Why Evolution Makes No Sense Today- Article 1

Western, White Scientists Determine What Exists

The thing I love about atheists is that they love jargon.  Scientific jargon.  Especially when they want to refute creationism or religion.  Example:

“The statement that “the Theory of Evolution has never been proven…” makes me suspicious that you do not understand what a ‘theory’ is in the scientific sense. It does not mean “guess”, nor is it even a mere “hypothesis”. It is a word with a very specific meaning for an explanation which a) explains the relevant data, b) explains new data as it is gathered, c) is falsifiable (that is, it can be demonstrated to be false) and d) makes testable predictions and through verification of these testable predictions our confidence in the validity of the hypothesis is increased. Natural selection has all of these attributes in spades. At some point, the hypothesis is so well supported by evidence and has passed many tests that it is no longer just a hypothesis, but becomes a theory. Natural selection is so well supported that it is considered a factual theory. That is, natural selection is indeed the mechanism by which speciation occurs. At this point, I cannot even imagine what possible evidence against natural selection could be uncovered. It is just that well supported by evidence and successful hypothesis testing….” 

Blah, blah, blah.  The word ‘ignorance’, ‘uneducated’, ‘un-informed’ are often used as well. 

Look, I have no plan whatsoever to meet atheists on their playing field.  I plan to come about this argument on my own terms and on my own observations and on my own logic. Why do THEY get to define what the terms are?  Why must we let them define the argument? Who gave them that mantel?  Atheist scientists love to drag non-scientists into terminology wars, hoping to browbeat them into submission.  Sorry, I have NO special regard or respect for people who label themselves as ‘scientists’.  Nor do I have any special regard for the methodology they use to ‘prove’ things.  That is their choice.   I choose to approach it differently- and just as validly as they do.  We are all living scientists.  We look at the world around us and make logical connections.  Under what law should I be forced to discuss creation, or evolution, or any fact finding mission in their terms?  Let them answer my questions, I say!  I will be presenting this argument in a way that makes sense to me.  Atheist scientists, you must meet me on MY ground.  Answer MY questions.  Pull apart my argument.  Show where I am illogical. And then we can have a discussion.  I would LOVE to hear your responses.

Now, the title of this article is ‘Why Evolution Makes No Sense Today’.  Not, ” I will prove the existence of God”.   As  a true scientist, I love facts.  More than anything.  I have no interest in attempting to skew so-called ‘evidence’ into my own belief system.  See, I had you there, didn’t I?  You thought I would have a real problem if the Theory of Evolution, Speciation or whatever turns out to be true.  But I do not have any problem with that at all!  To me, God is the ultimate scientist.  If God is God, then He made everything.  If He made everything, then He must be pretty smart and talented.  He must be the ultimate micro-biologist, the ultimate mathematician, the ultimate poet, the ultimate joker, the ultimate lover, the ultimate artist, Right?  IF, God is God.  And as I know He is God, then of course, everything around me was made by Him.  Why should I fear any discovery of how He made it?

So, why this article?  Because the Theory of Evolution, specifically Speciation, simply hasn’t been proven to my, or anyone’s  satisfaction (except, of course atheists who believe it will disprove God’s existence, which it doesn’t)  and yet, it is presented, as FACT time and again.  And because God and ‘science’ are so often linked, not only in the minds of religious people, but in the minds of atheists.  But the atheists are the worst about it.  When religious people refute ‘scientific’ evidence, they hurt no one.  But when atheist scientists refute true scientific facts, they hurt kids.  Especially kids in school.  There is an agenda behind their use of the theory of evolution.  They simply jump the scientific gun on Evolution and state, as FACT, a mere theory- highly unproven by any hard evidence- and NO FOSSIL evidence at all.  All my kids’ books say things like, “The dolphin once lived on land until evolution resulted in the slow atrophy of its hind legs…”  That really bugs me out.  It would bug me just as much if their books said, “The pyramids came into being after aliens from another planet gave special tools and equipment to the ancient Egyptians- after which they erased the population’s memories and mysteriously disappeared.”  I only want the FACTS to be taught properly.  And atheist scientists, here is a fact you should know quite well by now, given your thousands of years of failure to ‘see’ the obvious:  just because YOU cannot see something with your little, human eyes and can’t feel it with your little human fingers and cannot phantom it with your human little mind, DOESN’T mean it can’t exist.  So this statement:

“Since no matter how unlikely any naturalistic explanation, it will always be infinitely more likely than a supernatural one.”

is patently UNSCIENTIFIC.  REALLY?  Did you REALLY say that?  Were air molecules also ‘supernatural’?  They used to say that women herbalists and doctors were ‘witches’ using ‘supernatural’, ‘satanic’ forces to heal people.  And not just the priests, either; the men ‘scientists’ said so too!  Ummm fellas, hello! they used the medicinal properties of the plants- just as we do today!  Why do you assume that because you can’t see God, that He is ‘supernatural’?  Are you superstitious?  This, my friends,  is the basic flaw of modern, so-called atheistic ‘science’ today.  It actually WISHES that some things CANNOT be.  Is this the goal of ‘science’?  To say something CANNOT be?    My  perception of true science is to pursue WHAT IS, regardless of whether or not I ‘like’ the results or inevitable conclusions that my discoveries lead me to.  Why should anyone assume that there is no intelligent life form that is way smarter than humans, with much higher technology than humans have and that visits, unseen, our planet from time to time?

OOOh, sorry, I forgot!  They DO believe in super intelligent, non-Earth, unseen, higher technological beings that visit our earth from time to time- aliens!  But our human scientists assume that these life forms are only SO intelligent.  Only as intelligent and highly technical as their human little minds can fathom and understand.  Our human scientists believe, wholeheartedly, that there is life out there- they search the heavens with multimillion dollar giant dishes for them.  But the hubris of man prevents these sadly limited ‘scientists’ from just accepting what might be- that there could be life forms so far advanced from humans that they are actually our creators.  Is that science?  To put an artificial limit on the result of your hypothesis before you have even found any results?  And oh, let’s not forget, they already have some idea of what they  will look like, based on what they already KNOW what they will NOT look like.  For example:  they won’t have wings and they won’t shine with a bright light.  They know that.  Umm hummm.  interesting science.

It is just as valid a hypothesis to start with the existence of God as with the idea that all creation happened on its own. Didn’t a scientist once dare to say that, although ‘everyone’ said the sun revolved around the world, he BELIEVED it might be the other way around, based on his own initial perceptions?  Did the ‘scientists’ of his day accept that?  No, or it would have already been ‘discovered’ by then!  He was the first to observe it.  The first to test it, the first to present it.  Didn’t he begin with an unproven idea and then pursue the facts?  In fact, is that not how ALL science is done?  With an unproven idea?  So, why then does modern science WISH to not make this initial assumption of God and test it?  All science, ALL OF IT, began as something unproven.  That, my friends, is one basic fact.  So, it is completely, scientifically invalid to say that simply because something is currently unproven that it does not exist.  Or that it is ‘supernatural’.  Or that it is a myth.  Or a fairy tale.     Further, it is scientifically invalid to say that, because NO ONE has chosen to embark on a certain hypothesis, (theory or whatever they wish to call it), it is not a valid pursuit of ‘science’.  Says, who, exactly?

There are many facts that science has yet to ‘prove’ in a way they like to define as ‘proof’.  And what is ‘proven’ or ‘unproven’ over time has changed.  Before the invention of the microscope, there was no ‘proof’ (as terminology loving scientists define it) that air molecules existed.  And yet they did.  There was no ‘proof’ that gravity, light particles, or even germs existed.  And yet they did.  Did that change the fact that these things DID exist?  Of course not.  Scientists in the olden days thought putting leaches on a sick person would drain the ‘bad blood’ from people.  This resulted in many deaths.  This practice is laughable today.  And yet, those ‘scientists’ insisted that it was the correct solution.  Another indisputable fact:  apparently, things do not ‘exist’ until white, Western scientists say they do.  Example:  giant squids.  Remember those old sailor tales that spoke of giant octopi working together to attack ships?  Did the European scientists believe them?  No, they were dismissed as ‘uneducated’ ramblings of drunken sailors until they showed up, attacking boats off Japanese and then, California’s coast.  Another example:  ‘monsters’ that ate people discovered by native peoples in their rivers & lakes.  These have all been arrogantly dismissed as fairy tales by European & American scientists- until THEY finally see it with their own eyes.  It doesn’t matter that these little, brown people have seen it or known about it for a hundred years.  It only is valid the day a white, Western scientist sees it, gives it a fancy name and puts it in their ‘official’ books of existence.  Isn’t that funny?   Don’t ‘wrong’ scientists of yesterday look so very foolish today?  Therefore, define ‘proof’, ‘theory’, ‘evidence’, or ‘hypothesis testing’ all you want.  The fact is, ‘science’, as so many atheist scientists like to define, is nothing but the arrogant presumption that something only exists the moment a white, western ‘scientist’ sees it with their own eyes.  A Giant, Invisible Elephant could be standing right next to a ‘scientist’, which all of US can see, but since THEY can’t see it, why, it just doesn’t EXIST!  Why should we, today, seeing the laughable ‘science’ of the past, believe that scientists have better equipment to see ‘facts’ than the equipment we were born with- instinct & common logic being some of them? Why should we assume that something DOESN’T exist because these people have not ‘proven’ it to themselves?

I see the pursuit of science the way Einstein, himself, did.   He said, concerning science & God, “My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly”.   And I also accept that what is, is.    No fact alarms me.  No future fact alarms me.  Can atheists claim that if the existance of God were proven in the future?  would it bother them?  would they, then, bow down the knee and worship happily?

What I am getting at here is that atheist scientists cheat at their own game.  Not only that, but it is they, more than the religious community, that are blinded by their own personal motivations to skew true science & fact in favor of their desired outcomes.  And worse, they attempt to shove their bad science off on little kids in school.

Why is it, that only with the existence of a GOD, is the scientific community so….. unscientific?  Every other thesis a doctorate student proposes must be scrutinized by a million scientific panels before the thing is even published, let alone called a theory or a fact?  Why is it that Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’ is always referred to as the ‘Theory of relativity’ in class, but evolution and speciation are taught as a FACT?  Why is the word ‘theory’ never used in conjunction with the word, ‘evolution’?  In every physics class I ever took, the teacher took pains to tell us that Einstein had only published a theory, unproven yet.  And we can see evidence of his theory all throughout the universe- not just on earth as the theory of evolution is so limited to.    So why does the theory of evolution get higher billing than the theory of relativity?

I smell the arrogance of man here.  And, to be fair, woman.  Oh, these so-called ‘smart’ people have such a chip on their shoulders when it comes to God.  The very thought that they, with their doctorate degrees they sweated their asses off to get, should actually kneel down, put their hands together in supplication to ask MERCY and forgiveness and help is just TOO unbearable.  That is what I see.  Otherwise, they would be fine just presenting the Theory of Evolution properly.  Also the theory of Creationism.  Or a combination thereof (which is what I believe).  It is not I, nor most Christians, that fear Facts and Science- it is the Scientists themselves- because they are  arrogant in their measly knowledge (hell, they still can’t cure a cold- betcha God could) and it is actually they who could not handle the FACTS should they be known to them.



  1. I’m a relatively old person and have extensive life experience. I have worked with the scientific community much of my life. Generally speaking, most people claiming to be atheist really are not when put to the test. It is the sin of pride that causes their tongues to spew nonsense.

    As a Christian man I have no reason not to believe in the existence of other intelligent beings. Who are the angels that I believe exist? Who was Melchizedek? Who were the three men that destroyed Sodom and Gamora? Why did Abraham address one of these individuals as Lord? Who were the sons of God that saw the daughters of men as fair and took them as wives? The Bible provides sufficient evidence to a believer that we are only one of Gods intelligent creatures.

    From a scientific standpoint it is reasonable to believe that in this vast universe there are other intelligent beings. So far as I know, such creatures could be energy alone. Also since the Universe is perfectly ordered and balanced down to its sub-atomic particles, it is doubtful that these beings, being part of the same universe, came into being by a freak of nature. In conclusion, I find it phenomenal that the atheistic mind would prefer to be called a freak of nature rather than a scientific creation of GOD.

    Short Little Rebel has provided an excellent argument!

  2. “Why is it, that only with the existence of a GOD, is the scientific community so….. unscientific?”

    It’s scientific enough; just that it’s Political Science rather than Theodicy.
    Simple enough, seems to me: It isn’t very scientific to declare your conclusion is the truth and then go looking for justification. Science is usually done the other way ’round.
    The atheists of this stripe (and not all are as hyocritical) can’t afford God because they’re stuck with His laws and with unalienable human rights if they do. They want to make their own rules and apply them to the rest of us. Scratch an atheist; find a totalitarian.

    • I agree- science is usually approached the other way around. normally, they are so very careful to use the word ‘fact’. and real scientists don’t use that word in conjunction with evolution because they know better. only wishful atheists say these thing. I could care less if God used the methods proposed by the theory of evolution. If He did, he did. That would be interesting, but doesn’t affect the question of whether or not He is behind the creation in the first place. I am just fed up with things being presented erroneously to children in school. I would be satisfied if they simply used the word ‘Theory’ in front of Evolution in kids science books. Also words like: ‘perhaps’ or ‘might’ or ‘maybe’ when saying things like: “the legs shortened inch by inch over a million years until they became a fin!” Especially when they have no fossil evidence, which they should have mountains of if these mutations took millions of years and millions of dolphins to have occured. There is no fossil evidence to show that the leg did in fact shorten 1 inch per millenia for this animal. There is no reason to believe that a 1″ shorter leg helped that dolphin to reproduce to produce another, shorter leg in its offspring. There is no fossil evidence to show exactly when one species ‘became’ another species in the sense that it could no longer breed with its ancestor. None. The evidence is circumstantial at best. I just hate it when I see human hubris in erroneous conclusions. I like facts. Just show me the facts, please.

      • It’s important to remember that the fossil record is essentially limited, as only a few geologic regions are conducive to preserving fossils. Also, there is a huge amount of sediment that hasn’t been searched, due to the large amount of time and effort involved and both physical and legal accessibility of field sites for Paleontologists and the like. Given these inherent limits to our knowledge of the fossil record, and the general agreement of what we do know with other, more tangible observations from many different fields, it is considered one of many arguments in favor of evolution. The slow progress of collecting the fossil record and other scientific research will continue to improve and modify the theory of evolution, and may even disprove it one day. That’s how the scientific process works and I think that’s pretty cool. If somethings wrong eventually the evidence that shows that will be found, and the theories will change accordingly.

      • Hi Marie, yes, that may be so. And I have no doubt that as time proceeds, more clarity will come to this issue. But my question is this: if the fossil record has not born speciation out as a fact, then why the hell is every Tom, Dick and Harry running around saying it is a FACT? To such an extent that my child’s book on whales (which she adores) said something like, “Whales were once bear like creatures that roamed the land.” lol- seriously, that makes me laugh. Please at least say, “Many scientists believe that the whale was once a bear like creature… etc”! That wouldn’t put me out at all. This article is basically addressing the real problem here- and that is the hubris of man. Since so many people want to be their own gods and they detest with all their hearts the notion that Someone made them and that they owe Him their loyalty and allegiance, they desperately want to believe in speciation because in their pea sized brains it would mean that God did not make man. And that He doesn’t exist at all. But this is complete folly. If God used speciation to make man, what of it? He is highly practical and pragmatic. Why NOT use speciation? If God can ‘breath’ a soul into us, then can’t he do anything? If speciation were a logical process, I have no doubt he would use it. But I hate the hubris of man that I detect every time I see statements like the one in my kid’s book. It bugs me.

      • Scratch a so-called atheist and you find someone who can’t counter a well laid out argument with anything other than name calling. Gee, I wonder who calls names? Adults or babies? hmmmm…

  3. “Why do THEY get to define what the terms are?”
    Why do sailors get to say starboard instead of right? That’s just how language works – every professional group will over time develop their own terminology. Why should scientist not be allowed to do this when everyone else are?

    “Nor do I have any special regard for the methodology they use to ‘prove’ things.”
    On its own, their methodology does indeed not warrant any special respect compared to any other methodology. Where science differs from other methodologies is when you take the delivered results into account. In short: Science works.

    “Under what law should I be forced to discuss creation, or evolution, or any fact finding mission in their terms?”
    You don’t, and traditionally it wasn’t done (for creation at least). But since science has been so overwhelmingly successful, there has been a shift away from methodologies that simply can’t demonstrate that they work by providing as many tangible results as science does. People who prefer these alternative methodologies then try to make their methodology appear “scientific” in order to get equal respect without having to deliver the same accomplishment we have come to expect from science. This is done in two ways: Trying to make your preferred methodology look like science, or trying to make science look like your preferred methodology. If you stop trying to claim your methodology is science (you do not have to say it is less than science, just different) you will not have to use scientific terms to defend it. Of course, it is then up to you to make people respect it as much as they do the scientific methodology – the best way to do this is probably delivering better results than science does.
    “Because the Theory of Evolution, specifically Speciation, simply hasn’t been proven to my, or anyone’s satisfaction (except, of course atheists who believe it will disprove God’s existence, which it doesn’t) and yet”
    I fully accept it has not been proved to your satisfaction. But that it has only been proved to atheist, is an obvious lie (the former pope – for example – was not an atheist). Please do not lie to make your point.
    “When religious people refute ‘scientific’ evidence, they hurt no one. But when atheist scientists refute true scientific facts, they hurt kids.”
    Sorry, this makes no sense to me at all? Are you saying the kids do not trust religious people, and hence will not be hurt by any mistakes they make (they will simply not beleive it anyway). And in return they do trust scientist, so they believe what scientist say no matter if it is true or not? Anyway, it is obviously important to teach children how the scientific method works – how it tries to limit errors (but in no way claim it can completely get rid of them), and how it supports correcting errors.

    “And atheist scientists, here is a fact you should know quite well by now, given your thousands of years of failure to ‘see’ the obvious: just because YOU cannot see something with your little, human eyes and can’t feel it with your little human fingers and cannot phantom it with your human little mind, DOESN’T mean it can’t exist.”
    Correct. It might very well exist – and science accepts this (Quantum theory fits this description quite will). But if it’s not something with a natural cause, we will need another methodology than science to investigate it, as the scientific methodology is dealing with natural causes only. There is no need to change science to include something else, just use another methodology. Once you can demonstrate results, it will be accepted just like science is.
    “So, why then does modern science WISH to not make this initial assumption of God and test it?”
    They would like nothing more – but how do you do it? There is no known scientific way to test if God exist.

    I do not just consider you ignorant (which we obviously all are in different areas), I consider you arrogant. Ignorant is fine, that can easily be addressed, but when someone tries to address it and all you can write is “blah blah blah”, it shows that not only do you not understand it, you think you are above having to understand it to dismiss it. Science delivers results… your approach hasn’t delivered anything. Stop talking and demonstrate your approach is as valid as the scientific method – deliver results that exceed that of science. If you can’t – sorry, why should we waste any time on your methodology?

    • Lars, you clearly did not understand my points- or like so many, you WISH to skew my words to your own ridicule. I wasn’t saying that scientists can not define their own science terms. First point: I was saying that they don’t get to create the framework by which the general discussion must be held in. In other words, I wish to approach the subject in my own way. Which is, by the use of pure logic, facts that I can prove and philosophical arguments. What I meant is that I need not use the types of arguments scientists like to use to prove my point. Second point: you are completely foolish to say that science works when it never has. It is, by definition, always ‘wrong’ in that we simply are beginning to scratch the surface of all KNOWLEGE. Does any scientist dare say they know everything? No? Then they are always wrong. More will always be known. To use logical language properly, what you SHOULD have said is: “The pursuit of knowledge by Western scientists has contributed much to what we, humans, know today. It is a methodology that has advanced human knowledge in many areas greatly.” That’s it! But to imply that when someone simply doubts its results, they need to create a new, better methodology is simply silly. Further, to say that because someone doubts the results of current scientific thought needs to provide another explanation is also erroneous. Someone can look at results and deem them believable or not. Why should they then need to conduct experiments of their own? It is you, in your sloppy language & illogical thought process, unreasonable. My dear, Western science is just one way of approaching the facts. It is you who is arrogant as hell to believe it is the only way. For example: western ‘scientists’ believe that to understand something, you need to break it down into it’s most finite units. Eastern medicine believes in more of a systemic, holistic ‘black box’ method. Put the input in the front of the black box and see what comes out the back of the black box as a result. Do this enough times and you can learn what to do and what not to do. If traditional ‘science’ works so fantastically all the time, why are acupuncture and holistic medicines becoming mainstream? I do not lie one bit when I say that speciation has not been proven to anyone’s satisfaction. If it was, it would be labeled a FACT by the scientific community. They know they can’t and so they don’t. The only people who call it a fact are uniformed atheists who WISH it to be fact. Show me the scientific journal or committee that says it’s a FACT, dear. Third: as for the kids in school, again, you wishfully misinterpret me. Let me make it easier for you to understand. Let me break it down into language you can understand: Religious people cannot and do not get to include their ideology in public settings like USA education systems due to the incorrect interpretation of the ‘separation of church & state” clause today. Only the atheist scientists have that right currently. Therefore, they can and do put erroneous information into school books. Clear? Fourth: was it I who makes claim to FACTS when there is only theory? No. Was the purpose of my paper to prove the existence of GOD? No. The burden of proof lies on the ones making the claim, doesn’t it? Since they, the scientists make the claim, the burden of proof lies on them. not me. All I say is that TODAY, evolution makes no sense. So why is it taught as FACT? I have made it clear that my real interest is in the MOTIVES of the very people who WISH and DO say something is fact, when it is only one possible solution. I never proposed ANY methodology. Nor do I intend to. I will say it again, the onus is simply not on me- I am the audience. Atheist scientists make the claim, I evaluate what they show and determine if it makes sense. As all scientists must do when another scientist makes a claim. Like many scientists before me, I do not see the adequate fossil evidence to support the claim. Why am I arrogant for refusing to believe, as a FACT, something that even the scientific community calls a theory? Like so many frustrated atheists, you need to simply call names when you are losing an argument.

      • “Like so many frustrated atheists, you need to simply call names when you are losing an argument.”

        “you are completely foolish to say that science works when it never has”
        “It is you, in your sloppy language & illogical thought process”
        “It is you who is arrogant as hell…”

  4. What a beautiful mind you have. I have too debunked scientists. I have a degree in science and worked in a scientific field for several years. Anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 is a scientific impossibility. Read my earlier posts on that subject. You can google everyone of my facts and verify them for yourselves with no previous scientific training.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

    • Thanks John! Blessings to you too! As a fellow Christian and lover of science (because science shows me the intricacies of God’s marvelous creation) I am happy to see a man of your caliber on this forum. I knew that there are still plenty of Christian scientists out there, the atheists just don’t like to admit it. Thanks again and may our Lord Jesus be with you!

      Your friend in Christ our Savior,
      Colonel Silver

  5. Evolution is taught in school, blessed by the government and entertainment industry, and then rejected by adults based on real world experience and learning.

    Why do adults reject evolution? Because our experience in the real world is quite different from what we are told as children in our text books. We learn that radioactive dating is neither accurate nor reliable. We find that we cannot rely on the integrity of academics, as they are not above fudging data to promote their particular point of view. We learn what a vested financial interest is. Above all, we learn to think for ourselves.

    Let’s look at some of the evolutionists’ double talk:

    “explains the relevant data, (easy to do if you decide what data is “relevant”)

    b) explains new data as it is gathered, (the dog ate my homework is also an explanation)

    c) is falsifiable (This is a quite a trick. Only theories that can potentially be proved false are considered scientific, but statements of fact (since they are not falsifiable) are not considered scientific. Go figure.)

    d) makes testable predictions…. (Again, its easy to make such predictions if you control what data is presented, when it is presented, and interpret it according to your own bias.)

    Think for a moment. Why should we “believe” in evolution? Because the “scientists” tell us to do so? How do they know? They look at some stones and bones, make some guesses, none of which can be proven one way or another, and tell us, this is “science”. Not much different than guys in a bar arguing about who is the best quarterback.

    This prompts us to take a more skeptical view of the claims of evolution, and to see it for what it really is – a fraud, a scam, and a con.

    Evolution cannot stand such a close examination. Accordingly, its proponents seek to divert the public’s attention with the science vs. faith argument. They have had great success in keeping evolution the official doctrine taught in school. But people are wising up.

    Of course, those promoting this BS are upset that the rubes, marks, and yokels are getting a clue and waking up. Too bad. Evolution is only for the gullible.

    The history channel did a biography on Houdini. Later in his career, he exposed mediums. Strangely, the mediums had some of their most ardent believers in the scientific community! Houdini marveled that he, an uneducated man, could see the fraud the elite could not. Same thing today with evolution, except today the “scientific community” has a vested financial interest in maintaining the con. They can’t admit they are wrong now!

    • What I love most about science jargon loving so-called atheists is that will not have a conversation on the topic if it strays from their worn out terminology. Notice all the negative remarks my arguments have received. Not one of them has addressed my points whatsoever. They simply say religious people are stupid, and re-iterate that evolution is FACT. They don’t answer a single question I have proposed. They hope and pray (to themselves, of course!) that no one will notice all the holes. And if they notice the holes, they try to hijack the conversation with big words, snooty arrogance and finally, a disgusted flouncing away from the room with a backward comment of, “I just can’t talk to you about this. I’m sorry. I can’t believe you reject the findings of 1000’s of experts! You don’t even have a Masters or Doctorates degree!” I have yet to find a single atheist, so-called scientist who is willing to have a conversation which addresses MY questions & logic.

      • Isn’t that funny? Any they will NEVER answer a single question you have! It frustrates me, but also gratifies me as it confirms that the science of evolution truly is in its infancy. Atheists have an agenda behind their rabid adherence to a theory which THEY don’t understand. The fact is, I could really care less if or when this theory fleshes out enough to truly answer my questions. It bothers me, as a logical person, to see my kids school books say something that is not true. And that is: that evolution, in its current model, is FACT. What I hate most is the scent of human AGENDA behind this move and that just plain, out and out makes me mad.

  6. I was going to make some comments, but truly your diatribe has nothing of substance to comment on. I’ve already told you why evolution is considered a fact (a set of facts), yet you completely ignore this. All I see is ad hominem and straw man arguments. Not one shred of evidence. All there is here are assertions like “Oh, I’ve looked at the evidence and I’m not satisfied.” I sincerely doubt this. How disappointing. I thought I might be challenged. Not even close.

  7. Evolution? Of course things have changed over time. Speciation? New species developing through the process of change and adaptation? Sure! That is entirely possible as well. The question of scientists as Short Little Rebel pointed out, should be the origins of life.
    I like to call it evolution from creation. I’m sure I am not the first one to come up with this theory. Now let’s test it! Non-bias (or should I say ‘real’) scientific evidence now strongly points toward the idea that the only logical explanation for our world and universe is a supreme creative force. Bang!

    • B, I have always contended that it is statistically easier to believe that Someone created it all than to believe that so many, RARE accidents happened on Earth to produce this incredible order and DIDN’T happen all around us. The laws of nature are quite consistent. You never see rarity in nature. A law repeats itself ad nauseum in nature. So why is such organized LIFE only here? Oh, I know, people will say- ‘well, we haven’t explored the WHOLE universe yet!’. But that is beside the point, isn’t it? If LIFE is the ‘natural’ result of the physical universe- with all the matter + laws of nature- then we should see life ABUNDANT all around us. We shouldn’t need to look so hard, should we?

      • Yes life is abundant all around us and it actually is through the very rare accidents throughout time. Life needs the right circumstances to thrive Rebel, for example a planet needs to be within a certain distance of a star for it to be able to harbour life. This is one of the primary reasons our surrounding planets aren’t currently throbbing with life.

      • Really, Michael? Who made up that rule? WHY must ‘life’ have only a particular set of circumstances to thrive? Why wouldn’t life happen everywhere and under every circumstance? That is the logical conclusion one must draw from creation around us. Just because we only find life on this planet is not an explanation at all. Physical laws are the same throughout the universe. Why would life ONLY form on this planet and under these circumstances? If LIFE is a natural byproduct of creation, then it should naturally grow anywhere. Why not? Certainly, we see that here on earth. Just when you think you have found the MOST hostile environments here on earth, you find some tiny worm or shellfish or crusty looking… thing.. there. Life is unstoppable here on earth. The range of pressure and temperature are HUGE for life. The very rarity of life in the cosmos is what should amaze you. Not the other way around. The very fact that life only ‘happened’ to occur here is statistically bizarre considering how homogeneously the laws of physics are applied in every other way across the universe. Life IS an aberration. A complete and total aberration. In fact, it appears to be the ONLY aberration among all other processes known to man. Every other phenomena we see is echoed repeatedly and consistently around the universe. Therefore, it makes no sense, no sense at all, to say that life ‘just happened’ on this planet. SOMETHING changed here. Something caused this aberration. This completely AMAZING aberration. That something is God.

      • Again, you don’t state WHY life requires certain circumstances. Why can’t life exist with what we see as poisonous atmospheres? they exist here on earth in poisonous atmospheres. Why can’t they exist in extreme temperatures? They exist on earth in extreme temperatures. You just keep repeating what you consider a fact. But you offer no reasoning for it.

    • Valle, **YAAWN** Do you REALIZE how many times your buddies have used this tired, dragged out, BORING line? At least I am ORIGINAL. That is why thousands of you flock to this article every day. Boy, you are one predictably dull group, aren’t you?

      • You’re not original; people like you have been failing to disprove evolution for over a century. What makes you intriguing is the fact that you continue to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even as the number of people like you dwindles. You are a dying breed and we are gathered here to stare, slack-jawed in both horror and amusement, like patrons at a carnival freak-show.

      • lol. And YOU are not original either, dear. Like every other so-called scoffer, all you can do in response to this article is to call names. Very unoriginal indeed. Try actually saying something to prove that I said a single wrong thing. Then, you will become an extraordinary so-called atheist indeed.

    • John. So you hold it against Jesus that he wept? I feel sorry for you. I suppose that your parents beat you as a boy for daring to show emotion and love, huh? I love that Jesus wept. You misunderstand his weeping. You think he wept for himself. He wept for US. He wept because we were so ignorant, so stupid, so immersed in evil that we could not see the cup of cool water before our thirsting throats. That we would toss away our LIFE by attempting to kill the very source of our life. He wept because we were like sheep without a shepard. He wept for YOU. And he is still weeping for you. Because you STILL adhere to your death. You still adhere to satan, who will take full delight in torturing you. He is weeping because you could so easily have had eternal, beautiful, passionate, fun filled, laughter filled, love filled LIFE for trillions and trillions of years- but chose death instead. That IS sad. When you laugh at Jesus’ tears, you are laughing at the one person who loves you best. It displays a self hatred- and this is the saddest part of all. God loves you- but you hate you. There is nothing sadder in the world.

  8. SLR,

    I am a scientist and I have a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. I have spent years dedicating my energy and efforts into investigating how our world works. A key facet during my graduate studies, it became apparent to me that I don’t know for a fact many things and that, the further I studied and investigated, the less I could be 100% sure about anything. From my limited experiences, it seems that many graduate programs emphasize this, from natural sciences to social science to music to the humanities. In particular, the goal of science is to ask questions and to seek those answers.

    My main question is relating to your post here, as I’m not sure what your list of facts to be refuted or debated are.You mention to Lars in a previous comment that he doesn’t understand your points or he is deliberately skewing them to make make fun of you. Unfortunately, due to the style of your blog I, perhaps like Lars, have had trouble categorizing your points in such a way as to talk about them. Do you think you could provide a slightly more succinct list of your points so we could initiate a discussion about them?

    Also, I would like to point out that there are quite a few scientists that do not consider themselves to be atheists. My PhD advisor is an active member of his church along with his wife, a professor of neuroscience, and their children. A graduate student in that lab met her husband through her church, where they also lead Bible study groups together. I worked with a woman who got her Masters degree in Biochemistry before deciding to enter the convent. I’ve also worked with multiple undergraduate students who are both interested in science and religious. I’m not an atheist either, although I do not associate with any particular denomination or religion. I find that, while I have no good evidence to refute a god or gods, I have not found any evidence that is compelling to me for the existence of a god or gods.

    I would love to hear more from you.


    • Hi Adam, thank you for a polite comment. What you and your fellow so-called scientists would like are a series of data from experiments to look at. You seem to scoff at logical argument as a means to find truth. But all things must begin with logical argument. It is from such a premise that all research must be based. If a=b and b=c, then a MUST = c. No data is required for this argument to hold true. One can debate the validity of the first two premises but once they are deemed to be logically valid, then the result is conclusive as well.

      This article is based purely on logical argument. Those who are pre-determined to hate God or any thought of being created vs. being the spontaneous result of natural processes CAN NOT hear this argument for one reason: They WILL not hear it. Those who are truly searching for truth can follow my argument perfectly. It doesn’t require data to say, for example, that if speciation were the RULE of existence, it should have left a trail of fossils so long, piled so high, and so evident that very little digging would be necessary. The sheer number of different species that can’t interbreed is too high to have left so little evidence of their creation through such a painstakingly slow process. That is just logical. why is data needed? The data is also available in the NON-existence of those fossil records. In fact, it is statistically impossible that not ONE species has ever been proven, through fossil records, to have somehow ‘gone over the edge’ of natural selection to a new species that can no longer breed with its predecessors. The fossils for all these millions of iterations for just one species would be overwhelming! Where the hell are they?

      Now, if you can’t see that this is a logical argument and can’t answer the question, there is only ONE REASON: you don’t WANT to consider it. People like you and others WANT to jump to the conclusion that evolution is PROVEN. That is your downfall as scientists. You have been conditioned through social pressure to believe this. That is why you lack logic on such an obvious fact: no evidence whatsoever exists to validate speciation. The proof isn’t on ME. The proof is on the people who are proposing the new theory. YOU have to prove speciation is true if you want me or anyone to believe in your theory. Yet, I see no one providing the proof. Instead, like you, the issue seems to be on my qualifications as a scientist! lol! As if TRUTH or LOGIC is something one must need a certification to find. for anyone who has ever been on a debate team, we know that this is the weakest argument of all! ‘I have a degree and you don’t. Therefore, I am more knowledgeable and therefore I am right.” yeah. Let me show you some land in Florida.

      I am a biochemistry degree. And you are right about one thing: the best minds- the very best of the best- will ALWAYS find God in science. If you don’t, then either you have a weak character or you have a weak mind. Even Einstien understood this- while he would never claim a religion, he had NO DOUBT about the magnificent order and design of the universe. And he also recognized that there was probably a Supreme Being who was behind it. This is the ONLY logical conclusion one can come to if one were intellectually honest.

      I watched my fellow biochemistry friends- all of whom became lab rats or doctors- choose to be socially acceptable vs. intellectually honest. There is no fear like the fear of a ‘serious’ scientist than to proclaim their belief in God, the bible and Christ. Not one of them would DARE speak the words, “I love Jesus” at a party. Mostly because they know they will clear the room instantly and be left standing there, alone, with their drink in their hands. Me? I so HATE to be forced to do anything that I LIKE saying, “I just LOOOOOOOVE mah Jesus sooooooo much!” at parties where ‘serious’ intellects gather.

      Mostly, I don’t bother with so-called atheists because they are literally so… uneducated and such poor thinkers. It is to toss pearls to swine for sure. People who are biased will BE biased and no evidence, no logic, no truth will ever penetrate their safety shield. Any brave and intellectually HONEST person who studies science will find, very quickly, that they know NOTHING and that man’s science is ALWAYS wrong. In fact, it is on THIS premise alone that we continue to make new theory. BECAUSE we know nothing, we postulate on something new. And then we set forth to prove or disprove it. If we KNEW anything at all, the need for ‘science’ would disappear. So all these so-called scientists who come to my page claiming science as god just make me laugh. They aren’t even worth talking to. I am answering you because you are a rare bird indeed. At least you admit that you know nothing. At least you admit that God exists.

      The reality of faith is this: the evidence for God is overwhelming in all nature throughout the universe. The ONLY thing that requires faith is whether or not Jesus was God’s Son and whether his promise of eternal life is true. Past that, anyone who claims that ‘scientific’ thought would deny God is just low on IQ points.

      Most truth is not found in data from an experiment. It is found through solid thinking- logical thought. That is the BASIS for good science. And that is what this article does. It brings forward a logical thought process that severely questions speciation and the LACK of data to support it. Counter THAT and you have some credibility.

  9. I’m a committed christian and a scientist. I accept evolutionary theory as the best theory we have to explain speciation, why? Because that is what the evidence tells us? How do you think we have arrived at the modern theory of evolution? Guesswork? Thinking hard in a room with no windows? No. People have spent their entire careers out in the real world studying it and recording it. Why, when you clearly haven’t devoted anywhere near the same time or energy to this issue do you think that anyone will treat your opinion on the topic at all seriously?

    Your post makes absolutely no sense as you seem to want to talk about science and the scientific method applied to evolution but you explicitly reject the fundamental tennets and key ideas that science is based on. That is as ridiculous as wanting to talk about the nature of God’s forgiveness in Christianity whilst rejecting the holy scripture.

    • You say that the EVIDENCE exists for speciation? Now THAT is a crock. Please present the physical evidence for this. Please show me skeletal records that would indicate that changes to a specific animal changed slowly throughout a million or so years to such a point where it could not longer breed with the individuals before it. After all, if speciation is the RULE of evolution, the fossil proof should be OVERWHELMING. The bones should be piled high to the rafters. We have how many different species on this earth? And ALL of them created through speciation? Ok, then where the HELL are all those fossils? Did they all disentigrate? Did only the bones of different species survive? Seems mathematically impossible to me. It is easy to claim some kind of title and then simply state opinion as fact. My article isn’t based on anything except logical deduction and argument. So-called ‘scientists’ come on here mocking and yet, not one of them, including YOU can answer a single argument in this article other than by calling names, getting personal or simply saying, “Evolution and speciation IS true! It just IS! It just IS!” You are as childish as the so-called atheists who come here.

      IF God used speciation, I have zero problem with it. But to run around saying that evolution has presented evidence of speciation is just laughable. And you know it. Evidence is available only for natural selection. But not for speciation. And without speciation, the core ideas behind evolution become moot. So what kind of so-called scientist will accept it as ‘fact’? You say you are a Christian. Of that, I have no doubt. But I feel sorry for you. The ONLY reason you came here is to defend yourself. You need to make yourself look like a ‘reasonable’ Christian. A ‘sophisticated’ Christian. Christians like me embarrass you. I understand. I used to be a weak, sad Christian like you. You don’t have the strength of character or confidence to look at data and say the obvious. Because the obvious might link you to the ‘dumb rednecks’ who reject evolution and think God really did create the world in seven days. I understand. But I don’t care what connects me to whom. I think for myself. God didn’t create the universe in seven EARTH days- that is quite impossible. First, the earth didn’t even exist to turn around once in 24 hours. Thus, the seven days are clearly God days. And the days of a being who is eternal can not be measured properly by three dimensional creatures. If God used that language to communicate the principles of creation to a primitive man, I am fine with it. God is very pragmatic. And the theory of evolution and the big bang would coincide perfectly with the bible if one were to take the time issue out of it. HOWEVER, the evidence isn’t even close to being present for speciation. And it is on that basis alone that I speak. I pray that someday, you will be confident enough to not be ashamed of God. Or your fellow Christians. If you find a Christian who thinks it was a literal seven days and if that person is a true follower of Christ, then he is still your brother and you should love him. It is with HIM that you will stand against Satan. Your fellow so-called atheist ‘scientists’ are not your friends. They are your enemy. But you do not yet have eyes to see that yet. But hopefully, if you stay true to God, God will open your eyes to some wisdom. He did for me- I was like you once- thank the Lord I am a better, stronger person now.

      • Now, ISn’t that funny? That blogs like this get so much attention? And do you know WHOSE attention it gets most? So-called Atheists like you. you guys are absolutely fascinated with this series I wrote. And it amuses me to no end. Not ONE of you can offer a reasonable statement to answer my posts. Look, even you. All you can do is call names, flip the bird and then run away. This articles uses the time tested thing called ‘logical argument’. But I guess since you are the kind of person who will say speciation is real even without the barest smudge of evidence, it is clear that your emotions play a far greater role in your decision making than your brain. While I feel somewhat sorry for you, I’ll be honest and say that it amuses me more.

      • You’ve already stated you won’t accept the definitions of those you are arguing against. You say, “evolutionist must answer my questions” while admitting you won’t accept the answers they give you. Say dismiss a widely accepted scientific definition of “theory” so you can continue saying “Evolution is just a theory.” That’s not “logic,” that’s intellectual dishonesty.

      • Actually, I said I would not argue the point on their terms. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? AND, if you have a counter point, I would love to hear it. Prove me wrong on some point. Thus far, you and your buddies can only tell me how stupid I am, ask for my degree (Biochemistry, btw) or.. well, that seems to be the extent of it. Seems to me, if I am so stupid or if I failed to make my point, ONE of you might actually point out EXACTLY where I am in error. You say that someone has ‘given’ me an answer, please identify that answer for me. WHO gave any kind of answer? I mean, other than calling me names? I know YOU haven’t.

      • lol- You know, Earnest, for every ONE ranting liberal rant on this article, I delete about 100. If this article is SO nonsensical, I highly doubt that thousands and thousands of you God haters would get so excited by it. You make me laugh. You really do. In fact, this article is about the NUMBER ONE most hated article amongst you so-called atheists. You have no idea how PROUD that makes me! Oh, and you know what the VERY BEST PART of all your impotent responses is? That none of you- not One of you can counter a single thing I said. All you can do is call names like angry babies. Whaaaahh! And that is the funniest part of all.

  10. I got as far as “AIR MOLECULES”. Then I smiled. Then I was sad I had wasted ANY time reading your sad sad story. But I kept going. Then you mentioned “AIR MOLECULES” again. Then I laughed. Then I was satisfied that indeed this WAS worth reading as a STUDY in how stupid humans can be, YOU being a perfect example. My CAPS are used with homage to your SKEWED perspective. It must be NICE in your universe, to be so blissfully stupid AND smug. Only a fool would trust a REBEL like you. But there are SO MANY fools, you have plenty of followers to stroke your OVERINFLATED ego. Your ignorance and ego in the most basic confirms everything I had heard about this article. Oh dear oh dear…

    • Oh, I’m sorry, I thought ‘air’ was made up of molecules. What amuses me most about you people who claim my articles are soooooooo sad is that you read them ALL! And take the time to comment on them all! haha! What is WRONG with you people? Why do you make such fools of yourself like that? Ah. Again, you offer not ONE argument against what I said other than to call it and me names. If you want credibility in my eyes (or really, anyone’s) you would actually include some sort of proof that what I said was flawed. Should be easy since you are so smart and my article is so dumb. *crickets*

  11. The intelligent apologist template: lengthy sophistry about the errors of evolution/atheism… drawing point-by-point deconstruction by evolutionist/atheist… more lengthy sophistry by apologist that avoids direct counterpoint and shifts the subject (ad hominem, complaints about ad hominem, etc.)… incredulous/frustrated reply by atheist/evolutionist… cycle repeats… angry/exhausted atheist/evolutionist gives up… apologist claims victory….

    Well played, Susan… well played….

    • lol. Try: Intelligent Christian makes brilliant point. Desperate flailing and impotent so-called Atheist calls her names for wont of something real to say. Intelligent Christian laughs at them. They tuck tail and run away- flipping the bird excitedly as they exit. Well played indeed!

  12. Wow SLR! You are so awesome! I’m glad to have come to your blog. I have the same problem dealing with atheists (as well as people who pose as Christians but clearly aren’t) on the topic of evolution. I make the point that I have yet to see any decisive proof of evolution. All I get in return is a bunch of foul language and personal attacks instead of an intelligent debate. I usually don’t say things like this but these people must have some kind of inferiority complex. They are like the bullies I knew in high school who always ganged up on me in groups.

    Well, they can keep their evolution and their vitriol. My hope is in Jesus and I will continue to be a messenger of His words. Thank you SLR! Your blog really encourages me!

    Your friend in Christ our Good Shepherd,
    Colonel Silver

  13. “If God is God, then He made everything. If He made everything, then He must be pretty smart and talented. He must be the ultimate micro-biologist, the ultimate mathematician, the ultimate poet, the ultimate joker, the ultimate lover, the ultimate artist, Right?”

    That sounds pretty logical to me. He also must be the ultimate sadist, masochist, criminal, etc… Personally, I don’t believe in ‘facts’ and theories too much – they change all the time and depend too much on the beliefs/paradigms of the people who dis-covers them (or makes them up). Computers come to conclusions (and predictions), based on what you feed them (input –> output) and so do we, as far as we count on the computer in our heads to explain (the mechanics and meaning of) LIFE. I prefer to live the mystery instead of looking at it as being ‘data’ for my mind to play with. Face it, from a logical standpoint, life makes no sense at all 🙂

    • No, life makes complete and utter sense. Without God, it makes no sense. That much is true. There is zero sense without God and his plan for mankind. That is why the bible and God’s plan is so compelling for those who will here it. It is the ONLY ‘religion’ that can possibly answer the question, “Who am I and why is mankind here on earth?” There is a reason for evil. It serves a purpose. God most certain is the greatest of all good things. He most certainly does understand all evil things. And yes, he does allow all evil to reign on this earth. But it has a purpose- it is to offer mankind a tempting choice other than God. Mankind was not complete in the Garden of Eden. No. We are a new creation, made in the image of God. And what is God? God is a Person who has a free will and creates things with the spoken word. We are creatures with free will that can create things with the spoken word. Where is the free will to love God without a tempting, real choice? Thus, the knowing creation of satan. Is satan an ugly thing? no. That is mankind’s rendition for the movie industry. Satan is an angel of light, of great beauty. In a word, he is hot. Good looking. He can and does give great wealth, big homes, beautiful careers, beautiful voices, bodies, jewels, fame, etc to those whom he would tempt. Does he also do great evil among men? Of course. That is his own great pleasure. God gives him permission to do all these things. And yet, do you see mankind rejecting him? No. You see him being actively worshipped in today’s culture. Teenagers are even wearing satanic clothing that openly tells other teens to obey satan. It’s actually cool now to worship satan and it’s very uncool to worship Christ. For all the evil that satan does, mankind loves him far more than they love Jesus, who never did a wrong thing in his life. That is something to ponder about mankind if you must ponder. God created mankind because he wanted a new creature. He calls these creatures his children. They are completely new in his heavenly order. He made them in his own image. They are powerful like he is. They have free will. No other creature except Jesus has free will. Only those who CHOOSE God of their own free will, having been fully tested with satan and all his worldly temptations and tortures will be allowed to live with God for an eternity. God considers this a fair situation that accomplishes his own goals. He can do that because… well, he is God. If you don’t think that is ‘fair’ to all those other people who die, well, he gave them every chance in the world, did he not? In fact, he gave them chance after chance after chance after chance. THEY chose to reject the truth of their existence. THEY chose to believe they would just die after this existence. Thus, they, with their own mouth, CREATED their own death. They literally spoke their death into existence. They are, after all, created in the image of God. The bible tells us the ONLY story that makes sense out of this earth and the people on it. It explains evil and good and all our perceptions about it. It explains the Jews, the Holocaust, today’s politics- everything. It explains ALL of historical events and even the future, which all mankind can sense is moving toward ultimate destruction. It explains how mankind knows it is evil and why we yearn for heros, how we yearn for ourselves to be better than we are. It explains why we hate and fear death even when animals do not. It explains why we want to live forever. It explains how mankind is redeemed back into God’s good graces in the most logical way possible- through love and forgiveness, not through our own efforts. That Jesus paid the ultimate penalty for our crimes. Thus, the perfect Judge has been satisfied that justice was done and all can be wiped clean in his books. All the T’s were crossed and all the I’s were dotted. All is complete and in perfect order. All that was needed from us was LOVE in return. Don’t you get the perfection of the story? Of how perfectly it segways into mankind’s history, psychology, science and hopes? No other ‘religion’ makes sense at all. Believe me, there was a time in my early twenties where I had to apologize to God. I left his presence to research them to see if I believed what I believed because I was raised to believe it or because it made the most sense. It makes the most sense. Not only does it make the most sense, but it blows my mind away. It is so full of sense, truth and logic that it strains my intellect to such a white hot point that I can’t hardly bare it. The sheer joy of the truth overwhelms my soul and I can’t bear it. I follow the Truth, the Way and the Life. And you can, too, Ronald. Just stop your foolishness. Come to Jesus. Humble your self before him. His love is mighty and eternal. Why die when you have the gift of eternal life right before you? Jesus is not a beggar- he is your KING. I am begging you for your own sake. He won’t beg you. That is why God is so silent in your life. He speaks to me all the time. He used to be silent but now he is alive to me. You will hear him someday- but he won’t come to you. You must come to him- you are the servant. Choose life, Ronald, not death. You have nothing to lose, friend.

  14. Maybe this is a good way of looking at it: scientists call what they can’t see ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’, religious people call it God (or Allah, etc.). The thing all people have in common is that they’re all looking for concepts, theories, something to justify their behavior and also something to get rid of the uncomfortable feeling of ‘not-knowing’. One of the great paradoxes of life is that great intelligence is required to realize there’s really nothing to ‘know’.

    P.S. what ever happened with Adam? 🙂

    • It takes intelligence to realize that there is nothing to know??? I think you have that absolutely backward. It takes true intelligence to realize that we know nothing at all. And we never will. There is simply too much to know. Once mankind can get their thick heads around that very fundamental truth, then we will properly approach knowledge. True science is the pursuit of UNcovery, not DIScovery. Einstein understood this very well. He also understood that all knowledge was ordered. This was why he never discounted the idea of God. He knew that he didn’t know enough to discount anything. A good scientist knows that mankind doesn’t know anything yet. Therefore, it would be presumptuous, no, stupid, to think we can DIScount anything. All we can do is to PROpose something and then set about trying to prove if we are right or wrong about it. The trouble with Coffeehouse Intellectuals is that they do not understand the scientific pursuit at all. They actually believe it is about Disproving things. It is not. It is about proving that proposed ideas are true or untrue. It can’t, by definition, DISprove anything, let alone, God. So, it is absolutely the height of ignorance and stupidity, even, to say, ‘Science has disproven the existence of God.” Once can say that science hasn’t proven the existence of God, but big deal. It hasn’t proven the existence of the entire magnitude of what we are yet to know either! If it had, we would stop proposing any theories and would pack up all our microscopes and go home, wouldn’t we? What people claim in the name of science truly makes me laugh. I rarely bother to explain my laughter because most people wouldn’t even understand the joke. It’s on them. It takes genius to understand the joke in the first place. It takes genius to understand that mankind is stupid and that we know nothing. Either that, or mankind can just take God’s word for it. So, genius or humility, which will it be for mankind? And some people even have the genius, yet because they lack humility, they will ignore what their own intellect tells them. The supposed great scientific minds of our time fall into this category. Stephen Hawking comes to mind. He fails to see the elephant in the room because of his bitterness. I like to imagine what he could do if he was free from bitterness and could truly open his mind to TRUTH, instead of trying to see evidence in the way he wishes to see it. He would truly contribute to human kind then. In any case, it saddens me that you feel there is nothing to know. That puts you squarely in the middle of the depressed, closed mindedness of a lost generation. There is much to know. The world of knowledge is an exciting, unlimited place. But you are outside of it, in the grey. You need Jesus because he is LIFE, full of color, rich, vibrant, real, joyful your life will flow over in ways you can not imagine in your current state. Reach for him, call his name. Be real in your desire to serve him and he will come. You will not regret your humility. LIVE, don’t die, my friend. You have nothing but a grey, dull life and death to lose. Choose life.

      • I will do my best if you will do yours! Remember, the Christian journey is everyone’s journey. I write in public for one reason- to encourage others to speak up in their own lives. Every one of us is responsible to witness to those in our lives. While many think that their lives should be a ‘living witness’, the reality is that they are quite terrified to actually verbalize their faith. But it must actually be verbalized. Without vocalization of their faith, there is no power in their witness. Even our proclamation to become Christians must be spoken aloud. We must proclaim our desire for Christ to save us. The tongue is mighty. Those in our lives must hear the spoken Word from our own lips to benefit from the living witness of our lives. The two must go hand in hand. It is hard to get started. But once you begin to speak, you will find that it can’t be stopped. The sheer joy of speaking about Jesus can’t be beat. Living for Christ is a high that no drug can reproduce. That is why all those Apostles were willing to die for it! lol! It’s true. Jesus produces a high like no other. Why take drugs that have all those side effects? God is the truest form of joy. Once people taste true life the way it was meant to be, they ‘get it’ and will never, ever go back to the grey, dim shadow that they once were. A Roman Caesar once said, “Christians don’t die like other men.” Ha! I know why. You keep up your end and I will keep up my end, ok? cheers!

  15. You are doing wonderfully Short Little Rebel. There are many, many college grads, grad students, and doctorates who fully agree and follow your logic here perfectly. People who are threatened are those who will attack one’s character rather than the issue. This is why you get a lot of unasked for abuse, especially on a subject such as this. As I see it, I can understand people who look at the world and wonder why all the horror and trials. We all do…but would we as imperfect beings prefer that God step in and interfere with every decision we make, good or bad? How would we find out who we are personally? How would we otherwise learn and grow. Life is a test and journey for each of us, and we can not always know or judge why others lives are the way they are. We can only be accountable for our own. Bless you and may God keep you and watch over you.

    • Hi Derrick, I always say that math, specifically Probability and Statistics, is absolutely on the side of Intelligent Design. There is nothing about our observed life that would point to accidents leading to order. Nothing. Accidents and explosions absolutely lead to chaos every time. That is our observed result time after time. What would lead anyone to assume that there is some hidden mechanism that would have ‘accidents’ leading to order, not once, but billions of times, even now, but hidden, which leads to the phenomenal order that we seen in genetics, physics, chemistry, art, music, etc? When one looks at the odds of accidents leading to order, it is almost impossible to believe that even one accident could lead to order, let alone that billions have successfully led to the mind blowing order around us.

      Further, why are so-called scientists looking for A, as in, ONE, ‘missing link’? There should be billions of them! Every species should have a million transitional set of bones that prove that it morphed, ever so slowly through millions of years, from one form to another until it could no longer breed with its predecessor (ie, it turned into a new species). And, at which point did that happen? Did all the mothers of one specific generation all give birth to that magical new species at the same time? How did they time that, exactly? Or did just one mom give birth to one abnormal kid at a time? If so, how did that lone genetic aberration find a mate with whom to mate? How did it propagate it’s new gene sequence? How did this new species survive? It would have died right there, sterile for all pragmatic purposes. That is, unless it had some kind of intelligence to somehow take out an ad in a squid newspaper that said, “New species seeking similar new species for sex to start new species.” There should be billions of fossils from tens of thousands of species that prove speciation- not ONE missing link for human kind. And yet, all we can find are bones of species that can’t and never could breed with one another. Isn’t that amusing? What happened to all those billions of fossils that show ALL species morphing in form from one species to its next new species? Did they have some kind of special, quickly-deteriorating, special super spy ingredient in them just to make it hard on human beings? I don’t think so. I think that if speciation were a real phenomena, the proof would be overwhelming. I think if the big bang theory were true, little bangs would also lead to order in our every day lives. One thing we can observe in our universe is that natural rules ALWAYS hold true. They never change- ever. Mankind can be wrong about what those rules are, but the actual rules never change. They aren’t true one day and then untrue another day. If a bang leads to order one day, they don’t lead to chaos the next. A bang either leads to order always or it never does. If you are on earth and you drop something, it will always fall to the ground. That is a rule. It is always true. No matter what. Whatever is the natural order is always the natural order. It is constant. Mankind always misunderstands the natural order and we must always change what our understanding of what those rules are (why we always say ‘Theory’). But the universe remains the same. Thus, we can be sure that what we observe to be true today was true at the beginning, and during the formation of our species. Thus, we can observe the world around us and use observed data and phenomena to either bolster the theory of evolution or smash it to smithereens. I vote for the latter- observed phenomena renders the theory of evolution to be nonsense. It also renders the big bang to be nonsense. Most scientists now accept these premises but most liberal atheists still cling to it. Even Einstein knew them to be false. The problem with many scientists today is 1) they are not like the great thinkers of old. They are merely college graduates who have no other expectation put on them other than that they punch a clock and work in a lab doing menial labor 2) they have no problem with allowing their personal emotions getting in the way of logic. 3) they don’t care about truth. Because they don’t care about truth as the ultimate object of their science, they allow themselves to circumvent logic entirely. This is what Steven Hawking does. This allows them to waste their entire lives pursuing useless theories (for money or fame)- thus wasting the tremendous gift of amazing intelligence God gave them. This basically makes them useless to human kind.

      I am simply amazed at the ability of these people to put aside logical thought just because they hate the idea of God. I am also amazed that they think that evolution would disprove his existence. It doesn’t. I was reading the Bible the other day- Genesis, specifically- and the order of creation matched evolution exactly. I found that to be such an amazing coincidence. I thought, “Well, God, if that’s how you did it, so be it!” Doesn’t bother me one bit. If God brought me about through dirt or through an ape, I really don’t care one iota. He brought me about. I have never had a problem with it. I have a problem with the science and the MOTIVE of these rotten scientists. I dislike their hatred of God and I dislike illogical minds that are born from them. That is my beef. But evolution? Naw. Doesn’t bug me at all- other than it being so utterly unproven.

  16. Fantastic reasoning Short Little Rebel. I wish I had been keeping up with you, but I have been required in other endeavors. You are eloquent and fluid in dealing with the twist, turns, and diversionary tactics being thrown at you by the Godless and uniformed. I salute your courage and faith in Christ and support you fully in your important endeavor. I hope you don’t mind if I copy some of your arguments, and I will be sure not to change the wording, and will attribute whatever name you choose (I would assume “Short Little Rebel”?) I will not do anything until I get a response from you. I wrote a book a few years back called Extremism vs. Centrism in America. It covered 10 areas of national life, including science, philosophy, and religion, among others. Much of the science chapter covered similar arguments concerning the extremism often practiced in today’s science. Don’t look for it on Google (you will find it…but it is much outdated) and a much updated version is available, and I will send it, if you want to look at it. But I am not requesting this…just politely letting you know. In any case, it is a different approach, and one should consider I don’t have the abilities in debate that you have. Again, I feel that what you are doing here is crucial, and if there is anyway I can assist you in your mission (as I think there are many who would benefit from knowing of your blog), please feel free to let me know. Sincerely, Derrick Cox

    • Derrick, feel free. When you stand back and look at it, the theory of evolution, specifically speciation, is the most absurd of all ideas. It requires far more faith to understand why all those millions of bones disappeared from those MILLIONS OF in-between species while only the fossils from individual, non mating species were left behind. Was something magically defective about those bones? Not only should we have ONE missing link, we should have hundreds of thousands of missing links. Every species today should have thousands of fossils of the in between fossils it used to be morphing over the millennia, gene by gene, until it couldn’t mate with the individuals before it. And, exactly how did it all come about? Did one mother give birth to the one that couldn’t breed with its cousins? or the neighbors next door? Or was there some simultaneous, grand event where all the moms spontaneously giving birth to the new species that couldn’t mate with the last version of itself? Is that how the new non mating ‘species’ found its new mate and thus carry on the new species? Hmmm…. Their theory always sounds so good until you walk it through, step by step. And then… well, ask for the proof. Where did those doggoned bones go???? hummmmm…..? People say the Bible isn’t scientific, but nothing in Genesis argues against the overall theory of the big bang and evolution. The idea, however, is that God is involved, DIRECTING these forces into the direction he pleases. Why couldn’t he, for example, use the biological and genetic forces present to simply morph all the cells of one species SIMULTANEOUSLY into the next? That is my bet. That would explain the neat and orderly branches of species. He is, after all, a neat and orderly God in all he does. Nothing is ‘magic’ in the Bible. God always uses the forces available on earth to do his miracles. He just manipulates them according to his will. He made the forces of nature- ie, gravity, speed of light, etc.- why can’t he tweak them at will. IF God exists, which is what we are positing, then of course he could and would tweak at will. That is my theory. Chaos NEVER leads to order. That is proven over and over and over again in science. However, directed will always leads to order. Just look at every house you see in the neighborhood. Everyone of them is the direct product of the force of will and applied energy. Thus, it is mathematically more probable that all creation, a most ordered thing indeed, is a product of applied will and energy, than of an uncontrolled explosion. Every single experiment and experience known to human man has proven that idea 100% of the time. Talk about a proven theory! It is simply more probable that God exists and made the world than an explosion happened and created order and that accidents continued to create order over and over and over and over again and then…. stopped once human life was created. Because it sure isn’t happening any more. So, did LIFE have some sort of sentience and decide to hide itself from the sentience of mankind? Hmmm… again, highly improbable. Our everyday experience shows us that all ‘laws of nature’ are the SAME no matter where you are, no matter when you are, and no matter who you are. If they are not, then we conclude that it is NOT a ‘law of nature’ and change our understanding accordingly. Thus, even our own understanding of ‘laws of nature’ wouldn’t substantiate this idea that LIFE somehow hid itself from us. Life was formed by a process that is still ongoing. That is an assumption that we MUST have. Thus, if accidents created us and order, then we MUST be able to observe more accidents resulting in massive order today. I challenge any evolutionist to show me this happening on massive scales today. Hmmmm…. where’s the Nobel prize, people? All in all, it makes me laugh. God is MORE MATHMATICALLY PROBABLE THAN EVOLUTION. And that, my friend, is a fact.

  17. I would like to Point out that some of you arguments and comments are illlgical. I would also be pleased if you would anwser some of my questions about religion properly and not using the bible as your only evidence.
    First, when you look at fossils of ancient animals and compare them to modern animals, do you not see the similarity in bone structure? Have you not seen the family trees of modern animals and understand vaguely why scientists believe dolphins were once land creatures?
    Second, do you know of a man named Charles Darwin? He is baisically the father of evolution. He too is a religious man who realized, through the Galapagos Islands, how natural selection goes hand in hand with evolution. If you have not heard of him, then I would highly recommend that you watch a documentary on him or read his book called On the Origin of Species.
    Third, if God created everything in the universe, then who or what created God? God cannot possibly create himself, nor is it logical to say that he just appeared out of thin air.
    Fourth, why use the Bible as evidence of God’s existence? The bible was written hundreds of thousands of years ago by who knows who. There is no evidence that what this person, or persons, wrote is true. The bible to me, is nothing more than a fantasy genre tale that shows the human fear of the unknown and unexplained, which can be compared to a scientist wanting anwsers for the same unknown and unexplained reasons that people fear.
    Fifth, scientists never say that their theories are 100% true. In fact, there is no Theory in this world that can be called 100% true. Theories are just hypothesis that have been supported by evidense and data as well as accepted by a large group of scientists and people. ( if you havent learned science in school, then you should maybe research how experiments are done, and what scientific theories are)
    Sixth, us humans are LIVING PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS REAL. From the first believed human(Lucy) to have walked the earth till now, there has been so many advancements in technology, communication, culture, bone structure, etc… We, only faintly resemble our predecessors who had limited and crude techology, communication skills, etc… They are the epitome of what we modern humans now call Heathens. Which, if God created man in his image, could it possibly mean that God is a heathen, whose creations have evolved to become more advanced than him? Or is it that God too, has evolved to become more advanced and logical?
    Sorry that my comment offends you and seems to threaten your religion, but I honestly have no ill will. I want to understand why you refuse to belive in evolution and science and stick to your belief in God.
    I by the way, am more than glad to burn in “Hell” because I’m an athiest.

    • Hi Cole, your comment doesn’t offend me, but it asks so many questions that it would take a very long time to answer. Also, most of your questions are, in and of themselves, ignorant and erroneous. It would take time to explain why they are ignorant and erroneous before I could begin to answer what I think you are really trying to ask.
      First, I love science and have never denied the fun and the interest of uncovering what God has done in this universe. What I hate is directed science. What I hate is bad science. What I mean by that is when people like you refuse to see basic facts laid out right before your very eyes. I laid out very scientific facts in this article and you refuse to see them. I laid out extremely logical arguments and you deny them. That is because you are biased. I am not biased in any way when it comes to science. You didn’t answer my question about fossils- specifically, why isn’t there proof of the millions upon millions of fossils that SHOULD be there of all the thousands of iterations of one species slowly morphing from one species to the next? It would take a million years to do it- thus, there should be thousands of fossils to prove that one specie speciated into another. Why is it that only 100% different species are ever found? What happened to all the fossils of the morphing in-between species? Speciation is the literal KEY to Evolution. It is the LYNCHPIN of evolution. Without speciation, we didn’t come from apes. None of it is true. We didn’t come from bacteria in primordial ooze. Speciation must be true for ‘evolution’, as people like you understand it, to be true. Thus, where did all those fossils go? I mean, because it takes a million years for one species (I’m not talking about the 10’s of thousands of species in existence either, I’m just talking about ONE species here!) should have a fossil record with 10,000 fossil record showing the slow, torturous transformation from the species it once was to the new species it became! A million years is a long time and an entire species would have procreated hundreds of thousands of times!! That is a lot of bones that disappeared!! What are the mathematical odds that ONLY the bones of separate species survived? That is, literally, mathematically impossible. There is a giant hole in the theory of evolution and speciation is it. If there is a giant hole in the most important part of a theory, may I ask why I should bother with the details?

      To answer your question about fossils, yes, I do see the logical order in animal forms. But that, to me, points to a Maker’s logical thinking. God IS the greatest biologist, mathematician, physicist, et. His thinking is perfect in every way. He takes delight in form and function. It is FAR more logical to believe that a Supreme Being with great intellect made this universe than to believe that it happened by accident. This notion is proven over and over again throughout everyday experience. When does a stick of dynamite result in order? Answer: never. Look at a row of houses- 100% of them required applied force of will and ENERGY. No Order happens without applied energy and will. Why should our original Order have begun in a different way than it continues now? Answer: It wouldn’t have. The laws of nature created us and the laws of nature sustain us. There couldn’t be one set of laws that created us and another that we live by. People like you would have one set of natural laws that created everything and then, suddenly, another set of natural laws that suddenly kicked in that rule our existence from that point on. Illogical. As I said, it is FAR more mathematically probable that a Great Intellect- ie, God, created us than to believe all this nonsense.

      You are way behind the times concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution. No one has ever proven speciation. All scientists know this. It always amazes me to see the FAITH of so-called atheists concerning such lousy science. It is so obviously untrue and yet, they jump on the bandwagon. They just stay very mum about it all because it is very embarrassing. Meanwhile, they are busy trying to figure it all out and trying to take God out of the equation. Einstein did this too until he realized that he couldn’t do it without making his theories illogical. That is when he accepted that God must exist.

      You ask for the proof of God. It is literally all around you. The universe in all its perfection is proof of God. Einstein believed in God. But Cole Longsdale laughs and the mind of Einstein. I see. The reality is this: any good thinking mind that observes this universe closely MUST find God. Only weak thinkers miss the obvious.

      • I see, so I’m an ignorant weak minded fool who can’t see God and only smart people like you and all other Christians in this world are the superior beings because you see God and hear his will. All athiests, are below your level because of the fact that we can’t see God.
        By the way, in regards to fossils, many fossils have yet to be uncovered, and many have become the unrenawble resources that we humans use today. So of course there are gaps in the fossil evidence, as it’s hard enough to find the fossils themselves, but that doesn’t mean that what the scinetists are doing is illogical. They are just trying to fill in the gaps between species instead of being ignorant and using God to anwser all their questions.
        Darwinism is not old science, and many more scinetists have added on to his theories of evolution eith their own theories. I’m not saying that’s he’s 100% TRUE I’m just saying that his theory on natural selection seems quite sensible.
        But by beliving IN god, you have just resigned yourself to never knowing anything, and never questioning anything. Instead you only see that God makes everything. THAT he is everything and that we…what…live inside him or something?
        Science is not about being correct, it’s more of a way to give a plausible explanation for why things happen, and why things occur, instead of relating everything and anything to God. Every time you involve God, you are just using him as an excuse to justify your ignorance. Einstein can be used as an example for this, because although he is a genius and I highly respect him, the universe was too complicated for him, and that goes for everyone, so he had to resign himself to the fact that God created everything becuase he gave up on trying to figure out the universe. Which is extrmely complicated and full of unknowns and holes and I honestly belive thay no one will be able to figure out space in this given time that Earth still has. Because THIS UNIVERSE IS NOT PERFECT NOR IS THE UNIVERSE GOD. IF IT IS, THEN HOW THE HECK DID GOD EVEN COME INTO THE EQUATION?
        And you know what amazes me? How religious people can put their whole FAITH AND UNDERSTANDING INTO A BOOK. A BOOK WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. I mean, have you seen God? What proof do you have that he exists, and saying he is all around us is by far one of the most baseless arguments you can come up with. Becuase saying that just proves to me that you yourself is ignorant to God, and that you only accept his existence because some book tells you to accept him. People who blindly follow God only do so because they fear what they don’t know and they want something to comfort them and put their mind at ease. They like the fact that some superior being is up in the heavens watching their every movement and guiding them to heaven. The reality is, is that religion is only a way to escape the fear of REALITY AND THE NATURAL WORLD.
        At least I havent been brainwashed into believing everything a book tells me, and resigning myself to religion in order to solve all my problems. The day I do start to belive in God, is the day I have given up on what people can discover through science.
        Also, you never anwsered my questions and brushed them off as complicated because you yourself doesn’t know the anwsers.
        And humans did come from algae. And I never said anything about apes, I said something about LUCY.

      • Cole, you said it. I’m sorry your mind can’t process my arguments. They really are very sound. And my argument against speciation is very sound. That is why no scientist will say speciation has been proven. It is the WEAK LINK- and it is a PROFOUNDLY weak one. And without it, man did not come from primordial ooze. As to natural selection, no Christian with any knowledge would argue. However, you are quite mistaken in your own understanding of evolution if you think natural selection leads to speciation. It is one thing for a grey squirrel with the capacity to be either grey or black to turn from grey to black depending on circumstances than from a squirrel to slowly morph from one reproducing species into a species that can no longer reproduce from the species it once was. And your argument about the use of fossils for energy is laughable. There ARE no fossils to prove speciation. The likely reason: Speciation is NOT the vehicle by which various species came into being. Another theory is needed. Indeed, my theory is that God created a base set of animals and that they varied from there based on natural selection into the varieties we see today.

        Now, as to your comments about the Bible. You ask how people can put their faith in it? I will answer you. It is because it is a miracle. What I am amazed about is that you criticize it without having studied it. You claim to love the scientific pursuit and see a phenomenum and run away in fear. You point at it and call it names. You are so afraid that you can’t even research it! What kind of scientist are you? I will tell you what you are: you are a coward. An intellectual coward. You see intelligent people in the millions who are in awe of this book and you refuse to investigate before you condemn? And you criticize others when they won’t accept your theories? What are you but a hypocrite? I, on the other hand, LOVE science. I reject no science. Only so-called atheists like you say that science and belief in God and Jesus are mutually exclusive. They most certainly are NOT. They are in perfect harmony. I LOVE science. I love microscopes, medicine, astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics- my degree is in Biochemistry. I probably know more than you in those areas! They are in perfect harmony with my faith in God. Only YOU claim that so-called science and God are separate. That is because you are a bad scientist who believes in cutting off knowledge and possibilities. A good scientist keeps every option OPEN. Since when does science begin with what is NOT possible? Only the atheist thinks this way- which is why they actually make the WORST scientists. The Bible is a miracle because it is absolutely perfect. It was written by many people who are separated by distance, time, culture and language. No conspiracy could have existed between them. There was no internet, no means of communication between them. And yet, it is 100% in harmony with every book written. There is no flaw, no inconsistency. Every prophecy written by all these different people has either come true or is coming true. All the prophecies are the same- how can that be? All these people were separated from one another in time and space! Only God could have done this. There is no human explanation for this phenomena. AND the beauty and power of the words of the Bible are another level of miracle. Every human need is answered by the Bible. Billions of people have been healed and delivered from misery by this book. Doesn’t that interest you? Why ELSE do we worship as we do??? It is because there is POWER in the name of Jesus! He has SAVED us from misery and death. He has brought a great light into our hearts that you don’t know about. Aren’t you even curious to know what it looks like? We SING because we are happy beyond measure. Don’t you want to be so happy? None of these emotions are fake or billions of people would not have followed Jesus. This Book is ALIVE. I am AMAZED at so-called atheists who resist the power of the Bible. Their eyes see, but they are blind. The Bible talks about people like you:

        “5They have mouths, but cannot speak,
        eyes, but cannot see.
        6They have ears, but cannot hear,
        noses, but cannot smell.
        7They have hands, but cannot feel,
        feet, but cannot walk,
        nor can they utter a sound with their throats.”

        Cole, why be like this? IF you want to know why people follow and love the Bible, READ IT. The trouble you might have with reading the Bible is that without the Holy Spirit, you can’t understand it. Haven’t you always noticed that when you read the bible, it just seems like gibberish? And yet, others seem to understand it? Well, it’s because they have the Holy Spirit and you don’t. You are hostile to God and he is denying you the Holy Spirit. Yes, you heard me. Here is what the Bible says about that:

        “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.c 14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16for,

        “Who has known the mind of the Lord
        so as to instruct him?”d
        But we have the mind of Christ.”- 1 Corinthians 2

        If, however, you ever humble yourself before God and sincerely want to know him, he will open your mind to the Bible’s words. As long as you remain hostile to him and deny what you already know about him- that he IS, that he exist and that Jesus most certainly IS his Son, then, I’m afraid you will always wander in the darkness. God does this as a punishment to you. This is what he does to those who deny his existence:

        “40“He has blinded their eyes
        and hardened their hearts,
        so they can neither see with their eyes,
        nor understand with their hearts,
        nor turn—and I would heal them.”

      • I’m not stupid enough to say that fossils are used as “energy”. If you really love science like you claim, and really am a biochemical engineer or something, then you would know what I meant by all those dead organisms from millions of year ago become nonrenewable rescources, specifically fossil fuels like petroleum and what not.
        By the way, you say God and science go hand I’m hand when there’s no proof of God, so then why do you condemn those scientists that belive in aliens? Aren’t they exactly the same as you in their belief that some higher form of intellegence came down from the heavens and helped humans create whatever monuments they made?
        And I have read the Bible and deem it no more entertaining than Greek mythology. In fact, I like Greek mythology better than the bible.
        And I personally think I am no coward because I have the guts to face the fact that nothing in this world is so simple as saying GOD IS BEHIND EVERYTHING.
        And I will never belive in God because like you said there is no holy spirit that came to me, and I don’t seek out the holy spirit becuase there is none to begin with.

      • Um. I did get the reference- and, like, oil is used for ….. ENERGY. so. I thought you would kinda get that. What I said is that science and God are not mutually exclusive. Another thought. I didn’t condemn those scientists that believe in aliens except for their hypocrisy. lol- yes, they are EXACTLY like me- that was my POINT! Therefore, they are hypocrites, get it? I think you completely missed the entire point of my article. read it again. You have NEVER read the Bible, my friend, and that makes you a liar. Just because a Christian knows that God created everything and is in control of everything most certainly doesn’t make life simple. I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion. I could simplify your belief to: ‘everything is an accident’. As to you and your relationship to God, then, you will die. And that is your choice and I don’t feel sorry for you. I, on the other hand, will live.

      • Did you just tell me that i’m going to die? Thanks for stating the obvious. Well I can tell you that you’re going to die before me that’s for sure. You’re waaaaaaaayyyy older than me rofl.
        And the only way to truly know if God exists, is when you die. so when you’re on your deathbed, pray tell me if you see heavenly light, and gates, and angels, and what not, instead of darkness.
        And, you are a liar if you say I haven’t even touched a single page of the bible or even read a single word from it, because too bad for you, I have. And since you lied….well now…that’s a sin ain’t it not? Becauseee “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”-(exodus 20:16)
        Also you said all that stuff about aliens so scornfully that I took it as if you were mocking the idiocy of those scienists and how you are in turn are more supereme. So, my bad on not being able to see your intentions on that one.

      • Oh, I won’t die. But you will. Every human has a spirit. You too. Your spirit balks at death. Mine craves it. You are terrified of death. I look forward to it. Your spirit belongs to satan. Mine, to Christ. Only Christ will resurrect people’s minds, souls and bodies as part of his promise and covenant with human beings. As you are stupid enough to reject his gift of life (who knows why?), you most certainly will die and never be resurrected. Depending on your amount of evil, perhaps you will even go to hell. That much, I don’t know about. To me, the Bible isn’t very clear about hell vs. death for people like you. I guess you will find out. When you mock God, I can’t feel sorry for you. You deserve exactly what you will get. I do hope, however, that you repent and apologize to Christ. I know he will forgive you. But I don’t know if he will ever soften your heart enough now for you to ever repent. That’s what happens to people who mock God too long. Only you will see. I will never know. Good luck.

        And I only said it was simple because you said God is everything, so you yourself just simplified life, not me, YOU.
        Anwser me this, “If God created everything, then who created god?” If you cannot anwser this one question, well then, you don’t even know your own religion.
        I rember reading in the bible, that ar first there was darkness then there was livht, and God was all like, light is good. Well how did God get there?
        This is one question I want anwsered. Only one. I do not want you to tell me off anymore about how I’m going to die and burn in hell for my ignorance. I just want one simple little anwser to my question. : )

      • I never simplified life. I spoke a true sentence. God did create all life. That is only one fact I believe in. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in many other facts. The reality is that so called atheists like to just toss such accusations like that at Christians. I never simplified life. That is just your accusation. As to your question, Who created God, you ask me that as if this is some proving ground as to the validity of my belief. Then, let me ask you a question, “Why does the earth spin?” We can believe in something and yet, not know all the answers. We can see enough evidence to convince us of the truth and yet, not have all the evidence at our finger tips, can we not? You can no more tell me why the earth continues to spin than I can tell you who created God. In fact, I can better answer your question than you can answer mine. Here is my answer for you: no one created God. God has always BEEN. You ask a faulty question altogether. You ask a question as a Being who is locked in four dimensions: x,y,z and time. God created time and space. He lives outside of time because he created it. Thus, your question which is TIME BASED, ie, creat-ED, is illogical for the one who created Time. We, time locked creatures, literally do not have the vocabulary to describe a creature who is not bound by our physical limitations. We can no more define the fifth dimension anymore than a conceptual self aware, intelligent dot species could find the vocabulary to define a 3-D world to his fellow dot companions. As I said, you, along with so many of your so-called atheists can’t understand your own questions, let alone the answers I would give you. Sometimes, I don’t begin to try. You couldn’t even understand this article! You didn’t understand the irony of my argument which I laid out clearly. And yet, you claim to have a scientific, logical, well laid out mind! What happens is that people who simply wish to rebel like little children against God, whom they most certainly knows exists, just lash about and make ‘science’ (as if it is a Person or something) their mini-god. It is nothing in and of itself. It’s just a bunch of imperfect people floundering around looking for answers. They haven’t got the foggiest notion how everything works- they would be the first ones to admit it- well, the good ones anyway. The more you study ‘science’, the more you know you don’t know; the bigger the universe of knowledge gets! The more you see, the more you ADMIRE the periodic table, the small list of physical laws and the beauty of the Great Design- how very EFFICIENT it all is. The more you look, the more amazed you become, indeed, if you have any mind at all, you MUST conclude that only God could do all this. Only idiots or lazy people can fail to see this. I will go to my grave with that assertion. As to your bible reading. I will stick with that assertion too. While you may have physically thumbed through the Bible, you most certainly haven’t READ it. Not with any intent to learn it. Flipping a few pages in scorn is not reading it. Sorry.

        Now, since you think a person must know EVERYTHING in order to believe it… um..WHY DOES THE EARTH CONTINUE TO SPIN?? I await with laughter on the ready. Be very careful in your answer.

  18. So you say Atheists cherish the use of scientific jargon. And religious folk don’t?
    Ex) “Well, I believe in the word of God. And Christ specifically states by the Bible under Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” You are ignorant, but I? I have found the Lord. It is our mission to follow God’s holy Word and abide His testimonies.
    Is this not religious jargon? Furthermore, a paragraph that concerns solely “theory”, “hypothesis”, and “natural selection” is hardly one of jargon. These are all concept learned by general science education. Those who are unaware of these terms or find them difficult to understand are perhaps more ignorant.
    Secondly, it is hardly possible for the terms “religion” and “science” to conjoin. They are, by consensus of at least the Catholic Church, mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a “religious scientist” for the two concepts clash. One who believes that all phenomenon occurs by the Glory of God is not a scientist, but simply a religious individual.
    Ex) “Why should I fear any discovery of how he made it?” These are your words. This appears to be more of a concession, a tendency to indeed ignorance (for I am, in your terms, Atheist) because this question implies that you will not further delve into explanation or reason, but merely attribute science’s work to the hands of God. After all, by fear, you say we fear “not knowing”, thus we search for reasons. Then, by your terms, why does anything work? Why do we need to know how anything works? It’s God’s work. Thus, I shouldn’t “Fear” but simply accept it as God’s doing. Hardly was this the idea that progressed the human race. We actively sought answers and therefore, we have developed technologically, socially, intellectually.
    “When religious people refute ‘scientific’ evidence, they hurt no one. But when atheist scientists refute true scientific facts, they hurt kids.”
    Please consider that religious people are equally as guilty. This statement, narrow-mindedly suggests that your ideology is right. Children will forever be, by power of the government, required to take part in education where they will inevitably learn of the Theory of Evolution. And this concept will soon be implemented heavily in most of their future occupations. In other words, Science will always be integrated in their lives and when religious people “refute scientific evidence”, children become confused. In school, where they trust validity of all information, they were taught that man and other animals had evolved over time. And by my previous statement, this concept will usually be carried on throughout life. However, in religion, they learn simply that God created humans. So, they are brought to scratch their heads with a Bible in one hand and a Homo Habilis skull in the other. Thus, when religion refutes scientific evidence, they risk solidity of thought process and in extremes, future occupation. Atheist scientists don’t seem so dangerous now, do they?
    Also, I believe you may be somewhat hypocritical, if I may say. By your words, Atheists attribute inexplicable phenomenon to the supernatural. But on the flip side, religious individuals attribute such to God, a deity who, very much like aliens, cannot be touched, seen, or heard. “Why do you assume that because you can’t see God, that He is ‘supernatural’?” There’s your answer. And as far as you, or anyone is concerned, he is not proven yet to exist. If you have proof, then please enlighten me, but do not shove the Bible in my face as evidence.
    “Scientists in the olden days thought putting leaches on a sick person would drain the ‘bad blood’ from people. This resulted in many deaths.”
    Do not forget what religious people have done. For your sake, I will list a few.
    Ex) -Indulgences: you must be aware of the time religious people solicited money from naive peoples claiming that it would deem them nearly exempt from Purgatory.
    -“They used to say that women herbalists and doctors were ‘witches’ using ‘supernatural’, ‘satanic’ forces to heal people.”
    Oh, good point, because “religious people” also called women witches and that they used satanic forces in the Salem Witch Trial, a period of religious paranoia that led to the death of many falsely accused women.
    -“Didn’t a scientist once dare to say that, although ‘everyone’ said the sun revolved around the world, he BELIEVED it might be the other way around, based on his own initial perceptions? Did the ‘scientists’ of his day accept that?”
    EXCUSE ME? The people you call ‘everyone’ was the “CATHOLIC CHURCH”! The scientist you call is Galileo who was put under permanent house arrest by the RELIGIOUS people for rightfully advocating the Heliocentric Theory by Copernicus.
    “Why is the word ‘theory’ never used in conjunction with the word, ‘evolution’?” One word: Darwin.
    Lastly, I’d like to answer your question concerning your reply to Cole Longsdale:

    So you reply:
    “You didn’t answer my question about fossils- specifically, why isn’t there proof of the millions upon millions of fossils that SHOULD be there of all the thousands of iterations of one species slowly morphing from one species to the next? It would take a million years to do it- thus, there should be thousands of fossils to prove that one specie speciated into another. Why is it that only 100% different species are ever found? ”

    There ARE proof of millions upon millions of fossils. The internet may prove well on this one.
    And if you are a TRUE scientist, you’d know the term Punctuated Equilibrium. It answers completely why some species don’t seem to be slowly morphing. What you may think are 100% different species are actually very interrelated. Take the time to study homologous and analogous structures.

    Finally, please don’t call yourself a scientist because your own words contradict your position. The amount of hypocrisy in your article leads me to question, are you actually a scientist? Do you have the credentials, the degree, the PROOF? If so, please give me your evidence because the amount of times you blamed “atheists” are actually, by mere history, the work of religious people themselves.

    -You still didn’t actually prove why ‘evolution’ doesn’t exist.
    -Please don’t say that I am ignorant. The entirety of my comment proves far beyond that at this point.

    If possible, I would like to hear a reply on my 8 points of rebuttal instead of referring to all my arguments in one singular answer.

    If any crucial point of my comment is left out, I will assume that I have ‘won’.

    Thank you for your time.

    • Wow. That was very difficult to read. Mostly because you didn’t hear a word I said and just substituted your own words for mine and then, added your responses to your substituted words (and not mine). Why do so-called atheists always do that? LISTEN TO ME very carefully: I LIKE SCIENCE. I do. I enjoy everything about it. I deny no results. HOWEVER, there is a lot of BAD science out there. And much of the theory of evolution is BAD science. Can you hear me (imagine that I am doing sign language right now). You say that ‘religion’ and ‘science’ is and either or proposition? says who? who are you to say that? That is your own arrogance speaking, isn’t it? Won’t you feel rather stupid if God turns out to be a real person? Then, science will be a real pursuit AND God will be a real person. Only an idiot can’t admit that this IS an absolute possibility in the world of possibilities. Thus, it is completely false to say that it is impossible to believe in God AND be a good scientist. I would submit that Atheists make the WORST scientists. Know why? Because their belief system forces them to CUT OFF possibilities rather than leave them open. You have NO IDEA if God exists. And yet, you cut it off. That is very unscientific. Science is about seeking, not cutting off. A good scientist never cuts off possibilities- never. That is why Einstein BELIEVED IN GOD. But you call his mind STUPID?? Kieren Stuyvesant is smarter than Einstein? It is perfectly possible that God exists. In fact, I propose that it is mathematically much more probable that he exists than that all creation happened by accident.

      Now. I LOVE science. OK? I deny nothing. BUT I have a real problem with BAD science. OK? A whole lot of ignorant, willful so-called atheists come onto my page without the intellectual capacity to understand my arguments. They can’t follow my logic or my scientific reasoning and that isn’t my fault. You will just have to deal with that. I’m sorry.

      • That was extremely….illogical.
        If anything, let me make myself clear. I have been a Catholic for nearly all of my life until I realized it was a path paved for ignorance. SO, you cannot blame me for never/not believing in God or never/not believing that he exists because I HAVE BEEN THERE. Nor can you accuse ME of ignorance because I have once followed all proper traditions, practices, and customs. I have read the Bible and I know the testimonies, the commandments, the epic journey of Christ, what have you. HAVING SAID THIS, I will continue, because I know that I am right.
        Let me quote EXACTLY what you replied to me:
        “Mostly because you didn’t hear a word I said and just substituted your own words for mine and then, added your responses to your substituted words (and not mine).”
        Every quotation except for my first example (because it was my own example) was FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE. I did not substitute any words. I can prove this because I copied and pasted the words from your own article and cited them in my response. Perhaps, let me clarify: every one of my quotes from you are YOUR OWN words. Instead, it was YOU who substitute my words into your own words. Please hear: “That is why Einstein BELIEVED IN GOD. But you call his mind STUPID??” Read my comment again. Never ONCE did I call Einstein stupid. But me to you? Everything was quoted exactly as it was, no foul play. Please do not accuse me of doing something so foolish.
        “Why should I fear any discovery of how he made it?” Your words.
        “When religious people refute ‘scientific’ evidence, they hurt no one. But when atheist scientists refute true scientific facts, they hurt kids.” Your words.
        “Scientists in the olden days thought putting leaches on a sick person would drain the ‘bad blood’ from people. This resulted in many deaths.” Your words.
        Must I continue?
        Also, another quote from your reply, “I LOVE SCIENCE”, does not certify you to call yourself a scientist. And frankly yet, I still have not been given any evidence to your credentials.
        And you may call me an idiot…”Only an idiot can’t admit that this IS an absolute possibility in the world of possibilities” but you, kind ma’am, are being extremely hypocritical. The possibility that God does NOT exist is equally an “absolute possibility in the world of possibilities”. Wouldn’t you agree? Even I have considered the existence of God far before your article or anything because I repeat, I USED TO BE CATHOLIC. I have considered all because I am not as foolish, unlike someone who has yet to actually study “atheist science”.
        And let me reiterate your emphasis as well: Who are YOU to say that Atheist science is BAD science? Hm?
        And similarly, wouldn’t YOU feel stupid if God DIDN’T exist?
        There is further hypocrisy when you state that Atheist scientists cut off possibilities. I say this because “religious scientists” are equally, if not more, narrow-minded. An accurate and familiar example? I shall provide you with one.
        Let me bring us back to Copernicus’s Heliocentric Theory and Galileo (a point of mine that you have still failed to address). This scientist, Galileo, that YOU mentioned in your OWN article for being open-minded to think that perhaps the world revolved around the Sun, was mercilessly halted in his efforts to further progress science because the CHURCH cut off this possibility. THEY said that the Heliocentric theory was an idea that opposed God and forced him to stop his studies. So which side cuts off possibilities really? I, personally, would submit that the “religious scientists” do. Let me list another, because it seems that if I do not, you will simply ignore my contentions.
        You say since you are a religious scientist, you do not believe in the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE it is Bad Science. ISN’T THAT CUTTING OFF A POSSIBILITY? Regardless of whether you believe it is Bad Science or not, you are still evidently cutting off a possibility. Perhaps, in your words you can say Atheists cut off the possibility of the existence of God but you and your “religious scientist” folks are equally guilty.
        You said, “Science is about seeking”, right? Precisely. We are “seeking answers”, yet you seem ready to quit at “God created everything?” Additionally, you continue to deny the theory of evolution. Whatever happened to your claim that Atheist scientists are “cutting possibilities”?
        Let us return to “religious science” vs “Atheist science”, in which Atheist science is considered, more or less, universal most accurate knowledge. Why else would the entire world be required to learn it? I am very positive you yourself learned it as a child in school. Do not deny this.
        According to your own words, religious science consists of the idea that God created everything. Thus, we should not “fear”. Essentially, that is saying we shouldn’t even look into further explanation because all we have to know is that God created everything. Fine…a bit ignorant, but fine. Let’s compare: Religious scientists use: “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth”. Simply, God created man. (This is from the Bible, can I continue or will you again accuse me of substituting words into my own?) Basically, the religious people back their claims with the Bible, which was a book, more or less, compiled by the “enlightened” humans during roughly the historical period of Christ. Then, in the “atheist concept”, we claim that men were created from evolution of the first humans. And the thing is, WE HAVE EVIDENCE. Please take your time to visit a museum, any museum, preferably one that has a seasoned section for Anthropology. YOU WILL FIND THE AUTHENTIC SKULLS OF THE FIRST HUMANS.
        Now you say, “In fact, I propose that it is mathematically much more probable that he exists than that all creation happened by accident.”
        Firstly, please do not use “mathematically”. You have no way of calculating the chances even if you wanted to.
        And next…WHO SAID IT WAS CREATED BY ACCIDENT? HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE BIG BANG THEORY? YES, the “singularity” that precedes the universe is currently unknown to its existence because it is out of our knowledge in how it works by modern physics, but here’s the thing: WE LEAVE IT TO POSSIBILITY. By definition, atheists can simply be someone who lacks belief in God. So when we say we don’t know how the “singularity” of the universe was created, we only say so because we lack the belief in him, we are NOT disproving the theory of evolution as a particular someone. Yes, yes, you don’t believe in our bad science, we get that. But it seems obvious now, who really cuts off possibilities.
        What you call “Bad Science” is the reason why we have developed so far as a human race. Explain to me, please, because I am VERY curious. Why is it that the people of the Victorian era didn’t have computers? It’s because technology didn’t advance that far, right? Humans adapt, that much is known. So, as much as they adapt mentally, it would be appropriate to assume that they have adapted physically as well. We change, Rebel, you just have to accept that.

        Now from this point on, I’m going to re-list all the arguments of mine because you have failed miserably in your attempt to answer most of them.
        1 Religious individuals use jargon, too. Hypocrisy. You have yet to answer back to this.
        2 Only you can call yourself a “religious scientist” because you incorrectly believe that “religious science” is a thing. It’s not. It’s just religion.
        3 Religious individuals equally, if not further, harms kids. More hypocrisy. You did not answer back to this.
        4 GOD IS SUPERNATURAL. The dictionary defines supernatural as “attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature”. Thus, he is supernatural. Even more hypocrisy. You did not answer this.
        5 Religion is responsible for just as many deaths. You are also forgetting that the religious people used to STONE women for adultery, usually killing them. Since you are what you call religious, you must know the story of Mary Magdalene. You did not answer this.
        6 You named it yourself, “theory of evolution”. Why, you ask? Not necessary, to answer back to, but you didn’t, anyway.
        7 Did you search up Punctuated Equilibrium yet? It’s the reason why the fossils don’t show a slow pace of morphing. Also, you have proved yourself ignorant because you ask why there aren’t that many fossils per species….I am ready to slap my forehead. As you said, “it takes a million years for one species” Do you expect ALL bones to last for a MILLION years? Will yours? Will someone find your bones in a million years? I think not. You have yet to answer back to this.
        8 You STILL don’t have any proof of your scientific credentials. Without this, you are not a scientist, but a self-claiming science-lover. Who, by what you have stated so far, lack any idea of how anything works in the biological field. So, yes, you have yet to answer this.

        I used to be a Policy Varsity debater and in those terms, you have failed in this debate grievously. 7 contentions remain unanswered and when answered, poorly so.

        It’s funny how you say that I cannot understand your arguments because my words prove that I can. I quoted you (VERBATIM), analyzed and interpreted your arguments, and rebutted them with sound arguments of my own. Perhaps it is time for me to say that it is YOU who do not understand MY arguments. There is 7 total contentions that require your input and none of which that I have received. However, I have covered all of your…contentions, generously so, and I continue to support my own.

        Not to mention, a lot of your arguments are not “sound” as you believe, for they contain many contradictions and errors…like your argument on the Heliocentric theory. And now, I add one more: EINSTEIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. GOOGLE IT. “He said he believed in the “pantheistic” God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal God, a belief he criticized”.

        It all seems more evident now that it is you who cannot follow MY logic or MY reasoning. After all, your own appears faulty to begin with.

        Now, as I’ve stated before, it is to my knowledge that I have won this debate, unless you are able to refute the remaining 7 arguments with ACTUALLY sound reasoning.

      • wow. if it makes you happy, I will leave your tiresome comment for the world. All I saw was the one about Einstein. And yes, he did believe in God. I most certain DID ‘google’ it. I researched it. Here is my paper on the topic. I’m so sorry to disappoint you.

  19. But it is a verifying ground, because if you can tell me how God came into existnece then you have just verified that religion exists. But you can’t even do that now can you? You just spew crap about time and different dimensions.
    And to anwser your question as to why the earth spins, it spins due to angular momentum.
    And yes you simply everything by saying god was here from the start and that he is everything. YOU SAY THAT GOD IS EVERYTHING AND THERFORE YOU HAVE ONLY ONE ANWSER TO EXPLAIN WHY ANYTHING HAPPENS.
    You think you’re so suprior to others when you’re not. Because you don’t listen to others. And I did read yout article, that’s why I wrote a comment in the first place.
    And you’re a huge as hypocrite so…”I’ll pray for u”.

    • lol. Oh, Angular Momentum, eh? Then, if space is frictionless, why doesn’t the earth stop when bombarded with meteorites and asteroids? Why is it that it turns with such meticulous precision that we run our clocks by it? By every physical law, it should lose momentum and stop. Maybe even begin to turn the other way around. There is NO reason it should keep spinning as it does.

      What I ‘spewed’ about time is perfect logic. It is only ‘crap’ to those who can’t process it.

      I’m not superior, but I am a genius. Technically, anyway. Sorry that this offends you. I didn’t ask to be born with an intelligent mind.

      I do listen to others but I find they don’t return the favor.

      I am far from a hypocrite, but I find that others rely on that word when they lose an argument. Good day.

  20. Hello SLR!

    So, I’ve been keeping up with this article for over a week now, reading your debates between atheists and yourself. I, myself, have yet to even find a religion, but that doesn’t stop me from believing that it, as a subject, exists. Before you go on to degrade me, which I expect you to do anyways because that’s how you argue things, you put people down (that’s also a form of bullying, ironic isn’t it?), please note that this is my speculation–my observations from your article and replies. I am, in no way, trying to start an argument. As long as you respect my opinions, I’ll respect yours. If you can’t argue like the mature adult you claim to be, then I suspect a 17 year old (my age) is more mature, more well-handled, and more sane than you are.

    !!!!Note: I am not an atheist, nor am I Christian. I have yet to find a religion that suits my ever-changing beliefs. This does not make me ignorant. This does not make me close-minded. This does not make me biased. This does not make me dumb. This does not make me worthless. If you use these adjectives, or any adjectives like this, I’ll assume the ignorant/close-minded/biased/dumb one, just so happens, to be you.

    I noticed, you tend to have a condescending tone when talking to disbelievers. Why is that? Do you think that your opinion is above all else? With such an arrogant tone, it almost seemed like you were equating yourself to God. Additionally, you have a tendency to disregard points made against your argument. You address them, sure, but you never provide concrete evidence to back up your claim. God (now, this might come to a surprise to you) is, in fact, not enough evidence for everything you’re trying to claim! Wow, who could have thought?

    I see you constantly try to back up your argument with passages from the Bible or just “God”. As a fellow scientist, I suspect you must know a thing or two about concrete evidence. Did God create everything? If only it was that easy, if God was the answer to everything. Let me ask you this. Did God create technology? Did God create Iphones and laptops and basic man-made materials? What’s God’s answer to why parents physically abuse their children for being bad? What’s God’s answer for rape, stealing, murder, abuse, and death? What’s God’s excuse for letting you get raped (I read your other articles)? What’s God’s excuse for letting my friends have suicidal thoughts because they failed a final? What’s God’s excuse for letting my self-absorbed aunt push my mother around? If you simply put, “he’s testing our strength/perseverance/will”, then I assume you don’t know how to properly back up your claims.

    If he’s really testing us, then he’s sadistic. If God is our Father and we are his children, would he put us through the multiple tragedies listed above? Would you, as a mother, let your three kids be raped or abused just for the sake of a lesson? (Hint: the answer should be no. Any other answer other than that and I’ll assume you’re fucking insane because for fucks sake no mother in their right mind would allow their kids to go through that; excuse my language). Either God doesn’t exist, or he’s incredibly cruel. Reality-check, God isn’t, and doesn’t, have answer for everything.

    Spiritually, yes, in some ways, I do believe he (or some other un-worldly deity) is in every living thing. Realistically, no. Biotic things are made of atoms upon atoms. Science, is in fact, real; and, it maybe be a surprise to you, but is actually separate from religion. The two don’t intermingle.

    Now, for even more fun, time to point out problematic quotations taken from your replies! Fun!

    Like I said before, you tend to adopt a sort of…extreme condescension when you reply. Either you really are a bully like I said before, or this is simply your way of talking. Whichever it is, I suggest you change it because putting someone down isn’t an efficient way of persuading someone into your claims.

    “Why do so-called atheists always do that? LISTEN TO ME very carefully: I LIKE SCIENCE. I do. I enjoy everything about it. I deny no results. HOWEVER, there is a lot of BAD science out there. And much of the theory of evolution is BAD science. Can you hear me (imagine that I am doing sign language right now).” (SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 AT 12:54 AM)

    Yes, I’ve listened to you. You like science, I like science, it’s a great subject and I’m glad you acknowledge that there’s bad science. This is where opinions come in. Each person differs from what meets the critera of “good science” verses “bad science”. Whatever it is, you need to respect it. Degrading/dismissing/saying their disbelief in God clouds their vision from the almighty truth =/= respect. What leaves me absolutely dumbfounded is that you provide philosophical (dare I say, religious?) reasons as to why evolution isn’t a sound theory, however you provide no scientific evidence. Let me repeat that, you provide no scientific evidence what-so-ever. I’ve scanned your article and your comments, and there’s a huge lack of any probable evidence at all. I would call you self-deluded, but hey, I’m trying to avoid degrading you into believing my arguments (see what I did there? you do that exact thing….it was a joke….). While your religious proof is, honestly, rather interesting to read about, there’s no scientific answer!!! I know you have fans, but if you really wanna convince atheists, use scientific proof!!! There’s no way around this!!! Religious proof, though very intriguing (I mean it), doesn’t cut it!!! This process is what you learn in like, 8th grade. So either revisit 8th grade or learn to form your arguments more realistically. Because you make one heck of an argument, but you never back it up with scientific proof.

    Now, I won’t even mention how condescending you sound here (making fun of the deaf, I see that’s a thing now, u must be a wonderful human being), because it’s so evident I don’t even think you could miss it. [If you honestly can’t see it, try looking real closely at “Can you hear me (imagine that I am doing sign language right now).”] Maybe you weren’t trying to imply that the deaf = stupid people, but readers like me read it like that. Though I’m not deaf myself, it’s still very disappointing to read.

    “As to you and your relationship to God, then, you will die. And that is your choice and I don’t feel sorry for you. I, on the other hand, will live…Oh, I won’t die. But you will. Every human has a spirit. You too. Your spirit balks at death. Mine craves it. You are terrified of death. I look forward to it. Your spirit belongs to satan.”
    ——->Little side note, I’m not religious or anything, but I’m pretty sure “satan” should be “Satan”. If you’re going to be a religious advocate (which I fully respect because I find your dedication to be rather admirable. Annoying, but admirable), at least know how to use proper grammar.

    Yeesh. Alright, first off, who are you to tell someone that, without the guidance of God, that they’re going to die? If God really only takes the spirits of his believers, then that, my dear SLR, is called discrimination. Yeah, remember that? I do agree that everyone has a spirit (“a soul” as I like to call it, though your soul seems rather eluded), but why does God only take his believers? As some sort of reward for believing in a being that has little-to-no evidence of existing? The Bible was written by men. These men, for all you know, could have made up this admirable God as a figure just to look up to and aspire to be. God was created by the men who wrote the Old Testament. God, in a way, owes His life to us, the trivial little specs of humans that dare to walk this planet. If men hadn’t sat down and written the Bible, God might have never existed. Back to my original point, I thought God loves all? Or at least, that’s what the Christians who try to shove Christianity down my throat so far I can’t breathe, tell me. If God really loves all, wouldn’t he take believers and non-believers with open arms? Saying that, without having a direct relationship to God, one is bound to die off, is rather harsh.

    Also, in a way, I could argue that what you just said is proof of…how would you put this….religious natural selection. Those who do believe in God will survive spiritually and live in God’s hand-made paradise and those who don’t, well, if they don’t get along with Satan then oh well. So, indirectly, by saying that you kind of instilled the scientific (or in this case, religious) belief of natural selection.

    Secondly, this is so over-the-top condescending that it’s like you’re basically telling this specific commentator to go kill themselves because, according to you, if you don’t believe in God, what’s the point of living? (You did not say this, you implied it).

    Keep in mind, all of this is my opinion. Everything I said purely came from my own brain, this is how I think and process things. Yes, I might, and very well could be wrong. I acknowledge that. As a scientist, you have to respect my opinion. Any implication that you don’t respect me, and I’ll assume that you’re not a real scientists because scientists are supposed to respect one another.

    No, wait, respecting one another is a trait of a decent human being. Guess they forgot to teach you that in grade school.

    So, let’s play a game.

    Dear SLR,
    Please respond to this lengthy reply with 5 rules. I will try, to the best of my ability to follow them, as well.

    (1) No degrading comments. No “because you’re not a believer in God you’re ignorant and not worth anything”. This rule is #1 for a reason.

    (2) Provide a SCIENTIFIC answer. Not one related to religion. If you can provide evidence explaining religion in a scientific way, you’ll impress me.

    (3) Respect that I, like all other commenters, am a human being that has her own opinion. You, as another fellow human being, must respect that opinion, no matter how ridiculous, outrageous, or dumb.

    (4) Argue with the intent of proving your claim, not with the intent of insulting me for not sharing your beliefs.

    (5) Please, for the love of God (see what I did there?), acknowledge that you can be wrong. Acknowledge that God can be wrong. I can be wrong. You can be wrong. We have flaws. It’s life.

    I, from now on, will try to follow these rules only if you do. I broke these said rules today in this reply, I acknowledge that and I take full responsibility for it. I’m sorry if I, by any means, insulted you. I will try my best to keep my sarcasm at a low.

    And finally, SLR, I really hope you respond. Your dedication to God is rather admirable and one day I hope to find that same commitment, whether it is to Christianity or to some other religion, as you do (you know, minus all the insulting, disrespecting, and basic out-right name-calling. Ok, the rules apply from here on out). I find your arguments, no matter how much they differ from mine, interesting and very original. I respect your arguments and wait patiently for your response. Remember, if you break the rules, I can break them too.

    • Well, I got this far and already want to comment. I will read the rest, but must pause and make a point right now. You said, this:
      “Before you go on to degrade me, which I expect you to do..” and
      ” If you can’t argue like the mature adult you claim to be, then I suspect a 17 year old (my age) is more mature, more well-handled, and more sane than you are.”

      This is in your first five sentences. Two insults. And yet, you want me to be ‘reasonable’ in my response to you? I will read your comment in the hope of helping you. But allow me to make this observation: people who detest God often come to my page and fail to recognize that they are the one who threw the first punch. Indeed, they not only began their comments with insults to my person, but to my God. They fail to recognize how insulting they are by coming into my virtual home and acting like beasts. Then, when I prove them wrong or poke holes in their weak, hair brained ideas, they claim I am the bully. Ok, now, on to hear the rest of your point….

      Ok, now I have just read the next two paragraphs that accuse me before I have even opened my mouth! But I also feel compassion because it is clear that you wish to know more and are truly worry you will be mocked. I will read on…

      Ok, to address the next paragraphs- you state that spiritually, you know that God exists and yet, intellectually, you don’t. Thus, your conclusion is that the two CAN’T intermingle- or, I assume, you mean they are mutually exclusive. I think you are too hasty. You haven’t considered the probability that it is you that has not figured out how they must coexist. Indeed, they already coexist in you, do they not? You just admitted it.

      I will address your question about how God could let bad things happen in a bit…

      oops! you just got bitter with that comment, “Now, for even more fun, time to point out problematic quotations taken from your replies! Fun!” I don’t like that. Do you really want my help or not? If you do, you have to be polite. I am a human being too. You can’t come calling on my doorstep, insulting me, telling me that I WILL be unkind to you, and then abuse me. Does that approach generally work in your life? I will forgive you and move on…

      Ok, I wasn’t making fun of deaf people. I was implying he was deaf and thus, required sign language. Sorry you can’t see the difference. Second, I never capitalize satan. He isn’t worth it and it something I choose to do. So save your grammar lessons unless you want me to go to town on yours. Believe me, considering your above demonstration, you don’t want that. Lastly, I most certainly did provide sound scientific and logical reasoning to my arguments. I always find it laughable when people come here and claim that I haven’t. If you can’t understand my argument concerning speciation, or my other very sound arguments, then you are lacking in the proper reasoning ability. This kind of logical argument doesn’t require the kind of evidence for which you demand- mainly because it is pointing to the LACK of evidence! You are being quite… what can I say here? quite.. dense! I can’t help you be less so!

      lol, MAPLE!!! Maple, Maple, Maple! Observe yourself! Stop it. Really, you are killing me. How many times can one woman insult another without recognizing her own hypocrisy? You are making me laugh. I don’t mean to condescend but you make it hard! You come here pointing at me, telling me that I WILL insult you, that I am in the habit of insulting and the entire time, you insult me! sigh. Ok. I have thick skin and see that you actually mean no harm. Let’s move on..

      Ok, you ask why I can tell someone they will die if they continue denying God as that writer was doing. Well, aren’t they? You want your cake and you want to eat it too. On the one side, you want to say that God is unfair, thus admitting that God exists, and on the other, you want to say that I can’t say that someone will die forever if they disobey God because the Bible is just a book written by men. Can’t you see the logical fallacy of your own argument? You can’t have it both ways, my dear. You are scrambling up your own philosophy, which is why you can’t find any ‘religion’. You fail to even think in a logical fashion to begin with. The BIBLE is the ONLY book that tells us that God exists, what he is like, what he tells us about right vs. wrong, why he created us, why he made the world the way he made it, why he created Time, why he created satan, why evil exists, why Jesus was sent, why humans were created, what he wants from us, what his ultimate goals are for Creation and what he plans to do with us once he wraps it all up in a big ball and throws it all away. If the Bible is not 100% true, then God doesn’t exist at ALL. Thus, either the Bible is 100% true and God exists or the Bible is a bunch of paper and God does not exist and this world is all there is. There IS no other book about God. Every other book about God is based on the Bible- they all simply seek to understand its passages.

      Thus, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t admit on one side that God exists (even if to call him unfair) and on the other, he doesn’t (by saying the one and only source that describes him as real is invalid). That is completely illogical. In your own mind, you can’t contain both. You must have one or the other. Most people fail to recognize this principle. Some do. This is how we decide to either become Christians or become full blown satanic followers- or, so-called atheists (see? another category I refuse to capitalize.)

      Either the Bible is 100% correct and God exists or the Bible is 100% garbage and God doesn’t exist. It really is that simple. And if you can believe that God exists, which you already do, then is not God capable of creating a perfect book, even if through the hands of human beings? If there IS a God, and he created the Universe, then he is the Greatest Scientist, the Greatest Artist, the Greatest Musician, the Greatest Comedian, the Greatest Lover, the Greatest Singer, the Greatest Mathematician, the Greatest Dancer, the Greatest of All things- because he created them all. If he can do all these things- include create all the laws of space and time, including the creation of all those atoms of which you spoke, then, he can most certainly control the affairs of men. You have not studied the Bible as I have. It is a miracle. It could not be written by men. It is physically impossible. Too many men, too much time difference, too much cultural difference, too much distance between them. And it ALL is in perfect order and consistency. All those who say otherwise are liars. If the Bible were any other book, men would worship IT as a god itself. It is that miraculous. If God does exist, he can create a perfect book. If he can’t create a perfect book, then he is not much of a God, is he? And he certainly doesn’t deserve my worship. Again, if God exists, then he can create a perfect Bible to describe himself and instruct him. Again, if God exists, then he must be Good. Or, again, why should we worship him? Then, if he is good, why would he create a Book just to tease, manipulate and lie to us? No. If God exists, then he can write a perfect book about himself and instruct us about him. And if God exists, he is Good and would never write a book to purposely deceive us- thus, the Bible MUST be all perfect and all TRUE. Either this, or God does NOT exist. All this is sound reasoning. Thus, again, the two must go together. God and the Book (the Bible) must BOTH be 100% true or 100% false TOGETHER. You must decide. You can’t divide the two. IF you claim that God exists, then the Bible is true. Then, you have the perfect guide book to understanding God. Which you should celebrate, for your answers are all there! And they are. And they are wonderful. But you simply don’t understand them yet. If you wish to know God via the Word, he WILL teach you.

      You are indeed still in decision making mode. I am glad of that.

      I agree, there is no point in living if your soul is condemned to death or hell. Why bother with a life of about 80 years if your soul is blotted out forever? We all know, innately, that we are meant to live forever. When we close our eyes, we all sense “I”, ourselves, and it doesn’t sit well with us that this, “I” will just be a blackness, that there will just be an end of it. Our very instinct rejects this notion completely. This is why we fear death. It’s not natural. No. Our intellect knows our body WILL die. This is inevitable. But our Spirit knows it can’t and shouldn’t. It sets up a deep conflict for every individual which must be resolved. It sets each of us on a quest. You are on this quest. I am willing to help you find you way. The way is Jesus Christ. God loved you so much that he sent Jesus to GIVE you a way to this life. There is no price to pay. Out of God’s great love for you, Maple Ryan, because he knew you, your soul, before you were ever born, he sent his Son, not to condemn you, but to forgive your state of being, that of a sinner, so that you could walk free into this life you were always meant to live. Only an idiot would turn down this kingly gift of life. I will never understand those who walk away from LIFE.

      Loving Christ is very easy- and yet, before you come to him, it seems so very hard. There is no difference between the quest for knowledge and the quest for God. God is knowledge because he created it. I can pursue all intellectual knowledge without fear- they will only confirm my belief in God, not unravel it. That is why Einstein believed in God too. Indeed, he also believed in Jesus. It is not ignorant to believe in God- it is INTELLIGENT to believe in God. I hope you will respond. Think deeply on these matters. God and Jesus are NOT religion. They just ARE. They just EXIST. Religion is evil. What you need is a relationship with our living God who loves and already knows you.

  21. I am really confused about something…if it took millions years for (Amoeba) to evolve to all the kinds of species we have to today Eg amoeba to Human beings…why is it that a human is formed in 9 months…from liquid to flesh and bones…in Nine months?…and why is it that there are still apes today…I have been having serious discussions with them when I see them at the zoo…trying to motivate them and impel them to evolve…cause im like…look at me dudes…ive moved up in life, whats holding you back…lol!!…and the fact that there are still so many other species that hasn’t evolved at all over a thousands of years!..and what about the instinct each species have, you cant tell me its genetics…you see where scientist cant explain anyomore…that is where the fingerprint of God is…he is laughing at us..the closer we get to know him the more he creates..his like oh is that all you got..common heres more…Evolution in spieces are a bunch of polony!!!

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s