Our Solar System Points to God

Solar system planets

Is there any Christian who can be surprised that our solar system is unique in the galaxy? That ours, alone, is conducive to Life as we know it? It truly amazes me how mathematically and logically blind some so-called scientists are. The very ones who claim to extol the virtues of ‘hard science’ can’t embrace the logic that stares at them everyday. If LIFE were an automatic, Natural process as they say is, it would ‘happen’ all the time, everywhere. It would not be unique, it would not be hard to find, it would not be confined to water based planets, it would not be confined to our atmosphere or our planet. It would simply ‘happen’ on all planets, under every circumstance, everywhere. That is the very definition of all Natural Law: ie: it happens all the time, everywhere.

The Fire Island Light house near the western end of Fire Island at night with a bright Milky Way overhead.

If this were not so, it would not be a Natural Law. Gravity is Gravity- it works the same here as it does across the galaxy. If scientists ever find that gravity doesn’t work the same everywhere, all the time, they will change the meaning of gravity. They would debunk gravity as a natural law. If entropy changes elsewhere in the universe, they would debunk entropy as a Natural Law. If light ceased to travel at the speed of light, they would change that ‘law’ of nature too. The nature of Laws of Nature is that they are consistent no matter where you are in the universe. In essence, scientists are looking for the fundamental truths of our existence.

jupiter and moon
Jupiter with one moon

Thus, if evolution- or the idea that life just ‘happens’ from the primordial ooze, is Natural, then every planet would be seething with its own version of Life. It would be Life that could live on that planet. Who made the rule that Life had to be adjusted to H2O, Carbon and Hydrogen? Why not the gases on Saturn? Why not the heat on Mercury? or the cold on Venus? After all, even here on earth, we find life in the most amazing places where toxic chemicals, astounding heat or extreme cold would kill most other life forms. Life on earth appears to ‘just happen’ according to the environment it finds itself in. It doesn’t appear to be very picky about that- it is a powerful force.

Why not life on Saturn?

After all, most of the scientists who tout evolution don’t believe in God or a higher power so why do they insist that some power or rule exists that Life must be H2O based? Says who? No, a series of chemical elements can randomly come together just as they proposed happened on earth and will eventually lead to Life anywhere and under any circumstances. The universe has certainly had billions of years to do so! That is evolution and in their minds, that is the Natural Law they propose. Thus, Life should abound everywhere, just as light does.


There should be Life on Mars…

The very fact that it only exists on one planet should absolutely astound every scientist who claims there is no God and that evolution is a Natural Law.  Their own logic demands it!  This should bother them from morning till night. It should embarrass them from meeting to meeting. And yet, they don’t see the incredible fallacy. It astounds me.

It’s mathematically impossible that Life only exists on earth.  This makes it mathematically more probable that there is  God than that  it all ‘just happened.’

In fact, by their own estimation, it is mathematically more probable, by far, that God exists than to believe that Life only ‘happened’ on one planet.

In any case, as I always say: any scientist who fails to find God at the end of his studies is not very smart. Even Einstein found him there and he really, really didn’t want to. I admire his honesty. He began his scientific studies trying to deny God’s existence.  He even began his theory of relativity on the idea that God didn’t exist but eventually had to change it because he had to conclude that the universe had a beginning.  With that, he came to the conclusion that there must be God.  He didn’t want God to exist but in the end, couldn’t deny him. Anyone with any intelligence must conclude, scientifically, mathematically, and in every other way, that God exists.  The evidence is overwhelming.

Most people aren’t smarter than Einstein.  If the evidence convinced him, a rebellious Jewish intellect, I would say the evidence is very strong.  At the end of his life, Einstein is recorded as saying that he believed in both God and Jesus.  God is the intellectual, scientific conclusion of every human search.

Life is purposefully created and driven and designed.  This is obvious to children.  We lose the ability to see this once we become adults because we are stupid enough to think we are smart and know something.  Some of us adults attain wisdom and being to think as children again.  That’s when the obvious becomes the truth once more.




  1. I find this interesting as a post. Many questions. Many answers. Yet even more questions. I see many words used throughout without too much explanation. Its a lot going on and im not sure where to start. But what i can deduce from this is that because many of these questions cant be answered[yet(to you mostly)] god is the reason they happen. So what then is god.
    Also none of this is to be offensive.


    • That is simple. God is God. He said, “I AM.” I love that answer. He said, “Tell them, I Am.” That’s the only answer our 3D minds can handle. If we live in 3D and God is, at the very minimum, 4D, then how can God use 3D terminology to define himself to us? That is exactly like using a mind experiment like this: imagine a point without any 3D dimension. It lives on a 2D plane. All it can do is move laterally or up and down the plane. That is all it knows: east, west, north and south. It can stretch it’s mind to understand lines and maybe even circles and complex ideas like parallelograms. Wow! Some of it’s scientists have even speculated on things like curves and the areas beneath them! Exciting times! But something bothers this point. It bothers him very much. All he knows seems limited. There must be more to his world than he sees. But he can’t define it. He just senses it. Other points also sense it. How to say it? This, this undefinable… feeling? How can these points say, “above and below?’ How can they say, ‘volume and 3D space?’ They can’t. They literally lack the vocabulary. And if you, a Being outside their reality, even if you could make them hear you, how would you describe yourself? How would you tell them that you were outside their plane of existence? What does ‘outside your ‘plane’ of existence mean to them? would they even understand what a ‘plane’ was if a ‘plane’ is everything to them? To answer the question, what is God?, especially if you are already making the assumption that God is real, is a non-answerable question. All that God CAN say is, “I AM.” and all that we can do is accept that “HE IS.” We either believe the evidence before us or we don’t. But we are locked into our 3D world and God is not. Because he is the creator of our reality, he is, by definition, outside of it. He is not bound by Time, space or dimension because he created those too. So, (shrug), IF we believe in him, we must, logically, also accept the ‘I AM’ descriptor. It’s all that we can have for now- until his promises change in our physical anatomy comes. And that is why I find God and our entire story of evolution in the Bible so convincing. We CAN’T remain in this physical state to be with our God. No, we must be transformed into HIS state to be with him as a timeless being. They wouldn’t have considered these things thousands of years ago- be modern man can. Yet, it was included in the story thousands of years ago- this changing of our bodies. Notice how Jesus’ resurrected body was different- he was bright and shining. He could disappear and appear. He could go through objects like closed doors. His very matter had changed nature!!! So, so convincing to MY scientific mind. It is EXACTLY what MUST happen if we are to leave a 3D world and live outside of it. I am so saddened that so-called great minds of science are so distracted by their emotions that they fail to see the completely exciting aspect of the Bible. SO. Exciting about Human Evolution. Ah, well. I do hope you can see the absolute logic and reason of my statements. Don’t let these so-called scientists suck you in. It is THEY who are letting their emotions get the best of them, not thinkers like me.


  2. Actually, everything is connected. It is said science can’t explain everything but this needs revision, “Science can’t explain everything YET”.

    In his last days renowned scientist Albert was working towards finding a unified equation, he couldn’t succeed but he was close. We had Srinivas Ramanujam who said, “Everything is already there and we don’t invent, we just discover” but unfortunately Ramanujan didn’t live long and died at a young age of 34.

    Coming to the science, we have an equation, E=mc2= constant, Now thinking of everything you can plug in everything you can think of, there is an equilibrium and whenever the equilibrium is disturbed events transpire to restore that equilibrium.

    Basically, anything & everything is interconnected, we just now how YET.


    • Oh, I fully agree with that. I love science and agree with the man you quoted. Everything IS linked. We, human beings, only break knowledge into subject matters because there is no other way we can perceive the whole. We are incapable of approaching ALL any other way. But it is a flawed way. Art is not separate from science in any way. Nor is literature separated from anatomy or biology. It is all together- or, altogether. I understood this when I was in highschool and they were trying to determine what ‘kind’ of student I was. Don’t you remember the tests they used to give when determining if students were ‘math/science’ or ‘art/literature’? They were sure (perhaps they still are) that human brains were separated in this manner. But I scored off the charts for both. That’s because I could see the manipulation in the questions when I took the test and refused to be pigeon holed! I love ALL knowledge! I refuse to believe that people are broken down in this fashion. This is the reason I am so critical of atheists. They always have the worst thinking to me. I am not critical because I am blinded by ‘religion’. I am critical for the simple fact that it is most logical to believe that there is a supreme being that created ALL than it is to believe that ALL happened by a series of accidents. There is NOTHING, absolutely nothing, in human experience or in observed scientific experiments anywhere, that would support that thesis. Mistakes or explosions or time- always lead to chaos and brokenness- it NEVER leads to order. So, the hypothesis is ridiculous. Ditto for the Big Bang. And the idea that matter created itself is also ridiculous. Then, these theories called string theory and what not- again, such b.s. (excuse me) but who do they think they are talking to? idiots? What I’m saying is that God is simply more believable considering what we have EXPERIENCED and what we have seen. Jesus LIVED and did miracles. The Bible stands as a testament to the truth of so many prophecies that have come true. If these scientists want an experiment that tested reality, then they got one in these prophecies. these things were predicted hundreds, if not thousands of years before they happened. And they happened exactly as predicted. They continue to do so. That, my friend, is outrageous proof considering we are talking about the movement of HUGE geopolitical forces that no one could ever have imagined back then (ie, the re-formation of the nation of Israel, the Holocaust, the Babylonian invasion of Israel, the Assyrian invasion of Israel, the Persian king Cyrus allowing the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, that the new Israel would stand at the center of all world politics once reformed, etc) How can so-called neutral, truth seeking scientists simply ignore such amazing data such as that? I can’t. I stand amazed. I left God in college. Not because I hated him- but because I saw the EVIDENCE of so many cultures and people who believed in other religions and gods. I saw the EVIDENCE of the strong, undeniable connection of religion being connected directly to the location of birthplace. I was Christian simply because I was raised by American parents. Wow. Is my faith real? Or just indoctrination? I couldn’t STAND that. I didn’t want to be a mere product of my upbringing. So, I left God and Jesus. I prayed my last prayer to God, “Lord, forgive me. But if you are real, I will find you again through fact. If you really are the God of all Creation and if Jesus is the Only way back to you, then all evidence will point back to you. But if you are not God, then all these other gods will prove true or all gods will prove false. But I have to know. I’d rather know that there is no God or gods and that life is nothing than to be falsely led and disappointed later. If you are God, then I know you understand and would only want people who truly believe in you and are not afraid of my investigation. You know I will find you.”

      And I began a journey of discovery. I searched other religions. I read their philosophies, including the atheist, humanist approach to life. All I discovered was how utterly ridiculous their ideas were. If believing in Christ is ridiculous, then these other ideas were even more ludicrous. I couldn’t believe just how illogical these other ideas were to a thinking mind! All I could say was, “are you serious? THIS is the replacement for what I used to think? THIS is what is supposed to replace what I used to think? How empty! How nonsensical! How can THIS fill me? How can THIS make any more sense?” It didn’t touch me. In any way. Other religions were like cartoons in comparison to the sophistication of Christ and the Bible. And atheistic worship of science just made me laugh. Science is nothing more than the uncovery of what IS. How is that something to worship? How does that give any hope to the future of life? It is always one step behind life. It is never quite good enough because people are still suffering and dying. It can’t keep up with us or reality. It is not a god. It is just a process, of course. AND, by its very nature, it is always wrong. Any good scientist should know this. We are always wrong about what IS. That is how complex reality and the world around us IS. Our minds haven’t even scratched the surface of what IS. Any person who considers themselves to be a thinking person and also says that we are close to knowing ALL is just… well, puffed up in pride. We. know. nothing. Nothing. And the best scientists are humble ones. We must laugh at ourselves and approach science with humor and joy. We are uncovering what the Master has done. That’s what I know. We created life in a test tube. By every logic, we can thus be the life in Someone’s testtube. It only stands to reason. If you are a thinking man, you must acknowledge the logic. God CAN exist in all the possibilities. And if so, at this point, he is the most logical possibility. THAT is my point. Until other possibilities become known, that is where I will continue to hang my hat, thank you. You can hang yours elsewhere, but I’ll be my horse wins the race.


  3. I stumbled across this blog and I’ve gotta say, the majority of this is pure nonsense.

    There is zero evidence for a god, let alone the Christian god.

    Your stance on Einstein is misleading aswell, which is disappointing.

    This entire article is a god of the gaps argument and as such, has no merit.

    I would hold total respect for you if the article was based on evidence. However there is none here.

    Feelings and ranting does not make a good argument.


    • Hi, your argument is nothing but a series of .. statements. I did propose solid logical arguments. Like most liberals and atheists, since you can’t argue logically against it, you just say things like, “Uh, uh!” or, “not true!” or “You’re dumb!” or “nanny, nanny, boo-boo!” lol. I’m SORRY you can’t respond to my arguments. They’re called LOGICAL arguments. Go look that up. And come play again.


  4. You don’t have to publish this comment, it is of no interest to banter back and forth with you anymore. It was my original intention to discuss beliefs and how there are varying beliefs about how the universe came to be. Unfortunately any time someone brings up a fault in your blog you resort to belittle them and their intellect.

    So, I in turn gave you a dose of your own medicine.

    This is not logic, it is belief. It may sound logical to you to use “god” in logical terms but it is not logical to those who do not believe in a god or who have a different definition of god than you. This is where your logic fails, you make up your version of your god through your beliefs.

    It is the same thing with Einstein. You take some quotes, you make your version of the story you want to hear and it’s all true to you. We have all sorts of people taking the founding fathers quotes and using them to argue for their own faith. I would suggested taking all the quotes you can find and doing a timeline. You will find that he didn’t get closer to religion, god and Jesus towards the end of his life. I’m not saying he was atheist but examine for a moment if our founding fathers or Einstein admitted to being an atheist, they would recieve a great deal of flack from that admission. And again, Spinoza’s God was not a “god” at all but a concept.

    It just seems when someone challenges you, you resort to name calling and if that’s who you are, then I want no part of it.


    • I don’t ban people unless they are ugly or repetitive, which you are becoming. This claim of yours that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Tyre or Jerusalem is nonsense. He most certainly did conquer both. It is a matter of history. “In 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon defeated Pharaoh Necho at the Battle of Carchemish, and subsequently invaded Judah. ” (Wikipedia Siege of Jerusalem). “After the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of her king Zedekiah into captivity, “Nebuchadnezzar took all Palestine and Syria and the cities on the seacoast, including Tyre, which fell after a siege of 13 years (573 B.C.)” (E. A. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life And History, p. 50)

      Your facts are simply mistaken.

      I was giving you the credit of understanding me when I spoke to you. I thought you understood from my comments that I was saying, “David, your facts are wrong.” And then, I went on from that point to give you further information about why I was right. I didn’t spend a whole lot of time trying to hammer you about why your facts were wrong. But if you insist, then I will. Here are why your facts are wrong. Does that satisfy you more? Geeze.

      Now, as to Einstein, I really, really, really, don’t know what you want there. If I said, ‘atheist,’ excuse me. Yes, he did say he was an ‘agnostic’ at one point in his life, but AS I SAID in my last comment, the overall tone of his comments, including the library comment, clearly, to me, show that he believed in a Supreme God- especially in light of his statement about Jesus being a real, authentic person who did and said all he was purported to have done and said. All that, together with the totality of his statements, to me, are much stronger than the few statements he made otherwise. Also, he was very emphatic and angry about being compared to atheists. That shows a clear dislike for that thought process which lends itself to my beliefs as well. To SOME FORM of God. Which you would like to deny altogether, I believe. As to Spinoza’s God. You say I don’t understand it as a concept. Really? Now, how in the world would you say that? I understand it perfectly. But I don’t believe that Einstein believed in a concept at all. I think, based on all he said, that he believed in a God as a Person. Not some Force. I think I have some strong proof, in his overall comments, to support my thoughts. You don’t have to believe me. But you don’t have much proof otherwise, do you?

      Lastly, You call me rude when you are being rude yourself. As if you can’t recognize that you are being just as rude! And OBTUSE. As if you are a little victim. But you aren’t a victim. You are a grown man who refuses to understand the most basic information. But you don’t sound stupid, which is exactly why you are getting the harshest treatment from you. Because the one thing I can’t stand most is a grown adult who won’t admit when he has been beat intellectually. You claim that you want an honest discussion but you don’t. You don’t want to learn anything- you have no interest in growing as a human being. Your PRIDE refuses to allow your INTELLECT to see the complete REASON of my arguments and so, you whine like a baby and start calling names. You haven’t presented a single argument in return. You just repeat yourself and make yourself as annoying as possible. And now, I’ve had it with you. I can’t be any more patient with you. You are now banned. Some people just reach the limit of my patience and I hope my readers can at least see that I tried with you. You had your chance to make a new argument but refused. Goodbye.


  5. Nice article! Even though I no longer accept the heliocentric model of the “universe”, it just goes to show that no matter what you believe, intellectual honesty dictates that you will eventually and inevitably acknowledge a Creator. It all comes back to Him no matter what.


  6. Private Note: Hey Susan, this is Glenn Gillen from SAHS. I had a “wonder where they are now” moment this morning and Googled your name. That’s where I found this blog, your Facebook pages, and various articles about your rape. I was very sad to read that and have said a prayer for you and your family (nice pictures of them by the way). I live in North Carolina with my wife, and occasionally our daughter when she is home from college. I monitor various SAHS and SAHS alumni Facebook groups and have been to a few all-year reunions. I think politically we are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum, but I am glad that you have found your voice and I hope you have a happy and meaningful life. Take care.


    • Hey Glenn! Sure I remember you? But the acronym for the school is a little confusing. Is that Seoul American High School? Sorry it took so long to respond but your message got tied up in my spam filter. lol. Perhaps we are on opposite sides politically but if you are praying for me, you must be a Christian. If so, we can’t be THAT far apart! There is only ONE thing that matters anyway and that is Jesus, right? The rest is just mankind trying our best to get along. Great to hear from you. Would love to hear where everyone is now. Would love to hear more from you. Please confirm the high school. Sorry for my ignorance! Susan


  7. “Why do they insist that some power or rule exists that Life must be H2O based?”

    Speaking from another perspective: I guess it depends on how you define “life”. “Life”, as we know it on Earth, followed a particular path based on the elements and circumstances of this planet. At this point, what we know is our solar system and a few planets in our galactic neighborhood (which is a pretty small chunk of space, as you’re aware). We have no idea whether or not carbon-based life has emerged on other planets, or whether other forms of self-replicating and aggregating molecular “life” based on other elements, may have emerged under different circumstances. it’s just too soon to tell.


  8. Thank you, my sister. Well done. Here in Japan, a medical doctor and I, Christian pastor-missionary determined to make the obvious –relevant. About 40 years later, based on much the same matters that you touched on, we have a “Creation Research” organization in Japan discussing the obvious, and have picked up a number of qualified scientists who can no long swallow mind boggling facts with nothing to support it. Keep going. God bless.
    C Elkins


  9. Life exists on earth because the conditions exist suitable for life. The universe is large and at this time we have no way of knowing if similar life to ours exist. We do have the ability, thanks to our space program, to know microbes exist on Mars. Life does not exist on planets where conditions are not suitable for life.

    There are many quotes attributed to Einstein concerning his beliefs. He has made references to “god” but not all his references are towards a Christian god. He has also referred to himself as an agnostic. I have a feeling he could not definitively state for a fact there was a god, creator of the universe and as such, he didn’t spend a great deal of time pursuing it.

    No one knows factually how the universe came to be. We all have our beliefs, it is important to some, not so important to others. Under the circumstance that it is a mystery, we should not be quick to judge others that have different beliefs from our own.


    • I think you just made a circular argument. “Life exists on earth because the conditions exist suitable for life” lol. That won’t do! Why wouldn’t life exist on Saturn because the conditions exist suitable for life there! THAT is the real question, isn’t it? People just take things for granted. They really do. But when you apply your mind to the real questions, things become quite absurd. And you realize that mathematically speaking, all these theories about our existence are completely and utterly improbable compared to the most probable one: we are in a giant test tube and a giant Intelligent Being created us and everything around us. It is FAR easier to believe that than anything else proposed. lol. Heck, we have already BEEN that Intelligent Being ourselves! WE have created LIFE in a test tube and the LIFE was unaware of it’s creator or the lab or the test tube! See my tongue in cheek article about this and you will see what I mean. I actually wrote a series of articles about these types of absurdities that pervade the so-called science world. Their problem is this: because they insist on rejecting the notion of being the subject of Someone’s experiment, they fail to consider one of the most probable methods by which we came about. Talk about the HUBRIS of man. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room! Most times, I find it rather amusing.


      • It does sound circular but instead of saying “the conditions exist suitable for life” and said, “Life exists on earth due to the conditions of it’s environment, Temperature, Water, Sunlight..etc” it really isn’t circular at all.

        On the other hand, life is not suitable on Saturn because it is minus 280 degrees Fahrenheit but Scientists state life is possible on some of the moons of Saturn for the reasons given above.

        and like I stated in my conclusion “No one knows factually how the universe came to be. We all have our beliefs…” My belief is that it cannot be knowable, your belief is that since it is not knowable and feel it is highly improbable that life can exist (despite the fact it does) Then your god must have done it.

        It is believable to you and I’m sure you can throw out many arguments in favor of your god but you can never prove it.


      • Hi David, what I’m saying is much more than that. I’m saying that based on everything we know and everything we have experienced ourselves, the most mathematically PROBABLE and most logical solution is that we are the end result of someone else’s DESIGN. All our own experiences tell us that. If we threw a thousand balls up in the air, will they land in order or chaos? They will land in chaos. If we want them to land in order, we must exert energy and thought. This is our experience every day of our lives. If we build something like a house and never maintain it, will it degrade or will it get even more orderly? It will degrade. That is our everyday experience. It takes an input of energy and thought to CREATE and MAINTAIN order. This is how EVERYTHING in this universe works. There is NO REASON to suppose that the beginning of the universe would start with a different set of physical rules, is there?

        Our experience with the universe is that all the physical rules are the SAME throughout the universe. In fact, should we find that one is different somewhere else, we know that our ‘law’ or ‘theory’ is wrong because that is the very nature of a ‘law’ or ‘theory’ is that they are constant everywhere. Thus, we have every reason to assume that the Beginning would be the same. So, it took energy and thought to create the incredible organization we see in this universe of ours. This is not ‘just’ an assumption- it is based on EVERYTHING WE SEE AND EXPERIENCE every day of our lives, Daniel.

        So, I’m not taking a wild stab in the dark, here. Nor am I just saying, “My God did this because I want to believe it!” I’m saying that of all theories, this one is LITERALLY, the most mathmatically PROBABLE based on all human experience.

        No other theory can come close to matching human experience. All others fall down when simple logic is applied. The Big Bang is so outrageously funny that no scientist worth his/her salt will support it anymore. Then comes String theory which is so laughable that no one even understands what the heck it is. The simple fact is this: matter and energy had to come from somewhere. AND the laws of the universe had to be created. To me, this is even a bigger problem than the creation of matter and energy.

        That is what I’m saying. Because when man can create Life in a test tube, we should be able to see that an Intelligent Being could create us in a test tube. It is a completely LOGICAL next step in thinking but only the PRIDE of man refuses to contemplate it. If you can’t contemplate that, then can’t you see the flaw in your thinking? Won’t you at least admit that?


      • It’s funny how, if someone doesn’t believe what you believe, they are flawed.

        You are literally taking the stand that if it is something we can’t fathom, it must have been intellegently designed. You also lack proof of an intellegent designer.

        Furthermore, thanks to new technologies, we can actually see new planets forming and what it takes for those planets to form.

        We certainly have the technology to extract the two components of reproduction and mimic the conditions condusive to the environment that is required to fertize the egg and reproduce the conditions on which is required to sustain it through it’s lifecycle but that has nothing to do with intellegent design. It’s called mimicing a process.

        The Universe came to be or it has always existed in some respects. It’s great to put forth theories that align with your religious belief but when you are telling others their belief are llogical, flawed or have something to do with “Pride of Man” when someone is content with not knowing, is rather silly.


      • Hi David, I have never made the argument that if someone’s theory doesn’t align with mine, they hampered by pride. You would like to make that argument. But I am saying that I laid out a perfectly logical explanation and you haven’t got a reasonable counter argument for it. At all. Because you can’t find one. And there is only one reason you can’t find one: there isn’t one. My logic is solid as rock.

        The possibility for a Creator is ENTIRELY there. It IS the most probable explanation- BASED ON OUR OWN EXPERIENCES. And I gave you extremely good reasons why that is so.

        You, however, have provided nothing at all to support your side of the argument. In fact, you have only said that it is ‘unknowable’. I have proved that there is a perfectly good explanation, have given very good and reasonable proof for what I said. You just don’t want to ADMIT it. I’m not just postulating a theory- I have backed it with SOLID REASONING and proof. If you had come up with anything whatsoever, I would have addressed that. But you didn’t. What can a girl do?


      • “It is a completely LOGICAL next step in thinking but only the PRIDE of man refuses to contemplate it. If you can’t contemplate that, then can’t you see the flaw in your thinking?”

        For the sake of argument, I’ll take the stance that it is possible there is a creator of the earth and the universe. This does not mean it is the god of the bible. In fact, it is plausable that there are a multitude of creators. and perhaps Science is correct (or close to being correct) as this band of creators got together and created the universe together and thus a “Big Bang”

        Perhaps the creator is an alien civilization who traveled light years to find the most hospitable location for a duplicate planet to theirs and we are those aliens. Or along those lines, They just found an equally hospitable planet and moved some of their people here as an experiment.

        All along, I have not taken a side, telling you that the Big Bang and Creation and interesting theories but the bottom line is that we do not know how the universe came to be. But we can play “which theory is the more logical one” all day long.

        As pointed out, I don’t have a “side” to the argument but I have shown why Saturn would not be hospitable to life, Saturns Moons would. I have pointed out that new technologies in Science allow us to witness the birth of a planet, The results of Order from Disorder can be seen in everyday life: Dripstones, Stalagmite, Stalactite, Sandstone, Diamonds and a host of other things we see in nature.

        Then we can argue, if there is an intelligent designer, why are his designs flawed?

        How about you tell me who the intelligent designer is?


      • First, you have not proven, in any way at all, why Saturn wouldn’t be hospitable to life. Based on the life forms we have already found on earth, we see that they can exist in the most inhospitable situations possible. Incredible pressures, temperatures, chemicals, and without the benefit of light. We have been astonished at how life has emerged. It has turned our understanding of ‘life’ completely upside down. The funny thing about science is that it ‘presupposes’ that life MUST have water simply because life has water on our planet. But that makes no sense at all based on the theory of evolution which has been proposed by the very same scientists. The very same scientists propose that LIFE is an automatic process that just ‘happens’. It is a natural process that MUST happen in the universe. That is what a theory or a law is, is it not? It is a CONSTANT in the universe. Gravity works the same here as it does on the opposite side of the universe. Thus, any ‘theory’ of life, or evolution, if it IS a theory worth its salt, SHOULD work the same everywhere. It should just ‘happen’ everywhere, regardless of what exists on any given planet. WHY put the stipulation that water must exist? The entire point of evolution is that LIFE EVOLVES around the circumstances around it! The strongest genetic mutations that evolve around a specific world event or circumstance is the genetic mutation that SURVIVES. Thus, the world event is IRRELEVANT. Only the power of the genetic mutation is relevant. Thus, why should WATER matter?? It shouldn’t. The POWER OF LIFE should just ‘happen’ everywhere, no matter what world event or circumstance surrounds it. WATER is just one element or circumstance out of the periodic chart. That happens to be what is on our planet. Why shouldn’t LIFE just as easily swim about in Chlorine? or fly about in Nitrogen? Why not? Who said no to it? Either the THEORY is right or it is not. Either life happens or it doesn’t.

        One can’t put their stipulations on it just because it happened that way on one planet. There is absolutely no reason to assume that. NONE.

        So, you haven’t proven, in any way, neither through scientific method, nor through logical argument, why Saturn would be inhospitable to life.

        Now, as to WHO the Intelligent Designer OR Designers are, I AGREE WITH YOU. How do you like that?? The fact is this, we could be the product of ANY super being or Super Beings. BUT the possibility MUST be acknowledged that we COULD be the product of Intelligent Design. In fact, I will still hold that we are STILL THE MOST LIKELY PRODUCT OF AN INTELLIGENT BEING than any other silly theory thus far.

        Can I prove that it is the God of the Bible? Well, I can prove that He is still the most likely one. Why? Because of all the amazing and recorded prophecies that have come true. If you want those, I can give them to you. If the Bible were any other document, most of mankind would bow down and worship it on that basis alone. BUT BECAUSE they know, deep down inside, that God really IS God, they refuse. Because they can’t bear to bow down to their true Creator. But God most certainly proved himself over and over again to mankind though RECORDED prophecy which has already been fulfilled in the most amazing ways. Just the re-creation of Israel is one of the most astounding prophecies. It happened EXACTLY, I mean, EXACTLY as prophesied. Now, YOU explain that one. God promised that one over a thousand years ago- he also said that he would make Israel the ‘center of the world’- and guess what? It IS the center of world politics today. It is the reason the terrorists are attacking us and everyone else. terrorism is driving our politics today. Who has the oil? The Arab Muslims. Who do they hate? Israel. All predicted thousands of years ago. Explain that, my friend. The Holocaust was predicted several thousand years ago by Ezekiel when God foretold the extermination of the Jews, but with the salvation of a ‘remnant’ that he would then bring HOME. And that after this great extermination, he would then ‘whistle’ for the ‘kings of the world’ to come together and they would create ISRAEL once again. This ALL HAPPENED during WWII and then, in 1947 by the League of Nations. David, to this day, NO ONE understands WHY the League of Nations did this. No one. Not even the countries that participated in it. You explain that. It has laid the basis for all the problems in the Middle East that we have today. And guess what? All these problems are ALSO FORETOLD. And guess what? ALL THESE PROBLEMS are foretold to lead to the ultimate destruction of this world. And do you know what? I BELIEVE IT. It makes perfect sense. Russia wants its warm water port and is supporting Syria and Iran. The U.S. wants to stop Russia and is supporting the rebels in Syria and is supporting Iraq and Israel. Everyone wants to turn Egypt. And everyone wants that oil. ALL FORETOLD before oil was even discovered. David, if man can’t see the amazing aspect of these prophecies, then he is WILLFULLY BLIND. That is all I can say.


      • lol, you love to argue things that I never brought up, I think other people have pointed that out as well. Just a little child jumping from one thing to another because.

        I have repeated that Creation/Big Bang are theories, none of which I hold to neccessarily be true and point out that we may never know how the world came to be, that is the most logical statement anyone can make. But you continue to argue against Evolution and for Intellegent Design.

        You’re entire argument is about a “god” or “intellegent designer” and while anyone can use “logic” to make an argument, it is often faulty logic.

        I exxplained why Saturn would not be hospitable to life but it’s moon would be more hospitable. The temperature exteme on Saturn are far more extreme than anything you will find on earth. If you are speaking of microbes or even the building blocks of life, Sure, they can likely exist anywhere. You argue that life should be able to exist anywhere in the universe and to an extent, that is correct, however, just because human life can happen on earth, it does not mean human life can exist on every planet. Gravity varies from planet to planet, it is not the same across the universe.

        Let’s focus on your initial blog. You make the claim that Einstein believes in God and Jesus. He has made various statements during his life such as believing in “Spinoza’s god” and called himself an agnostic. It sounds to me you are taking some of his quotes out of context, you are purposely misleading or you are sadly misinfomred about Einstein.

        “It truly amazes me how mathematically and logically blind some so-called scientists are.” Lol,, just because they do not believe what you believe, they are “logically blind”. Because you are so much smarter, right?

        Another “logical” claim you made was that an “intelligent designer” created life, which I pointed out was not true. They took a living cell and added a bacterium to it. The Bacterium multiplied…exactly what a bacterium does.

        You agree that the intellegent designer could be any higher power but then why would you title this “Our Solar System Points to God”?

        and then to add another element to your argument on logic, you used Prophecy in the bible. Maybe we could instead argue about Tyre and who actually destroyed it? God was going to reward Nebuchadnezzar for destroying Tyre… He would reap the reward of it’s plunder! 13 years later, God admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre and offers him Egypt and it’s plunder… which never happened either. “if man can’t see the amazing aspect of these prophecies, then he is WILLFULLY BLIND. That is all I can say. ” It’s funny how you continue to say “If you don’t see it my way, you’re wrong”


      • I have repeated that Creation/Big Bang are theories, none of which I hold to neccessarily be true and point out that we may never know how the world came to be, that is the most logical statement anyone can make. But you continue to argue against Evolution and for Intellegent Design.

        My answer:  I am assuming that since my ARTICLE is about God being the designer and the fact that you are writing AGAINST my article, that you are ARGUING AGAINST MY PREMISE.  THUS, I am giving you a logical intent.  If you aren't arguing for OR against my premise, why the heck are you even writing on my post???  Are you just here to say, "I have no idea how the universe was founded."  ???  Not even to the point of saying, "I think you are wrong about God being the designer of it?  Duh.  No.  I think EVERYONE can see that you are trying to dispel my premise which is that God is the Designer.  Hence, my arguments FOR an Intelligent Designer, ie, God.  So, it makes perfect sense for me to argue that it wasn't through a 'series of accidents' (evolution) and instead, was through conscious and guided CHOICE.  There really isn't ANOTHER option.  AND, since you have FAILED to offer another option, then you can't really speak to the two I have offered.  I am arguing against the only two that have been offered thus far:  the accidental theory (it just happened) and the Intention Theory (Someone Made it happen).  Both the Big Bang and Evolution fit into the accidental theories.  I am SO SORRY that you can't see that.

        You’re entire argument is about a “god” or “intellegent designer” and while anyone can use “logic” to make an argument, it is often faulty logic.

        MY ANSWER: If my logic is ‘faulty’ in any way, please show me. You can’t just claim it is ‘faulty’. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. It’s that simple. Put your money where your mouth is.

        I exxplained why Saturn would not be hospitable to life but it’s moon would be more hospitable. The temperature exteme on Saturn are far more extreme than anything you will find on earth. If you are speaking of microbes or even the building blocks of life, Sure, they can likely exist anywhere. You argue that life should be able to exist anywhere in the universe and to an extent, that is correct, however, just because human life can happen on earth, it does not mean human life can exist on every planet. Gravity varies from planet to planet, it is not the same across the universe.

        MY ANSWER: First, you just don’t have a grip on things. I never said that GRAVITY is the same on both planets. I said that the PRINCIPLE of gravity is the same everywhere. AND IT IS. Get it straight. The mass of an object will determine the strength of its gravitational pull. Period. It works the same everywhere. That is why it is considered a THEORY OR A LAW. The consistency of it makes it a THEORY OR A LAW. The day we see that the RULE of gravity fails to work somewhere in the universe is the day that we must AMEND the theory or the law. NOW, do you get it? It is on this basis that I say, if the ‘theory of evolution’ or the ‘Big Bang theory’ or ANY OTHER theory of how life began on earth- is true, THEN IT MUST BE TRUE EVERYWHERE in the universe. Not just true on earth. And WHEN we apply that throughout the universe, it is WHEN these silly ideas, like evolution, just FALL APART. Now, I’m sorry that you have such trouble following those thoughts.

        Let’s focus on your initial blog. You make the claim that Einstein believes in God and Jesus. He has made various statements during his life such as believing in “Spinoza’s god” and called himself an agnostic. It sounds to me you are taking some of his quotes out of context, you are purposely misleading or you are sadly misinfomred about Einstein.

        MY ANSWER: No. And here is a FULL ANNOTATED article to show you where I have ALL his quotes and where he said them. It’s you who are sadly mistaken about this amazing man. The only good and logical mind MUST acknowledge a Creator. Only poor minds are left in awe of the human mind. Seriously. I am always amused at the stupidity of people. Only great minds can see how very little we human beings have achieved. Only great minds can revel in how much more there is yet to know. Only great minds can laugh at ourselves in all our human foibles and mistakes. The only great scientists are those who can see ourselves for who we are: explorers in a great sea of knowledge. We are excited to know the great unknown. I feel sorry for people who think we know a lot. They must be frustrated. For me, I see the stars and think, “Oh, Lord! What wonders yet to know! What amazing knowledge yet to uncover! We know nothing, my friend. We know nothing about time, space or even reality. We are trapped in this little bubble of matter and time, but even I can sense that there is so much more than this in reality. There is so much more to know for the curious mind. Only the mind made of concrete and pride says, “Look at what we have done! We are so smart! We have achieved so much!” This makes me think of those who thought painting watch faces with radioactive paint was a wonderful idea! That is, until everyone got cancer! Einstein FULLY understood this when he peered into the great unknown- he sensed the orderliness of Creation. READ HIS REAL QUOTES and you will see what he thought. And remember, David. People have a life. What he may have said at one point of his life, may not be what he believed at the end of it.

        “It truly amazes me how mathematically and logically blind some so-called scientists are.” Lol,, just because they do not believe what you believe, they are “logically blind”. Because you are so much smarter, right?

        MY ANSWER: Anyone who is logically blind is, well, logically blind. They can either make a logical argument or they can’t. No amount of degrees can save them. Unless you would like to argue that they can?

        Another “logical” claim you made was that an “intelligent designer” created life, which I pointed out was not true. They took a living cell and added a bacterium to it. The Bacterium multiplied…exactly what a bacterium does.

        MY ANSWER: Um. No. Read the article again, my friend. It was NOT, I repeat, NOT a ‘living cell’. They extracted every single aspect of the cell out of the membrane. It was not a living cell. These are the ‘greatest scientific minds’ our humanity has to offer on the subject. Read the article title, my friend. Perhaps you should go to Venter and tell HIM that he didn’t just create the first synthetic life- even though the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY recognizes that he did.

        David, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t hold science up as your ‘god’ and then, claim it is ‘wrong’. THEY said they created life. I’m taking them at their own word and using their own argument against them. I have that right. IF they want to have their cake, they have to eat it too. IF THEY can create life, then THEY must admit that they can BE created too. It is SIMPLE logic and it is FLAWLESS. Even if David K wants to have a temper tantrum about it.

        You agree that the intellegent designer could be any higher power but then why would you title this “Our Solar System Points to God”?

        “MY ANSWER- I already answered this. Because the Bible gives great proof that it is MY GOD. What other God has shown such proof of his/her existence?

        and then to add another element to your argument on logic, you used Prophecy in the bible. Maybe we could instead argue about Tyre and who actually destroyed it? God was going to reward Nebuchadnezzar for destroying Tyre… He would reap the reward of it’s plunder! 13 years later, God admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre and offers him Egypt and it’s plunder… which never happened either. “if man can’t see the amazing aspect of these prophecies, then he is WILLFULLY BLIND. That is all I can say. ” It’s funny how you continue to say “If you don’t see it my way, you’re wrong”

        MY ANSWER: Um. I don’t think you know what you are talking about concerning biblical content. Why don’t you give me the Scriptures you are talking about and then we can discuss it? You are just spouting words there. The Bible has NEVER been wrong. Period. So, again. Give me the scriptures. I don’t think you can. But I await with bated breath on that one.

        David, the only reason I took the time to break down your comment in this way is to finally silence you. Not for your sake, but for my readers’ sake. I have been more than patient with you and I admit, I was rude in this response. I’m sure that after some time, I will regret this rudeness and impatience. But really, it gets hard after I have made the argument so clearly, so many times and you are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge it. It makes intelligent conversation impossible. I hate to ban a reader from my page and would much rather have an intelligent conversation. I suppose that’s why I have taken such time with you. But if your next comment continues in the same vein as this one, then I suppose I will have no choice. Neither I, nor my readers, want to see a repetitious back and forth over the same content, ok? Either ask another question, or comment on something else, ok?


      • Amazing! You claim the bible has never been wrong and your not even familiar with the prophecy I mentioned. The prophecy against Tyre is in Ezekiel.

        And you are telling me I am wrong about Einstein when it states right in your link that Einstein stated “I believe in Spinoza’s God….” are you that daft? Why not read up on when he admitted to being agnostic and was quoted as saying “We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books…”

        I think the record will show that you are both rude and have an elementary knowledge concerning the topic you write about. This has been pointed out by several people!


      • David, I am very familiar with the prophecy of Tyre- but asked you to produce the scripture supporting your claim that God delivered something different than he claimed he would. You haven’t done that. I never said that Einstein didn’t speak to the Spinoza god nor did I say he never claimed to be agnostic. However, it is CLEAR from the body of his words that he believed in a Supreme Being. And that he believed in Jesus. He made that clear. If anyone is taking Einstein’s quotes out of context, it is you and those who want to label him as an atheist. He laughed and truly wondered at those who would deny the hand of a Supreme Being. That is clearly seen in his quotes. While he didn’t believe that there was a God who interfered with mankind’s daily lives, he still believed in the existence of God. The rest is details. As to his library statement, how can YOU read that as anything other than a statement of INTELLECTUAL FAITH? He is saying, in no uncertain terms, that anyone with INTELLIGENCE must approach all creation with the full knowledge that there IS a God. David, as I said before, without any desire to be rude, you seem incapable of understanding simple information or logic. Even when it set clearly before you. And then, you call others ‘daft’? What can I say?


      • I thought you banned me, I left my last response and forgot about you two weeks ago!

        Tyre would be a prophecy that would point out a claim that was made and not delivered. Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar never received the reward of it’s plunder, Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed Israel and never recieved the reward of it’s plunder either.

        Clearly from your response, you don’t seem to understand. Your response to me about Einstein ” If anyone is taking Einstein’s quotes out of context, it is you and those who want to label him as an atheist.”

        I did not label him an atheist, I made no claim at all. Here’s what I said: “Why not read up on when he admitted to being agnostic and was quoted as saying “We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books…”

        You may want to look up what Einstein meant by Spinoza’s god because based on how you worded your reference “I never said that Einstein didn’t speak to the Spinoza god ” it just sounds like that statement was made by someone who doesn’t understand the term.

        From the point of your “Atheist” comment, through the end of your message, you seem to be making up arguments now. You think you know Einstein but in this one response, you have shown me that you know very little. You are not showing me what Einstein believed, you are projecting what you want to believe on Einstein.

        and please stop pre empting your rudeness by announcing you are going to be rude. It is infantile.


      • DK

        First, this post here is plain enough regarding logic. Ultimate logic demands the Ultimate Creator. The Creator by the way wired this into your being. Man is not smart enough to create the living God as imaginative.

        Now Zeus, Jupiter, etc, there you go, all sideshows because the living God is not enough to the rebellious of heart. It has always been the case. Evidence abounds, but that little muscle called the heart wants to be the idol of himself: there is no God ! says he.

        Yeah, good luck with that circus.

        (Hi slr)


      • Looks like my reply never posted. The issue with your theory is you not only need to prove an intelligent Design, you also need to prove an intelligent designer, something you have no proof of. You cannot take something you do not have proof of and state that it is mathematically more probable.

        Thanks to advances in technology, we can now see the development of a planet through a telescope.

        and, no, we cannot create life in a test tube, we set and maintain the conditions conducive to the life process.


      • Actually, we have created life in a test tube. The scientist is Venter. Here is an article for you. It is upon this argument I make my logical leap. You continue to believe that the only way to reason is through scientific method and that is your great flaw. It is just as viable to use critical reasoning- ie, common sense. Example: if we can be the Creators of life, then WE can be the life that is created. That makes perfect sense. Another example: If we believe there is life other than human life that can be in existence, we have no right or even a basis by which to measure, just how intelligent that other life form may be. Correct? I am correct. Whether or not you would like to admit it. Thus, the other life form may be infinitely more intelligent than us. So much so, that it is our creator. That is completely and utterly possible in the realm of logic.

        The very fact that we can reason it makes it possible. Here is another logical argument for you: In the primitive ages, it would have been laughable for people to imagine that little clumps of matter were flying about in the ‘air’ and that these little bits of ‘dirt’ or ‘air’ were flying in and out of human bodies, helping them live. In fact, this very thought would have been frightening or laughable- take your pick. That was SCIENCE then. These examples of the LIMITS of the scientific knowledge and scientific METHOD are so many, so prolific that it AMAZES and ASTOUNDS me that people like you actually tout is as the religion by which you live and breath! In fact, as a believer in GOOD science myself, I think any GOOD scientist must realize that ALL science is wrong all the time! In doing so, we understand WHY we continue studying. We must say all science is always wrong because we know, with 100% certainty, that we have only begun to scratch the very surface of what there is to know. I know, with absolute certainty, that everything we know today will be upended and turned around in about 500 years. So, I will NOT be putting my money on any of it. Instead, I will be looking FORWARD to the changes. I will be opening my mind to what CAN be, not to what can NOT be, based on what we ‘know’ already (namely because we know nothing).

        But people like you, David, actually believe we ‘know’ things. I’m not trying to put you down, but that is just bad thinking. To me, that is the most unscientific thought there is!! We know nothing. That is the basis of good science to me. Rely on nothing. Assume nothing. Allow anything to be true. Open the mind and allow your eyes to see what they see. THIS is the basis for really good science.

        Based on that, I am not hampered like so many atheist scientists on what can NOT be. All logical reasoning says that if MAN can do it, so can any other living being. Thus, if man can create life, so can another Intelligent Being. And if a life can BE created, then so can we.

        If you refuse to admit that logical reasoning is a good basis by which to see the world and explore its possibilities, then, well, I think you have a limited mind- and not a very good one. That isn’t meant to be an insult. Just an honest assessment of your thinking capability.


      • From your link:
        “Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world’s first synthetic life form ”

        He is taking a cell and adding something to that cell to change it. He’s not making life, he is changing it.

        Have you read your responses to me? You are very condenscending. I think another person pointed that out. Would you like me to respond like you have with ” Just an honest assessment of your thinking capability.” or “and that is your great flaw” or “But people like you, David, actually believe we ‘know’ things. I’m not trying to put you down, but that is just bad thinking.” or “I am not hampered like so many atheist scientists on what can NOT be”

        I guess I could repond in the same condenscending manner but you may not publish my response.


      • David, I’m sorry I sound condescending- and perhaps I do, but what I said was true. After a while, I just have to call a spade a spade. Either you won’t admit your flaw in reasoning or you don’t have the capacity to see your flaw. I can’t just keep arguing with you. It is one or the other and the statement must be made by me to end the argument. I don’t mean to make it to be proud or condescending, but to end the argument with you. So, you can pick. Either admit that you refuse to admit your flaw in reasoning or that you are incapable of seeing it.


  10. No may wen ti = no problem in Chinese or eeooh = no prob in Japanese. Did you ever think in some cases, that but for the Grace of God go I. or does that not apply to you ?


  11. How sure are you that life is unique to Earth?
    How sure are you that you understanding the statistics of the situation better than the scientists?
    How sure are you that you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution?
    How sure are you understand the concept of scientific law?

    All questions that arise to me in reading your article, in that it seems to me that you have little reason to be sure on any of these.


    • lol. Are you sure that what people call science is the ONLY way to look at a problem? are you sure that you read my article very well? are you sure that by ignoring the very beginning of EVERYTHING, that a theory has much merit? The theory of Evolution is very much like the Big Bang Theory. Both want to completely ignore ‘the beginning’ part. They both ask all people to just ‘skip’ that part and to move on to the next part- the part they want to talk about. Skip the whole, “where did all that matter come from, anyway? Where did the energy come from anyway? Where did the original atoms come from anyway? Who, or what, created the laws of nature that would make those atoms attracted to one another anyway? Who, or what, created the laws of nature that would make a blast even possible? In fact, where did any of the physical laws come from that would make electrons, photons, neutrons behave as they do? Why is there gravity that would need to be there for this blast and the entire Big Bang theory AND the theory of evolution to take place within and where did it come from? How did it come about, this gravity thing? What about the very concept of light? Who said that light should travel at the speed of light? Who said that entropy should work as it does? Who said that thermodynamics should work as it does? Who said that chemistry should work as it does? For that matter, why is there mathematical concept? why does 2 + 2 = 4 and why does it do so every time? Why are there three dimensions? Why not less or more? Who said so? What formed that reality? Why is it so?

      Allallt? How are you sure of any of this? All these questions arise in me when reading your questions. It seems to me that you have little reason to be sure of any of these.


      • I don’t understand the link between the questions you just asked me and the content of your post. Unless you’re goal there was to obscure conversation, I don’t know what you hoped to achieve.

        My aim was to encourage you to be a little more introspective because some of the science terms you use you appear to misunderstand.

        Think, for example, about how gravity is different here from on the sun to in deep space to on Jupiter. Nothing about this fact undermines the laws of gravity. The laws explain why it is different in each place. The laws remain the same how their realisation is completely location specific.

        Whatever laws underpin the start and subsequent development of life will also be sensitive to local variables. In the absence of carbon, or in extremely high temperatures, the laws that describe the development of organic chemicals are still true, but they still won’t develop in those areas.

        No theory — not germ theory, not atomic theory, not cell theory, not evolutionary theory, not gravitational theory — is undermined by an absence of an answer to a question outside their domain. Each theory has a very well defined purview and they are not wrong just because they can’t answer an unrelated question.


      • If your argument is perfectly logical, can you turn it into some sort of syllogism? As far as I can tell, you’ve got 2 and they look like this.

        Argument 1
        (1) If life is a natural law, life should be everywhere.
        (2) Life is not everywhere.
        (Conc.1) Life must not be a natural law.

        (3) If life is not a natural law, it must be supernatural
        (Conc. 1) Life must not be a natural law
        (Conc. 2) Life must be supernatural.

        Argument 2
        (1) You should believe things that smart people believe.
        (2) Einstein believed in God.
        (3) Einstein was smart
        (Conc.) You should believe in God.

        As a brief overview:
        Argument 1
        (1) is false. (2) is unknown and therefore not accepted. (3) is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy, and therefore not accepted.

        Argument 2
        (1) is false. You shouldn’t even believe what smart people believed in their area of expertise. Aristotle was very clever and the father of modern science but was wrong about physics of motion and wrong about the number of legs a fly had.
        What you’re arguing for is an argument from authority.
        (2) Not your God. It’s an equivocation.
        (3) Yes. Accepted.

        Given how easily torn apart that all was, can you attempt to put your “perfectly logical” argument into a logical form?


      • Argument 1 is pretty close to one of my arguments. However, you are wrong on a very important aspect of my beliefs and I will address that after I address one of your comments: You say that #1 of Argument 1 is false. On what basis can you conclude that? I have already stated why it IS true. It is the very definition of the term ‘theory’ or ‘law’ of nature. YOU are wrong on that point. Sorry. Based on that point alone, the rest must be true. And this argument is based on what scientists today believe themselves.

        Now, to your utter flaw- you say, this is what I believe. No. This is not what I believe. I am using atheist arguments against them in order to show their own lack of logic. I am demonstrating that their own belief system doesn’t hold up. But that doesn’t mean that I believe in those same set of caveats and conditions at all! What I believe is ‘natural’ is completely different that what an atheist thinks is natural. I don’t believe in ‘supernatural’ things. I believe that what God does is completely natural. I believe that God has everything to do with how the universe functions. In fact, I believe that if God stopped what he is actively doing, the universe would explode apart- it would fall apart due to the ‘natural’ laws we see everyday. There is absolutely no reason for the earth to continue spinning, for example. Think about that. We are spinning in perfect timing- even though we are bombarded over and over and over again by outside objects. Why do we keep spinning? We should have stopped long ago. But we don’t. Ditto for the entire universe, really. Everything continues moving like clockwork, even though things bump and hit each other- even in a frictionless environment, this just can’t be! According to every ‘natural’ law we know, the universe should decay. It should shatter and stop. But it doesn’t. Where does the extra energy come from to keep it working in such tight, perfect harmony day after day, second after second, millennia after millennia, eon after enon? The laws of entropy are NOT being followed by this universe of ours. At all. I believe that scientists end up scratching their heads so often when they contemplate such things BECAUSE they refuse to consider the elephant in the room, which is God. God IS natural. He is the force by which it all hangs together. Because of their stupidity and insistence on seeing God as ‘super’ natural, like a ghost or a witch or some other silly thing, they can’t see the forest for the trees. They can’t understand the actual, physical world around them. What can I say about such people? They won’t open their minds to see the truth about what they are seeing. Heck, they won’t even see the absurdity of their own illogic. We can have movies about advanced creatures with super powers, but we can’t imagine that such creatures actually exist? We can create life in a test tube, but can’t fathom being the life that is in the test tube of another Creature? We can imagine stories where creatures can move outside of time, but we can’t imagine that such Creature actually exists in reality? We can create an invisibility cloak for real but can’t imagine that other Beings have created it eons before us and have been here on earth well before man was created? What kind of science minds are those? I, unlike those small minds, can indeed imagine the easy possibility of the existence of God. So, for me, your conclusions for Argument 1 are for Atheists, not for me. For me, God IS the natural solution and the most mathematically probable one.

        But argument one is NOT false, nor is it illogical. If you want to just call it ‘wrong’ or false, please give your backing. It is TRUE, and flawlessly logical.

        I don’t make Argument 2. My argument is this:

        Einstein was one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived.
        Einstein was one of the greatest science minds to have ever lived.
        Einstein believed in God and Jesus.
        Einstein believed that the only way to approach knowledge and science was with the understanding that there is a God.
        Believing in God and Jesus is what highly intelligent, science minded people do.

        Allallt, when you seek to embarrass someone, hadn’t you better be pretty sure you have done a good job of it? You can’t just go around saying that someone’s logical argument (ie, Argument 1, #1) is ‘false’. You have to actually prove it. I did. AND you have to AT LEAST understand their argument before you seek to debunk it, don’t you think? I never made the second argument. I made the argument you see above. Go and re-read my comments and you will see that I am right. You were so eager to jump on me that you failed to get the argument right in the first place and now, you have made a fool of yourself on my page.

        So, yes, I will stick to the fact that my argument is perfectly logical. Because it is.


    • Hi Dr. John. Been holding up. I got down for a while. Have to admit it. I was doing almost all my work on Facebook and didn’t feel like writing an article here on Facebook. Been dealing with my case. Just finished my first deposition. It went well. It was long and difficult but I was happy with the results. Still have quite a journey ahead of us, though. I came back and realized that I had a ton of messages in my spam folder though! I didn’t realize just how many! I am so annoyed as there are some real people who needed real help. I’m catching up on them now. I will be more vigilant now. I’m thinking about closing down Short Little Rebel as soon as my case is settled, though. I’m ready for a new blogging adventure. I think my case will be the last thing for this experiment. I will let my readers know where my next blog will be, though, for those who wish to follow me there. Short Little rebel was an experiment and I think it was successful. I will write more about that later when I’m ready. It won’t be for another 8 months or so, but it’s coming. Thanks for asking about me and my family. Susan


Please join the conversation! All comments are monitored, so if you have a private note you wish to leave, just say so. Also, all profane or unhelpful comments will be deleted. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s