1. Saying Goodbye to a Great Staffer: Edial
    Please help me wish Edial a wonderful blessed journey as he steps down from CF staff.
    His footprint on our ministry will always remain but his presence will be greatly missed. I'm sure he will come around as a member to all his favorite forums but for now please join me at his profile page to wish him many thanks for the years of service he has brought to us all.
    All of us on CF staff will miss him dearly!!
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Top Arguments for the Science Minded

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by ALoveDivine, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. ALoveDivine

    ALoveDivine Catholic, Charismatic, Franciscan, Sinner

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Having once been an atheist, I understand the mindset pretty well. Empirical evidence is the best thing to use in dialogue with an atheist or an agnostic. Educated atheists and agnostics will, for the most part, be utterly unresponsive to the gospel so long as intellectual barriers to faith remain. So in this thread I'd like to brainstorm some of the most effective arguments to use when dialoging with educated unbelievers. I'll start with a few and you can all add to them.

    1. Fine tuning - the universe is highly finely tuned for the existence of intelligent life. The initial conditions of the big bang, which are not physically necessary but are simply given, are so utterly precise that to alter them by a tiny fraction of a percent would make life and even stars impossible. The fact that the universe just so happened to be finely tuned to allow for life, when it could have in theory been otherwise, points to an intelligent mind behind natural design.

    2. The beginning - at a finite point in time, 13.7 billion years ago, the universe began to exist. The universe came to be, out of nothing, exactly as Genesis 1:1 declares. Something must be eternal, otherwise you run into the problem of an infinite regress. Either matter/energy is eternal, or something else is eternal. Matter/energy is not eternal, because it began to exist at the moment of the big bang. Therefore something else is eternal. Working with the evidence of fine tuning in the universe, we can infer that the eternal cause behind the universe must be intelligent, powerful, and intentional. Intelligence is needed to explain the ordered design of the universe, and power and intentionality are required to explain the creation of the universe. An eternal cause that is intelligent, powerful, and intentional is, by definition, God.

    3. Human uniqueness - Human beings, though genetically very similar to other organisms, are vastly different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Unlike other animals, human beings posses a reflective and introspective self-awareness. Even if we allow for a purely Darwinian explanation for the development of life, the vast complexity of our unique human consciousness cannot be adequately explained. The bible, however, declares that we are made in the image of God and, hence, posses some of his attributes, albeit in drastically minimized form. If we accept this biblical premise as true, we would expect to find the human cognition utterly unique in the animal kingdom, which is exactly what we find. Even though we share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, our cognition is dramatically more complex and is in fact indicative of transcendence. Add to all of this the omnipresence of spiritual belief in human societies throughout all of recorded history, and you have good empirical evidence for the uniqueness of the human mind. Given all of this, the biblical explanation for the novelty of the human consciousness has the best explanatory power and ought to be accepted as true.

    4. Existence of Aesthetics - Humans are also unique in our recognition of and perception of beauty. When we look at the earth and the larger universe we are struck by a sense of wonder and an appreciation of beauty. What is beauty? Why is it that nature, as perceived through our senses, is pleasing to us? Certainly there is no Darwinian reason for the existence of aesthetics, for what differential reproductive benefit can such a thing bestow? The universe, it seems, is objectively beautiful, a fact that is hard to explain in a purely naturalistic and non-theistic framework. However the bible makes the claim that the universe declares the glory of God. Given this premise we would expect that our perception of nature would evoke feelings of wonder and awe, a sense of beauty and majesty, to point us toward the creator and a recognition of some of his attributes. Once again the biblical worldview explains the phenomena better than a naturalistic framework.

    Those are some of my arguments, the first two of which are widely used and the last two of which are my own. Any thoughts or other arguments you'd like to contribute?
     
  2. Armistead14

    Armistead14 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    46
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All you mentioned are often used in debates by Christians debating Atheist.

    The first two are strong points, but still don't prove God. Atheist will still argue that even though we don't have answers, a belief in a God of any sort would still be a worse explanation that other possibilities. Simply, God isn't science, it's belief in the spiritual, thus theology.

    They will explain the other two as biological evolution.
     
  3. TheyCallMeDave

    TheyCallMeDave At your service....

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Protestant
    I enjoy challenging educated Atheists with :

    How did our personality traits of logic, reason, abstract thinking, love, consciousness (Soul, Mind, Will) etc...come about from Materialism ? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation . Have you ?
     
  4. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    494
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    yes. I believe evolution can account for the brain, and the brain supports the mind.

    I'm not sure I'd call that materialism. It's a system for which God is responsible. I accept the traditional Christian view that the order in the world reflects God's rationality. It is no coincidence that God created a material order in which rationality would develop.
     
  5. Harry3142

    Harry3142 Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    198
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Anglican
    According to what I've learned, evolution in its purest form teaches that the species of animals have evolved in accordance with how well they have been able to survive in their environment. So those species that exist today are the 'winners' of this evolutionary lottery.

    But how does belief in a Supreme Being help a species to survive? Does it provide shelter for them from the elements? Does it provide the food necessary for them to survive and reproduce? No, it does not. But man is predisposed to worship a being greater than he is. In primitive societies it takes the form of 'natural religion', in which they endow a certain aspect of their environment with a divine status. In 'revealed religion', they progress from natural religion, through the worship of gods and goddesses which could be represented by either celestial objects or the various species of animals they saw around them, to the worship of one deity who created all that now exists, but is himself over and above all that he has created.

    So why do we worship a deity if that worship doesn't affect our own survival? Personally, I believe that we worship him because he has revealed himself to us, identifying himself as the person through whom all that now is came into existence. Whereas all other species of animals have brains that simply help them to survive and reproduce in a certain environment, God has enabled the brain of homo sapiens to realize that there is a higher power who is set apart from all that we know through our five senses, but who molded the universe, and this planet, into the form in which we now can exist.
     
  6. ptomwebster

    ptomwebster Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Protestant

    I plant a seed and walk away, more than that is a waste of time. God opens eyes not me.
     
  7. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    Messages:
    3,901
    Likes Received:
    149
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Here is a fun one that as a Clinical Trial Assistant trained in Biology and Biomedical Method I would propose is an irrefutable biologically sound argument that must be answered.

    There cannot be a cell without DNA! DNA on the other hand cannot produce a cell (with all its subsystems necessary for the DNA to produce ) without at least the most basic systems of transcription and translation (which requires a number of other enzymes and organelles to complete). Yet there are cells.


    Free floating DNA (a theorized complex molecule never found anywhere in nature and only made in Laboratories by an outside intelligent force) cannot sustain its own existence but left alone and not immediately isolated in a Cold Trap or some other inventive contraption (a device made by an outside intelligent force that does not exist in nature) will almost immediately denature and fall apart into component base chemicals (a fact demonstrated repeatedly even in the Urey/Miller experiments, thus their need for a Cold Trap device).


    So no Cells, no functional DNA, BUT no DNA no cells…neither can exist and produce without the other.
    Do which one came first? Neither! But what about life forms? Well the indisputable truth is, as former Darwin bulldog Stephen J. Gould of Harvard said (before dismissing Darwin as an unproven myth and jumping to Puncuated Equilibrium theory)…“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages…indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediaries...has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”.


    “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“ S. J. Gould, Natural History“ (see the May 97 issue)


    This change was initiated because when Gould and a number of colleagues actually looked at the evidence in the Geological Column, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, new Phyla just appear suddenly.

    In the very beginning we have entire creatures like Nautilus that (poof!) suddenly appear fully formed with all their functionality and subsystems fully in place. There are many, many, examples of this. The only actual evidence indicates that these organs and organisms do not demonstrate they were formed by a series of slow gradualistic changes. The cells they are comprised of were and still are in Nautilus’s case, fully functional products of DNA encryption which themselves provide the organs and systems and enzymes which all DNA to be unencrypted and produce the required proteins for its own existence and being must already have in place.


    Darwin himself admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. Well there it is! Sorry Charlie (and this ain’t no fish story)! Consider it broken down.

    So how does DNA produce a cell without a cell? The answer? It cannot. Well then this must mean the cell existed first...maybe its smallest funtional piece like the Mitochondria or something...but wait the most basic cell requires DNA to just to exist as does Mitochindria..who else or what else made these proteins and structures...so the...???? No DNA no possibility of cells, no cells no DNA decryption, transcription, translation, etc....unless their was the involvement of an outside intelligent force...Hmmm!



    In His name

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  8. TheyCallMeDave

    TheyCallMeDave At your service....

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Protestant
    God never used evolution to make everything. Stellar and Macro Evolution are simply atheistic constructs with many people dropping God into the equation. , called 'theistic evolution' . Read Genesis and you find that God made everything FULLY formed and FULLY functioning including man and woman . In fact, it an offense to Gods perfectionistic , loving, caring, nature and character to suggest he allowed everything to develop, piecemealed, including millions of years of animal survival of the fittest including cancer, bloodshed, tearing to pieces , etc....and then call his creation 'Good, very good' . It is totally absurd .

    Please stop offending our Creator by needing a hybrid / half-a_ _ _ d process from a perfect in everyway Creator. Get your truth from the Bible and not quasi-scientists having an apriori-commitment to secular wild imaginations. ONLY micro evolution is true --- always within a particular kind/family. , and thats supported in the Bible.

    Choose this day whom you will serve : Secular Scientists or The Lord and his written instructions. You cant love God and the World (Man) at the same time .
     
  9. TheyCallMeDave

    TheyCallMeDave At your service....

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Protestant
    1. No, quote a few Creationist Scientists who drop a bomb on their own field of study, if you can. Ive provided a list of Evolutionists that have on their own field of study . See if you can reciprocate.

    1.a. Here we have well over 700 of the Worlds top PHD Scientists whove signed a petition declaring their grave problems with Darwinnian Evolution ; the unproven puerile THEORY is in BIG trouble .....http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about.php

    2. No need to 'inflict' creationism on any child ; children know intuitively when they get to approx. 4-7 years old that a high intelligence was needed for everything around them and that no amount of time, accidents upon accidents , and wishful thinking....could ever be the Cause. If they didnt, theyd have no need to ask their Parents point blank : 'WHO made all this ?' / 'HOW did all this get here'? / 'WHY is all this here' ? Remember asking these or simular questions to your Parents ?

    Its only thru a lieing secular public school system shoving 1st grade books in front of them with airbrushed glossy pictures of a little One Celled Pond Scum Protozoa with a smile on his face....do they trust that this is the truth of their identity --- a reprehensible attempt to fool impressionable innocent Minds which has tremendous fallout once they get older and want to experience a moral-less Culture since 'theres no ultimate moral accountability' coming from Pond Slime.

    Isnt atheism convenient ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  10. super animator

    super animator Dreamer

    Messages:
    2,032
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Evolution is not a atheist's conspiracy.
     
  11. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    111
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    When you Speak of TOE, CE, or Christianity; do understand their relation to special adaptation, speciation, genetic drift, and morphological taxonomy? Or are you basing you assertions on what? Whats is this great, ponderous, mystery that TOE can provide the solution to? I don't think you even know in the first place of what you talk about.

    Go ahead, present your Piltdown man.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2012
  12. ALoveDivine

    ALoveDivine Catholic, Charismatic, Franciscan, Sinner

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I don't believe science and the bible contradict. I also believe evolution really did happen, as far as there is data to support it. A follower of Christ should in no way be unwilling to look objectively at scientific data and come to a rational conclusion about a particular aspect of God's creation. Remember in Genesis the earth brought forth plants and animals, God didn't pop them into existence out of nothing. The universe was created ex nihilo but life came from the earth, by the command of God, as Genesis records. This can certainly square up with biological evolution.

    We do a grave disservice to the gospel message when we reject solid science, especially when we ourselves are ignorant of much of the data. From the studying I have done, it is very hard to ignore the overwhelming evidence for an old earth, an old universe, and biological evolution. However atheists are often guilty of taking well-established science, mingling it with philosophy, and creating naturalistic ideologies. Materialism is rooted in scientific data to great extent, but it is built upon faulty presuppositions and faith in the idea of self-existent matter, which has never been proven and has in fact been refuted by big bang cosmology.

    I, as a Christian, accept the same scientific data you atheists do. Therefore our discussion is of necessity more philosophical in nature. My main contention is that the fact that the universe had a beginning, that it is extraordinarily finely tuned, and that human beings are altogether unique from the rest of the animal kingdom cognitively, all point to the God of the bible as both a possible and probable explanation.

    Further, I can't completely prove God empirically, to even imagine that this would be possible is odd. If God is non-physical (mind) and transcendent (outside of this universe), how could we absolutely validate his existence empirically? The most I can do is point out aspects of our universe indicative of design and point you to God.

    But don't brush off God Almighty as some fairy tale. Ancient near-east cultures often believed in multiple human-like gods fighting each other, etc. In the midst of that climate, one group of people claimed to be in communion with a being who claimed to be the one true God, eternally existent, absolutely without moral blemish, all powerful, all knowing, and absolutely sovereign, who created the universe out of nothing. If the fine tuning of the universe and the big bang are indicative of transcendent intelligence, then it behooves us all to take very seriously the biblical account, because the God of the bible alone possesses the attributes of a God capable of creating this immense and marvelous universe out of nothing.

    "for I am God, and there is no other;
    I am God, and there is none like me,
    declaring the end from the beginning
    and from ancient times things not yet done,
    saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
    and I will accomplish all my purpose,"
    - Isaiah 46:9-10
     
  13. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    57
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Anabaptist
    Well, if you want, you can always go back to the early pagan philosophers of Greece and the dawn of Science.

    Thales, 624-546 BC, concluded that despite the differences between various things, there must be, nevertheless, a fundamental and foundational Thing behind everything and from which everything comes. The Thing is One, and out of this Single Thing, everything comes to be. He called this The One. But he thought it must be material. The material he picked was Water.

    Anaximander, 580? BC, agreed with Thales in the rational necessity for a Primary Source. He was convinced that The One from which the finite and bound comes into existence must itself be infinite and boundless.

    Anaximenes, 585-528 BC, was unable to fathom what an indefinite boundless might be so he decided to pick a more definite substance (Air). He said that if there was an effect, there must also be a cause, and if this was true, something must ultimately be causing the entire system of cause and effect from which there is no other cause other than itself—something that began the change and motion that is exhibited since change and motion do not begin on their own.

    Pythagoras, 525-500 BC, first codified the foundational basis of science: the world is governed by a permanent, structured, and ordered system. He called this system Mathematics. Because all physical things had form and all form was composed of matter and all forms were limited, he concluded that all matter was limited. This is the beginning of the understanding that the Primary Source cannot be material/physical.

    Anaxagoras, 500-438 BC, believed that since the world and everything in it are in a well-ordered and intricately structured, this requires a Primary Source with knowledge and power. This Rational Principle he called Mind (Nous):

     
  14. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    111
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    I have found in my own search for truth and understanding; the more I dug, the more my beleif in Jesus, and an all powerful God were confirmed. There is no logical and/or scientific reasoning and/or proof that "nothing' consummated all "existence". Logically nothing exists in nothing. 0+0= 0. Yet here we are. I have even heard many smart people believe matter had to come from nowhere. Yep, It just poofed into existence.To them, how or where the matter came from dose not matter.

    There are also the laws and constraints of our existence. Such as the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and inertia. How did they come to be? Are they sentient, and had to learn their behavior? What unseen, unknown form controls these laws?

    Then we can get into evolution. Everything that we see as macro evo are things like special divergence, special adaptation ,Genetic drift, speciation, and just plain old mutations. To put it simply, if you change a dogs environment, you may very well change everything form behavior, to breeding habits, and their coloration to addapt to their current environment. However they did not turn into an entirely new animal. A canine will never, and can never become an equine. The two cant even mate to have offspring. But that canine can pick up different traits, and mutations, that would not have presented itself if it stayed in its original environment and/or habitat. These traits then get passed to their offspring, and in a few generations you could have an entirely new breed of dog then the original one. Every dog in the world is the same species. They just have different traits and mutations present making them a new breed.

    I find nothing alarming with Christians understanding God's creation. However, nothing begets nothing. There has to be a reason.
     
  15. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    57
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Anabaptist
    Here is one argument that I believe to be very strong. It has to do with my particular area of study.

    In linguistics, there are two basic “models” by which we measure change across and between language groups: the Tree Model and the Wave Model. In the Tree Model, we trace the development of a language backward and forward in time as one language leads to another language or as languages change and become something else. The Wave Model is less interested in when a language changes or emerges out of another language and the differences that separate languages. Instead, it focuses on how languages borrow concepts from other languages and become similar in some way to one another without changing their inherent structures.

    As the science of language tells us according to the Tree Model, all languages go back to a particular ancestor language. Since I study Hebrew, I will use that as an example. Today we have what's called Modern Hebrew. This is based on earlier forms of Hebrew going back eventually to what's called Mishnaic Hebrew, which was the common language of Jews before, during, and after the time of Jesus. Mishnaic Hebrew came out of Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew came out of Epigraphic Hebrew, which came out of Proto-Hebrew. Proto-Hebrew came out of Canaanite. Canaanite came out of Northwest Semitic. Northwest Semitic came out of West Semitic. And West Semitic came out of Proto-Semitic. Proto-Semitic is as far back as anyone can take any Semitic language before all Semitic language disappears from the earth. And, indeed, there is no actual independent evidence of Proto-Semitic itself. Some of the earliest languages in human history like Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian) are Eastern Semitic, which also came out of Proto-Semitic.

    So where did Proto-Semitic come from? Nowhere. It has no basis or similarity to any other existing language. Period. At some point, therefore, an entire language, independent of all other languages, unknown to all other languages, called Proto-Semitic, “appeared.” The problem is how does an entirely unknown language, unrelated to any other language in existence, “appear”? Science cannot answer that question because any type of evolution of language requires something else on which to base it. But there is nothing else on which to base Proto-Semitic. The other problem is that language is simultaneously composed of two parts: 1. code and 2. meaning. Code is a particular set of phonemes and morphemes set together in a particular order. Meaning is the shared cultural understanding given to a particular code. So, for instance, in English, the code D-O-G means something like a short fury animal with four legs, a tail, and that barks. But the code D-O-G is meaningless in India. So even if at some point, for no ascertainable reason, a society suddenly came up with a Proto-Semitic Code, it would be nothing more than nonsense. It would communicate nothing because it lacks meaning. Kind of like if I decided suddenly to start typing a new code like this: OZCKJQM/DS PZOUI/AS PIOASK ASPOIEW. Now, that may be an entirely new code that I just made up, but since it lacks any meaning, it is useless. It cannot go on to become Proto-ChildofDustic unless it has BOTH code AND meaning simultaneously. So not only did a new language have to emerge from nothing, but it had to have both a code and a meaning at the same time when it did so. It is ludicrous. It has never been observed. Never measured. There is no system by which nature itself can make Proto-Semitic appear. And yet it had to have happened—despite any science or any law or any principle of nature. The scroll of Genesis is familiar with an event like this: the confusion of tongues in an ancient region of the world called Babylonia. Samuel Noah Kramer, one of the greatest Assyriologists of the past century, has argued in an article entitled “The Babel of Tongues: A Sumerian Version” that an ancient Sumerian text also talks about a time in the same region as mentioned in Genesis at which point people's languages were suddenly changed from a single language into many:

    So we now have two very different, very ancient traditions, one from the Old Testament and one from ancient Sumer, that record the appearance of languages that had hitherto never been known and which were a cause of terrible confusion. The cause cannot be natural or scientific, but it must have happened. For without Proto-Semitic, there would be no Hebrew for me to study today.
     
  16. spero

    spero Newbie

    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    This is really helpful... And what a testimony of faith.
     
  17. spero

    spero Newbie

    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    And I also feel like these are really peaceful ways of talking to atheists. Rather than trying to tell them they are stupid. I know the atheistic beliefs are irrational in the end, but they don't.
     
  18. ALoveDivine

    ALoveDivine Catholic, Charismatic, Franciscan, Sinner

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Not necessarily. We are all fallen, we all hate God by nature. Human reason, apart from the grace of God, cannot come to the truth of God because we are fallen. Human beings can be very religious or non-religious all on their own, but to come to a real knowledge of the truth of the living God, it takes a sovereign act of grace on God's part. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit there is no hope that any atheist will ever come to Christ.

    Nevertheless, pointing to the evidence of design in the natural world, and making clear that scientific data in no way contradicts the truth of scripture, can break down intellectual barriers. All we can do is break down intellectual barriers to the gospel and then share Christ with them. God alone has the power to convert the soul, and even if an atheist or agnostic rejects the gospel completely, God may move later in their life and bring them to salvation. My purpose in apologetics is to help break down some of these intellectual concerns atheists have and then, if they are interested, share the gospel with them. I'll never convert an atheist, nor is that my purpose, only God can do that. I just pray that the atheists on here will seriously consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ with an open mind.
     
  19. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    Messages:
    3,901
    Likes Received:
    149
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
  20. Harry3142

    Harry3142 Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    198
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Anglican
    Wednes-

    Personally, I believe in Intelligent Design. I am firmly convinced that God has had a hands-on attitude toward the universe, and this planet, since the beginning of time as we know it.

    One of the problems with the theory of evolution is that it simply doesn't survive what scientists now know happened in the millennia between 65 million years ago and today. The orthodox view is that following the extinction of the dinosaurs by the meteor impact which occurred at that time, the planet has been relatively safe for the evolution of creatures, both in the micro and in the macro modes.

    But we now have evidence of numerous events, which scientists themselves classify as extinction level events, which have occurred since that era:

    1. There is a meteor impact crater in the Chesapeake Bay, USA, that measures 53 miles in diameter. According to scientists this took place 35 million years ago. An evolutionary apologist claimed that it only caused a gigantic tsunami, but that statement is only given credence by those who earnestly want to believe in evolution. The errors with it are:

    a. In order for a meteor to only have made a 'big splash' it would have needed to impact in an area where the water level could be measured in thousands of feet. Chesapeake Bay is less than 300 feet deep at its deepest point.

    b. Meteor impacts which only cause tsunamis do not leave craters that are 53 miles across.

    c. The radiant heat from a meteor would have evaporated the water ahead of it at the point where it struck, as well as starting fires in that entire area before it even neared the surface of the bay. So water as shallow as it is there must be seen as the equivalent of an impact on dry land.

    d. It would have taken a maximum of between .005 and .008 seconds from the moment when the meteor arrived at the surface of the bay to the time of its impact into its bed. At that speed the surrounding water that wasn't evaporated would have had zero effect on it.

    2. There is a meteor impact crater in Tajikistan, Russian Republic, that measures 32 miles in diameter. Scientists say that this took place 10 million years ago.

    3. There are 3 meteor impact craters (2 in Canada; 1 in Germany) which each measure 15 miles in diameter. Scientists date these occurrences from as early as 38 million years ago to as late as 15 million years ago.

    4. There is a meteor impact crater in Ghana, Africa, that measures 6.5 miles in diameter. Scientists date this one to 1.5 million years ago.

    As well, the supervolcano that lies under Yellowstone National Park has erupted 3 times in the last two million years, and the supervolcano Mt. Toba, Sumatra, last erupted only 70,000 years ago.

    And what do all of these events have in common besides the immediate devastation that they caused? They were all of sufficient force as to propel sulfurous gas and dust to the very edge of earth's atmosphere, where it formed a shell that enveloped the entire planet. This would have effectively blocked the sun's rays from getting to the surface of the planet, and acoording to scientists themselves would have plunged the surface temperature of earth to the equivalent of that of a walk-in freezer. And there the temperature would have remained until the sulfurous gas and dust finally dissipated, a process that scientists themselves say would have taken a minimum of several years, if not decades.

    So how do they claim that the theory of evolution is still a viable theory? They use the circular argument, "If some of the animals and ancestors of humans hadn't survived, then they wouldn't have evolved to where we are today." But you can't argue that an event known to kill any animal who can't protect himself from it through finding sufficient shelter and using fire as a heat source, as well as finding enough food to maintain his own survival and proceation, didn't occur because that event would 'shoot down' a pet theory.

    The facts as scientists themselves have shown them establish that all advanced lifeforms have been 'erased' from this planet on a regular basis. So the timeline of 65 million years which evolutionists claim was necessary for life to have evolved from the time of the dinosaurs to today simply isn't there. This leaves those of us who accept ID with the conclusion that there is a Supreme Being who has taken an active role in either the continuance of certain species, the reintroduction of certain species, or the introduction of totally new species (such as mankind).
     
Loading...