The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Irrefutable reason that proves that God is POSSIBLE and therefore COULD Exist!

This is what Atheists think about the Kalam Argument, watch as they mischaracterize and set up Straw Men to knock over so they can look justified not believing in God!

Watch the above video just to be fair to their opposition to God, but only to learn HOW they reason their ideas out. Do not be fooled by their conviction or confidence because an Atheist is only confident in Natural explanations of a clearly spiritual nature, which by their own admission cannot be done.

 

The spiritual Mind behind Creation that is a part all living things that God created cannot be proven by just looking from a natural viewpoint, that view must be tempered with the clear evidence from faith and reason combined.

 The Natural World isn't equipped to uncover the other side of existence without first opening the spiritual light of Creation, to shed illumination upon why we exist at all! 

 

The arguments above that purport to "TAKE DOWN the Cosmological Argument" once and for all is RIDDLED with ILLOGICAL Conclusions and false assumptions they cannot prove (But it sounds scientific so who cares....right?)

 Look, these attacks don't prove anything more than the world is afraid of this truth getting through to those who really think deeply about how things began. 

 

No argument that a Christian can present NO MATTER how much solid science or historical value it has, will

ultimately prove God to a person that WILL NOT believe, even though they ask for that evidence.

 

 This argument, despite the attacks.... is the top reasonable argument that answers ALL the questions Atheists raise! It fits the science available, it fits the physics we know of and it fits the fossil record perfectly. This evidence presented here cuts at the heart of the evolutionists thinking about HOW things began only because it doesn't fit into THEIR THEORY of life coming from nothing.

"How to defend the kalam cosmological argument just like William Lane Craig

 

You see, Atheists talk of sharing ideas and understanding on the one hand but fail to do it on the other. They insult and laugh, instead of actually digging into the evidence as true science demands of them, the reasoning behind this obviously cowardly approach is expected, if not understood by the Christian.

Trust me, as one to whom this approach has been used many times after presenting a reasonable response to an Atheist claim. This is an act of diversion on their part rather than an act of confidence in their stand on the beginning of life. The Atheist does not have a good position to argue from, that's why they always say it's OUR job to prove it not theirs. They don't have ANY PROOF on their part so it's the easy thing to do to defer the argument back to us, well here goes.......  

 

Does God exist?

 For once we can say yes, simply because

this argument leaves no loose ends, it covers all bases

including the Multi-verse excuse. Atheists are left holding the bag with nothing in it, something they should be quite familiar with.

 

Another question is then answered, is the material universe

all that is, or ever was, or ever will be? Is the universe ETERNAL? 

 

Science's conclusion is absolutely not! So if the universe hasn't been here FOREVER then the time limit to it's energy use (Entropy) is an important question to ask.

Definition of ENTROPY

1

:  a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly :  the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

 

2

a :  the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

b :  a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

 


If the universe was an eternally self-existent thing then it's energy source would have to be also, otherwise it would run down as the Law of thermodynamics indicates. 

 What this means is that evolution CAN NOT have the unlimited time and energy to complete NATURAL SELECTION as Macro-Evolution must have.

 

 

 

 

One approach to answering this question is

the Cosmological Argument.

It goes like this…

 

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause."

 

Is the first premise true? Let's consider…

 

Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.

 

And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?

 

No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

 

But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."

 

First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that's the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

 

This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…THAT PROVE that the Universe is NOT eternal into the past but has an END approaching it.
 

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe, this wasn't what Einstein wanted to find out but at least he was an HONEST SCIENTIST unlike most Atheists who claim science as their aim.

 

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding from a beginning point in the past.

 

Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.

More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." Why is that? It's simple physics, it would run out of gas a long, long time ago. (That's Entropy for the dummies out there, and there is NO WAY around this....Like it or Lump it!)

 

This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

 

This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model, so you see no matter how many rabbit trails you come up with "Entropy" is your Kryptonite.

It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.

And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like… God. Unless you can prove that "Natural Selection" is somehow supernatural and fits these criteria to a tee, your out of 'Cosmological Luck'!

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist, the problem as always is the fact that Atheists refuse to look at the evidence objectively because it doesn't lead where they want it to go. This is wholly unscientific and completely unreasonable on their part!

Fallacies in Arguments

Here are some examples of fallacies you may encounter when making an argument: of course they will accuse you of these same Fallacies no matter what you say.

Appeal to Ignorance - An appeal to ignorance occurs when one person uses another person’s lack of knowledge on a particular subject as evidence that their own argument is correct. This is a favorite tool to use against believers who don't see it coming. But just remember just because you don't know the details of WHY doesn't mean your argument is invalid.

But it is important to know that Knowledge is power when dealing with Atheists or Skeptics on issues of the spiritual.

We do not start from ignorance so we cannot infer it to prove any point we make. We believe scripture and what it says happened, happened the way it says...we start from knowledge not ignorance. 

On the other hand science, true science, hasn't given even a hint of proof to infer Macro-Evolution, not in the Fossil record, not in the Micro-biological realm, not in the Archaeological realm. SO WHO IS SQUIRMING IN IGNORANCE?

Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument.

But let's face the facts here, if your theory was crap before a Ph.D.. handled it what makes you think it will fair better in their hands? Smart people can't make dumb things true they can only divert attention away from the problems using big words and lying really well about the rest. 

This is common among Atheists and Skeptics who sight a vast amount of Scientists and learned academia to prove their illogical assumptions. Simply because the Learned adopt unlearned assumptions as their own only proves to beleaguer the point and push the lie further ahead logic.

Since Creationism hasn't changed it's stand from the beginning, but only waited on science to catch up, our points and inferences still remain strong as the day we believed them. Science which was STARTED by a vast amount of Theists in the past to whom we owe our modern understandings has yet to even infer Evolution as far as MACRO is concerned!

 

Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe. 

Creationists cannot use this argument since we are in the minority in both science and popular opinion....MOST BELIEVE THAT NOTHING PRODUCED NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG. So this is a purely Evolutionary fallacy and a very weak one at best.

Association Fallacy - Sometimes called "guilt by association," this occurs when someone links a specific idea or practice with something or someone negative in order to infer guilt on another person.

 This is done whenever an Atheist associates what those who are uninformed say about me, with what I'm saying is true. Everything I put up is backed by science and legitimate scientists but because I'm associated with something made-up or true they have an excuse to avoid my evidence. 

It is still being done to Kent Hovine ministries because of an UNRELATED LEGAL MISHAP he was involved in, now any time his scientific creationism is presented they appeal to the "Alleged illegal activities" and insult his logic which has absolutely nothing to do with his scientific conclusions.

This a cheap trick that a lot of people in government office do to their opponents. What's happening here is they have no valid response and are left with their usual dirty tricks instead of evidence for their case!

Attacking the Person - Also known as Argumentum ad Hominem (argument against the man), this is quite a common occurrence in debates and refers to a person who substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult.

 Atheists and Skeptics seem to not know that this form of argumentation is the lowest form of human behavior or maybe they do and are low-life's.... who knows. And ANY creationists who engage in this are equally having a "low-life" experience!

Insulting your opponent only tells everyone listening that you HAVE NO LOGICAL way to answer the points they have made. But the intended reason they do it is that it shuts down the argument by causing anger and defense on the part of the opponant. A prime example is found in politics everyday as both parties use this form of point making INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE ISSUES AT HAND!

Everything (In the physical Universe) that begins to exist has a (First) cause. Why? because only something of higher substance could produce SOMETHING of lower substance, if NOTHING could produced anything it would be NOTHING since there is no energy or substance in a vacuum of nothing .

 The universe OBVIOUSLY began to exist BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS IT DID, THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT the universe must have a cause outside of it's space and time, more powerful than the universe itself. And since Atheists have not presented an alternative that makes any sense compared to the true realities of science....how can they reject our logic so easily, simply because it doesn't follow their line of reasoning?

Naturalism has nothing to offer as far as explaining how life began, at every turn it fails to provide sound scientific data that proves that Natural Selection produced the Natural world. Evolution (MACRO) doesn't happen and it never has, Micro Evolution cannot be used to prove MACRO simply because the two do not compare, one explains changes within species while the other HAS YET TO BE FOUND the change FROM one species into a completely different species.

DOES THIS ARGUMENT..... 

Beg the Question - This type of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.

NO....

I might ask "What question that any Atheist or Skeptic asks doesn't do this same thing? You are only begging if your logic doesn't connect the question directly to the answer as ours does, IF the universe began and all beginnings have a cause then it follows that the universe had a causality before it began.....it's just plain logic!

 The conclusion of this argument is the logical end of a cause and effect. If the universe were ETERNAL and always existed THEN we would be begging the question because our logic would be failed, because we assumed there was a beginning when there wasn't, but that is not the case from scientific reality.

 

Circular Argument - Also referred to as Circulus in Probando, this fallacy is when an argument takes its proof from a factor within the argument itself, rather than from an external one.

NO....

 

Our argument takes it's conclusion from OUTSIDE the argument itself because the first cause of the universe has to be MORE powerful, must be OUTSIDE of space and BEYOND time itself or that cause could not make what we see, feel, and hear in reality around us.

 

Correlation Implies Causation Fallacy - Otherwise known as Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this is a fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes that one caused the other.

NO....

This is only bad if your assumptions are based upon no evidence of said assumptions. For instance Evolution ASSUMES things about the Universe that cannot ever be witnessed by science, science can only observe the here and now not the past or the future it can only assume from evidence left behind what is true.

Has anyone ever seen the 'Big Bang' happen? No but we have evidence it occurred nonetheless!

 Has anyone ever investigated first hand 'Macro Speciation'? No but what they ASSUME is that Microevolution proves Macro is true. How can a minor variation WITHIN a species prove that a species can somehow become ANOTHER SPECIES?

 There is nothing to indicate such a thing could or would happen.

 All changes within a species are to cause it's survival as it is not to change it's species with would in effect go against it's survival by killing it off over time. Evolutionist's have the full burden to prove this nonsense not us! They make the assumption so it's their baby to hold.

 

False Dilemma/Dichotomy - Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way that there are only two possible options.

 

Actually we think there is only ONE possible option, while evolutionists are always coming up with new options to cover for the old option that hasn't worked out so well, Creationists on the other hand, have always held to ONE option there is no dichotomy.

 

Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions. Every part of this argument follows throughout it's reasoning without problem, so the only thing you can disagree with is the conclusion in the end. Everything throughout your life follows this argument concerning 'First Cause', you yourself are the first cause of many things in your own life.

Those of you that are 'Dad's' are the first cause of your children, now think of this....what if your kid's grow up and decide that you don't exist and cut off all communication with you and move away from you. Would it follow then that you don't exist or would it rather follow that they are simply deceiving themselves for whatever reason into a delusion?

God is the first cause of us and all the denying in the world won't change that fact. Atheists think that if they force all their negative thoughts and actions at a non-existent being, he'll go away somehow.

Now who sounds crazy?

 

Slippery Slope - Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to extreme and often ludicrous outcomes. Evolution is loaded with 'slippery slopes' of illogical assumptions and forced evidence.

As you can see, there are many different types of fallacies that you may encounter. Arguing with someone who uses false logic like this can be a frustrating experience, but now that you know these are examples of fallacies, you can identify what they are doing and spot the lapse in logic right away.

 

Is this Cosmological argument a fair and reasonable conclusion of the vast evidence available both in natural law and science?

 You decide for yourself, do not allow unreasonable men and women make eternal decisions for you.

Here's an easy way to remember this argument:

F.R.E.S.H

F- Stands for Famous Equations: 

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.

 

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.

R- Stands for Ripples of Matter & Heat: 

Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."

E- Stands for the Expanding Universe: 

1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

S- Stands for The Second Law of Thermodynamics: 

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.

H- Stands for Heat Eco: 

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.

With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.

USE THIS ARGUMENT WITH CONFIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S BOTH LOGICAL AND RESONABLE!!! 

PART 3 : Dealing the Death Blow to Evolution!

The Age of the Universe, a question ONLY ANSWERED BY THE BIBLE, but denied by the world. 

WHICH PROVES WHAT? 

It only proves the world is in denial of the facts that the universe reveals NOT that they KNOW anything for sure, it all boils down to what they are not willing to do, REPENT and receive a new mindset!

What good does it do for an Evolutionist to question the bible's age of the Universe and of the earth if they are UNWILLING to take the facts presented to them at ANY VALUE? They simply dismiss any fact that PROVES them wrong, any understanding BUT their own is attacked as 'quack-job science' or worse!

As with Atheists, Evolutionists have nothing in their bag but INSULTS, ATTACKS, AND PERSONAL CONDENSATION.

I cannot understand standing behind an invisible Vail of PROOF that doesn't prove anything but just how stubborn you can be while insulting the intelligence of those who don't agree with you. Its nothing more than school yard BULLING NOT TRUE SCIENTIFIC DIGGING FOR TRUTH.

The
Resource
Book

by  Laurence D Smart   BScAgr, Dip Ed, Grad Dip Ed

3 The Universe

Evolution Says .....

The universe is 20 billion years old, and it is expanding as a result of the Big Bang. The rotating, spiral galaxies were caused by the Big Bang.

The Facts Are .....

(1) The age of the universe under evolutionary theory is not set. Over the seven years to 1987, the various dates for the universe have been 15 billion, 12 billion, 19 billion, 8 billion, 20 billion, and finally 11 billion. The West Australian, July 7, 1987; New Scientist, February 9, 1984; NCSE Reports, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1991 p:17

(2) The work of  Barry Setterfield with the decay of the speed of light has shown from his analysis of the red shift in the light from stars, that the age of the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. Paul D. Ackerman, "It's a Young World After All", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1993 p: 73-76

(3) The red shift actually occurs in evenly spaced values or jumps, not in a smooth manner as it would be if the universe was expanding. Scientific American, December, 1992 p:19-20

(4) Plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, is on record as saying that the Big Bang theory is not correct. He has stated that the huge conglomeration of galaxies could not have formed in 20 billion years. Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7; Eric Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295

(5) Many world class astronomers are challenging the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe. They contend that fresh analysis of the data suggests that the enormous clustering of galaxies, the two Great Walls of Galaxies, are too vast to have been formed from such an explosion. Nature, Vol. 349, No. 6304, January 3, 1991; Science News, November 25, 1989 p:340; Science, Vol. 263, March 25, 1994 p:1684

(6) "The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depths of frustration that this simple fact induced among scientists." Written by evolutionist James Trefil in "The Dark Side of the Universe", Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1988 p:55

(7) The evolutionary time-scale for the 'breakup' or dissipation of cluster galaxies is 2-4 million years, as there are too many cluster galaxies. This means that the universe cannot be 20 billion years old. In fact, exhaustive searches of the universe has failed to find any field galaxies - the independent galaxies that cluster galaxies disperse into. Paul D. Ackerman, "It's a Young World After All", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1993 p:68-70

(8) The observed speed of rotating galaxies is so fast that they cannot be more than a few hundred million years old. This is called the 'Winding-up Dilemma' and evolutionists have tried to explain it with the theory of 'density waves'. This wave theory has conceptual problems, and is a hypothesis which has not been confirmed by observation. H. Scheffler & H. Elsasser, "Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter", Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1987 p:352-353 & 401-413

(9) "We know of no process that can maintain a spiral arm [of a galaxy] for more than two galactic revolutions". Written by Hadley Wood in his book "Unveiling the Universe", American Elsevier Publishing Co: New York, 1968 p:188

(10) "If this theory is true, the universe is young, since it has so many rapidly revolving spirals." Written by C.B. Clason as a logical conclusion to the mechanical fact that galactic spiral arms cannot be maintained for more than 2 revolutions. Expressed in his book "Exploring the Distant Stars", G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York, 1958 p:326

(11) The age of the universe, recently calculated from the Hubble Space Telescope's data, is 8-12 billion years old. However, the objects in the universe are believed to be 16 billion years old. This means that there is a paradox - the objects are older than the universe. Nature, Vol. 371, 1994 p:741-742; Science News, Vol. 146, 1994 p:232-234; Science, Vol. 267, 1995 p:980-983; Nature, Vol. 372, 1994 p:304.

The Definition of an Atheist , AKA Psalms 14:1

"The Fool Hath Said...There Is No God"

FROM:

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR251.htm

 

The biggest bill of goods ever sold to supposedly intelligent people is that there is no God and that present life originated from one simple cell and evolved through a process of natural selection to its present form.

I submit that this hypothesis is not only unfounded, unscientific, and untenable, but that it is also, based on all known and established laws, impossible. Moreover, I suggest that when man denies God, man becomes a fool (Rom. 1: 21, 22). There are many irrefutable proofs that spontaneous generation is responsible for life. Creation implies a Creator and design a designer.

If I were to show you my wrist watch and tell you that it simply evolved from the basic shapeless metals and materials into its present state, you would view me as the fool that I most surely would be. "Such is impossible," would be the outcry.

 "If such could happen, from where were the basic metals and materials derived?" Still, a further question could be asked, "what intelligence provided the impetus for the formation of the watch?" Yet, my wrist watch example is very crude and simple compared to the more advanced complexities involved in the universe.

The Bible believer who necessarily accepts the six-day creation account of Genesis one and two is often styled as uneducated. Notwithstanding, Doctor Russell Humphreys (practicing physicist) wrote, "there are around 10, 000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day recent creation"

(Creation Ex Nihilo, pg. 37, referenced by Doctor Steven Taylor, In Six Days, pg. 304, see addendum).

How can I say that Darwinian evolution or naturalism is impossible? I believe one of the most successful proofs that renders evolution not only untenable but utterly impossible is the factual study of how creation interacts. Not only interacts but how each particular component is a dependant component of the whole.

These components are often absolutely necessary for even the primary and rudimentary existence of each other. Allow me to introduce this line of thought by quoting Doctor Jerry Bergman who is a biology scientist who is instructor of science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio (Doctor Bergman has been a consultant for more than 20 science text books):

"Naturalism must account for both the parts necessary for life and their proper assembly.

For life to persist, living creatures must have a means of taking in and biochemically processing food. Life also requires oxygen, which must be distributed to all tissues, or for single-celled life, oxygen must effectively and safely be moved around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed, without damaging the cell. Without complex mechanisms to achieve these tasks, life cannot exist.

The parts could not evolve separately and could not even exist independently for very long, because they would break down in the environment without protection.

Even if they existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens.

For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life…Creating the universe in parts would not be unlike creating a liver and waiting a few days before creating a brain, then several more weeks before creating a femur bone - until the body was eventually complete.

No other method appears to exist to produce life other than creating instantaneously a fully functioning complete organism. This does not preclude that changes may have occurred since that time, only that a certain level of complexity must have existed for both an organism and a universe to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 27, 31, all emphasis throughout mine, dm).

What I shall address in the remainder of this study are a few areas to illustrate how there must be initially a totality of the interactive and co-dependent parts in order to have the functioning whole. I shall begin with the simpler and advance to the more complex.

The human skeleton.

Doctor Bergman wrote:

 "To illustrate this concept as applied in biology, an ordered structure of just 206 parts will be examined. This is not a large number - the adult human skeleton, for example, contains on the average 206 separate bones, all assembled together in a perfectly integrated functioning whole" (In Six Days, pg. 34, 35).

Before I proceed, please allow me to ask you the question, have you ever wondered about the perfectly shaped, located, and supporting relationship positioning of the bones making up the human skeleton? In view of this basic anatomical fact, how could these 206 bones have evolved separately and sequentially? This may sound very simple, but it becomes mind boggling. Allow me again to quote biologist scientist Doctor Bergman:

"To determine the possible number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which can be lined up in only one way (1 x 1); or a system or two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or 1, 2, and 2, 1; a system of three parts, which can be aligned in six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or 1, 2, 3; 2, 3, 1; 2, 1, 3; 1, 3, 2; 3, 1, 2; 3, 2, 1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2 x 3 x 4) and so on.

Thus, a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3…206 different ways, equal to 1 x 2 x 3…x 206. This number is called '206 factorial' and is written '206!.' The value 206! is an enormously large number…, which is a '1' followed by 388 zeros…." (Ibid., pg. 34, 35).

Achievement of only the correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their upside-down or right-side up placement, their alignment, the origin of the tendons, ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of 10 to the 388th power random assortments….

If one new trial could be completed each second for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate gives us 10 to the 18th power seconds."

 In view of this, I might ask, what does this mean in simple terms? Hear Doctor Bergman: "…The chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is less than once in 10 billion years…." (Ibid., pg. 36).

Notwithstanding the simple matter of the human skeleton, not even mentioning all the different anatomical differences and structural interaction of all living forms, the evolutionist considers all uneducated who do not accept their unintelligent explanation for life!

A God who could create the human skeleton that would be immediately aligned and functioning would have no difficulty in restoring "strength" to the feet and ankle bones of the lame man (Acts 3: 1-11).

The means of sight, the eye. We are told regarding Eve, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" (Gen. 3: 6). God told Abram, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:

 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen. 13: 14, 15). Doctor Ariel Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. Doctor Roth is a biology scientist. Concerning the 670 muscles in the human, Doctor Roth wrote: "The presence of complexity - interdependent parts that do not function unless other parts are also present - poses another major problem for evolution.

For instance, a muscle is useless without a nerve going to the muscle to direct its contracting activity. But both the muscle and the nerve are useless without the complicated control mechanism in the brain to direct the contracting activity of the muscle and correlate its activity with that of other muscles.

Without these three essential components, we have only useless parts. In a process of gradual evolutionary changes, how does complexity evolve?" (In Six Day, pg. 87). Doctor Roth next mentions the eye:

"Without the foresight of a plan, we would expect that the random evolutionary changes would attempt all kinds of useless combinations of parts while trying to provide for a successful evolutionary advancement.

Yet as we look at living organisms over the world, we do not seem to see any of these random combinations…The simple example of a muscle…pales into insignificance when we consider more complicated organs such as the eye or the brain.

These contain many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. The eye has an automatic focusing system that adjusts the lens so as to permit us to clearly see close and distant objects.

We do not fully understand how it works, but a part of the brain analyzes data from the eye and controls the muscles in the eye that change the shape of the lens….Then there are the 100, 000, 000 light-sensitive cells in the human eye that send information to the brain through some 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers of the optic nerve. In the brain this information is sorted into various components such as color, movement, form, and depth. It is then analyzed and combined into an intelligible picture.

This involves an extremely complex array of interdependent parts. But the visual process is only part of our complex brains, which contain some 100, 000, 000, 000 nerve cells connected by some 400, 000 kilometers of nerve fibers. It is estimated that there are around 100, 000, 000, 000, 000 connections between nerve cells in the human brain.

That we can think straight…is a witness to a marvelous ordered complex of interdependent parts that challenges suggestions or an origin by random evolutionary changes. How could such complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?" (Ibid. pg. 88, 89).

Can you just imagine the lens saying to the brain or in the reverse, Now evolve me 100, 000, 000 light sensitive cells and an optic nerve with 1, 000, 000 nerve fibers and put in place capability and storage for color, movement, form, and depth, oh, yes, I will need the necessary delicate muscles to activate these components?

Remember that all of these necessary components would have to come into existence within a very short time of each other or they would deteriorate. However, according to organic evolution, such an intricate and complex evolution through natural selection would take multiplied years (some say trillions) to happen.

The science of cells. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," wrote the inspired writer of Hebrews, "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb. 11: 3). The more we study a matter, the more we discover.

I am not sure Hebrews 11: 3 is referring to such matters as cellular consideration, but it is possible. The more science has discovered about cells, the more ridiculous the notion of evolved life becomes. Doctor John Marcus (a biochemistry scientist) wrote regarding cellular matters and Darwinian philosophy thus, "We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us" (Ibid. pg. 180, 181).

Doctor Hickman wrote: "Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells.

In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman, 1997, pg. 43). How could these 60 trillion cells in the human that are interacting and often co-dependent, I ask, have simply evolved?

Doctor Jerry Bergman in referencing the work of Overman considers the cell in the following fashion;

"Evolutionists once argued that all life could develop from some hypothetical first cell, because even today all new life develops from a single cell, but we now realize that a cell can develop into a complex organism only because all of the parts and instructions are in the original cell produced from conception.

The human mother passes not only 23 chromosomes but also an entire cell to her offspring, which includes all the organelles needed for life. A cell can come only from a functioning cell and cannot be built up piecemeal, because all the major organelles must have been created and assembled instantaneously for the cell to exist" (In Six Days, pg. 29 and Overman, 1997).

When the cell is microscopically considered, another area of research emerges, the matter of DNA. Doctor John Marcus wrote:

"DNA evidence is often claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God's handiwork of design in a powerful way.

Let us consider the complexity of this important component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living organisms.

 The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex organism. If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one meter long and yet so thin it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes.

 Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space that is much smaller than the head of a pin and that this tiny string of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1, 000 books, each containing 1, 000 pages of, text" (Ibid. pg. 174, remember that there are about 60 trillion interacting cells in the human).

Amazing as the DNA molecule may be," Doctor Bergman continues, "there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of instructions to put together the machinery.

Without the cellular machinery, we would have no DNA since it is responsible for synthesizing DNA; without DNA we would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are co-dependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning or it will be meaningless bits and pieces" (Ibid., pg. 174, 175).

Relative to the cellular and DNA, all of this is comparatively simple when one considers how all of this graduates. Involved in the cell and DNA, there must be a number of proteins present. The DNA template then (when everything is perfect and equally functioning) produces RNA. For RNA to be synthesized, at least five different protein chains must be present and cooperate.

Furthermore, this enzyme complex must be able to recognize where to start reading and transcribing DNA into RNA. All of this is still simple when we advance to the three types of requisite RNA and the process produced by a large number of proteins called the ribosome. The paramount point that I wish to make is stated better by Doctor Bergman:

"Needless to say, without proteins life would not exist; it is as simple as that. The same is true of DNA and RNA. It should be clear that DNA, RNA, and proteins must all be present if any of them are going to be present in a living organism.

Life must have been created completely functional, or it would be a meaningless mess. To suggest otherwise is plain ignorance (or perhaps desperation). So, we truly have a 'which came first?' problem on our hands. I believe the answer is, of course, that none of them came first!

God came first; He designed and then created all of life with His spoken Word. DNA, RNA, and protein came all at exactly the same time. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe that this astoundingly complicated DNA-blueprint translation system happened to come about by chance" (Ibid., pg. 177).

Beloved, organic evolution that is being increasingly accepted today as science is not science. It is a fanciful hypothesis that is not founded on scientific laws and it is incapable of being reproduced, duplicated, or replicated to study in a laboratory.

It is high time that this Godless philosophy be stripped of its claims of super intelligence and be presented as the unintelligent belief system that it is. Darwinian evolution is not even a theory because a theory has some facts upon which it rests. As we have seen, naturalism is not only unbelievable, it is impossible. We have shown this, I believe, based on the interacting and co-dependent nature of some of the most basic and necessary components of rudimentary life.

We have also shown from actual science that these co-supporting components cannot be viewed as sequential in their developmental and evolutionary processes, as evolutionists claim, because they cannot separately exist for even a short period of time in their rudimentary forms. Hence, life had to have opened at once, just as we are told in Genesis one and two.

In view of the complexity and the interacting nature of the most essential and basic of the components of life, we should now more greatly appreciate the biblical statement:

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good"

(Ps. 14: 1).

Addendum:

The work In Six Days was compiled by Doctor John F. Ashton.

It is a book based on asking fifty different established scientists why they choose to believe in creation as opposed to naturalism.

Hence, the fifty chapters making up the book contain simple and straightforward reasons as to why these scientists believe in the Genesis account of creation and reject Darwinian evolution.

The Definition of an Atheist

Posted: 06 Jul 2011 06:02 AM PDT

"Primate worshiper, I need your advice. When Ray says that atheists are 'fools,' is that raw hate? When he quotes (out of context, but that's another matter) Psalm 14:1 in defense of his position, does that prove that the Psalms are a reservoir of raw hate?" Steven J.

I don't hate anybody. It is clear to me that if someone believes that nothing created everything he or she is a fool (see the sidebar of this blog to see the list of the many atheists and scientists who believe that).

To believe that there was no First Cause is not only unscientific; it's unreasonable. To believe that nothing could create anything, let alone everything is absolute foolishness. And that's the position of the professing atheist.

I know that you define "nothing" as "There's nothing to eat in the fridge." By "nothing," you mean that there is something there, but you find it distasteful. Agreed.

Let's see if Psalm 14:1 is quoted in context:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no, not one" (Psalm 14: 1-3).

The Word of God says the atheist is a fool. I agree wholeheartedly. There's no "raw hate." It's simply raw common sense.

In another comment, you (Steven J.) said "Ray frequently cites Psalm 14:1 as 'proof' that atheists are fools; occasionally he feigns erudition and calls us 'morons.'"

I don't cite the verse as proof that atheists are fools. It's not something that needs proving. It's self-evident.

Also, I am not aware of ever calling atheists "morons" on this blog or anywhere else--even once, let alone "occasionally". I would therefore be grateful if you could cite evidence of me doing this. If you do, I will sincerely apologize. If not, I think you owe me an apology. Thank you.

For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.