Intelligent design and evolution

How do you explain to a ten year old that there is no God when asked how did the first human originate without telling them about evolution because she does not know what the word means?

I told her it happened by itself. There is no intelligent design and no sentient God, and so he didn’t create the first human. We evolved from other primates (okay I used the word monkeys). Of course she didn’t understand. If adults have a problem understanding evolution and say that it was intelligent design, how can a little child understand the concept.

She asked me if there is no god why are there so many temples and why do so many people worship them? I said people do it to to placate themselves if they have done something wrong. It is something that gives them hope or rather sells them hope and grants them peace of mind  letting them believe that everything will work out in the end. What I didn’t say – it is also a way of absolving responsibility and laying it at the feet of God since he controls the universe (even a leaf won’t budge without his permission). The world was not created by God but rather man created another man (typical) and designated him as the creator. Of course the Hindu pantheneon has 330 million gods and godesses (no I don’t know their names).

I had never been the one to follow rituals just for the sake of following it. I have always asked why how what where to the annoyance of my parents and relatives. I refuse to follow rituals just for the sake of following it to appease someone beyond my reach, who may or may not exist.

I hadn’t always been an atheist; I believed in a God which I had never seen or heard (thanks to my upbringing), who would come to my rescue when the need arose. But now I believe in the power of the universe. I believe that mother nature is superior to all.

Religion failed me in the darkest parts of my life. The parts of my life when I needed hope to stay afloat and I couldn’t find solace in religion. I found strength in myself and it was the people who loved me that helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Intelligent design and evolution

    1. Religion failed me in the darkest parts of my life. The parts of my life when I needed hope to stay afloat and I couldn’t find solace in religion. I found strength in myself and it was the people who loved me that helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel.

      I think you skipped these lines, quite self explanatory I think.

      Like

      1. I appreciate your response. You also cleared up some questions I had. Richard Dawkins is a man with a serious chip on his shoulder for God. I do not know what happened in his life to inspire this, but it is definitely there. It would not surprise me if it was just the fortune he made by appealing to a younger generation distain for the idea of a supreme creator. This is not where the problem exists though. The problem stems from his desire to pull others away from God with colorful sounding arguments that are dramatically misleading, and an innate ability to oversimplify things and ignore the problems. All he has is theory. The books display his theories that utilize driving forces that do not exist to create an evolutionary process. If you research evolutionary theories through papers, books, internet that supports evolution, you will never know these problems. These all claim evolution as fact and base their hypothesis and conclusions of the concept of the theory and interpret the evidence with this in mind. You might have noticed that I keep saying evolution ‘theory’. That is because, that is what it is. Charles Darwin wrote his book The Origin of Species in 1859. This idea has taken off like a rocket and been pushed way beyond what is supported by research. Evolution theory is not even a derived theory. This theory requires one thing for it to work. That one thing is evidence of increasing complexity. One of those things which Richard Dawkins claims is not difficult to accomplish, cannot be found in actual life examples. In the 150 years since the writing of this book, with over 11 million varieties of species, and countless numbers of existing lifeforms, this cannot be found. In fact, quite the opposite appears to be happening. Our DNA, or our design code, is following the effects of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, like everything else and deteriorating. It is not getting better. Improving is required for evolution to happen. On a side not deteriorating DNA implies that it once was perfect, or at least, much better. Evolutionary theories have no answer for this. DNA is a four-digit chemical code around 3 billion characters long. The only known source for code is intelligence. There is a million-dollar reward for anyone who can show another source. Richard Dawkins tries to show how he created the phrase, “me thinks it is like a weasel”, by random events. This is a totally inaccurate representation. He claimed you could lock in partial correct combinations. Life has no way of recognizing these or doing this. This would be an intelligence driven goal. To have a goal is an intelligence driven process. Evolution is a completely random event with no way to recognize these things. Locking in a partial code to make evolution much easier, but is not an actual option in life. Richard Dawkins story on how an eye could evolve by random small changes, completely overlooks the insurmountable obstacles that actually exist for this to happen. This requires development of new types of proteins, detailed construction information, designing a lens and muscle structures to make it work, new types of light receptors and a place on the brain to read and understand the resulting information. By an evolutionary theory there is no more chance that the life form supposedly evolving the eye would evolve all these parts then the chance of all these parts randomly evolving as worthless changes by a multitude of different lifeforms. Evolution is supposedly a slow process, however the vast variety of lifeforms and the enormous variety of variations and designs incorporated in them refutes this idea. Evolution should be running rampant, yet no examples of increasing complexity exist. Richard Dawkins also recognizes that evolution has no source for the origin of life. Life from non-life breaks the first law of bio-genetics. It is an immense leap of complexity from nowhere. For this reason, Richard Dawkins is willing to accept panspermia, seeding by aliens as a feasible option. So, Richard Dawkins will accept intelligent design as long as it is not God. This is again just a brief outline of the problems he avoids.

        If it helps any, I was once agnostic in belief. I did not honestly know if God existed and was this way for much of my life. My wife and family wanted to go to church, they had faith in God, but I struggled with it for years, even while attending church. The main reason for this was a belief in evolution, science had killed God for me. I believed what I was taught in school that God was not needed for us to be here. Evolution was everywhere. It is in every magazine, it is all over the internet, it is all over the TV. I was exposed to it, raised with it, was taught it, and it seemed to make sense. How could you not believe it? Several years ago, I decided I need to resolve this problem. My son and daughter had made it through school without losing faith. Every time something was presented that they didn’t agree with, they would research it. They always seemed to find an answer that satisfied them. So, I decided that I needed to go on a research journey to try and find the truth. Honestly, I was afraid this might kill faith for me, because the evidence for science and evolution seemed overwhelming. What I found out was quite contrary to what I expected. What I found out was that science proves, not evolution, but God. Not one aspect of science, but many. I did not expect this. There is design in the laws that build the universe. There is design in the universe, our solar system. The fact that Earth exists here in a form capable of supporting life is design. There is design life and the code that designs it. This list goes on and on and the problems keep compounding. Maybe, if it was just one area that had problems it would be a viable alternative, but the problems completely overwhelm the theory.

        Here is a list of books that are good choices. But if you want an easy place to start, the videos “Programing of Life 1 and 2” on youtube are excellent.

        The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry
        Rana, Fazale
        The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
        Behe, Michael J.
        Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
        Behe, Michael J.
        I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
        Norman L. Geisler
        In the Beginning Was Information
        Dr. Werner Gitt
        The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery
        Guillermo Gonzalez
        Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
        Meyer, Stephen C.
        No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence
        Dembski, William A.
        Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
        Denton, Michael
        Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
        Meyer, Stephen C.

        Like

      2. Evolution doesn’t mean improvement in the sense you mean it, as if from a manual washing machine it will become an automatic washing machine.

        And a theory in science doesn’t mean the same thing in general English. Like a theorem in Maths it can be proved and means it’s proven scientifically. Simply put it is a fact.

        There is design everywhere but that wasn’t designed by a creator else it would be perfect. Childbirth wouldn’t be so hard if intelligent design is behind it. And it is just one of the many many examples.

        Our DNA is deteriorating? Where did you read that? The word you are looking for is mutation. It is the thing which sometimes causes problems but it is one of the primary reasons for speciation (=formation of new species).

        “Evolution is supposedly a slow process, however the vast variety of lifeforms and the enormous variety of variations and designs incorporated in them refutes this idea. Evolution should be running rampant, yet no examples of increasing complexity exist.”

        Evolution is a slow process and can’t actually be seen in one’s lifetime unless of course you study the fossil record which is how it has been proven by a shadow of the doubt that it indeed is the force which is driving life.

        Unless you are a student of biology and studied various aspects of it is not easy to connect the dots. Clearly you haven’t read about the invertebrate and vertebrate phyla, and how the level of complexity increases from single celled organism to multicellular organisms.

        “Life from non-life breaks the first law of bio-genetics. It is an immense leap of complexity from nowhere. For this reason, Richard Dawkins is willing to accept panspermia, seeding by aliens as a feasible option. So, Richard Dawkins will accept intelligent design as long as it is not God. This is again just a brief outline of the problems he avoids.”

        The theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation has long been disproved by Louis Pasteur. And Dawkins has never supported Panspermia, you are mistaken and there was controversy regarding that.

        “What I found out was that science proves, not evolution, but God. Not one aspect of science, but many.”

        Well aren’t you lucky? I am yet to see that. God is entirely another matter altogether. It is about faith and evolution is about the science of life.

        “The fact that Earth exists here in a form capable of supporting life is design.”

        Really? Then why did it take a billion years for the Earth to cool down. Clearly you have no clue about how life on earth began. There are many galaxies which we haven’t explored so we cannot rule out the possibility of existence of life anywhere other than earth.

        Anyway I cannot give a rebuttal to all our questions because you are not in a position to consider the other side of the story so I rest my case here. Maybe you will read the article I am sharing here. What a brilliant day you chose to write this reply about evolution – February 12 is Charles Darwin’s Birthday 🙂

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sa-editorial-social&utm_content=&utm_term=evolution_news_text_resurface&sf181905386=1

        Liked by 1 person

      3. So, how about we go through this step by step. Your first argument was;

        “Evolution doesn’t mean improvement in the sense you mean it, as if from a manual washing machine it will become an automatic washing machine.”

        Actually, this is precisely what I am saying. This is also where reading Richard Dawkins will totally mislead you. Going from a manual washing machine to an automatic washing machine is a tremendous leap of complexity. What does this require? It requires an electric motor. The electric motor was developed in 1832 by William Sturgeon. It did not assemble itself by random events and he discovered it. It was a designed, engineered unit. It is composed of a shaft, windings, armature, stator, commutator, bearings, etc. All these components need to be designed to work together and require assembly instructions to assemble it. Then we also need a power source and something to govern when to turn it on, how long to run it, how fast, forward or backward, etc. When we find an electric motor in the cell, the design is amazingly similar to what is produced by human engineers. This is complexity is glossed over by Richard Dawkins. This is an amazing leap of complexity for any evolutionary process, yet this is simple compared to life itself.

        Your next statement was;

        “There is design everywhere but that wasn’t designed by a creator else it would be perfect. Childbirth wouldn’t be so hard if intelligent design is behind it.”

        How is this a benefit for evolution? Shouldn’t we have evolved out of this? Why are kids dependent on us for survival? Wouldn’t evolution be better served by our kids being fully capable of survival? Yet there are emotional and metaphysical reasons for this. However, none of these have any value to an evolutionary nature.

        Your next argument was;

        “Our DNA is deteriorating? Where did you read that? The word you are looking for is mutation. It is the thing which sometimes causes problems but it is one of the primary reasons for speciation.”

        Yes, our DNA is deteriorating. There are many articles on this subject by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary beliefs. Might I suggest the book, Genetic Entropy and the History of the Genome by Dr. J. C. Sanford.

        You stated that;

        Evolution is a slow process and can’t actually be seen in one’s lifetime unless of course you study the fossil record which is how it has been proven by a shadow of the doubt that it indeed is the force which is driving life.
        Unless you are a student of biology and studied various aspects of it is not easy to connect the dots. Clearly you haven’t read about the invertebrate and vertebrate phyla, and how the level of complexity increases from single celled organism to multicellular organisms.

        Perhaps you could explain the Cambrian Explosion to me. The tiny amount of time, to go from almost nothing, to all the known phyla plus many that no longer exist, would have made it easy to see in a lifetime. But this is not even the argument. Your DNA is around 3 billion characters long. Any one of those characters is subject to mutation, however 99.99999% or more of these mutations are either transparent or detrimental. In order to get evolution from the 0.00001% of favorable mutations, we would have to see all these mutations as being commonplace. But we don’t. That is the problem.

        “The theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation has long been disproved by Louis Pasteur.”

        Louis Pasteur actually proved that life comes from life, not the other way around. The first law of biogenesis still stands, and to this date has never been broken. There are only theories. Contrary to what you said, theories are only theories, they are not fact. Evolution theory is not a derived theory because evolution requires increasing complexity. No examples of increasing complexity exist. Thus, it is just a theory.

        “And Dawkins has never supported Panspermia, you are mistaken and there was controversy regarding that.”

        He states this in the end of the video “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”. It is between 1 hour and 27 minutes to 1 hour and 33 minutes, I believe. It is an intelligent design video.

        “Really? Then why did it take a billion years for the Earth to cool down. Clearly you have no clue about how life on earth began. There are many galaxies which we haven’t explored so we cannot rule out the possibility of existence of life anywhere other than earth.”

        This answer was in the first letter I wrote you, but here it is again. This is only a partial answer due to limited space.

        Earth constraints:
        • The earth is roughly 27,000 light years from center of the galaxy. We are next to the Orion arm. But, the earth is actually located between spiral arms
        • The earth is located in the co-rotational radius of the Milky Way. Typically stars located between spiral arms get swept into the arms of the galaxy. They are stable only at a specific distance from the center or the galaxy, the co-rotational radius. This put us in a spot, uniquely designed for life.
        • Our Sun is a very unusual yellow dwarf. It is larger than 90% of the stars. It is also extremely stable in that most yellow dwarfs have super-flares around every 100 years. Our Sun has, thankfully, never had one in recorded history. Or else there would be no recorded history.
        • The earth has the correct rotation speed. Too slow and we would have extreme temperature changes. Too fast, and we would have extreme winds.
        • The correct tilt of the earth, at 23 degrees, and the correct location of the land masses. The tilt provides seasons which help support life.
        • The earth has the correct orbit. The earth has an elliptical orbit around the sun (1.7 % off) It is closest to sun when the southern hemisphere is mostly exposed. The southern hemisphere is mostly water. Water absorbs heat less rapidly then land. If we were closer when the northern hemisphere was more exposed, the earths temperatures would be much higher
        • Heating of oceans also creates currents circulating heat to the colder northern hemisphere. The tilt, elliptical orbit, and location of the land masses help moderate earths temperatures. The rotational speed of the earth also plays a part in moderating temperature to sustain life.
        • The earth has the correct atmosphere. But, it is too thin for a planet our size. The earth should have denser atmosphere more like Venus. Venus atmosphere is 90 times denser than earths. This results in a runaway greenhouse effect with temperatures around 800 degrees on the surface. The surface pressure is also equivalent to being about 1 mile below ocean surface.
        • Earth has a stronger gravity than Venus so our atmosphere should be denser. But it is not. Earths pressure is right to maintain water in a liquid and gaseous state. Earth’s temperature allows for water in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state. This is important for life here.
        • The earth has a unique continental crust and tectonic activity. The thin crust allows for movement and formation of continents.
        • Earth crust=4 km vs Venus=30 km thick.
        • Other planets our size are either deserts or water worlds. Scientists now know that planets with large amounts of water and land, like earth, do not form continents because it is prevented by gravity and eroded by the seas in the absence of tectonic activity.
        • Earths has a large and heavy metallic core. It is the highest density of any planet in our solar system. This molten core is what provides our magnetic shield. This magnetic shield protects us from solar radiation.
        • The magnetic shield loses one half its energy every 700 years so it does not calculate out to be billions of years old-should be tens of thousands (unsolved problem for Geo-science)
        • The earth has enough water to cover the entire surface one and one half miles thick if the land masses were flat. However, with where we are located in the solar system, the water should not be here. We are located too close to the sun to have water.
        • So, to allow for life on this planet, the water was obviously brought by asteroid or comet impacts. From Jupiter, I believe, from the current theories.
        • The earth should not have any of the volatile chemicals required for life. Carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, should have burned off in the early stages of earth. So obviously again, these were delivered by comets. asteroids, or meteors. The problem being, that is a whole lot of comets, asteroids, and meteors. So a more recent theory claims that a Mars sized planet collided with earth delivering these elements and creating the moon, obviously? But wait, a new theory claims the moon was created by a bombardment of smaller meteors. So, no one knows.
        • Not only do we have the correct chemicals, but we have the correct composition of these chemicals. The percent of oxygen in our atmosphere is 21 percent. If it was 25 percent or more, fires would erupt spontaneously. If it was 15 percent or less we would suffocate. A higher carbon dioxide level would produce a runaway greenhouse effect. If it was lower, plants would not survive. A higher water vapor level would also cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
        • If Jupiter, and all the gas giants, were in a different spot, earth would be bombarded by asteroids and meteors. The funny part being, by evolutionary theory, they are not in the right spots.
        • Even things like lightning are balanced. More lightning would produce greater fire damage. Less lightning would not produce enough nitrogen fertilizer for plant growth.
        Moon:
        • Our moon is too large for a planet our size.
        • 1/400 size of sun diameter-sun 400 times further away-perfect for an eclipse
        • The dark spots appear to be lava flows from an active past. Volcanos or eruptions are sometimes seen on the moon. These are called transient lunar phenomenon. NASA started to record reports because there were so many. Bright spots on moon showing eruptions. Hazes show venting. There are over 400 reports since NASA started recording.
        • The core of moon is still active. It should not be if it were 4.5 billion years old.
        • The moon stirs our oceans preventing stagnation. Stabilizes our tilt and rotation. Recent studies have shown that the earth-unusually large moon combination, actually stabilize our solar system. This has prevented the ejection of Mercury.
        These constants are referred to as the Anthropic Principal. This is only a small portion of the constraints for the earth to exist. There are at least 122 of these constraints for the earth. Estimating that there are 10 raised to 22nd power planets in the universe, there is one chance in 10 raised to the 138th power of one of them meeting the criteria. So, the odds of all this coming together by accident? Not real good! This displays design more than chance. Asteroids are probably not the miracle creators of the universe. Evidence shows that asteroids, comets, and meteors are not good at creating things. “Follow where the evidence leads.”
        Isaiah 45:18
        For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord and there is none else.”

        And lastly;

        “Anyway, I cannot give a rebuttal to all our questions because you are not in a position to consider the other side of the story so I rest my case here.”

        Obviously, you missed a whole section where I stated that I originally believed as you do. I think that puts me in a pretty good situation to consider the other side. I appreciate your responses, but you don’t need to attack my character by creating limitations on my abilities, to make yourself feel better. I have no ill feeling toward you. I am just trying to get you to realize that much of what is taught is quite misleading. One thing I do know is you are not here by accident, or evolution.

        “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
        Albert Einstein

        Like

      4. Oh, and by the way, If we find life elsewhere in the universe, and it is of the same design as on this planet, that would be a greater problem for life evolving, then it is for life being created. By evolutionary standards the same thing should never happen more then once.

        Like

  1. You don’t because that would be an inaccurate statement. I do not know how religion failed you in a dark time in your life and you somehow found solace in evolution, but I would like to know.
    Does science prove God, or mother nature?
    There are basically three beliefs, or more accurately three faiths:
    1. Theism-God made all; Christian, Judaism, Islam
    2. Pantheism-God is in all; Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age (Mother Earth)
    3. Atheism-No God; Religious Humanism (this is every bit as much a belief system as the other two)
    Belief in any of them requires faith that it is true. That what you believe is correct beyond what someone else may believe. One of the larger problems in belief systems today, is the tolerance argument. Tolerance has been taken to a whole new level. People today try to base morality off of tolerance. The claim is everyone needs to determine their own morality. But when they are asked, is there anyone in the world that is doing something that may be right by them but you think is wrong? You will always get a yes answer. So the actual tolerant morality is you can determine your own morality as long as it ends up the same as mine. Thus you have a belief system you feel others should follow. Tolerance only extends so far.
    “The 20th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.”
    From; Alister McGrath, History of Atheism
    Intolerance will always exist. To claim one view is intolerant is in itself intolerant. Trying to abolish religion does not work. Communist China, Soviet Russia, the Khmer Rouge, in some ways Nazi Germany were all designed to control belief. All just resulted in more oppression. Liberal Nebraska is another failed attempt to prove religion is bad. Self-directed morality does not work. Morality becomes an issue of one’s desires. God gave us a book to help guide us. It is not intended to suppress your culture. It is not intolerant of your background or who you are. It is accepting and open to anyone. It does not ask for perfection. But it probably will expect you to make changes and it might require that you examine your morality.
    Arguments are made that you cannot prove God. However, I am going to make the argument that proving God exists is much easier than proving God does not exist. There are many, if not all, aspects of science that support God. Trying to prove God does not exist requires way more faith than believing in God. Anthony Flew spent most of his life as an atheist. He always said “follow where the evidence leads.” He is no longer an atheist, due to overwhelming evidence. So let’s “follow where the evidence leads.”
    Beginning of the Universe;
    What science has shown is that the universe had a beginning. In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity. This theory demonstrated that there was a definite beginning to time, space and matter. He struggled with this initially not wanting to admit that the universe was not static and eternal. So, he created a fudge factor referred to as the cosmological constant to show that the universe was static and eternal.
    In 1919, a British cosmologists Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment, during a solar eclipse, that confirmed the General Relativity theory to be true. In 1922, a Russian mathematician, Alexander Friedman, exposed the cosmological constant as an algebraic error. In 1927, the expanding universe was observed, through red shift, by Edwin Hubble. As a result of this evidence, Albert Einstein believed in God. It was not the Christian God of the bible; it was more of a pantheistic God; that God exists in the universe.
    Albert Einstein believed in God. He believed God existed in everything, but his belief that God created the universe and comments on divinity are a bit more theistic.
    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
    Albert Einstein
    I would agree with this statement 100%. One of the greatest mind of our time found God through science, not lost God through science as is readily proclaimed by the atheist crowd. I believe atheist use Albert Einstein on their posters to support their cause. This is a miss representation. As many things are in this culture.
    There are other proofs that the universe had a beginning. One would be the Second Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes referred to as entropy. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. The universe has a finite amount of energy. Energy is always being used and is released by changing form. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of useable energy. The universe is constantly using energy. Stars burn out and die, energy is expelled through heat, energy, and motion. Eventually all the energy will be used up. If the universe was eternal and constant the energy would all be gone. But if the universe had a beginning, there would still be energy to be used. This is kind of important for our existence. The unfortunate side note is that everything that has a beginning, also has an end. Eventually all the energy will be used, and the universe will be dead.
    So if the universe had a beginning, it therefore had a cause. The law of Causality is a fundamental principal of science. Without it science is impossible.
    “True knowledge is knowledge by causes.”
    Francis Bacon
    Science is the search for causes. Things do not happen in the universe without causes. Nothing comes out of nowhere and just appears. Oh, wait a minute! One thing did! And, that would be everything! Where nothing exploded into everything. So wat caused this eminence explosion of nothing into everything? There are a number of theories as to how nothing exploded. Some even claiming that nothing still exists. If you take all the positive energy and subtract all of the negative energy, nothing still exists. All these theories basically fall on their face because they require the existence of something before the big bang, or imaginary time, or denial of the Law of Causality. Denying it doesn’t solve it. A flux in the quantum fields, multiple universes, the point is still the same, something had to cause it. If no cause is needed, shouldn’t there be more explosions of nothing. This would be how Albert Einstein arrived at God. Not only did nothing explode into everything, but it exploded into an incredibly well balanced, and arranged everything. With laws, and rules that all work perfectly together to allow life to exist in it. One of the more interesting discoveries was the discovery of temperature ripples in 1992. These ripples were very precise, in that they allowed matter to form into galaxies, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. They are precise down to one part in one hundred thousand. They have been referred to as the “finger-prints of the maker.”
    Infinite is a word used by atheist to try to beat the odds. One of the big bang theories claims that it is a cyclic event. So, this was not the first one. The universe explodes, forms, collapses back, and explodes again. This provides an infinite number of times for life to accidentally happen. The evidence shows that there is not enough energy for the universe to collapse again. The universe’s expansion is also speeding up, which contradicts this theory. This portrait a single event. The use of an infinite number of days before today is self-defeating. You cannot have an infinite number of days before today, unless we have reached infinity. That is not possible. So for today to exist there has to be a finite number of days. Thus again we have a beginning.
    One of the big things to consider, from the atheist perspective is why. Theoretically, nothing exploded into everything. Theories are created to explain how this happened. How nothing created everything. The question to ask your atheist friend is why? If God does not exist, why are you here? Why did nothing explode into everything. And not just everything, but an incredibly designed universe of rules and laws that allow for, not only the existence of the universe itself, of galaxies, stars, planets, and elements, but also the existence of life? Why would that happen, if God did not exist? You are left with either someone created everything, or nothing created everything. Scientifically, what makes more sense? Why are you here? Nothing does not usually behave that way! It does not usually go around exploding into everything. Your existence proclaims a creator. We will cover that in many more ways as we go along.
    “Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say that science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour, Nano scientist
    The problem is not the science, it is the teaching and the agenda. The most common term used by an atheist against a creationist is, closed minded. Or, you need to be open minded. Or I support free thinking. This would be a really good example of just the opposite. It is a way to shut off a conversation because, ‘I just do not agree with you.’ I believe the term for this is closed minded.
    Nothing exploding into everything is just part of the big bang theory. But, evolutionary stumbling point number one would be the creation of everything from nothing. The creation of the universe from nowhere. From the evidence, science supports God! You can deny, refute it, ignore it, but the evidence leads that way. “Follow the evidence where it leads.”
    “Looking at the sacred texts of all major religions, only the Bible describes what scientists have since discovered: there was an explosion of light and a beginning to our universe…from outside the universe itself. With it came the very start of space, matter and time. It was a singular starting point for everything. Over and over in the Book of Genesis is the description, “And God said…” followed by “…and it was so.””
    Author Unknown; Beginning of the Universe-Beginning of Time.
    In the initial seconds of ‘the Big Bang’ all the universe was created. After the initial explosion of nothing, it expanded at tremendously accelerated rate of expansion, and then slowed down closer to the current rate. This initial expansion is referred to as inflation. There is no known force in physics capable of doing this. It is just by calculations, theoretically possible. By a Christian belief there is a force capable of doing this.
    Delicately Balanced Universe; Carefully designed laws;
    These are some of the laws that define our universe. There is no reason that they exist the way they are by chance, but without them our existence would not be possible. If nothing blew up in the first place these laws could be quite different. They exist because of the existence of the universe.
    Seven Requirements to Sustain Life;
    No 1-Neutron Mass-Proton Mass
    • If the neutron was only 0.998 of its actual size; the decay process would differ, and atoms would not exist, thus hydrogen could not exist
    • The slightest change would not allow the sun to function, and eliminate water-eliminate life
    No 2-Proton Charge Equals Electron Charge
    • The charges can only differ by one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion)
    • It must be equal to maintain neutral charge
    • Like charges repel each other so any slight deviation and solid matter could not exist
    N0 3-Strong Nuclear Force
    • The force that binds the atomic nucleus
    • A 3% increase in force-hydrogen would convert it to helium
    • A 5% increase and stars would be short lived, possibly explode. Nuclear reaction more efficient-burn out quickly
    • A slight reduction of force would cause instability in many elements including oxygen and carbon. Oxygen and carbon are both critical for life
    • If planets existed, they would be radioactive due to decay of unstable elements
    • If only a 5% decrease, deuterons would not exist. So, no stars to produce heat
    No 4-Epsilon Constant-Gravitational Fine Structure
    • The Epsilon constant is the capability of a vacuum to permit electric transfer
    • A slight deviation of the Epsilon constant in one direction would make all stars red dwarfs
    • A slight deviation the other way-all stars are blue giants-huge stars with enormous amounts of energy
    • The tolerance ranges for these constants-on a calibrated instrument scale one-kilometer-long you could adjust it 1 milometer
    • Red dwarfs and blue giants cannot support life
    No 5-Primordial Escape Velocity=Primordial Expansion Velocity
    • Expansion Velocity is the speed at which the universe has to expand to escape the inward pull of gravity.
    • Escape Velocity is essentially the cumulative gravitational force of the universe-precisely equal opposite force.
    • If the expansion velocity was greater, by 1 part in one million than escape velocity;
    1. Extremely rapid expansion
    2. Matter could not have formed into galaxies
    • If the expansion velocity less, by 1 part in one million than escape velocity
    1. Matter would have formed into black holes
    2. No galaxies
    3. No stars
    No 6- The Cosmological Constant
    • This is somewhat related to escape velocity. It is similar to a rocket overcoming earth’s gravity, which decreases with distance.
    • This is force is the opposite. It increases with distance.
    • The value is close to -0.00000000000000000000000000000001 per square meter. (32 zeros)
    • If it was 30 zeros, the expansion of the universe would have been explosive.
    • If it was 34 zeros, the expansion would collapse into black holes
    • extremely delicately balanced
    • The constant is at the optimum rate for the formation of the maximum range of stars and galaxies
    • Slight variations in this force can create the distortion of space-time. (traveling a few kilometers you could not be able to return to your place of origin)
    No 7 Weak Nuclear Force
    • allows a proton to change into a neutron
    • if smaller all hydrogen would have changed into helium
    • hydrogen essential for life, in particular water
    • allows formation of deuterons, so stars can function.
    • the strong and weak force combined is what allows the suns thermonuclear reaction to be maintained at a favorable and sustainable rate
    Slight changes in any of these laws and we probably would not be here. Carefully designed laws of the universe proclaim a creator. When something explodes, or nothing in this case, it usually doesn’t create balance. “Follow where the evidence leads.”
    Earth constraints:
    • The earth is roughly 27,000 light years from center of the galaxy. We are next to the Orion arm. But, the earth is actually located between spiral arms
    • The earth is located in the co-rotational radius of the Milky Way. Typically stars located between spiral arms get swept into the arms of the galaxy. They are stable only at a specific distance from the center or the galaxy, the co-rotational radius. This put us in a spot, uniquely designed for life.
    • Our Sun is a very unusual yellow dwarf. It is larger than 90% of the stars. It is also extremely stable in that most yellow dwarfs have super-flares around every 100 years. Our Sun has, thankfully, never had one in recorded history. Or else there would be no recorded history.
    • The earth has the correct rotation speed. Too slow and we would have extreme temperature changes. Too fast, and we would have extreme winds.
    • The correct tilt of the earth, at 23 degrees, and the correct location of the land masses. The tilt provides seasons which help support life.
    • The earth has the correct orbit. The earth has an elliptical orbit around the sun (1.7 % off) It is closest to sun when the southern hemisphere is mostly exposed. The southern hemisphere is mostly water. Water absorbs heat less rapidly then land. If we were closer when the northern hemisphere was more exposed, the earths temperatures would be much higher
    • Heating of oceans also creates currents circulating heat to the colder northern hemisphere. The tilt, elliptical orbit, and location of the land masses help moderate earths temperatures. The rotational speed of the earth also plays a part in moderating temperature to sustain life.
    • The earth has the correct atmosphere. But, it is too thin for a planet our size. The earth should have denser atmosphere more like Venus. Venus atmosphere is 90 times denser than earths. This results in a runaway greenhouse effect with temperatures around 800 degrees on the surface. The surface pressure is also equivalent to being about 1 mile below ocean surface.
    • Earth has a stronger gravity than Venus so our atmosphere should be denser. But it is not. Earths pressure is right to maintain water in a liquid and gaseous state. Earth’s temperature allows for water in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state. This is important for life here.
    • The earth has a unique continental crust and tectonic activity. The thin crust allows for movement and formation of continents.
    • Earth crust=4 km vs Venus=30 km thick.
    • Other planets our size are either deserts or water worlds. Scientists now know that planets with large amounts of water and land, like earth, do not form continents because it is prevented by gravity and eroded by the seas in the absence of tectonic activity.
    • Earths has a large and heavy metallic core. It is the highest density of any planet in our solar system. This molten core is what provides our magnetic shield. This magnetic shield protects us from solar radiation.
    • The magnetic shield loses one half its energy every 700 years so it does not calculate out to be billions of years old-should be tens of thousands (unsolved problem for Geo-science)
    • The earth has enough water to cover the entire surface one and one half miles thick if the land masses were flat. However, with where we are located in the solar system, the water should not be here. We are located too close to the sun to have water.
    • So, to allow for life on this planet, the water was obviously brought by asteroid or comet impacts. From Jupiter, I believe, from the current theories.
    • The earth should not have any of the volatile chemicals required for life. Carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, should have burned off in the early stages of earth. So obviously again, these were delivered by comets. asteroids, or meteors. The problem being, that is a whole lot of comets, asteroids, and meteors. So a more recent theory claims that a Mars sized planet collided with earth delivering these elements and creating the moon, obviously? But wait, a new theory claims the moon was created by a bombardment of smaller meteors. So, no one knows.
    • Not only do we have the correct chemicals, but we have the correct composition of these chemicals. The percent of oxygen in our atmosphere is 21 percent. If it was 25 percent or more, fires would erupt spontaneously. If it was 15 percent or less we would suffocate. A higher carbon dioxide level would produce a runaway greenhouse effect. If it was lower, plants would not survive. A higher water vapor level would also cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
    • If Jupiter, and all the gas giants, were in a different spot, earth would be bombarded by asteroids and meteors. The funny part being, by evolutionary theory, they are not in the right spots.
    • Even things like lightning are balanced. More lightning would produce greater fire damage. Less lightning would not produce enough nitrogen fertilizer for plant growth.
    Moon:
    • Our moon is too large for a planet our size.
    • 1/400 size of sun diameter-sun 400 times further away-perfect for an eclipse
    • The dark spots appear to be lava flows from an active past. Volcanos or eruptions are sometimes seen on the moon. These are called transient lunar phenomenon. NASA started to record reports because there were so many. Bright spots on moon showing eruptions. Hazes show venting. There are over 400 reports since NASA started recording.
    • The core of moon is still active. It should not be if it were 4.5 billion years old.
    • The moon stirs our oceans preventing stagnation. Stabilizes our tilt and rotation. Recent studies have shown that the earth-unusually large moon combination, actually stabilize our solar system. This has prevented the ejection of Mercury.
    These constants are referred to as the Anthropic Principal. This is only a small portion of the constraints for the earth to exist. There are at least 122 of these constraints for the earth. Estimating that there are 10 raised to 22nd power planets in the universe, there is one chance in 10 raised to the 138th power of one of them meeting the criteria. So, the odds of all this coming together by accident? Not real good! This displays design more than chance. Asteroids are probably not the miracle creators of the universe. Evidence shows that asteroids, comets, and meteors are not good at creating things. “Follow where the evidence leads.”
    Isaiah 45:18
    For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord and there is none else.”
    The Fossil Record;
    The fossil record, with some exceptions, is almost completely guesswork and interpretation. Transitions are vivid examples of this guesswork. There is frequently no genetic information to go on, so transitions are created on similarities of bone structure. These kinds of similarities can be, and are, very misleading. An example of this would be the Tasmanian Red Wolf. Almost identical skeletal structure to a wolf, but it is a marsupial. It would be a completely different linage from a wolf. Without genetic information, you can place these anywhere you want. The answer for the similarities is convergent evolution. Unfortunately, convergent evolution is an even greater problem than evolution in the first place. By evolutionary theory it should not happen. Yet, there are thousands of examples of it. The horse evolution chart appears to be largely within the realm of genetic variety. The original horse, Eohippus, appears to be totally unrelated to horses, however. Of course, if you draw it in the shape of a horse, it is more convincing. The whale evolution chart, in my opinion, is a travesty. The time frame is not even close to allow the massive changes between land dwelling and ocean mammal. And no examples of increasing complexity, required for evolution, currently exist. But we can overlook that and throw together massive leaps of complexity when genetics is not required. The human evolution chart requires dramatic complexity changes also, in little to no time. The first part of the chart is completely ape, the second part is completely human. The human part is not outside of genetic variety. The chart proclaims 6 million years of evolution. The actual distance is closer to one million years by their evidence. More recent evidence pushes human appearance much further back, so no time exists. A tremendously accelerated evolution rate estimates 50 million years to accomplish this many changes. But this does not even make any sense because there are no examples of increasing complexity required for evolution exist. For this reason, evolution is not a derived theory. Every transition is therefore theoretical. And if no genetics exist to verify, they are nothing more than speculation. You will see a great deal of effort in creating these transitions, but the factual value is almost nonexistent.
    So what does an impartial look at the fossil record actually display. A tremendous explosion of life at the beginning of the Cambrian period. This representing every known phyla plus many that no longer exist. Sudden appearance of many varieties of life, some of which still exist today, and many which no longer exist. After the sudden appearance, they display a form of stasis with no changes beyond what genetic variety would allow. There are no true transitional forms displaying transition from one type to another. All appear fully suited for their environment. There is a common and sudden appearance of dramatic complex designs.
    Eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, heart, circulatory system, nerves, gills, breathing apparatus, brain, skeleton or exoskeleton, skin or outer membrane of some type, etc., all appear working together without transition. Insects appear fully formed, capable of flight, with complex eyes, unique structures, many times utilizing multiple body plans in metamorphosis. Many, many varieties still exist unchanged today. Even the appearance of a massive varieties of plants are sudden. Plants feature their on complex designs. They are not simple or basic forms of life.
    So if we don’t see slow gradual transitions. No examples of increasing complexity exist. Things appear suddenly in the fossil record. There is no actual evidence of the theoretical source to create the complex designs that are displayed. Where do complex designs normally come from? I am pretty sure random events do not normally create them. “Follow where the evidence leads.” An intelligence source is needed to create complex designs. So far it seems easier to support God than atheism, and we are not even to the most complex area yet.
    Microbiology;
    Of all the areas so far, I believe this displays a divine creator even more than the others. In that we covered this more recently I am going to briefly outline this area. Wish me luck, because this was also the biggest and most complicated.
    Origin of Life;
    Right off the bat, what does science have to offer. A few theories with Basically no supporting evidence;
    • Step one would, of course, be the delivery of the required volatile elements to earth by meteors, asteroids, or comets.
    • The RNA world. Theoretical fully self-replicating RNA’s that currently do not exist. Some partially self-replicating RNA’s exist but that is not close to what is required. These RNA’s have to be able perform the functions of proteins, and eventually create proteins, and an information storage system. No examples of these exist.
    • The accidental protein world. The accidental creation of the correct protein chains together, in the right place at the right time to create life. This would happen in a probiotic sea of amino acids allowing amino acid bonding. Water in this sea is actually a problem because it is more effective at breaking bonds than creating bonds. The chance of creating one 50 amino acid protein in this sea, one chance in 10 raised to the 128th power. The chance of accidentally creating all the proteins for a mammal, one chance in 10 raised to the 340,000,000th power. Not very likely.
    • Cell membrane; the phospholipid world. This is actually part of those first two worlds. Somehow we need to create a structure to house those random, free proteins or RNAs. Phospholipids can self-organize into bilayer spheres creating a structure similar to a cell membrane. All that is required is for this to happen is; the presence of large quantities of meteor delivered phospholipids, correct temperature, correct salinity (not too much salt), presence of the correct stabilizing alcohol, the correct ph level, and the right place at the right time to enclose those accidental RNAs or proteins to produce life.
    • Lastly all that is left to happen is this newly created life just needs to create a system to store all the information as to how to recreate itself. Thus it needs to create DNA. Install in the DNA the information as to how to create the DNA. Create a transcription system to read and use the DNA. This currently involves between 100 and 150 proteins and RNAs. Install the information as to how to create the transcription system in the DNA. Install the information as to how to create all the other proteins and the accidentally created cell membrane in the DNA. And start producing life. This just needs to happen before the unregulated self-replicating RNAs or proteins fill up that haphazard cell membrane and it explodes. Not too much to ask!
    • That is our origin. Any questions? Evolution has no source for the origin of life. These are the theories offered. This is why you now see that life was brought on meteors, or seeded by aliens. These do not solve the problem, they just push it off to somewhere else. But, if you do not want to believe in God, this is your out.
    DNA is code. It requires a transcription system, is encrypted, layered, contains a parity code, and exhibits an optimal form of redundancy for error protection. All these things used by programmers today. The only known source for code is intelligence. There are no other sources. This obviously points to a creator. So, the creator is either God, or space aliens and we can prove they exist from the crop circles. Of course, then you just run into the problem as to how the space aliens got here. Evolution has no source for the origin of code.
    When you look inside a cell the beauty of the creation is astounding, and the complexity is overwhelming. It is literally comparable to New York city in complexity. Buildings, doors, windows, roads, transportation, people, people, communication all exist in a different form. Design and irreducible complexity is illustrated throughout the cell. Some examples are;
    • DNA, parity code, redundancy-These are error protection methods designed in DNA. They are commonly used by programmers today. These are designed methods, not random chance.
    • Transcription-The process of reading and producing proteins, RNA, DNA, from the code contained in the DNA. It currently involves between 100 and 150 proteins and RNA’s to do this.
    • AMP synthesis-Produces power for the cell
    • Garbage system (proteasome, E3 ubiquitin ligase)-The system used to recognize, tag, remove, or recycle damaged components.
    • Postal and delivery systems (Golgi apparatus, microtubules, vesicles, motor proteins, chaperones, destination coding)-Delivers need components to areas of the cell as needed. This system is highly efficient and highly effective. This also requires a communication system of some type to convey a need.
    • Motor proteins-Functional motors inside the cell. Some almost identical to electric motors designed today, but extremely efficient. Our motors did not pop into existence by accident, they were designed.
    • Cilium (all parts are needed to function)-Complex design of fingerlike appendages that defy evolution.
    • Flagellum-Cells electric motor and propeller. Designed similar to electric motors today. Utilizes a propeller system to create movement.
    • Flagellum construction-The order in which the Flagellum and all cell components are built. The parts are produced and delivered in the order that is needed to properly construct the item. This is a design concept. Even the order of construction is contained in the DNA.
    • Aquaporins, I did not cover these. They are just water ports that are designed to flow only one type of molecule or chemical. They do this by using a combination of water loving and water hating amino acids in a carefully folded structure. They also alter the orientation of the molecule part way through to prevent electrical current flow, loss of ions. The cell uses ions for power. Even water ports display design.
    • Myoglobin (stores oxygen in muscle)-Designed to store and release oxygen as needed by the body.
    • Hemoglobin (carries oxygen in blood)-Unique and efficient design to deliver oxygen to needed tissues.
    • All the parts of the cell are intertwined, relying on support and background programs for their existence. The individual cells also rely on other external cells to provide food, nutrients, protection, waste disposal, etc.
    • The creation of a single unique protein is beyond capability of evolution. The chances of a single correct 50 amino acid protein forming is one chance in 10 raised to the 128th power. The number of estimated atoms in the entire universe is 10 raised to the 82nd power. One protein can accomplish nothing on its own. It requires an estimated 600 minima for life. However, the simplest known life contains around 2000 proteins.
    If a unique part cannot be created without information, how do you create a functioning assemble of these parts in one step. Evolution through mistakes cannot create this. Evolution is noise, and computers and programmers fight this in their designs. It is not embraced as a way to create new more efficient systems. Yet, by evolutionary theory, that is how we got here.
    Perhaps the most amazing thing to me, is that aside form water, some basic chemicals, sugar, phosphate, etc., and minerals, iron, copper, etc., God created all those functioning little nanobots, all the complex functioning designs, all the information storage, the coding and transcription systems, all the immune defense, cell support, cell structures, the cell itself, then combined cells to create a heart, lungs, liver, kidney, stomach, muscle, bone, skeletal system, circulatory system, nervous system, hearing, balance, light receptors, eyes, brain, thought, desire, faith, love, hope, beauty, and you, all of you, out of a variety of 20 left handed amino acids, and 5 right handed nucleic acids. That is a feat! That, is a miracle! So, the next time you want to see a miracle, look out the window, look around the room. By theory there is a zero chance of us being here if God does not exist. The next time you talk to an atheist who does not believe in miracles, yes they do! They need miracles more than you do, because they do not even have a source for the miracle of their existence. By recombining, reorganizing, different sequence, different folding, maybe an occasional mineral or chemical, God created an immense, diverse, life filled world. If you had only 25 tools to build the world, what would you pick? And when you were done, would it love you back, or deny you? Science displays and supports God’s creation, God’s existence. Science doesn’t deny God, people deny God!
    From I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek.
    “Science doesn’t really say anything-scientists do. Data are always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing-they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that’s the case, their conclusions should be questioned, because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific fact.”
    This is especially true in places like the interpretation of the fossil record. It is done with the goal of showing evolution. All else can be thrown out the window, because it is not available. So, you end up with 90% speculation, and the fact being that these creatures exist in the fossil record. Frequently, the order of appearance and existence isn’t even in the right order. You can see an example of that when you walk in the door at the Smithsonian, in the bird evolution section. There is an evolutionary chart, but the order of existence for the birds does not fit the chart.
    Despite the claims, science is not the search for a naturalistic answer. Science is the search for the best, or the most probable answer. The search for a naturalistic cause is a byproduct of science, not a requirement. If no naturalistic answers can be displayed, shown, or proven, “follow where the evidence leads.” Scientists, and ‘normal’ people who do this will find that what the evidence points to is design. The evidence shows that we can’t get here by accident. God designed you. You can deny God! God gave you a free will to do that. But if you are going to take that route, you might want to actually look into it. That way, you can recognize the consequences of that choice. Life is literally a miracle! That is by both a faith base foundation, and even more so by an atheist foundation. Atheist have no source for the miracle.
    Maybe that is how to start a conversation. “Do you believe in God? No, I am an atheist. Oh, so you believe in miracles!”
    Final interpretation of the results. Evolution has;
    • No source, reason, or cause for the explosion of nothing into everything. Belief in any theory requires a cause for the event. Without God there is no cause.
    • If God does not exist, and nothing exploded, why are you here? Nothing does not usually behave that way. Either someone created you from nothing, or nothing created you from nothing. What makes more sense?
    • There is no known force capable of the initial expansion of the universe.
    • No source or explanation, for the balanced laws that provide the existence of our universe and our existence. Minor changes in any of them and we would not be here.
    • No explanation for the razors edge that our world and existence balances on. By one estimate there are 122 constraints to earths ability to support life. These would exist for any planet to support life. Of the estimated 10 raised to the 22nd power planets in the universe, the chances of one meeting all the requirements, is one chance in 10 raised to the 138th power. (10 to the 82nd power atoms in the universe)
    • A fossil record tremendously subject to interpretation and lacking any solid evidence. You can make it look pretty, but it doesn’t actually mean much.
    • There is no source for the origin of life on our planet. No viable theory as to how life began and no supporting evidence. This process defies the 1st law of biogenetics, and 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    • No source for code found in DNA. The only known source for code is intelligence. Creation of code without intelligence breaks the laws of information theory and thermodynamics.
    • No functional evidence for the creation of new complex design, thus, evolutionary theory is not a derived theory, because not one example exists.
    • No explanation for the creation of irreducibly complex design. Small steps cannot create these because nonfunctioning designs would be destroyed by the cell. These designs also require new code and no source for code exists.
    • The existence of orphan genes contained in all of the various genus defy evolution. Again this requires intelligence.
    • Evolving protein sequences do not exist in the theoretical transitions. Evolving proteins should exist from step to step. But the proteins display radical difference where they should be small which cannot be explained by evolution.
    • How flight suddenly appears and cannot be explained by evolution. How a feather is an irreducible design with no transitions? Yet, it takes more than just feathers to fly, it takes a complete redesign. This does not even consider other flying creatures, such as insects, that have their own complex designs. They also just appear in the fossil record without transitional forms in extensive varieties.
    • How metamorphosis has no evolutionary explanation. If one body style cannot be explained by evolution, how do you explain two. Frequently the second form even involves flight, which also cannot be explained.
    • Your brain’s information capacity is estimated at 10 raised to the 15th power bits. That is equivalent to a one-million-acre forest, half of the US, each acre with 1000 trees, each tree 100,000 leaves. That would be the number of leaves in the forest. Or the equivalent of 20 million books. This is a pretty obvious complex design.
    • Another thing to consider is people have been breeding sheep, dog, cows, horses, etc., for a very long time. They are still sheep, dogs, cows, horses, etc. Bacteria are still the same bacteria despite supposedly being around since the beginning. They have not changed into something new or different.
    • This does not even look at the fact that there is no explanation for emotions, values, or morals. Why you love, why you hate, joy, sadness, humor, appreciation of art, music, beauty. Why you know that your family is more than a bunch of atoms, or a box of rocks. No explanation for morality, knowing right from wrong, or your drive and desire to achieve more. All that matters by an evolutionary standard is self-survival. I was going to say gratification, but that would actually be an unneeded emotion. We were made in God’s image. This would provide a source for these attributes.
    Science supports God, and on average, scientists deny God. Fortunately, that is not all of them.

    Like

  2. Many people believe in God because they realize there is no chance of them being here without a source. This is a very abbreviated version of the problems that exist for evolution to happen. If you want details on any of this, I am more then willing to expand on them. There are a lot of faiths out there. Many are misleading and they definitely do not all point to the same God. One thing I can tell you is, you are not here by accident, or evolution.

    Like

    1. It is not faith I’m talking about but how to explain evolution to a child. You are entitled to believe in Creationism and I as a student of science in Evolution. The source that you are talking about is nature itself and yes I’m here because of Evolution. If you want to know the other side of the story, read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Thanks for commenting.

      Like

  3. It sounds to me like you are making God responsible for the people in the church, your religious experience. Church members are frequently bad examples of God’s love. The object is to have a relationship with God not necessarily the church people. God excepts anyone, no matter what the background.

    Like

    1. Assuming that I’m a Christian and that I go to Church is indicative of your experience not mine. If you ever want to read the other side of the story I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s