Skip to content
Advertisements

Contemplating God & Evolution

I have never understood why people who claim to be scientists, by a vast majority, also call themselves atheists.  The study of science, erroneously credited as the premier doorway to knowledge, must inevitably lead to awe, humility and at the very minimum, heavy proof of intelligent design.  And yet, according to today’s scientists, it doesn’t.  They don’t see a giant elephant in the room.  So, I would like to propose the following questions & have an atheist answer them:

Does evolution’s notion that the design of all life is powered by the need to improve its own procreation answer the following questions?

1)  Why is music soothing to our souls?  Why does it make us dance?  Why do some songs inspire people to war?  Where does the power of music come from?

2)  Why does the concept of beauty exist?  Must we love the sight of a sunset to prove our viability as a mate?  Why should we love the sight of an ice storm on bare trees?  How does that help us?  According to evolution, prehistoric people all evolved in heat soaked lands.

3)  Why does one man give his life for a stranger?  If that man is young, then his genes are gone forever.

4)  If evolution is the law of design on earth, then it must be the law of design in the entire universe.  That is the nature of scientific law- it is universal.  So, why isn’t there life on every planet?  Evolution enthusiasts claim water is necessary for evolution to work.  There is no water anywhere else in the universe- that we have found, anyway.  So why would the laws of evolution evolve around water?  Are the laws of the universe dependent on Earth and its needs?  Why couldn’t life spontaneously occur in any atmospheric condition?  Light exists in every atmospherics condition.  So does gravity.  Things fall on every planet.  Why do living things not evolve on every planet?

Does the Big Bang theory (or any current theories of creation) explain the following questions:

1)  Where did the physical laws of nature come from that powered the Big Bang explosion?  Light, heat, gravity, entropy, thermodynamics, time, space etc- were all present at the time of the explosion.  This implies they existed before the explosion.  Is it an assumption that these concepts needed to exist before all creation?  If so, why?  Why must there be light or heat?  Couldn’t there feasibly be universes that do not have these things?

2)  The big bang theory says that the bodies of the universe were created through this massive explosion.  But… where did all the matter involved in the Big Bang come from?  As we know, energy and matter are interchangeable.  So, where did the original energy come from?  Is it an assumption that all energy in the universe existed before the explosion?  If so, where did it come from?  Or are we assuming that massive energy must exist for a universe to exist?  Why?  Couldn’t we imagine a state of existence that doesn’t need energy?  I can.  And I’m no scientist. (ha!)

Here are just a few more interesting questions:

1)  Mankind can now create life (did you all know that?).  And yet, we say that no one could have created us!  Is this logical?

2)  Mankind searches for extra-terrestrial life forms.  We believe there are life forms more intelligent than us.  And yet, we refuse to acknowledge that intelligent life forms can exist that are so much more intelligent than us that we consider him to be God.  Is this logical?

3)  Mankind has invented an invisible cloak (did you know that?).  And yet, we say it is impossible that super intelligent life forms (angels) can be here, unseen.  Is this logical?

4)  Mankind has discovered proof of alternate realities (did you know that?).  And yet, we say that there can be no intelligent life form (God) that can be able to know the past as well as the future.  Is that logical?

I find it interesting that although there are no answers that can be proposed by current ‘scientific’ knowledge, atheist scientists cling, well.. religiously, to their notions of evolution, big bang or whatever other theory they are throwing around.  Despite the incredibly heavy, statistical, and obvious logic, the very idea of Intelligent design is thrown out as ‘rainbows & fairies’.    This, my friends, speaks more about a repugnance of the bended knee than to the love of knowledge.

Those who would claim the mantle of ‘truth seeker’s must indeed love the truth more than their own personal hang-ups.  If nothing proves the existence of God & Jesus, the hate directed toward them does.  It is illogical.  Illogical things are not things of science & math.  They are things of the human spirit.  And Christianity is the only answer that addresses this malady of the human spirit.  It also offers us the truth and the absolute freedom to seek it.  The bended knee is just wonderful that way…isn’t that so ironic?

Advertisements

33 Comments »

  1. I absolutely LOVED how you debated with handyliberal you handled it VERY well. I believe you need to come out with tons of books or at least documentaries to help educate people! You know, I view science amazing and I am soon to be a nursing student and the fact that the body amazes me so much (growing up with a Christian background) I don’t need explanations on how everything works. It just does because God is good and He made us/everything! I also cannot stand when people push science to going against believing in God, it only proves more that He does certainly exist, He is real and is everywhere. Everything is orderly because of Him. Thank you for what you have posted and you truly have helped me how to ‘debate’ with non-believers. I try not to associate or argue because it just leads to the breaking apart of words and ‘define’ this and ‘define’ that, as you say its just frustrating. People just need to accept it. 🙂

  2. Sorry to spam: this comment is a test. I have tried to post a particularly long comment twice now, but to no avail…

    • I’ll try splitting my actual comment into smaller parts… I wonder if it’s a problem with copy-pasting.

      Short Little Rebel, You said, “If evolution is the law of design on earth, then it must be the law of design in the entire universe. So, why isn’t there life on every planet?” To answer your question: maybe life WILL evolve on every planet eventually. However, we know so far that certain types of atoms (carbon, for instance) develop into life more easily than other types of atoms. Maybe several quadrillion years from now, life WILL evolve from every type of atom, everywhere in the universe; we just don’t know.

      Regarding the concept of “order,” I think you have actually supported my point by saying “I think most people would agree that to pile something into the center of the tray is ‘disordered’ and that pretty much any intentional grouping is ‘orderly’” and also “Even if the nature of the universe is to ‘fall apart’, that doesn’t mean that ‘falling apart’ isn’t a precise, orderly thing!” My point -was- that “order” exists only as a perception in the brain of an animal. The universe doesn’t cause “disorder” ; everything the universe does is precise and without intention, happening according to neutral physical laws. “Order” can be defined to apply to ANY arrangement of ANYTHING. Order is nothing. The point I am trying to make is that the arrangement of matter and energy that makes up a human body cannot be considered orderly or disorderly. The universe doesn’t consider it to be orderly or disorderly. The universe doesn’t consider it at all. The matter in the body of a human -does- stay “organized,” though, at least for the lifespan of the human. This does require energy and new matter, and those things come from food. Not from God. (Though it is entirely possible that some “God” created the matter and energy that makes up the food and the human).

      • Handy Liberal, I have to say that you are doing what all non-believers do (if they will stay to converse): you are chosing to nit pick on symantics, hair split on definitions, and overall muddy the waters until the conversation becomes so esoteric that there is no longer any meaning to it. Note that I wrote about this. I have a rule: I will never try to convince someone of God’s existance. Why? Because you already KNOW it. Satan is using your love of science, your bitterness, your pride, your youth, etc to keep you from God. As I wrote in my article, God makes it HARD to come to Jesus. He wishes for true love. He could convince you if he wanted, but what good is that kind of love? Here are a few Bible verses to show you what I mean. You have to submit first to Jesus and only THEN will you get it. Please do this for yourself, Handy. You seem like a nice person. But being ‘nice’ is not good enough. You need to come to a place of true love & worship. I wish you the best..

        “Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.”- 1Corinthians 1:27

        “That is why I use these parables, For they look, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.”- Matthew 13:13 (Jesus spoke these words)

        “33Jesus used many similar stories and illustrations to teach the people as much as they could understand. 34In fact, in his public ministry he never taught without using parables; but afterward, when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything to them.” Mark 4:33

        1These are the proverbs of Solomon, David’s son, king of Israel.
        2Their purpose is to teach people wisdom and discipline,
        to help them understand the insights of the wise.
        3Their purpose is to teach people to live disciplined and successful lives,
        to help them do what is right, just, and fair.

        4These proverbs will give insight to the simple,
        knowledge and discernment to the young.
        5Let the wise listen to these proverbs and become even wiser.
        Let those with understanding receive guidance
        6by exploring the meaning in these proverbs and parables,
        the words of the wise and their riddles.

        7Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge,
        but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
        Proverbs

        “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you”.- Matthew 7:6

    • I’m still having trouble with this… I got part of my comment to post, but I’m having trouble getting the rest to post. I’ve submitted different parts of the comment several times, and it seems like the submission goes through, but the comment just doesn’t ever show up. I hope they don’t all show up at once! Anyway, again, sorry for spamming… I don’t know what has happened to any of my failed submissions, but I hope they aren’t causing any problems on your end, Short Little Rebel.

    • Sorry you had trouble, Handy. I, too, have been experiencing technical difficulties on WordPress. Satan, perhaps? ;-D. I think WP is either making changes or is having some difficulties. In any case, Handy, I’m afraid our clock has run out on this conversation. It is up to you now. Please don’t forget Jesus when life gets you down, ok? Be blessed and God be with you…Susan

      • Alright, Short Little Rebel. Thank you for the stimulating conversation and the well-wishes.

  3. Short Little Rebel,

    I admire your passion. I also want to remind you that I am -not- an atheist. However, I feel you have not acknowledged the things I’ve said in my comments very seriously; I feel like you are either choosing not to take time to think about my statements, or you are skimming very quickly over what I say (as I did with your original post! Sorry!)

    I would like it if you could answer a few questions of mine before we really continue our discussion, if you care to continue with me:

    Please explain what an “emotion” is.

    Please explain the concept of “Intelligence.”

    Please explain the concept of “order.” What is order?

    And one more, related to “order,” since you’re a sciency type of person (I am too!): Imagine that I carefully set up a tea pot, several tea cups, and silverware on a polished silver tray. I then place the entire setup in the middle of the vacuum of outer space far enough away from any other matter that gravity outside of the tea set “system” is negligible. The tea set is also isolated enough from any source of EM waves so as to be unaffected. Would my tea set become “disorganized” ? Keep in mind Newton’s first law (the law of inertia).

    • Hi Handy Liberal,

      Thank you for your sincerity. I am sorry if I seemed to not take your arguments very seriously. I will attempt to do a better job this time- especially since you are such a polite liberal! (are you sure you are a liberal?) lol!

      Ok. I wasn’t in a rush when I discounted your questions. I simply could not see their relevance. You need to explain why you feel the definition of emotion, intelligence & order are important to this discussion. To me, that is a side track from the argument. One could explain the biochemical reactions that take place during these ‘events’, but that would not address the question of how they came into being in the first place. Even if one could find & understand the processes that take place- or the physiological structure of intelligent people’s brains (as opposed to less intelligent people) it still would not address the question of God & the beginning of creation. To address the concept of ‘order’ is the same. People will get into great debates about the mathematics of ‘order’. Inevitably, the ‘chaos theory’ pops up. The discussion becomes so esoteric that the conversation becomes lost & meandering. To define chaos vs. order doesn’t address the larger question of God vs. ‘it just happened’. One MUST step back and look at the overall philosophical questions & critical logic- not get mired in the details.

      That is why I don’t delve into those questions when addressing human motive and the larger questions of life. It is pointless & leads nowhere.

      In essence, why bother defining those things when we can’t answer how they ‘got going’ in the first place! It is putting the cart before the horse, don’t you think? One must look at the moment of creation first.

      Now, as to your tea pot example: Of course it would become disorganized! I’m not sure how you would provide the gravity to keep those items on your plate in space without movement or a large mass to provide it. But eventually, something would change your scenario! Perhaps a comet? an asteroid? a solar flare? a piece of space junk? Why assume ‘space’ is nothingness? Why assume that negating those few physical issues is to remove everything possible law from your system?

      I understand that your question is a thought experiment. But thought experiments are not allowed to leave the confines of reality to be valid. Real life is chaotic. No system remains untouched & constant forever. There are many bodies floating about in ‘space’. And they degrade the same as anything else would. Space is not a true vacuum, either. Have you heard the recent theories of ‘dark matter’? Is space a ‘vacuum’? Or is space made up of something? Something that can affect the bodies ‘floating’ around in them? Black holes exist and ‘tear’ or warp space- so how can space be…nothing.

      it makes me laugh. Why do people assume that their ‘discoveries’ are right? and yet, ‘scientists’ are always so excited & amazed when they figure out that previous theories were WRONG! A good scientist will KNOW their current theory is wrong and assume that it is only one interesting step toward knowing EVERYTHING. A scientist with pure motives wishes to see EVERYTHING and love the result of every experiment. Nothing should make them wish to produce a certain result. This bias is so obvious in so many scientists that they lose credibility- (think, global warming scientists tweaking their data…)

      Your tea set example assumes so much. To seek the truth in life, one must evaluate the human motive behind the search for truth. If the motive is pure (i.e., the person doesn’t care what the outcome of the search is- even if they must finally accept that God exists and if they do, be willing to submit to him), then you can have more faith in their ‘results’. If their motive is not pure (i.e., they really wish to skew their discoveries to suit a personal motive- God DOESN’T exist, global warming is true), then you must take their results & conclusions with a grain of salt.

      Personally, I love science & math. The more I study, the more I see the hand of God. I am a designer and as such, must step back and admire the DESIGN we live in. In Genesis, it says that God created Light & Darkness. THEN, much later, he created heavenly bodies to GIVE light. As a designer, this makes perfect sense. First, God set the parameters of our existence. Only after he designed it did he BUILD it. You need a plan, a schematic, before you build. First, God said, “I will create a universe that has a thing called, LIGHT. And then I will create the bodies that will emit it.” God set the LAWS of NATURE in place, before he created the matter/energy to make the design real. You have to understand that God had to explain his creation to an ancient man who didn’t have the same science understanding that we have today. And yet, Genesis, though boiled down in simple terms, follows the scientific process perfectly. Even the emphasis on water! Go read Genesis and you will be amazed. The possibility of Evolution being the means God used to create the variety of life we see is even in there. It says that God ‘made the land bring forth all manner of life”. Get it? The LAND brought forward ALL MANNER of life! This is evolutionary theory to a tee. First, water creatures were created. Then land, then air- perfect according to what we know today. Some mock the ‘seven days’, but since time was a creation of God, one can not say how long his day was. If God lives outside of time, then he is not bound by our universe’s constraints of time. But God still needed to explain creation to Moses and so he put it in terms Moses could grasp. Try explaining to a three year old what adults know. You see the difficulty.

      It is amazing that thousands of years after Genesis was written, it reflects all that modern science has discovered.

      Isn’t that cool?

      • Short Little Rebel,

        I assure you I am passionately liberal! I try to be nice and keep a cool head, though, because the problem with today’s society isn’t that it is too conservative or too liberal; the real problem is that conservatives and liberals act like bitter, stubborn children who refuse to even acknowledge each other’s viewpoints as valid. The liberal says conservatives are ignorant, misinformed theocrats, and so they are to be dismissed without consideration. The conservative says the liberal is a hypocrite and a socialist, a manipulative counterculture fool, and so is not to be trusted or considered. Both viewpoints are ridiculous.

        But I’m knocking the argument off course again!

        About the question of “order” and the tea set… I was trying to make the point that “order” or “organization” isn’t a thing; it is a completely subjective perception that exists only in the minds of animals. For example, someone might look at my tea set and say “That’s not organized at all.” That person might then proceed to carefully rearrange all the tea cups, but instead of “organizing” them, they might carefully and exactly pile them all up in the middle of the tray. To most people, it looks like a disorganized mess, but in reality, the tea set is -exactly- how the person wants it to be. They might consider -that- to be “order.” So what is order or organization? And if the universe naturally disorganizes things, what is the universe’s definition of order? Will the universe naturally “disorganize” the jumbled tea set, and make the tea cups neatly surround the teapot, like how I originally had them set up?

        And even when a random rock hits another random rock, the first rock exerts an infinitely precise amount of force. Both rocks have an infinitely precise amount of mass. When matter and energy interact, they do it infinitely precisely. You might say every force is exerted very carefully and exactly, so matter and energy in the universe are interacting in a very organized way.

        Anyway, there’s some food for thought.

        Short Little Rebel, there are more issues I want to address. You raise the issue of beauty that we perceive in various things like music and nature, and how it doesn’t make sense for these perceptions to arise through evolution (because evolution is survival-based). You also point out how every scientist should acknowledge that their current knowledge is destined to be proven wrong. One more question I want to ask before tackling the beauty and emotion issue you raised is this: Do you think it’s possible that your fundamental ideas about the nature of God will be proven wrong some day? And if they were, what would you do?

        I just ask because I realize I am here, uninvited, debating with you about the nature of reality, and presumably my goal is to change your ideas about reality.

      • Listen, of course orderliness is something real. You even referenced it as a survival issue when someone looks at ice crystals on a tree. As I said, creation is an incredible design. And as a design, has order. I do not speak to the aesthetic issues of order. I think most people would agree that to pile something into the center of the tray is ‘disordered’ and that pretty much any intentional grouping is ‘orderly’, despite whether or not it is ordered the way they would choose. How a person ‘wants’ it to be has nothing to do with the mathematics of order. But what does this have to do with God? Or the beginning of creation?

        Your questions are interesting, but off point.

        It is exactly this precision that you speak about that points to intentional design and thus, to God.

        Even if the nature of the universe is to ‘fall apart’, that doesn’t mean that ‘falling apart’ isn’t a precise, orderly thing! The laws of entropy are very precise, and yet they point to degradation as a natural state. A boost of energy is always required to change to a more orderly state. It is not a steady progression. Without this ‘boost’, order does not ‘just happen’.

        And all that being said, the most marvelous aspect of God’s design is the self perpetrating aspect of it. Although one life may pass, LIFE doesn’t pass. The power of genetics & creation overall is such that it will simply continue without any effort at all. Hard to wrap the mind around it! We have a long way to go.

        To answer your last question about God. No, my knowledge of God will never change. Because God is as real as the keyboard I am typing on. Sometimes I mock science as the premier doorway to knowledge. I have a reason for this. Read some of my articles on this topic for more details. There are other ways to know something. I find it interesting that science can acknowledge ‘instinct’ in animals, but completely dismiss it in humans. Every human culture that has ever developed- even completely isolated from one another has ‘evolved’ to KNOW that life is more than our physical existence. When I hear evolutionists claim that this is the most ‘natural’ way that mankind developed to explain the unknowable, it makes me laugh. We don’t know anything yet. And yet, people are increasingly rebelling against God. So, clearly, belief in the spiritual is not the ‘natural’ way mankind deals with the unknown! Further, I can’t see that it would be a natural thing for people to believe that they are more than their physical existence at all. Why would an ape like creature need to believe that? My dog accepts the events around it. It might act scared or surprised when something unusual happens, but then, it just accepts. Why wouldn’t acceptance be the natural response to the unknown? Something like, “I don’t understand why the wind blows.” And leave it at that. Or even, curiosity. “I don’t understand why the wind blows. I wonder how it does. Let me find out.” Why create a supernatural being?

        Handy Liberal, let me tell you a secret. God doesn’t reveal himself fully to people until they submit to his will. The experience of the Holy Spirit filling your body is truly astounding and joyful. God COULD overwhelm us with PROOF of his existence, but confounds us on purpose. As I wrote before, he is seeking true love. Just as we are.

  4. I rushed to comment, in case you couldn’t tell…

    I would appreciate it if you cited some sources, because I have heard that humans have not ever been able to successfully created life from scratch. I have never heard that anyone has proven the existence of alternate realities. These are both topics that have been addressed in college courses I have taken.

    We have never encountered any life forms on other planets yet (see my previous comment). We don’t believe there are life forms more intelligent than us, we just believe it is possible. Also, it wouldn’t make sense for “god” to be a life form, made of matter and energy, because if so, “god” wouldn’t have existed before the creation of a physical universe, and therefor wouldn’t have been able to create any universes. Therefore, even if we found super-intelligent life-forms millions of times smarter than us, it wouldn’t mean a thing unless they were made of some kind of physically impossible matter-energy or something.

    By the way, “intelligence” is simply made up of chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain of an animal. It is not something absolute; it is subjective (That is to say, if you think someone is “intelligent,” that is just your opinion, which itself is nothing more than chemicals and electricity in YOUR brain).

    Again, I can go on and on and on…. if the idea of “God” was so easily logical and obvious, then it wouldn’t require “faith” now, would it? So please just consider that you are not “correct” in your belief in “God”. There is MUCH that we simply do not know or understand about reality, thus making it illogical to draw such a concrete, definite conclusion.

    • Handy liberal, you could go on & on and that wouldn’t mean you were using sound logic! lol! There are MANY eye witness accounts (across many religions) of encounters with angels. You just give the accounts or the people who witnessed them any credibility! I wrote an article called, “Why Evolution Makes No Sense Today” at: https://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/why-evolution-makes-no-sense-today-article-1/ that addresses this idea that something isn’t ‘real’ until modern, western scientists ‘discover’ it. Kind of like the little fish that swims up your penis- the natives knew about it for hundreds of years. But until it swam up a modern, western scientist’s own penis, it didn’t exist! No one’s eye witness account is valid unless it is a western (usually white) scientist! funny.

      You really need to stop making statements like your ‘intelligence’ statement. It really proves your young age!

      Scientists DO believe there is life out there. Please note that we are pointing awfully expensive dishes toward space at the cost of billions of dollars looking for intelligent life forms. Not only do we suspect it, but we believe it. Ever seen Alien before? A very accepted notion.

      Why do you assume God must be of this universe? I never said that. He is NOT of the universe. My point is that scientists themselves lack logic. If there can be other life forms (of this universe or not of this universe, then one MUST give allowance that God CAN exist! And yet, so called intelligent scientists scoff and call God the stuff of fairies & rainbows. It is their lack of logic that I point out.

      I also point out that there is no reason to believe that there is only one universe, let alone one TYPE of universe. There could be universes without time. Without matter. With a whole different set of ‘natural’ laws. Why not? As you say so rightly, we really can’t comprehend the universe- or even the simple concept of ‘infinity’. And yet, so-called atheist scientists claim the arrogant mantel that they KNOW God doesn’t exist and anyone who allows for this possibility is ‘unscientific’.

      The existence of God IS logical and obvious. Atheists have to bend over backwards, invent illogical & overly complex theories in order to dispute what is clearly obvious. Order does NOT result naturally out of chaos. (please, please, PLEASE don’t bring up chaos theory, ok?) Things don’t spontaneously order themselves- it is the exact opposite. Things spontaneously become less orderly. It takes applied energy to make order. A building will fall into disrepair unless it is cared for constantly. And yet, any scientist can tell you about the incredible order in our existence. Everything in human experience is like this. It all falls apart unless we strive with diligence to keep it orderly. No. Order is NOT natural. But atheist science will ignore this and make ridiculous theories that claim that a big explosion resulted in orderliness. Have you ever seen a bomb explode? Or have you dropped a cup? Did things get more or less orderly? OBVIOUSLY energy was applied. DIRECTED energy. Or the order we see could not exist.

      Here is my observation: what is true on a small scale is true on a large scale. The need to apply directed energy to create order in HUMAN, earthly experience implies that it takes directed energy to create order throughout the universe.

      So, yes. God IS obvious. Only mankind’s pride makes it so difficult. Believing in God frees a person to see what REALLY happened. How God REALLY did create everything. I fear no science, Handy Liberal. No science fact contradicts God- he made it all. I stand back & admire the incredible, self sustaining design.

      The faith you mention has nothing to do with believing in God. It has to do with believing that human beings can attain eternal life through Jesus Christ. Just because God made everything doesn’t automatically mean that he has a greater destiny for mankind than living & dying like all the animals. THAT, my friend, is where faith comes in. It is difficult (God made it difficult on purpose) to believe that man is more than just man. We sense our difference from the animals. We sense God’s purpose. We are uneasy about death. It doesn’t sit right with humans. Never did, never will. We simply can’t grasp that our ‘beings’, our inner self, truly ends when our body dies. Well, Jesus came, as prophesied for thousands of years, as the fulfillment of God’s promise to mankind: the Messiah. That by submitting ourselves to his rule, and believing that through his death & resurrection, we can accept this remarkable gift of perfect, eternal life! THAT takes faith. God did not make that easy for humans.

      You might ask, ‘why make it hard?’. Well, let me ask you a question: let’s say you are a very wealthy, powerful man and are lonely. You want to find someone to love you, for yourself- not your money or power. Would it be better to show off your money as you look for a mate or to hide it? Sure, if you show it off, you will get lots of girls. But you will never be certain of their love. But if you hide it, it will be much harder to find a mate- but when you do, you KNOW they love you. Once they give you their love, THEN giving them all the money & power would be truly joyful, right?

      Ok, here are the links as promised. They are within the articles I have written in the past. I was more careful to include them there.

      I already gave you one article above. Here are two more..

      https://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/why-evolution-makes-no-sense-today-article-2-proving-the-existence-of-god/ (Scientists looking for extraterrestrial life, links to invisibility cloaks & first invented life)

      https://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/why-atheists-make-the-worst-scientists/ – the alternate realities experiment recently conducted.

      Mankind is DOING all the things they said GOD couldn’t do. Does that make sense to you? If man can do it, then God can do it.

  5. Hi Short Little Rebel,

    I think you raise interesting points, but I have some issues. The biggest one is where you said this:

    “There is no water anywhere else in the universe- that we have found, anyway.”

    That is absolutely, indisputably untrue. There is water on Halley’s comet, and on many comets as a matter of fact (scientists hypothesize that quite a lot of the water we have on Earth came from comets and asteroids long ago when the planet was just forming). There is A LOT of water on Europa, on of Jupiter’s moons. There is plenty of water on Pluto. The list goes on and on. Water is VERY common in the universe.

    We have trouble spotting planets in other solar systems. It is simply too far away for our current technology. Also, we don’t know whether or not life is abundant in the universe. A growing consensus is emerging among scientists that life is likely to be fairly abundant throughout the universe, but we simply don’t have the technology to see or go far enough and find out for sure.

    Also, you generalize a lot here. I know you are going to have a hard time believing this, but I do not like music much at all. I don’t listen to the radio in the car. I find most music to just be somehow stressful and unsettling. I don’t really know how to describe it. And as for the music I do like, it doesn’t inspire much emotion in me, if at all. It isn’t the type of music you dance to; I don’t enjoy any “dance” music or ever strongly desire to dance.

    Also note that people confuse the definition of the word “theory” with that of the word “hypothesis.” A theory is actually a well-established principle, almost equal with a scientific “law.” A theory simply explains WHY something makes sense or works the way it does, whereas a scientific law explains “how.” For example, in the field of biology, you will find very few scientific laws, but you will find very many theories. Does this mean the field of biology is full of uncertainty? No. It’s just that biological systems are too complex for there to be any one “law” that consistently explains how they work all the time.

    You refer to things like “beauty” and emotion; do you understand fully what these things are? Do you understand what happiness is? All of these things are simply involuntary series of impulses in the brain. Happiness is a series of impulses in the brain that tells you to keep doing what you are currently doing or to preserve your current conditions. It evolved to tell animals to stay in their current state if that state is supportive of survival.

    When you look at a snowy tree, you enjoy the even distribution of contrasting colors. Your brain automatically perceives organization and stability in the visual structure, and organization and stability are simply desirable conditions. Why? Because often times, they are conducive to survival. Perceiving something unstable indicates that your situation is uncertain, and therefore the best next action to take is uncertain as well. This is bad, because if you are suddenly in danger, the uncertain conditions will make it harder to survive.

    I can go on and on and on and on… I don’t consider myself an atheist. The very nature of the universe is impossible as far as we know (because the concept of infinity is impossible). However, I certainly do not believe that “God” is a human, or that “God” gives a damn about emotion or beauty. At the end of the day, we humans are nothing but chemicals interacting according to physical law. Our emotions and thought are nothing but chemicals and electrical impulses. There is nothing special about us. A human being is no different from any other piece of matter floating in the universe.

    Maybe the atoms, the physical laws, and the “universe” we exist in was created by some “God”-like concept somewhere out there. But were humans specifically created for a specific purpose? Hell no.

    • Handyliberal,

      As there is no such thing as an atheist (only people in rebellion against God), I use the term rather flexibly. That being said, I will refer to you as an atheist due to your statements about God. Atheists who cling religiously to the theory of evolution & Big Bang in order to disprove the existence of God also like to mince words. This usually allows their conversations to be mired in such frustration & meaninglessness that people just don’t want to converse further, leaving the atheist to feel that they ‘won’ the conversation. This article was meant as a synopsis of theories I have held and wrote about for many years. It was not meant to be full of links, references & precise language- it was meant to be eloquent, not a science paper. I have the references you are asking for and will give them at the end of my answer. I have, in fact, referenced them in other articles on the same topic. In the interest of answering your comment, I will clarify my water statement. I meant ‘water in a liquid state in any substantial amount’. Most water is either in trace amounts frozen in comments & other smaller bodies and/or in gas. I don’t bring it up because I believe water to be scarce, but rather to refute evolution enthusiast ideas that the reason life is not abundantly found is because there is no liquid water to support it. I am refuting the logic of that.

      As for your thought that we don’t know if life is abundant, I have to say that you are not thinking this through clearly. Gravity is abundant. Light is abundant. The laws of thermodynamics are abundant- etc. Not only abundant- but literally, everywhere. That is what makes them ‘laws’ (let’s not mince words here, either). The universe is governed by these laws. If we find that there are exceptions to these laws, we amend the laws to reflect the new discovery. Right? My point is this: if life is the ‘natural’ result of all the matter, energy & the laws that govern them, then life should, literally, be everywhere. On every planet. That is only logical. The fact that we have looked far & wide is the direct contradiction to evolutionary theory. And yet, so-called ‘scientists’ will not amend their theories. Clearly, life does NOT happen as a ‘natural’ result of matter, energy & the laws that govern them. It is a ‘sometimes-thing’. So why cling to this theory…. religiously? It indicates a personal motive, not good science.

      Your comments on music are irrelevant. what you personally feel doesn’t matter for the sake of our discussion. Further, you DO have emotional responses to music- they are just negative. Further, music is made by man. Therefore, man could not have evolved to ‘like’ it. That is not logical. It can not be a survival mechanism. Neither can ‘beauty’ be. Our one-celled ancestors didn’t have the capacity to even perceive beauty, let alone be guided by it’s purported survival benefits! Same with our perception of ‘order’.

      You say, “When you look at a snowy tree, you enjoy the even distribution of contrasting colors. Your brain automatically perceives organization and stability in the visual structure, and organization and stability are simply desirable conditions. Why? Because often times, they are conducive to survival. Perceiving something unstable indicates that your situation is uncertain, and therefore the best next action to take is uncertain as well. This is bad, because if you are suddenly in danger, the uncertain conditions will make it harder to survive.”

      Wow. You will win the next Nobel prize! This is exactly what I mean when I say that atheists ignore the elephant in the room. This is the most ludicrous and ‘unscientific’ statement you have written. Where is your proof for this? Seeing ice on trees and thinking it is beautiful & joyous makes me survive better? Please. Ask yourself: if seeing order is ‘good’ for survival, then why should there be an ecstasy? Why not simply a mental note that something is good because it is orderly?

      Further, if the perception of ‘order’ = ‘better survival’= ‘good’ is true, then I guess we need to put artists on notice! Especially modern artists!

      If uncertainty were ‘bad’ for survival, why do people skydive? Why do they invent new things (uncertain that they will ever work?) Why do we explore dangerous places out of simple curiosity? Certainty has almost nothing to do with survival! At least, not on a group level. Nations & tribes have always and will always delve into the unknown- specifically for the purpose of survival!

      If anyone is making HUGE statements, it would be you and statements like this one.

      Lastly, I need to address this comment:
      “However, I certainly do not believe that “God” is a human, or that “God” gives a damn about emotion or beauty. At the end of the day, we humans are nothing but chemicals interacting according to physical law. Our emotions and thought are nothing but chemicals and electrical impulses. There is nothing special about us. A human being is no different from any other piece of matter floating in the universe.

      Maybe the atoms, the physical laws, and the “universe” we exist in was created by some “God”-like concept somewhere out there. But were humans specifically created for a specific purpose? Hell no.”

      How old are you? You sound young. College age? Listen, this statement has me worried about you. This is a statement of futility and sadness. No human can believe this and be happy. People DO have a purpose. And People NEED a purpose in order to be happy. Deny it all you want, but you would only be lying to yourself. You are NOT a bunch of chemicals & impulses. And you know it. But something has happened to you and made you bitter. Perhaps you have never felt fulfullment or happiness?

      I know you don’t want to hear this, but I want to invite you to know Jesus, Handyliberal. You need to go to church and read your Bible. Start with the New Testament & read it in order. I recommend the NIV version- get a good study Bible. Don’t reject Life because you have been hurt or because it isn’t ‘cool’. Happiness & purpose matter. You know it does. Jesus is waiting for you, personally. I promise you, you will find happiness in serving him & God. And you will never be despondent again.

      Note: I’ll put the references in the answer to your other comment! God bless you!

  6. A true atheist would read your post, chuckle or shake his/her head (maybe both at the same time) then “walk away.” When a self proclaimed atheist insists on debate over what he/she believes does not logically exist, he/she violates their own logic and reveal their lack of certainty.

    • Talon’s Point- you are so right. I use the pink bunny example: If I pointed at the sky and said I saw a bunch of pink bunnies, you would not get angry. Nor would you argue the point. You might ask me to repeat myself to make sure you heard me right. But after that, you would slowly back away and feel sorry for me. You certainly wouldn’t start a campaign (that costs you money & precious time!) to disprove that pink bunnies are in the sky! You wouldn’t pay for billboards, commercials & political lobby groups to disprove it! Nor would you HATE me for my pink bunny thoughts….

  7. Little Rebel,

    I am always amazed at those that claim to be atheist. I see the earth and the universe the same as you do. It appears to me that the atheist mindset has no interest in science except to disprove the existence of GOD. The existence of GOD seems to threaten their core beliefs. GOD represents absolute values and authority – a quality lost in the progressive movement. At any rate I and many others agree with you.

    The Big Bang Theory is just that – a theory with too many holes to count. Perhaps it should be called the Big Bust Theory instead. You and your readers might be interested in the following two articles. Both articles are well referenced and agree with what you have written in the above article: (There are endless repudiations on the internet)

    http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm by William C Mitchell

    http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html by John Kierein

    As the Big Bang Theory began to lose credibility, atheists became alarmed and began the development of String Theory. Of course it is just that – a theory. It is just another theory being utilized to disprove the existence of GOD and his creation. Below is one of several articles repudiating String Theory:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit – Not Even Wrong.

  8. //The very fact that you say that science only deals with what can be proven tells me volumes about you. Science is, by nature, always wrong. Any good scientist will understand this. Each new discovery is, by nature, incomplete. If science dealt with only things that can be proven, why do they need to amend theories they once held?// ~~~

    I super like these words. Indeed science is incomplete, and the creator God is absolute.

  9. I saw this posted elsewhere, and gave the same comment you’ll find below.

    I think you’re on the right “train of thought” I would just really challenge how there is any other answer by giving some more specifics about the “big bang theory”….the entropy involved in creating/maintaining this universe really leaves no other sensible answer than a Creative Being at work!

    I’m liking this b/c I think these are important questions. However, I would encourage you to think about editing your “big bang” questions after doing a bit more research…the “big bang” is one of the most irrefutable evidences we have of God’s existence. The ability to “look back in time” and see a “starting point” gives much credit to Christianity’s teachings about a Creator God.

    • New View,

      I think I have the idea of the big bang pretty well. But the scientific theory is wrong. Or, incomplete at best. For that reason, I can’t attribute it to God’s work. Did he use a big bang to create stars & planets? perhaps. But the big bang theory attempts to do more than this- it attempts to say that the original ‘bang’ was the START of the universe. It doesn’t address the fact that matter has to exist before it bangs apart! It doesn’t address the fact that the very NOTION of light, energy, entropy, space, time, etc had to be in place in order for the big bang to have occurred! These laws of nature- they are integral to creation and our existence. But why MUST they be so? Why couldn’t existence look quite different?

      A perfect example of another form of existence is God’s ability to live outside of time. Outside of what humans know of reality. Example: when mankind creates life (yes, we can do that now), does the embryo understand that it is in a petri dish? Does it understand that its creator is outside the petri dish? God lives outside of time. Hence, time is not necessary for existence. He created it for us. In genesis, it says that first God created Light. And THEN he created heavenly bodies to give light. The concept, the LAWs of light, photons, speed, etc, came FIRST.

      All this is ignored by the Big Bang theory.

      I have every confidence that no matter what men’s science ‘discovers’ (really, the word should be ‘uncovers’) about our reality and creation, it will only reveal God. It must. So I don’t fear anything when I say that the Big Bang theory is incomplete at best.

      Thanks for your comment, New. We are on the same side!

  10. Wow such a warped understanding of our world that even your questions don’t make sense. I’ll pick the first one:

    1) Why is music soothing to our souls? Why does it make us dance? Why do some songs inspire people to war? Where does the power of music come from?

    You assume we have souls right at the beginning of the question, where is the evidence? We seem to have a stumbling block right off the bat. For the remainder of this question series take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_music and you should get alot of your answers there.

    • I am using ‘souls’ figuratively here. You can re-address the question and replace ‘our souls’ with ‘us’. Does that make it easier for your mind to contemplate? If you had any intelligence whatsoever, you would have known that this was the case. But like all atheists, you ignore the rest of the questions (like where energy, matter & the laws of nature (light, gravity, entropy, etc) come from. You and your comment, my dear, are doing exactly what I said in my article: ignoring the elephant in the room! I await breathlessly for your brilliant answers to all my questions…….still waiting….

      • Wow what a delusional idiot you are. I have read several of your posts. For all the desire you have to paint Atheists as people who reject good ideas, every post you make proves that is a better picture of you. I understand wanting to pull in some extra cash while being a stay at home mom. But throwing rationality and the scientific method out the door to cater to the bible thumpers is just madness.

        I am so, so sorry that you think you are a scientist.

        Best of luck continuing to peddle your nonsensical bullshit to these schmucks for as long as it can pay your IP bill and keep you thinking you are something other than an idiot.

      • Oh and you might want to start looking at how many people vote “up” your statements. It isn’t many. From the articles I have read it’s somewhere in the arena of 8 “downs” to every 1 “up”.

      • “Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thoughts in clear form.” -Albert Einstein

        I don’t think Albert Einstein went around looking for ‘thumbs up’s from people. It’s quite sad that you believe this is any measure for truth..

      • lol! extra cash?? What extra cash? No, Akai, I write articles like this to bother you- free of charge! I do it for fun and for interest’s sake. So-called atheists never have any response to my points. They ALWAYS respond with such anger & acid! Where is the cool head of logic? They also never have ‘time’ to respond. So they conclude that calling names, using sarcasm or flouncing out of the room is the only recourse. Sad. In any case, Akai, like the other haters that have recently responded, you are banned as per my posting rules.

        Please note that Handy Liberal (a polite individual who knows how to debate properly) is allowed to comment.)

    • Further, you attempt to answer my question about music with an answer to ‘how music affects us’. But you don’t answer the question, “why should it affect us at all?” Explain that from an evolutionary standpoint.

      • Putting aside for a moment the fact you’re now asking even more questions to your original ones and that these are also completely loaded. This difference between “how” and “why” really is the chasm that is the divide of religion and science. Religion dwells on the “why” knowing full well that introducing such a concept requires there to be greater meaning and that’s where you introduce God/Religion. Why questions are quite frankly nonsense. Science on the other hand points out what is observed and can be proven; this is very much the “How” and doesn’t need anything greater.
        If you were using “Souls” figuratively then all your questions were answered in the link I posted.
        If you want an evolutionary explanation as to why evolved apes are affected by music then I suggest you spend some time reading a Richard Dawkins book, better yet, ask him yourself on his website richarddawkins.net, he does reply.

      • Born, like so many atheists, you refuse to answer any questions. All you can do is attack people personally. Sarcasm is the weapon of choice. You refuse to answer the questions because you KNOW they can’t be answered by science that excludes Intelligent design.

        The very fact that you say that science only deals with what can be proven tells me volumes about you. Science is, by nature, always wrong. Any good scientist will understand this. Each new discovery is, by nature, incomplete. If science dealt with only things that can be proven, they why do they need to amend theories they once held? You need to evaluate the word, ‘proven’.

        The very fact that you say that science doesn’t answer the question ‘why’ tells me how little you know of the pursuit of knowledge- or as you would have it, ‘science’. If what you say is true, then ‘science’ is the most useless process of all! Of COURSE they deal with ‘why’! “why does the plant stem bend toward the light?”, etc. ‘Why do creatures respond to music even though music wasn’t around when they were crawling out of the primorial ooze?” ‘Why’ is the entire basis for science. ‘How’ is the second step.

        Your second statement on music is redundant to your first statement. Here’s the absolute truth about Truth- it is simple. If it can’t be boiled down to a sentence or two, then it doesn’t hold water. You like to direct people with questions to other people’s answers. This shows that you have none of your own AND you don’t understand the theories of the people you would like to send me to. You just hate God & Jesus. You are a child in rebellion. In the end, all you are left with is the drips of sarcasm you adore so much.

        In your rebellion today, be careful not to not God. I warn you for your own sake.

        Lastly, according to my posting rules, a person’s comment has to actually lead somewhere. I gave you two chances and you have failed. You are banned.

%d bloggers like this: