the accurate renderings of these creatures, as well as accurate details about these creatures that archaeology only recently discovered?

The same goes for belief in unicorns. Historical evidence shows that the term "unicorn" was applied to the single-horned Rhinoceros. Even the scientific Latin name for the single-horned Rhinoceros is unicornis. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language identifies the unicorn as the single-horned Rhinoceros. So how, in the last 150 years, did the term "unicorn" suddenly become solely known as a mythical horse-like creature with a single horn in the midst of its forehead?

Education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your teachers and professors think and believe. It does not teach you how to think logically, reasonably, objectively, or even for yourself. Unless you are willing to examine the evidence honestly and conform your beliefs to the reality and truth of that evidence, you will merely reject and deny it through willful and stubborn pride because you do not want to admit that you have believed in error.

Atheists are intellectually dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. They commit intellectual suicide by ignoring the laws that govern our universe and real scientific data combined with simple mathematics. They must purposefully, deliberately, and willfully ignore these laws in order to press their unscientific agenda of non-science nonsense. Otherwise they are forced to face reality.

Red pilling Atheists does not mean that they will suddenly change their mind and embrace the truth. It just means that you expose them to the truth and they have no rational or logical way to answer it or deny it. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against them, Atheists will willfully embrace what they now know to be complete and utter lies.