When I say that “I do not believe in the theory of the evolution� automatically say “ah to me, then you believe in God�. They test: diganle to anyone: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF THE EVOLUTION.

Immediately they will assume that one believes in God, and when I say God here I do not talk about to a specific God of some religion but to God like creator of the Universe, as to the organization author of the present design in the reality that surrounds to us.

This sample to the clear ones that the existence of God is EVIDENT still for they deny which it. This sample to the clear ones that they know very well that outside that theory that the chance and the time in marriage they stop the design, that word is no rational option except for GOD that as much bothers to them, that as much hurts to them and it offends to them.  He is not peculiar that to assumes it to one like CREACIONISTA when it says that HE IS NOT evolucionista?

But of it has said me to a person when I exhibit the enormous amount to him of facts that demonstrate that the theory of the organic evolution simply is not correct nor applicable to the well-known reality:

Good but it is that if would not have to believe in God….

For my it is clear that is the root of the subject: the necessity to eliminate the existence of God from the established powers causes that any option, even remote, seems possible. They make decide me to the equation of Sherlok Holmes in the story of the “Dog of the Baskervylle�:

“Eliminated the impossible thing, which is, still being improbable. it is the truth�

We do not see organic evolution in the nature. There are no examples: but we see creation. The human being is CREATIVE. To imitated to the animal designing airplanes, radars, and now systems GPS, robots and until androids. We know that the design is a known fact we have experienced, it. The majority dreams and thinks that the own one to be human will be able to create forms of intelligence in the future. And diganme something. why a so evident fact of which already there are examples around in same nostros must be simply unacceptable? We are thinking by we ourself or estamo being programmed by powers that we do not know to believe an IMMENSE lie by force of imposition like passage in the average age?

For many people, the existence of God is simply IMPOSSIBLE. But… it is scientifically impossible. or it is emotionally impossible? The barrier is emotional scientist or?

In the same way that certain superstitious religions say much pavada next to the existence of God is not reason to reject the evident thing: GOD EXISTS. The evidence?  Then it would want that they say a single place to me where nonThe Hague. A single millimeter of reality that does not seem designed. Because from the infinitesimal ATOM to the immense galaxies everything seems to follow an order and fixed laws that lead to that Earth life exists led by the human being, a being with the same creative restlessness.

in the personnel the debates about this dislike to me, because it seems that the sense of my life depended than says tal o cual human being in such book and to see if another human being in another book says something that is something as well as an antidote of the previous thing.  For my the existence of God has the certainty degree that the existence of the moon or the ground that floor: I can read a pile of books about which the moon is not round and of which in fact it does not exist (although they do not create it I have seen until in “scientific� channels certain men of science theorizing that perhaps the moon is only an illusion lead by an extraterrestrial race on the humans), but the moon is there. I see it every day and is people stepped on who it and walked by her and have brought a reliable testimony of which she exists although we ourself we could not have been there.

And the main reason for which I believe that the moon exists and is round as they told me is because that AGREES WITH the REALITY THAT I OBSERVE.  The reason by that I believe in the LAW OF the GRAVITY is because IT AGREES WITH the REALITY THAT I OBSERVE. If loose an apple, falls to the ground. I throw if it does not fall immediately but as it loses speed. That is, he is something that I can OBSERVE. I do not see the forces that do this possible one: but Newton defininió and what she defined agrees and so I see around.

The same happens to me with many other scientific laws that are observable, that is part of my reality and which therefore I do not need to read a million books to be convinced of its certainty.

To the organic evolution simply this DOES NOT HAPPEN. The organic evolution does not agree with the world that surrounds to us and therefore with a little common sense it is possible to see the conflict in each millimetre of reality which we have to the reach.  We are going to imagine a brief panorama to us of how cosmogonía would be one, a evolucionista universe and as a world created and designed by an intelligent being would be a universe:

The evolution like argument: the comedian is that the film was a failure because “was not credible�. Is not to them credible in a film class B but in the real world yes?

WORLD EVOLUCIONISTA: the film left it well clearly to EVOLUTION: a full world of species with characteristics to means to form and a pile of useless characteristics, desparejas and desuniformes. Since the mutations are the process that assigns new characteristics and that the beneficial ones are a minority by each favorable mutation that the species conserves to accumulate “points� for a new characteristic would have to be hundreds of other useless but neutral mutations.  For example, the dogs must have some piece of meat somewhere hanging without sense that it did not serve for anything like part of his species. Or a small tail to the flank of which they have habitually totally useless. Or some extremity besides the four legs like becoming way to a new member that does not exist. The symmetry would have little to be frequent: there is reason no to think that the alive organisms would have to be symmetrical by outside since there would not be reasons of esthetic nor predictable intelligences able of evaluating esthetic happiness.  On the other hand the alive beings, if by chance they were symmetrical that would have to be a tendency of all the alive being: of the visible thing and the hair net. Nevertheless the animal are SYMMETRICAL by and outside generally ASYMMETRIC on the inside and for that reason it turns out so disagreeable to see guts and vísceras to us: they are not ESTHETIC.  He would be stranger who the trained beings randomly were as clocks with inside simply functional a non-symmetrical machinery and without no uniformity of color or forms, and by outside they would have an appreciable esthetic sense.  Deberiamos to around see mutations ours, like something current. We would have to see that the life is a frequent chemical reaction that happens rare, but sometimes. For example in the mud life would have to form from time to time: there is reason no to think that a chemical process in the Earth absolutely so regulated as to form a cell it was unique unless one wants to think that the probability theory does not exist either and that everything is possible and when I say all I talk about that it is possible that at this moment it appears me the Eifel tower alongside, that to that reads this is possible that him aterrize the Columbia ferry that no longer exists alongside. that is, ALL the imaginable one would have to be possible if we go to the law of which in time everything is possible.  On the other hand in a evolucionista universe it must have million fossils of innumerable beings who were links between a species and another one. To see if we understand: we also would be links. According to the evolucionista theory never there is an aim: always each species is a link changing towards another thing superior… deberiamos because to see the alive beings means to finish, without perfect operations and a pile of fossils than we went to means to do. The fossilized skeletons of reptiles transforming itself into birds would have to be like leaves in the forest. The skeletons of fish with four things that are not exactly feet deberian to be innumerable. The flies found in amber: it must have some with wings, others with something similar to wings that do not serve. by each existing species it must have a fossil testimony of million species that stopped existing: things conviertiendo itself in others. Additionally conserving and acquiring new characteristics would have to be something common in the species… the men of a continent must have some additional body that those of the other continents no. We did not speak here of simple variety within the species but of authentic changes like when Kevin Costner developed nutgalls to breathe underneath the water in WATERWORLD. That type of necessary mutations would have to be at least RARE and not ABSOLUTELY NONEXISTENT.  Our world in other words would have to be looked enough but like the GENTLEMAN OF the RING with very many species of humanoides beings with different characteristics good: great and hairy feet, monsters, some type reptile others as large as a lemon. that would be the panorama of a world in constant mutation leaving characteristics and rest of links throughout and DEFINED AND UNIQUE nonSPECIES GOOD. In fact that the dominant species is UNIQUE in their sort he would be something quite rare. A single species of men? An evolutionary world would to each other have a single dominant vertex and several species not competing? Now salt and watches the outer world and tell me if the world that you see agrees with the theory of the evolción. It tell me if the life is a phenomenon that is only generated from inanimate matter, if the order is produced sometimes by the chance, if the alive beings have multitude of mutations and deformations that are establishing the bases of new characteristics and if finally the museums are full of examples of beings who are half of way between a species and another one. (I do not speak of two or three debatable bones but of THOUSAND or MILLION so many as there are of dinosaurios or other species totally formed).

Expelled: a documentary one that denounces the case of very many scientists who have been expelled from their work or university to doubt the theory of the evolution and to suggest the intelligent design is but that probable. That sounds to scientific method or to obscurantism?

WORLD CREACIONISTA: if the world had been designed, simply it would have TO SEEM DESIGNED. It must have a pile of estabecidas laws destined to maintain and to preserve the life. For example, the cycle of the water causes that the water has 3 states: solid, gaseous liquid and. In its solid state, the water CONTRADICTING the laws of any solid FLEET, for that reason the ice floats. And this is rare, since the cold water is but heavy that the hot water and tends to sink… but just before becoming ice it leaves to the surface, where possibly it melts and she becomes liquid and gasesosa again in the form of clouds precipitate that it again. If this cycle were not therefore the Earth life one decade would not last nor: if the ice did not float and it carried as any other solid would go away to the bottom of the rivers where NEVER it would be melted and would be neither life in the rivers nor the fresh water sufficient to maintain the Earth life.  In a created universe it must have practical and esthetic evidences of design.  The ribs of the man are right upon the vital organs being of their bones but hard, the brain that is the organ that directs to the rest is covered by the skull, all this is very practitioner and seems left a design writing-desk. But simultaneously the man has hair in the head that can comb and trim. In his chest he has a harmonious external symmetry, he has a color skin uniforms almost and lacking of hairs unlike the animal and like marking a difference with these. Each organ of each being acts a as and nothing seems to be wasted. Still today when a scientist finds a fossil of a being with wings deduces “this BEING FLEW�. For example we know that the PTEROD�CTILOS flew. On what the scientists are based to say this? Then in which they had wings. Nobody doubt that if there are wings they serve to fly. but this conclusion is logical only in a designed world that produces elements to be used. In a evolucionista world it could be that the pteorodáctilos simply took hold that form by pure mutation without getting never to fly. But this is not truth: in the designed world the fins are for swimming, the wings to fly, the eyes to see… in a designed world we would see complex bodies in interdependence of others such as eyes and the brain. The eyes without a brain able to interpret the visual reconnaissance would be useless as two adornment water balls hanging.  But they are not it: they are perfectly calibrated elements of precision that produce vision in 3d and in colors in the humans. So calibrated that if one twists an average millimetre the eye (like when it drinks much) the vision becomes blurred and double. Test to ponerte a finger to the flank of the eye and you go what happens!  In a created universe the nature would have to be full of amazing and surprising wise things for which there would not be explanation as if it had placed somebody them there. It would be a full world of elements that would move to the human beings to say “to the design of these animal� or “the design of these landscapes�. The design would have to be evident in a created world: one would have to be able to see it and to say: “It is full of put things deliberately�. The life on the other hand would have to be a rare and unique phenomenon, like putting deliberately also in the planet. It would have to be a unique experience; transforming inanimate matter while still alive would have to be a technology outside the reach even of the species technologically but advanced. That would be a created world. Now salt and watches the outer world and tell me if it seems product of the chance or it seems created.

Mirate your hand, with four parallel fingers and ONE in opposition that allows to hold you with force and to take at the same time with gentleness seems created or product of a few random mutations. Mirate the eyes to the mirror, concentrate in your ears: trayendote information of everything what it surrounds to you, producing abstract pleasures by means of the combination of sounds based on scales with defined acoustic laws good by means of music, thinks about your form of trasladarte: walking in perfect balance from a side to another one and it watches your foot as this perfectly designed to maintain the weight of your body and to cling to the point to return really difficult demolishing to a human being to the ground without making force, watches all that. it watches the apparent skies, symmetrical forms of everything what it surrounds to you, the beauty of a naked body, the grace of a kitten and its colors, the absolute sense of the location of a dove that does not have Google Earth nor GPS in the brain but it knows always exactly WHERE THIS and WHERE IS the things without map nor guide… watches all that, and everything what it would not enter this post. And it tell me, honestly. I do not only ask that you create, that you say to me, that YOU SAY that it seems to you. Olvidate of the religions by a second.

I do not ask that you say now if you create or you do not believe in God, or in that they said to you that it was God. It only watches the nature, the man, the universe. And it responds… IT DOES NOT SEEM to be created? IT DELIBERATELY DOES NOT SEEM all put salary?

The plants are of green color because this color allows them to transform the light and the carbonic anhydride that exhalamos we in oxygenate that we needed. Exahalamos we what they breathe and give back to us what we breathed in return… IT DOES NOT SEEM to have been deliberate?

The Giraffe has a neck larguisimo that allows him to arrive at really high places. When doubling the neck to drink water would have to be desmayar by the amount of blood that flows to the brain, but not desmaya because it only has a special organ of his species that only controls the flow of blood to the brain when it doubles the neck… IT DOES NOT SEEM to have been deliberate?

When we burned ourselves immediately forms in the skin a healing bubble that isolates the zone affected with a tranquilizing liquid and that exactly lasts the time that takes in forming the new skin if we did not burst it. We called blister to him. When we cut ourselves the blood around the wound begins to coagulate to stop the flow of blood to the outside something that the blood DOES NOT HAVE to do normally since we needed liquid. The blood knows when to coagulate, where and to what extent to do it generally and thus a scab forms to us that falls when the wound no longer has danger.   IT DOES NOT SEEM to be designed?

It will not have been designed?   There is something in the reality that seems fruit of the chance? There is something around yours who does not seem fruit of the design?   If in the Mars planet they right now found an iron circle with a simple hole in means the first conclusion would be THIS WAS DESIGNED BY SOMEBODY. Soon it would be seen by whom or like. But nobody would say that a circle bored to means formed by chance. And we only spoke of a tremendously simple design: a design of only two steps: a circle and a hole. How it is possible that cellular an alive one formed at random in a sterile atmosphere if the DNA contains million gigabytes of information finely codified?

Friend: I understand that but for the religions that usurped the word “God today� probably the majority of the scientists simply would be ***reflxed mng of the idea that the world we know as it is product of the chance. The religions were founded to foment the ignorance, they obtained and it. When they were in the power and still today they do it when the power is of certain group of scientists.

But the facts are the facts and the reality that you observe is the one that you observe. There is a rule of the philosophy that is called the OCAM KNIFE that says that enters two explanations but simple usually she is the correct one.

, Then alive in a universe and a world that all the dot has of to be created by SOMEBODY and not to be formed at random. If it lived in another world class, I do not know it, in the style of film EVOLUTION or the GENTLEMAN OF the RING or the WAR OF the GALAXIES where the life grew perhaps as the humidity in any marsh and the beings would change with the speed who stop. But nonalive in a world thus. The worlds thus are fictitious. My world seems designed. Because the design is intelligence evidence author.

Alive in a earth that has all the dot of being round. It must then be round.

Alive in a full planet of life that seems created. It must be created.

And because some cultured stranger believes that he was created by “God is not vacant� or “the goddess of the 100 teats� I am going to say that the creative process is an ignorance. Without outside for that reason also he would be right to say that she was not Darwin first in thinking that the animal were transformed into humans: old the Egyptians creian that and old the Greeks creian that he crosses of it of two animal (for example a wolf with a lion) could leave a new species.

The Incas creian that the sun was alive and was its God. Today we know that is inexact, but for that reason we did not stop thinking that it only exists. Nontenth THIS IS an IGNORANCE OF the OLD INCAS.

I hope that they meditate to him, not based on my words but on their own experience in which they can see and touch. And to experiment.

Tags: creacionismo, God exist, God existence