QUESTIONS FROM NON-BELIEVERS OF ANY GOD

1. An unfallible law of nature is that "Every cause has a reason". Extremely huge Universe can not come to existence without a cause. This law is thoroughly neglected by objectioners of creationism when they talk about what caused the universe to come into existence. But when it comes to discussion they speak of things which are cause and reason. 2. Disbelievers of Creationism often argue that: Who created the creator? The answer is that without creator there should have been nothing at all, not even a grain of sand. This itself speaks of the existence of Creator. Disbelievers of creation try to make this discussion like: "An egg came first or a hen?" but they neglect the main point i.e. Who made the matter from which hen and egg are formed and who organized the matter into hen and egg. 3. Laws of Science admits that Matter and Energy can not be created but first creation is the question which puzzles science. The disbelievers try to cover this hole in the logical reasoning area of science by making an assumption that matter and energy exists from ever till ever. Is this the answer??? Are you not cheating your own laws??? Ask yourself. 4. Everyone knows that Life begets Life. Evolutionists try to proof that how life originated without a creator by putting forth thoeries for the origin of life. My question from them is if life can be created without life without a creator then go and use your Brains, Computers, Technologies, Laboratories etc. together and create something with life without using life. You will not even create a simplest organism known. Lets make the task more simple for you if you are true then go and raise a dead animal without soul with all your resources to prove that the concept of soul is a lie. 5. According to most accepted theory of the origin of universe "Big Bang theory" the universe has a beginning which disproves that the Universe was always existent and no God created it. 6. Organisms are built on various levels of complexities according to the needs of the situation. If simplicity solves the problem complexity is not required. This doesn't just indicate that organisms are evolved from simplest to the most complex without any creator. 7. For Evolution without Creator these assumptions must be true:

(i) Anything organism want can be evolved as wanted and in the area where it is specifically wanted by random mutations (even the extremely complex as well as the unique and alien capabilities). (ii) The extremely beautiful artistry of colours and shapes in organisms is designed without an artist. (iii) Designs such that which humans can not design or even can't understand their complexity by all their knowledge gained till today by billions and trillions of brains and latest technologies can be evolved as wanted by random mutations in huge number of situations. 8. There are many examples of irreducible complexity where the whole organ/system needed to be evolved to function, by removing even one part of many parts will make the organ/system functionless. Small evolutions can't make that happen. Or we have to think that evolution occured with no use that remained in the organism and then further parts also evolved in the specific areas all evolutions fitted together to make the new organ/system start proper functioning. Evolutionists try to gives reasons in such situations by suggesting other functions to those parts which later became an irreducibly complex organ/system. But one thing they can't do

is to answer in such manner all the cases of irreducible complexity. 9. Theory of evolution needs extremely huge number of intermediary stages. But when it comes to fossil records they are so low that organisms with large and very large gaps are connected to prove ancestry trees. Furthermore, Evolutionists say that evolution can produce new systems and unique capabilities. If it was true humans would have witnessed from oldest known civilizations till now organisms getting evolved with new unique capabilities, systems, and designs but it is not the case. 10. There are animals which are very colourful, beautiful and have artistical designs on their body but they lack vision. Some of the reasons which scientists give as cause of evolution for beauty, colourful, artistic designs are: (i) Selecting mate with beauty: Goes out of question because the animal lacks vision. (ii) Other animal responsible in reproduction: Goes out of question because animals are not like flowers in reproduction where insects etc. who are colour attractive cause pollination. (iii) Environment matching: This also get out of question because usually the colours are so that make them visible and designs are so that do not match its surroundings. (iv) Selective Predators: Thinking that predators get pity on beautiful ones again doesn't make sense. Colourful ones are more attractive e.g. look that what human do with beautiful animals I think humans make them more extinct. (v) Humans may like to breed beautiful ones: For organisms in deep sea e.g. humans can have no role at all. Plus many blind beautiful animals are not bred by humans. 11. One of the assumptions for evolution is that Spontaneous generation occured only once and it can not be repeated. 12. If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus Homo. However, this is not the case.