Thank you for your responses. Here's mine:
I think the existence of God is proven by the very universe we live in. Scientifically speaking, we should not even be here. It is scientifically impossible for something to have been generated from nothing. And yet, here "something" is! And not just "something," but an extremely complex system of existence that works and functions within its own self, with such precision & intricate detail that could only be described as Divine. Heck, if you want to call it the "big bang theory," I don't care. But God lit the fuse.
By that same logic, something must have created God. If something created God, what was it? Aside from this, just because something cannot be explained by current means, does not necessarily make it scientifically 'impossible.' Certain things, such as time, do not necessarily have a 'beginning' and an 'end.' This is hard for many people to grasp, as we are beings with a remarkably small view of the universe. As our lives have a beginning and end, so we perceive other things to share that trait, when it is not a necessity.
Furthermore, this 'detail' and 'complexity' you mention are very relative terms, neither of which suggest the presence of a divine being. Note the creation of snowflakes - as inherently random as can be, but due to the properties of water, distribution, and temperature, they form patterns which often appear to be 'complex' to the human eye - yet can be recreated mathematically. As governed by physical law, the "big bang" theory (while, unquestionably, has it's problems -- ones that simply stem from a lack of understanding as our minds are our own limit) does allow for such things to occur. Particles collide, and form compounds. Compounds collide, and form more complex matter. I'm not entirely qualified to explain the entire process, but the research is out there in vast quantities.
Then there are other pieces of evidence that lend creedance to no other theory, i.e. the "moral code," human self-identity, etc. Also, the Genesis flood. Hundreds of cultures around the world, whether knowing of God or not, have the same story of a great worldwide flood that lasted 40 days. The flood is also evidenced in science itself. One of the most famous landmarks in the world, the Grand Canyon, is "living proof" of the flood.
The "moral code", as you put it, varies heavily from one location in the world to another - hence existence of cannibals, those who practice incest, and the like that see no moral problem. "Morals" are non-existent when living outside of society. If a child is raised without a parent that instills these "morals" of sorts, the child will have a drastically different sense of morality than you and I. The child would likely see no problem with murder, for example - it's about survival. Therefore, since we are not born with morals nor are we apt to take them on while developing, it can really only be concluded that "morals" came to be as an understanding simply so man can coexist with one another. You cannot have a successful society without some moral structure.
Next, you make mention of a worldwide flood -- while there are mentions of floods, these are common occurrences and nearly every culture has natural disasters. Where are you getting your information that they all have a common length? Furthermore, due to limited ability to travel, "worldwide" is extremely relative. If a man was standing in the Indus River Valley and it flooded as far as the eye could see, he would have absolutely no way of telling if the same process took place on the other side of the world. There is also no scientific evidence to support that the entire planet was flooded at any one time.
The Grand Canyon was not formed by a flood. It was formed by gradual erosion and presence of flowing water, as is common to pretty much anything deemed a "canyon." The features of this particular landmark could not be formed by a singular event - they're inconsistent. You may want to look that up.
Then there's Noah's Ark. The Bible lists specific physical dimensions of the ark, so we have that number to work with. Then there are all the species of animals. If you were to take all the animals of the earth and stand them in a line from smallest to largest, in the middle you would have an animal approximately the size of a rat. Not as big of an animal as you would have expected. Then you would have to take into account the amount of space required to hold the animals, as well as their food, for 40 days. It doesn't require as much space as people would think to keep the animals in their own stalls & have enough food to keep them alive. Based on the dimensions given & the facts provided, this feat can be (and has been!) done.
There are billions of species of animals. The thought that they could all fit on the ark is quite confounding, and I have read to quite the contrary. However, in the interest of reaching an understanding, might I ask where you got this information? Also, the food bit is a little bit strange as well - are you aware how much food many of the larger species must eat to survive... especially over a 40 day period? Also, many animals are carnivores - are you suggesting they had a large quantity of dead animals (that somehow did not rot beyond means of consumption) as well? If only two of each species (male/female) were permitted on the ark, and they did not do this, it would mean these carnivores would have to resort to eating fellow occupants. Uh oh.
The theory of evolution? What evidence do the fossil records provide to support this theory?
Plenty. Here's an extremely short list of transitional fossils:
ttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils
Also, you must realize, conditions for fossils to survive must be perfect. It is absolutely normal that there are gaps in certain areas - we can't dig everywhere. The fossils are likely there, somewhere, but there's no way to accurately pinpoint a location. We find more and more of these every day.
We have also seen the process of evolution on a faster, more observable level. Note that virii, bacteria, and the like, create resistances to drugs and disinfectants that once killed them. Our immune system does the same. Also, take a look at the peppered moth (I believe it was called) in Europe for another example. If you would like more information, I can supply it by the boatload - it's absolutely everywhere should you take the time to look.
Seems the more advancements made in science, the more support we have for what the Bible says. This trend will continue as time goes on. Hopefully everyone will realize the truth before it's too late. Unfortunately, so many close their hearts to this truth and draw up other theories to argue it, in an effort to what? Are people just looking for trouble? Or are they looking for a way out of their own accountability for their lives? I don't understand why such a fight.
Also, in regards to some of the things you've listed that would appear to make Christianity "look bad," there are a couple of things to keep in mind... one, war can be a necessity at times. If the anti-Christ is not contested, how can we not believe that they will take over the world & destroy more lives than it already does? The other thing to remember is that just because somebody claims to be a Christian does not mean their hearts are truly pursuing Christ. And their actions that they proclaim to be in the name of the religion they claim are therefore unmerited.
Quite the contrary, from what I've seen - the more advancements we make the more world religions lose ground and oft struggle to make reasons for that don't interfere with their belief systems. It's not that an argument is being sought, but rather the truth. Many, myself included, are not content to just wholly accept something if there is apt room to question it. If everyone were, we'd still be in the dark ages.
Just because something cannot yet be accurately defined from a scientific point of view, does not mean it defaults to the presence of God. To quote Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Thank you for your reply. I hope nothing I've said comes off on an offensive note, as it was not meant to -- there are just a lot of common misconceptions used to argue, and I want to cut through those to get to the real meat of the situation so to speak.
In the interest of time and length, I will reply to posts on a post-for-post basis. I see there is another reply already, and will respond in a separate post -- either in a few minutes, or a while later, as time is a constraint for me.
Thank you.
-Ether
Edit: Noticed I forgot to reply to the very last bit.
I don't suppose you're suggesting that you can justify war by calling the other side the "anti-Christ"? Doesn't Jesus teach his followers to turn the other cheek, because they'll get what's coming to them at judgment day? How would one find that your enemy is the "anti-Christ"? Just because you don't agree with them? To me, it seems it's used as a tool to gather the masses rather than actually combat the "anti-Christ." If it were a literal interpretation, wouldn't a lot of events occur before this war with the anti-Christ?
Thanks again.
