I'm not trying to be degrading or offensive in anyway, but I am just using constructive conversation. To question God, I find it a little unethical to provide statements when not really "understanding" religion. Heck, I have only been a regular attendee for alittle over two years and I am barely scratching the surface. Religion is like Golf...you have to practice at it to be a "better" golfer. With the help of Mark Cahill, I confess: " Many people believe there is no God because they are convinced that science has fully explained how our universe came to be. If there is a natural explanation of our origins, they think, who needs a supernatural one? Pherhaps, like many, you see a contest between science and religion, and believed that science has been declared the winner hands down.
I find it interesting that, before coming up with the "big bang" theory, scientists believed that the universe was eternal. They couldn't explain how it came into being by itself, so they claimed that it simply always was-it had no beginning. Scientists now proclaim that the universe began with a big bang. But that provides more questions than it does answers. There had to be something to go "bang." Where did the matter come from? What energy source caused the bang? What was the catalyst that set the matter into motion to form the universe? How could order come from that?
Think about that. If you believe matter existed for all of eternity, and it had the ability to spontaneously start up the universe, and it was powerful and intelligent enough to put our immense universe together with order and precision and beauty-haven't you just defined God? He's not as difficult to believe in as you may have thought. You might not understand Him, but that is no reason to believe that He does not exist.
There is something in science called the Law of Cause and Effect. This is an indisputable, universal law that says that for every material effect, there had to be a cause. But if you continue going further, you must eventually reach a First Cause.
If you placed all the pieces of a watch into a shoebox and shook it for ten minutes, do you believe it would shake into a fully functioning watch? Of course not. What if you shook it for a year? Would a functioning watch then come out of the box? Say you shook it for five billion years; would you then have a functioning watch? There is no possible way for that to happen. And if it couldn't happen by chance to something relatively simple like a watch, it most certaintly couldn't happen by chance to our magnificently complex universe.
Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist and doubter of God, has on more than one occassion questioned his own beliefs. " The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist:either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine with molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on," said Hawking.
All of those 40 physical elements just happened by chance? I think someone would have to commit intellectual suicide to believe that. Though he remains an evolutionist, Hawking admitted, "it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
When you really get down to it , it takes more faith to believe that there is no God than to believe that there is a God. How could matter come into being by itself from nothing? How could an effect come from no cause? How could life come from non-life? How could intelligence come from non-intelligence? How could meaning come from meaninglessness? These are all things that an atheist must believe in order to be consistent-and they all contradict the irrefutable Law of Cause and Effect.
Let's look at what is meant by "evolution." Evolution has two main branches. One is microevolution, which involves minor variations within a species. The other is macroevolution, which is the concept that successive small changes can, over time, gradually change the species. There are always natural limits to biological change. Natural selection is just that - selection. It cannot create anything new; it can only select from the information contained in the organism's genetic blueprint. Unfortunately, for evolutionists, this theory has never been proven or observed in nature.
Lif cannot arise from non-life. It has already been proven to be impossible. The law of biogenesis also states that life only perpetuates its own kind. Each creature's genes are uniquely programmed to reproduce only within that same species. Again, discrediting evolution.
Remember those charts in science books showing the gradual change from apes to humans? Say I lined up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size, from sub-compact to luxury, and pointed out their similarities. Would you believe they obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor - or would you just use your common sense and think they simply had a common MAKER?
If humans evolved from apes the foissil record should reveal a multitude of transitional forms. And because humans are said to have evolved relatively recent, the fossils would have had less time to decay and should be plentiful."
If I lined up a 747, a computer, a robot and a lowly worm, which one of the four would a scientist say is most intricately designed? The answer? The worm. The digestive system alone blows the other three out of the water. I look at my wife, who is three months pregnant, and cannot even fathom what is happening inside of her. The design, the creation, the formations, are unimaginable. The baby lives for 9 months in a sac of fluid and lives, but if you were to cover its mouth upon birth for 2 minutes, it would be dead. In one week, the baby developed fingers, toes, joints, a nervous system, etc. We heard the heartbeat when the baby was the size of a grape. That is amazing. How can anyone credit science for this miracle? The intricacies are enough to gain the respect of any intellectual.
I could go on and on about the evidence that discredits evolution and science. I could go on and on about the historical evidence of the Bible, Christianity, prophecies, etc. But, for the sake of time, and finger cramping, I must stop this rant.
The funny thing about all of this is that most atheists would have an answer for less than 10% of the evidence a "religious" person can provide. They base their opinions on being more intelligent than religion. A bad combination in my opinion. Anyways, to end with one of the all-time best sayings, there are no atheists in foxholes. Enjoy!
No comments:
Post a Comment