Today many people cannot believe in God, and the reason is that they cannot fathom Him. That is to say, they cannot fit Him into their thinking. That would be rather obvious to the born again believer of course. However, it seems that some ‘modern’ people do not like a person who they cannot put into a box and label, like God. Another problem is that many people cannot accept that an all-powerful God formed the physical world, it seems more logical for them to think it happened spontaneously. In a sense, they say that spontaneous generation of anything is more logical than thinking that an all-powerful God created. Then another viewpoint is, why would an all-loving God allow tragedy, is that not proof that there cannot be a God since there is so much heartache in the world?
The problem with many people today is that they look at God from their own experiences and perspectives and not from God’s own revealed perspective, His Word. People grow up knowing that others say there is a God, but they do not always pursue God in a meaningful, deliberate way. When they start their careers and get involved in everyday life, they usually neglect or just plainly ignore thoughts of God. What happens next is that through many types of influences and through their life experiences, people lose faith in God or they reject any thoughts that a God exist because the issues of everyday life outweigh then their concept of God, a concept that normally is not based on sound Bible knowledge or experiences with God.
Looking at the world through logic alone and neglecting to regard God’s Word, cannot give us the answers we want in life, however hard we try to give answers to one another. Because life does not make sense many times, we like to put our own spin on why things happen the way they do, and then think that our own perspectives (own logic) on life seems reasonable. Why we would put so much credence in our own opinions when potentially 6 billion other humans also have theirs I do not know. We never had perfect knowledge of all of life; therefore, our own perspectives would be too short sited and should definitely not be taken too seriously. Therefore, looking at people like atheists/evolutionists/naturalists, how can they be so adamant that their faithless and naturalistic worldviews are correct? They think there is no logic in believing in a God.
For the atheist, evolutionist and the naturalist the world only makes sense without a God. That is in spite of the fact that they cannot logically explain the obvious supernatural nature of life, its origin. Even if you have to go back to the supposed big bang, it still seems more plausible to them that even the big bang was caused through ‘natural’ causes. Even though there were no natural laws to govern why a big bang should have taken place. To be empirical, they should also first have to prove their conclusion that there cannot be a God, but they cannot. This means that their own philosophy of life is based on a faith position, and as they will tell you, faith is not science. They should adhere to their own rules, it is never enough just to say there is no God or there cannot be a God, in science, which they adore, proof of a concept is the deciding factor and not dogmatic faith statements. In essence what the atheist/naturalist/evolutionist believe then is unscientific even though they make their boasting in their science which they say proves why the natural world looks like it does. The truth of the matter is that their unbelief in God is not through their scientific proof of it, but through their ignorance (on purpose or otherwise) of whom God is and how He reveals Himself.
The reason why I brought in the scientific argument against God here is because if someone loses his or her faith in God, what is left for such a person to believe? How does such a person explain life; how does such a person explain the universe, how does such a person explain what cannot be explained by natural means? If you do not believe a god of some kind created, I suppose then what is left is what the atheistic scientists say. But what happens if the scientists do not have the answers you want? In fact, they do not have the answers to the most basic of questions. Questions like why are we here cannot be answered scientifically because in modern atheistic science, there is no why. Why implies purpose and as the modern scientific community will tell you, there is no ultimate purpose in life since we are all the products of blind chance, a product of a disputed explosion that once took place.
Then we have the materialistic type of people who stick their heads in the sand saying they do not really care how they got here, they only live for the here and now. Nevertheless, if we want to be logical, and stop lying to ourselves by saying we do not care about life issues, then everyone should at some time in their life consider who is right about origins. If science were conclusive, then we would not have had this conversation. In addition, if God gave us the proof of His existence in the manner, which a faithless and perverse generation would want it, then we would also not have had a reason to discuss the logic of believing in God.
However, the reason why I wrote this article is because I believe if anyone of us is going to make a real unbiased assessment of what science teaches, then things like evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis (chemicals caused life) etcetera, will not satisfy as reasonable nor logical explanations of origins. It will still leave us wondering if there maybe wasn’t some other way we came into being. This trio of ‘science facts’ have serious scientific problems and do not prove that God did not create, they really leave things hanging in the air to put it mildly. The reality of today’s world is that the world agree to say that those things took place, they teach those things took place and the ignorant has strong belief that those things took place, but there is no proof that they took place.
God is not disproven, the Bible is not refuted the only thing that is true in the world is that there was a regime change, a shift in what is popular to believe, but the truth is, concerning why we are here, is still a matter of faith.
Evolution is a religious belief, if you do not believe me, just go and look for the proof and if you can find something the chances are that it is already substantially refuted by the Christian scientific community or by the Intelligent design movement. However, I will try to save you the trouble by saying the evidence for evolution can be interpreted anyway you like it to be interpreted. I have studied what both sides of the argument have to say and my conclusion is that science does not have answers on origins or why we are here or why we are so intricately put together. What science does have are many theories of how we got here, that’s it. Science had done allot of good in the world it brought us allot of great gadgets, but it just cannot say why or how or for how long we are here. Coming back to the evidence, If it says something is too young (according to age measurements) for the theory (evolution), they get a way for the evidence to fit the theory, if it is too old, they find a way to make the evidence fit or discard the evidence and say they have a corrupted sample. However, the theory, evolution is so ‘holy’ that it may never be disproved by such minor things as hard evidence (excuse the sarcasm).
This is what a professor said about some scientists, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it”. H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution". "Physics Bulletin”, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138: As quoted by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. Refuting Evolution, Answers In Genesis, 1999
The way the atheist/evolutionist/naturalist practices their ‘faith’ is through what they call science. However, what they fail to tell people is that there are two types of sciences. The one is experimental science or operational science this is the science, which brought us better medicine, television, the internet etcetera. But that type of science has nothing to do with the proof or disproof of God, it is repeatable it can be done by people who have faith in God and those who do not have faith in God, it is really very neutral where the Bible or atheism is concerned. Actually, operational science proves nothing concerning origins, though the atheist will say that because we landed people on the moon with our science that it also proves the conclusions of evolutionary thinking. However, that is just to confuse those unschooled in evolutionary philosophy.
Digging up old bones and saying they are transitional between apes and man has nothing to do with man landing on the moon even though atheists want to associate the two. The real practice of faith for these people is in the area of historical science or the ‘science’ of origins. Where did we come from is the scope of historical or origins science and the evolutionists are doing their utmost to prove the non-Biblical version of our origins. The Bible believer does not really involve himself or herself with that type of science though since God already told us how we got here. This does not mean of course that the Christian who is a scientist does not involve him or her in the investigation of the make-up of the universe or in anthropology etcetera. That only means they do not have the burden of proof of how God created because God already told us how He created. How are we anyway going to describe how God created the sun for instance? He just spoke and it was there. In addition, we as born again believers cannot be accused of taking the easy route of believing in what the Bible teaches either, if we call ourselves Christians or believers in the Bible, we do not really have a choice in the matter do we? Jesus says that God should sanctify us with the truth and then say God’s Word is truth.
Why should we as Christians not use the Bible as the starting point for what we believe to be the truth about our origins? If the Bible were given to us as a guide in life, then ignoring it for the sake of being ‘scientific’ would be like ignoring the users manuals for every manufactured item, citing since we do not believe in its maker, that that belief means it came here by chance and that the manual proves nothing. In addition, if we were going to speak about proof for the existence of God, what would be considered proof? Would people like to see Him, as Moses asked? Would it be the performance of miracles like the Pharisees asked? Would it be the DNA as it were of God, as the atheist would most probably want it? In a very real sense, God already gave us our requests; Moses did see Him, that is, His goodness in passing. The Pharisees did see miracles did they not; Nicodemus confessed to Jesus that he must have come from God because nobody could do the things He did. As for DNA, God gave us His son, and His Son is much more than just DNA to prove that God is real. Did Jesus not say; if you saw Me, you saw the Father?
However, today it seems that the atheist, even though he have not proven anything he believes about origins, have the upper hand in society. How this happened is still a puzzle to me, it seems that the Christian Church was asleep when the evolution doctrine were promulgated and then capitulated to fallible men who were very persuasive with their pseudo science and gave up on what the Bible teaches on origins. I say pseudo science because the fact is that since James Hutton came up with uniformitarian geology, the age of the earth changed at least four times. As I researched this, I found since the Bible was discarded as the source for the age of the earth that the age of the earth went from between 24 to 40 million years old in 1897 to the current 4.6 billion years, which is quite an increase in age. You do not really have to ask why there was such a change in age because there is a certain ‘theory’ that must be accommodated. Today it is clear that many scientists make it their aim to disprove the Bible and therefore God’s existence and it is very clear in the work of some of those in astronomy, geology, paleontology and those in anthropology amongst others, which ascribes millions and billions of years to what they see in their field of science. These scientists will tell us that they want to explore the stars to see how we originated, well were we not told how we originated? These scientists say they delve in the sand to know more about our ancestry and how they lived, but the ancestry they talk about are not our forefathers, but apelike creatures, were we not told in Genesis about our ancestry?
Today atheistic science will never openly say that they are trying to prove that God does not exist because they will probably offend the majority of the world’s population, but they do practice it vigorously. Now, you might say, “I cannot see that the atheist element in science want to prove that God does not exist”, well as I was, you are probably also ignorant of their devices. Not only are the atheistic science of today trying to prove to the world that God does not exist, they are busy evangelizing the world with their doctrine. It is already in many of the school systems all over the world, it is in many blockbuster movies, which we all enjoy and it is spoken of as if it is fact. The main weapon? Evolution.
Evolution is anti God, if evolution is true, then the Bible is lying to us, therefore the one who gave us the Bible is lying to us. If you hold to evolution, you are holding an anti God philosophy. You will have to read evolution into the Bible since you will never get it out of the Bible as a method that God used. It is a philosophy since it cannot be called a science because science is repeatable in a laboratory. Like I quoted before, evolution is a scientific religion and Godless science is brainwashing the world with this religion.
However, “prove this atheist conspiracy theory”, you may say to me well here we go:
The atheists are using the following to prove that God does not exist and all that exist are natural, ‘visual’ truth no spirituality. I am going to put their views against what the Bible say:
God created the Bible say
We came from Adam and Eve the Bible say
We are the apple of God’s eye the Bible say
Noah’s flood proves where fossils come from
The Bible say God created all the creatures
The Bible says that God will one day create a
new heaven and a new earth
The Bible say God is needed to survive
They say a big bang caused creation
They say we came through a series of precursor animals
They say there must also be aliens out there
They say slow accumulation of sediment caused the fossils
They say the fossils prove evolution of all creatures.
All they can see is that one day the universe will die a
‘heat death’ and all will be gone
They say we should plot our own course.
Briefly, that is the atheist position and if that is not anti biblical and anti God I do not know. Well, how logical are the inferences they have of creation? It seems to me that there is allot of faith involved in what they believe and allot to prove at that. Someone said, “I already have a faith (Christian beliefs), why should I replace it with their (evolutionists) faith?”
Let us look at the logic of atheists, naturalists, and evolutionists:
If you cannot believe in God, I suppose you have to believe in what is listed below:
-In the distant past, about 15 billion years ago an explosion took place, which started reality as we see it
-It caused space, matter, and time to be established
-Because it caused space, matter, and time, it literally happened outside of the universe, ex-nihilo (out of nothing)
-Our sun was eventually created from the remnant of other stars, which means stars are needed to make stars (another chicken and egg problem)
-Our sun just also happens to be a very stable star with no excessive solar flares, which would be detrimental to life on earth
-Our sun caught our planet as it went past in its gravity
-Our planet slowed down to a just right rotational speed to allow life
-It was caught at just the right distance from the sun for a good average temperature and for liquid water to exist
-It rotates at just the right angle to cause seasons
-It is at just the right size for good gravity for us
-It caught the moon in its gravity as it went past
-The moon is just the right size to cause good wave action in the see
-Then there were ‘just’ the right conditions for life to arise ‘spontaneously’
-This primitive life somehow survived in a lifeless environment not conducive for living
-Dead matter as a result of the above mentioned gave rise to life
-Dead matter gave rise to information, information storing and information decoding systems in living organisms (DNA, RNA, blood clotting, your brain, sight, smell, touch, hearing, taste, emotions, etc, etc, etc)
-The first living thing was just a cell, not fauna or flora
-It somehow started to replicate itself
-It somehow diverged into animal and plant life
-After billions of years here we are
-We are still evolving
Where is the proof? The just-so stories above are not proven; let us quote somebody here. “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 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 (derived by logic, without observed facts) 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 an absolute, for that we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin “Billions and billions of demons” The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31 As quoted by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. Refuting Evolution, Answers In Genesis, 1999
Normally we as Christians are laughed at for making statements of faith and being assertive because of what we believe through our faith in the Bible. Nevertheless, if we consider the statements of faith from the atheists, why isn’t anybody laughing at them? Could it be that the society is so well deceived that they are too afraid to ask for reasonable proof before they insert ‘science facts’ into school curriculums? If we look at the assertiveness of atheistic scientists, we will find a religious fanaticism that will rival any other. The points I have listed before are believed in implicitly. What was listed before is what is logical to the unbeliever in the Bible and in God. It is logical for nothing to explode and create everything, it is logical for chemicals to become alive, after all, we have seen it in the movies, but the problem is that we still have to see it in the laboratory.
For the atheist to prove that believing in a God is a dumb idea, he needs to prove that his idea of evolution is correct, and I suppose in the mind of many evolution is proven, but it is not. What we as world citizens should realize is that we cannot support both ideas of God and evolution, supporting one mean the other is wrong. I know that many Christians believe that God used evolution, or that God allowed evolution and then took over, but that is asinine.
My God do not need trial runs to get things right, He is not wasteful nor cruel to use a system like evolution to get what He wants and then give a soul to something that evolved its way to the top. For all the ‘evidence’ of the evolutionist, the creationist has an equally good (maybe better) interpretation. You see in historical science, everybody has the same evidence to look at; the interpretation of the evidence is where the big gulf lies. We all have biases, some better than others, but if your presuppositions never give any allowance for anything other than naturalistic explanations, I believe that you probably have an issue with God and His representatives than having a pure motive for not wanting to see what the evidence clearly suggests.
An example would be in order here. Let us take the issue of fossils into consideration.
Fossils are found on every continent, in most habitats and on the highest mountains in the world. A fossil is something that died, was killed or drowned, but it did not have the time to decay because it was covered by mud or muddy waters and was cut off from oxygen and any scavengers. Now, if fossils are found everywhere, in the same type of rock, even some giving birth while being trapped in sediment, is it logical and reasonable to conclude that the slow laying down of millimeters of sediment over millions of years caused all the fossilization of plants and animals we see? That is the conclusion of some of the atheistic scientists, but when the Bible and therefore God tell us of a catastrophic flood that covered the whole earth, and we conclude that a worldwide flood caused the fossils, we are laughed at. Nevertheless, the question remains, which conclusion is more logical? When scientists look at Mars, they say they saw canyons like the Grand Canyon, their conclusion is that a massive flood of Biblical proportions must have caused some of the canyons on Mars about 3.5 billion years ago (Noachian Epoch of Mars theory ), not only that, the hypothesis is that these canyons was formed in a matter of months. Just one problem, there is no water to speak of on Mars today, yet they draw that conclusion. However, when we look at the earth, with its 70% of water compared to 30% land, it is unreasonable to suggest that the topography of the earth was shaped by worldwide flood conditions, and that in the post flood conditions, the Grand Canyon was formed in a similar catastrophic way through flooding.
There is a double standard here, why can a massive flood create some of the topography on Mars where there is no water today, but when we get to our watery blue planet, the topography was formed very slowly over millions of years? Where is the logic in that?
Here are some of the problems you can investigate that the atheist/evolutionist/naturalist faces:
There is a problem with galaxies, which should not be as ordered as it is if the big bang theory was true. There is the problem of how did the earth, if it came about in a big bang theory way, slowed down enough to allow anything happening on it (conservation of angular momentum problem). Then for instance where was the moon billions of years ago because it moves away from the earth at about 4 cm a year, which means it must have been in contact with the earth ‘billions’ of years ago, just think of the massive waves that would have been caused by the close proximity of the moon. In our solar system, the planets are not all rotating around their axis in the same direction as they orbit the sun; in addition, the moons of some of these planets are not rotating around their axis in the same direction as they orbit their planets. If creation came about in a big bang way why aren’t all these planets and moons rotating in the same direction around the sun.
The ‘time’ question:
Dr Henry Morris said that “time is a vast rug under which all the problems of evolution are swept”. Did you know that (about) 90% of time tests, if you will, prove a relative young earth (not necessarily in the Biblical time frame of about 6000 years)? If we use the whole earth as a sample, what we gain is that there is not enough sodium (salt) in the sea. Then not enough helium in the atmosphere, the earth’s electromagnetic shield that protects us from harmful solar radiation would have been too strong in the past and will be too weak in the future.
In addition, continental erosion as measured today will have the consequence that the total surface of the earth above sea level will be eroded in 14 million years, if the rate of erosion was consistent, then the earth cannot be billions of years old. Then there is not enough ocean sediments in the ocean if it is about three billion years old the maximum amount of sediment would put the age of the ocean at a theoretical 15 million years (the consequences of Noah’s flood not taken into consideration). There are also other considerations we can mention, but let us leave it at that. However, to conclude the point, if we look at the above mentioned parameters for determining the age of the earth, it shows that the earth could never be billions of years old and that evolution could never have taken place.
The ignorance of many ‘learned’ people is very apparent when you listen to them speaking. It is obvious that their own concepts of what a God should be like are in the realm of fairy tales and super heroes. To them God should save the day, while they want to have nothing to do with God. The God many would like is what I want to phrase as the ‘spare wheel’ god. In other words, be near me and protect me when I need you, but do not interfere in my life as if I am accountable to You. However, since the God of the Bible do not fit the view of what the ‘learned’ say a God should be like; their conclusion is that He cannot exist.
But looking at the crux of the matter is there logic in believing in God? Was it just laziness to investigate life that pushed people towards believing in a god? Was the ‘primitive people’ of old too stupid as it were to see that life evolved? No, God made us intelligent, even though we sinned and that sin blighted our intellect, we can still conclude that God created and that evolution is the dumb idea. If ‘primitive’ people conclude that what they see must have been created by a god, is that because they had no technology or is that because it is pure logic? We think because we can see to the microscopic level that people of old were at a disadvantage to us and if they knew the intricacies of a cell, then they would conclude that things evolved, but that is not true. What we found out about life at the microscopic level is even worse than what the primitive peoples had to contend with. They only had to conclude that since they could use plants to heel themselves amongst other things that therefore the gods or God or a god had to give them the plants for example. However, if we look at DNA, which is more than just an information-bearing molecule of heredity, we as ‘sophisticated’ people must ask ourselves where did the information come from, let alone the whole plant or animal?
To the ‘primitive’ person what they see proves that there must be a god because it is logical that creation cannot happen out of nothing. For us who can see to the microscopic level it is very clear that life did not become any easier to explain, therefore for us who can see intricacies in things like DNA etc, those intricacies should prove even more that life could not have come about in an accidental way. We are in the same boat as the ‘primitive man’, what we see today still proves that God created and our technology shows nothing new to make us believe otherwise. The default view of humans was always that a god made everything, I am not aware of any ‘primitive’ tribe that hypothesized that they came from apes. However, as soon as we began to think more of ourselves than we should, or is that less, suddenly God was not good enough and we evolved.
Before Darwin, evolution was not very popular and was generally a non-starter as a scientific theory. Nevertheless, when he gave the theory new ‘clothes’ (like the emperor in the fairytale) as it were; people suddenly saw merit in it. Why? Because he gave all the evidence for it? No, because he gave people a new excuse to get away from God. It was never science that upheld evolution, but the faith that scientists had in evolution that kept the idea from dying. Even though the conclusion of the atheist is that everything has a naturalistic explanation and the evolutionist says that evolution explains everything in biology, to more than 90% of the world’s population, it seems clear and logical that a god of some kind created, nevertheless, such a consensus does not count to the atheist. To use the words of Richard Dawkins, it would seem that 90% of the world has a “God delusion”.
It then follows that only atheists/evolutionists/naturalists have pure undeluded thought patterns, at least according to mister Dawkins.
Have the atheist/evolutionist/naturalist considered their position?
The big bang theory cannot be proven and there are quite a few of them. Evolution is not proven, full stop. Missing links were never found and evolution theory does not predict the fossil evidence we see, quite the opposite in fact. Age tests of rocks are inconclusive since dates do not concur and are based on suppositions of starting conditions that cannot be proven. Contrary to what is believed by the public, fossils cannot be dated by radioisotope dating because it is found in sedimentary rocks. Therefore evolutionists came up with what they call index fossils, what this mean is that to get to the millions of years; they take the unitarian view that the geologic column of rock layers, which really does not exist, presupposes a time scale. The bottom layers are the oldest and the top layers the youngest. If a fossil is found in which ever layer, that fossil gets the supposed age of that layer. However if sedimentary rocks is found elsewhere, where the age cannot be determined by the layers, they look to see if any fossils are found nearby and if they get fossils in that rock strata which are index fossils, the rock gets the age of the fossil. Work that one out! They use the rock to date the fossil and the fossil to date the rock. Is that the logic of atheistic science? Circular reasoning? Consider the following quote,
“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” J. E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". "American Journal of Science”, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 53.
Living creatures, where did they came from? Well it is logical to the atheist that it came from a primordial soup. That is to say, it happened spontaneously from a primordial see in which chemicals gave rise to life. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life many years ago, but it is still believed by very brilliant scientists today, no sarcasm intended. People used to believe that life arose spontaneously from dead matter, but Louis Pasteur proved that life comes from life. That should be obvious, because a rock cannot bring forth. Not so, says the evolutionist. Rocks that weathered, which was taken downstream and broken down into their chemical elements concentrated into pools and at the right time with stupendous luck ( lightning strikes ) became alive. If you look logically at what is called ‘abiogenesis’ that is what atheists believe.
That cannot be science logically life comes from life.
When Sir Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA, saw the complexity of DNA, he did not marvel at evolution, which brought forth the DNA molecule, he believes, and I am not trying to be funny here, that aliens must have seeded the earth, because such a molecule cannot have evolved. This man who shared the Nobel Prize for science just could not believe that such a complicated thing can arise from sludge to put it like that.
To me at least the limits of science shows to God rather than to unsubstantiated theories. People say that the scientists of the future will have more knowledge and will be able to prove the conclusions of the atheist/evolutionist/naturalist, but will they build a time machine? No, the past is in the past you cannot make inferences of the past and be dogmatic about it. If the evolutionist cannot prove his faith in his laboratory, he should yield to the facts that stare him in the face. His theory, which is underpinned by a 148 years of science, has not given him anymore knowledge of origins than Darwin had. Darwin came up with a ‘workable’ theory of origins in 1859 to give an excuse to people who did not want to accept God, but he did not establish any truth all he established was a method for people to be misled. In hindsight, with today’s technology, would he still have come to the same evolutionistic conclusion? His advocates has much more to test the theory with than he could ever have dreamt about, but alas his theory is still floundering, and is kept up as a fact by the faith of many scientists.
For us, the believers in God, the Word of God is the logic of God and we accept that logic by faith because it makes sense and were given by Someone who proved to us that He is trustworthy. To look at the phenomenal world and then end up with a conclusion that it all came about by chance is an affront to reason, that is an insult to the intelligence of humanity not to mention an insult to God. It is illogical to believe nothing became something naturally then exploded and then 15 billion years later you get humans working on computers discussing how we got here.
The evolutionist looks at the stars and galaxies, at DNA, symbiotic relationships in nature, the complexity of the human brain, the order in the galaxies, and the order of life at the microscopic level and still cannot see God. Then he looks at his proof for evolution, when the proof does not correlate, he invokes? Chance, a quantum fluctuation (temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing). Or punctuated equilibrium (long intervals in which nothing changed ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by short, revolutionary transitions, in which species became extinct and replaced by wholly new forms). Or ‘hopeful monsters’ (an event of instantaneous-speciation, saltation, or systemic mutation, which contributes positively to the production of new major evolutionary groups), or mutations, and for him it is clear that life with its origins included was and is and will be a big lottery. There is no logic to believing anything an evolutionist says. The logic that God exist is self-evident, it is an axiom, 90% of the world can see God or at least a god made what we see, but it is too much for the learned professors to believe.
21 Mega pixel cameras, 407 km/h cars, 300 km/h trains, space shuttles, ‘channel tunnels’, wireless internet, 8 gigabyte cell phone memory cards, laptop computers, high speed internet connections, fibre optic wiring etc, etc, etc, equals evolution from apes? I think not (because it is illogical and not proven). When an ape is born, it is an ape, it grows up, it is trained by its parents to survive, it has an instinct that drives it, and at the height of its power, it is still an ape. When it dies, the remnant is the remnant of an ape, it does not leave its technology, its civilisation, its culture, its art, its religion and it does not pass it on to its children it is an, hard wired (instinct driven) animal placed under our dominion.
Biologists have studied apes for years, they still did not move towards anything more than just being an ape, they are for all intense and purposes content in there instinct. They are just obeying God’s directives for their lives and cannot go any higher than that. But we were fearfully, wonderfully made. Let us create man in our image, God said.
We were made brilliant, with wisdom, we can get more and more understanding that leads to more and more knowledge. However, here lies our problem, inevitably the knowledge we gain puffs us up and we get too great in our own eyes. Then dumb ideas, like evolution comes along and make fools of the most brilliant amongst us and I ask is it not obvious in the atheists/naturalists/evolutionists?
The Bible says in; Psalm 53:1 KJV “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” What we should always remember is that the devil will always come to us with the same words he came to Eve with, what was those words? Genesis 3v1 MKJV “Is it so that God has said?” In other words, is the Word of God really reliable? Can it be believed in the light of modern science? We should watch out that we are not misled by the trickery of men in their cunning craftiness and in their ability to spin a story that sounds reasonable.
Let me end of with some closing remarks, scientists want to claim that they work with facts, while they disregard the truth of the Bible. However, if they cannot prove what they believe in the laboratory isn’t it clear then that they do not have the facts to back up their claims? And why do they call their theories proved, is that not misleading people on purpose for their religion’s sake? What gives atheists/evolutionists/naturalists the right to criticize the faith of the Christian? Everything they believe about origins is unsupported by the facts, whatever they say happened is inferred and it is not founded on hard evidence. Read the next couple of sentences and judge for yourself if a person who believes what is written next has the right to judge anyone.
Those who ridicule the Bible believe the following.
That a big bang literally happened nowhere and is the cause of everything we see.
That dead chemicals became alive.
Those chemicals became a single celled organism, which turned into plants and animals.
Then later after fishes evolved, the fishes became amphibians.
The amphibians came out the water and became reptiles.
The reptiles turned into birds and mammals.
Of the mammals, some who is named ungulates (hoofed creatures) actually went back into the water, evolved or devolved their legs so that there could be flippers and then somehow evolved in such a way that their noses moved to the top of their heads and became the whales or cetaceans we see today.
But that is not enough mammals became certain apelike creatures, which eventually turned into modern apes and humans.
What a story, one evolutionist was confronted with the question whether he believed that humans are related to bananas and he had to concede that technically he had to believe that but replied, because of the common ancestor between plants and animals that humans are not related to bananas, but to banana trees see reference below. Apparently, it is more logical to believe what is written above and that those who believe the Bible do not have the intellect to see that what is written above actually happened. However, what right do such persons have who believe fairytales like ungulates becoming whales to criticize what anyone believes?
Banana tree story from the debate between creation scientist Kent Hovind vs. evolution teacher Massimo Pigliucci, from www.sermonaudio.com
The Bible says of such people, Romans 1:21-22 KJV “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”
They became fools, how sad that very talented people, very brilliant thinkers cannot see that God advertised Himself to them in nature and chose to believe lies. It is logical to believe in God and after we saw what the atheist/evolutionist/naturalist believe, do not let anyone tell you otherwise.