So far, we’ve examined:
- There is an absolute moral standard in the universe.
- There is something greater than myself
- That something set up those absolute moral standards.
- That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
- If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
- If it was created, it had a creation.
- If it had a creation, it had a creator.
- If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
- A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
- There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
- If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
- It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
- The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theory also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
- Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
- There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
- radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
- Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great
- The laws of thermodynamics prevent the Big Bang or Evolution for that matter to be valid science
- Gambler’s Ruin decrees that sooner or later the gambler loses – so the Big Bang and Evolution should have degenerated into chaos and death long before life arose.
- Space is a vacuum. Prior to the creation of the universe, there was nothing to slow down particles once accelerated. After the Big Bang, all the subatomic particles should have just kept flinging on into space… forever.
- There was nothing to cause the subatomic particles to form atoms and molecules. Still no satisfactory explanation from Science how this happened.
- Gas is too nebulous and lacks sufficient weight and mass to start the attraction of elements to one another, and would not have compacted into ultra-dense objects to become stars.
- We lack discovery of any active proto-stars or stage 1 stars, required for the theory of the birth of stars.
- We lack any organizing external force to cause any of the elements to change into heavy metals such as Uranium necessary to cause the star to explode from compacting.
- If the first and second laws of Thermodynamics prevent all of this from “Just happening”, what external force caused it to happen?
- Compacting gasses requires some external force.
- Gas is composed of elements very low on the periodic table. It has VERY little weight, and almost no mass.
- Science truly has no way to explain stars, solar systems and galaxies.
- Science has conflicting theories about how planets formed, all of which lack evidence
- We should be crowded with plutoids and planets if the Universe is as old as Evolutionists claim – and yet we’re not.
- According to evolutionists, the earth had no air when the planet was first created, and the rocks absorbed it. (Huh?)
- most so-called fossil evidence is actually plaster. Many exhibits are constructed from a few actual bones. One species of “primitive man” was constructed from a single tooth, which turned out to be… from a pig. Oops.
- The Schoolbooks still present a long time between the creation of the Earth, and the origin of life – but Gould wrote that the evidence shows that life arose on Earth “as soon as it cooled enough to support it.”
- A simple display of logic blows huge holes in the theory of Evolution – any living thing that spontaneously was created would have to have a way to take in nutrition, process that nutrition, excrete wastes, and duplicate itself. The odds against that rise so phenomenally high that it has to be discarded as impossible.
- The Miller-Urey experiments were deliberately conducted in a way to produce favorable results – and still produced nothing more than amino acids that could not have supported life, and were insufficient in number to have sustained life.
- Scientists are now convinced that all of the parameters used by Miller-Urey were incorrect.
- If science is still going to champion Miller-Urey, they need to redo the experiment with the correct parameters.
- I will buy and mail a King James Bible at my own expense to any scientist who reduplicates the Miller-Urey experiments with the correct parameters, for helping to disprove evolution.
- The odds of a complete DNA-RNA strand and the correct m-RNA, Amino Acids, s-RNA etc. arising by chance is 10 to the 600th power – far beyond the level mathematicians dismiss as impossible.
- The odds of dropping 200 decks of cards and having them all land in order by suite are roughly comparable to the odds of DNA-RNA arising by chance.
- The argument of “top of the food chain” is flawed.
- There are many animals with more chromosomes than human beings, including shrimp and crayfish. At least we have more than a mouse.
- the various methods of carbon dating an object make a number of assumptions, some of which have already been proven inaccurate, as far back as 1930
- The various methods of carbon dating an object fail to take many variables into account that can skew the results greatly.
- Science once advocated “Spontaneous generation”, invented to explain the appearance of mice in clothing left in a corner. Science has returned to that theory.
- The major error of spontaneous generation is that you’d need two “happy monsters” appearing at roughly the same narrow window of time, and very close to one another geographically. The odds against this are now multiplied so drastically they fall far below the “Vanishing point” of probability.
- mutations are usually the result of something lost or corrupted in the genetic code (or the random repeating of existing code, such as a sixth finger), and not added.
- There are no historic examples of any mutations adding something to their genetic code and passing them on down to successive generations.
- most mutations are hazardous to the host, and usually result in their early death
- DNA-RNA is locked like a combination lock, and makes evolution and “adaptation”/”natural selection” impossible
- Evolutionists rarely consider the hundreds of transitory stages required to deviate from one species to another.
- The steps of transitory change from T-Rex to Pelican creates so many difficulties for survival as to contradict “adaptation”/”natural selection”
- we have no “fossil record” showing transitory phases between any one kind of animal and another, when we should see thousands of transitory fossils between T-rex and bird, and any other kind of animal and any other. Embarrassingly, we’ve got nothing except conjecture for two animals whom we have only a couple of bones from, and whom scientists posit as two intermediary stages for whales.
- the slow development of wings on the T-rex would have made it impossible for him to evolve, as eventually the transitory stages would have killed by starvation all Trexes that reached the midway point.
- There’s no need to T-rex to have evolved smaller if he’d developed suddenly wings and flight.
- Animals do not evolve smaller. they end up that way temporarily if they are deprived sufficient food during development.
- A catastrophe would have been too quick for the T-rex to begin a slow, gradual evolution to bird.
- All the fossil record proves is that these animals died.
- The Cambrian Explosion refutes the theory of evolution, in that all the lving beings on earth appeared at once, fully formed, with no transitory forms
- The Geologic Column is not consistent worldwide, and often does not conform to the theory
- The geologic column is far more consistent with a worldwide flood than with the “Billions of years/slow gradual rise and change of life” model that science likes to portray
- All the fossil record proves is that something died
- petrification takes places much faster than evolution claims, perhaps only a year.
- By Darwin’s own admission, his theory relies on progressive, slight modifications over a large period of time to create organs – or his theory breaks down.
- The respiratory, circulatory and pulmonary systems are all interrelated – how did this evolve? The absence of one causes the host animal to die.
- How could an animal live with only one of the first five stages of any of those systems?
- What advantage would the host animal gain from having a rudimentary heart, but no blood or oxygen?
- What advantage was passed onto the host animal from the first elementary five stages of the development of the eye? There must be a demonstrable advantage for the host animal to pass on that genetic code.
- The Trilobite, supposedly one of the first animals, had an incredibly sophisticated eye – no rudimentary eye can be seen.
- There are only 26 places on earth where the fossil record for the most part resembles the geologic column. There are over 50,000 that do not.
- Evolution has no proof of cross-kind divergence (rodent to dog), but rather, turns to inter-kind breeding (Wolf to German Shepherd) to prove its theory
- There is no missing link – there should be millions of missing links. The whole chain is missing.
- Science is observable and demonstrable. Evolution is neither.
- The Grand Canyon bears evidence of having been created in a universal flood, only a few thousand years ago.
- There have been quite a few “Early Man” finds that later were revealed to be hoaxes, simply monkeys of one kind or another, actual human remains, or even in one case a pig.
- These same hoaxes or errors often remain in textbooks long after being disproved
I’m going to backtrack a bit, since some of my very first contentions apparently upset some people, which was of course not my intentions.
At least two people objected to the definition of Atheist as “One who does not believe there is a God.” I’m using it in its politest sense. The actual definition stems from its translation from the Greek: A (no, against, without) The’os (God).
Literally it means “without God” or “against God.
The New Atheists, I am told, often hold to a position of “We do not know for sure there is a God” or “we cannot know whether there is a God or not” – which would be A (no, against, without) Gnosis (knowledge). A Gnostic, in the common vernacular.
The argument that was cited against me was The Appeal to the Group: “Most atheists I know hold to the second definition.” That’s known as the Lemmings argument. Our parents often dealt with that by asking, “And if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” Saying “all my friends call themselves doctors” when they’ve never been to medical school would be a fallacious argument, so the appeal to the group is not a valid refutation.
Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind both repeat the fact that most Atheists are in face Agnostics, which does appear to be the case. I would rather use the correct term myself. And again I apologize if it makes anyone angry. If you’re NOT an Atheist, and you object to the first couple of articles which dealt with Atheism, I woud suggest you save your ire for any articles dealing with agnosticism. Which – there’s not going to be any.
If you don’t know if there’s a God, I have plenty of writings (and more on the way) in which I will deal at length with this issue. Indeed, I already dealt with quite a few common objections to the existence of God. If someone is seeking, I will help.
And while my critics have rightfully pointed out I should not say what another persons reasons are – I’ll reply by saying that on your own blogs, you do this far more often when speaking of Christians than I did about Atheists – which you even admit not to being.
However, I will say this – you took offense at what I described in the very first article as MY thought process, MY reasoning. I can only assume that subconsciously it echoed your own for my talking about MY OWN rationale to have offended at least three people.
Let’s move at last to the Absolute Moral standard.
This is actually an sociological study. A quick comparison of moral codes and laws of cultures all over the world show that many forbid the same activities. Like, killing your next door neighbor and eating them. This points to a common reference of thinking. It usually takes famine to reduce a group to cannibalism. Yes, some cultures used cannibalism in warfare to show the ultimate contempt for a foe. Again, this points right back to the absolute moral standard: “I despise you so much I an willing to violate the most basic taboos concerning you.” I point to the Maori’s who would stick their tongues out at their opponents before battle. The meaning? “I’m going to eat you.” The absolute contempt depicted showed a willingness to violate basic taboos.
Murder, theft, and rape are almost universally condemned in almost every culture. If we are products of blind chance, then there’s no reason to have these taboos, or laws against these acts. It might be argued that if I were to beat a person and take their belongings, evolution would approve of that act. Why? Survival of the fittest. But this action is universally outlawed. Earliest cultures can be shown to sometimes have the most violent reactions to such behavior, such as death or disfigurement. If you didn’t learn not to steal after the first time, you lost the ability to do so, unless you could pick someone’s pocket with your teeth.
The laws enacted by these cultures are there to protect you. As my father used to say, “There’s always a bigger horse.”
The understanding these are deviant behaviors point to a common understanding of what is right and wrong. Indeed, the most basic understanding of mental illness is an incapacity to tell right from wrong. Or in the case of sociopaths, an incapability to understand how those two concepts apply to themselves.
This points to an understanding there is something higher than ourselves. I’m going to come right out and tell you that’s God. That’s your first evidence there is a God, the Absolute Moral Code.
The whole case for Christianity can be made in a matter of minutes of simple logic and deduction. If there’s a creation, there’s a creator. If there’s an absolute moral code, then there’s a source for it. And it points to a Holy God, who determines by His very nature what is right and wrong. If you violate what is right and commit what is wrong, then this is a sin.
There’s no obvious way encoded in human nature to remove sins. If I offend you and apologize, it’s not going to immediately remove the hurt or anger incurred. I have to restore myself to your good graces eventually.
We’ve got no way to remove our sins. If we are condemned by our sins, that means God must then dispose of them for us. Why? You can’t do it. There’s no WAY to remove your own sins. So God has to do it.
Christianity is the only religion on earth in which God Himself must pay for our own sins, because we’re incapable of it. God loves you that much He came to earth and died for you. It’s a free gift, yours for the choosing, to accept that free offer.
I actually cannot see why anyone would not avail themselves of that forgiveness. Especially when a few minutes thinking of a Holy God’s nature would show that there must be a judgment for sin.
So, choose. Eternal punishment for your own sins, or complete forgiveness, absolutely free. Your choice. You have the REST OF YOUR LIFE to choose.
I recommend choosing now, since you have absolutely no idea how much longer that will be.
Common objection: “If there’s a God, why doesn’t He tell us He exists?”
Answer: He does. He left you a book.
Common objection: “Why should I accept the Bible? It’s one book out of many.”
Answer: That’s a completely different question. There’s enough proofs for Christianity, and enough things that set it apart from other religions. Like – this empty tomb in Jerusalem. Nobody else has a God that came to earth, died for mankind, and rose from the dead physically. We say the Holy Bible is inspired of God. You can of course wait until He returns, but i’m just going to say – if you’ve never read the book of Revelation, you’re going to have to live through everything between chapter’s 4 through the end. You might want to read it. The odds of you personally living through the Tribulation are extremely low.
I’d choose Jesus now, before it’s too late. Because the moment that “…every eye shall see Him” is the TOO LATE moment.
Recommended reading –
- Gospel of John
- Gospel of Matthew
- Gospel of Mark
- Gospel of Luke
- 1 John (the first epistle of John)
If you remain unconvinced after this, re-read. And try this: praying. See if God answers you. You might be surprised.