Science Is Based Upon Many Abstracts Just Like Our Faith…

Abstract Motion


I find it fascinating how God reflects His story and existence within every part of His creation.

It is amusing to me that so many atheists are proclaimed scientists, who wish to base all their beliefs on scientific reasoning and formulas.  Yet, science itself is based upon many abstract concepts that cannot be proven by all five senses.

My son and I are studying the chapter on “Energy & Motion” in his science book.  In this chapter, we are studying how forces are necessary for motion.  Without forces, life wouldn’t exist nor continue.

I loved this one quote from the science book:

Forces themselves are invisible.  They cannot be smelled or tasted.  Forces can only be felt. — Investigating God’s World

So much of our physical world functions on invisible forces.  We acknowledge these invisible forces because of their results or effects upon tangible objects.

As a Christian, I believe in God’s existence because I see the effects of His influence and “force” upon life itself, in my own personal experience, in the experiences of others, in the tangible Bible, and in the concepts of love and goodness.

I believe that so many scientific concepts have their parallel in spiritual concepts.  Take gravity, for instance.

Gravity is the force of attraction that exists between any pair of objects.

Investigating God’s World

My faith in God exists because of the “force of attraction” or love that God has shown to me, which has caused me to respond to Him.

There are also forces that work against each other in the physical world.  Friction is the force that resists motion.  There are positives and negatives to friction.  Friction is necessary for the function of many objects.  In fact, friction can impede the performance of some forces of motion, but it can also enable other forces of motion.

For example, you cannot drive a car or write with a pencil without friction.

This might be a stretch and certainly there are more and better analogies to this concept, but I believe that the diversity of God’s character works the same way.  His mercy and justice, His grace and truth, and His holiness and love are all “forces” that work in perfect harmony and contrast to make our very existence possible and to bring us into the fullest measure of “functionality” within His purposes.

We may not be able to physically touch God, but we can see His effects.  His existence can be felt!

27 thoughts on “Science Is Based Upon Many Abstracts Just Like Our Faith…

    1. Dear Dragallur,

      Thank you for your honest question!

      Let me ask you a few questions first.

      Can someone born blind understand color — truly understand it? Those who see know colors exist. To the one born blind, at best, we can only describe colors in terms of something else they might understand such as something they can touch, taste, or hear. We might describe the color red such as something hot or a vibrant sound. The truth is colors exist, regardless of whether they are understood by everyone or not.

      Someone who has been raised deep within the interior of the Amazon jungle might have a difficult time understanding such a thing as Hollywood or New York’s upper elite lifestyle.

      If someone was born within a prison and all they ever knew was fear, bondage, cruelty, and wickedness, how would you describe to them the concepts of love, freedom, peace, and purity? You could try to describe them in terms of the absence of the things they have only known. Yet, the absence is not the same as the presence of love, peace, and goodness. It would be almost impossible for them to be able to understand what it would mean to be able to make choices regarding the foods you eat, the clothes you wear, and the places you go. In fact, for a person growing up in that type of environment, it would take a life-time of counseling, therapy, and practice to relearn the basic freedoms the rest of the world takes for granted.

      Spiritually, I believe it’s the same way. The fact that you are not aware of God’s existence does not mean He does not exist. It means that perhaps you have not yet learned to recognize His Presence and His effects of goodness, love, peace, and truth that exist. It means that perhaps your spiritual eyes have not yet been opened so we can only try to convey God to you by means of another way that you will recognize.

      There is so much in God’s world that proves His existence!

      Look at the incredible designs seen in every part of creation! We are all so inter-connected and reliant on each part to function. Without water, air, sunlight, where would we be? There are the food-chains that are dependent upon each other. Our Ecosystems require a perfect balance. Look at the intricacies of the eye. The design within each aspect of life is so incredibly complex! If there is a design, there must be a Designer!

      Look at time. The fact that we have time means it had a beginning. If there is a beginning, there must be a Beginner.

      Look even at the moral concepts of right and wrong. I realize that some of that is heavily debated, but most of us would agree that there are certain levels of lewdness and cruelty that are completely evil. Where do we get that concept, ingrained within us, that there is a certain point of right and wrong? If there is a “measurement”, then there must be a “Measurer.”

      I don’t know where you are in your journey or what your experiences have been, but I encourage you to begin to seek the God who does exist.

      Did you know that in ancient languages the name for God is the same sound as when we take a breath? Who else would do that other than God? Each of our breaths has a two-fold meaning — that we couldn’t exist without the life God breathes into us and that His “signature” is upon our very breath.

      I leave you with this final quote: “The same as a thirsty man takes water into his body, a man thirsty for God takes God into his soul. You seek, and you will find, for He is looking for those who seek Him.” — from “By Way Of The Wilderness”

      I apologize for being so verbose.

      1. Thanks for such a long comment for me, I understand the arguments you gave me while there are some things that I could easily question:

        You wrote: “Without water, air, sunlight, where would we be?”

        I mean, right we would not be here without these things, does it make it a proof that God exists? Do they need to be even bonded to God?

        Yes, ecosystem is in great balance. Again, does it proof anything about God? I say that the ecosystem is in perfect balance because of such a long evolution.

        If there is design the must be a Designer?

        Why? I mean thing are just there, do they really need to have Creator? And if they have one.. ok then but this does not seem like a proof to me.

        “The fact that we have time means it had a beginning.”

        I do not agree, we do not know much about how time works, it could just as easily be infinite loop, or just infinite line. We have no proof so here the value is just same for the argument.

        Point of right and wrong? Do I understand correctly that this means: we are able to distinquish when something is wrong and when something is right? Well then if that is so, I would say that it is because of our survival. We feel that killing is bad because it somewhat endangers our survival and it is important to distinquish when there is something dangerous.

        I do not really see what is the point of the argument with “measurement” and “Measurer”. It seems to me like saying that there is process of counting so there must be Counter.

        Well ok then, it sounds like breath, well some word can sound like this, why not. Maybe it is God because people who knew ancient languages used it so much that it seemed to be right to make such a sound for God.
        Plus nobody needed to do it. We just did it because we believed in the God so much.

        Anyway thanks for commenting back! I am really excited about this conversation, which I hope will be taken in intelligent way!
        Have a good day anyway!

  1. Dear Dragallur,

    Before proceeding further, I would be interested in knowing your motive for continuing the debate. I ask this because to just debate for the sake of debating is pointless and only serves to unnecessarily inflate egos or to wound pride (well, I suppose that may not be a negative thing). 🙂 To me, it’s not about winning the argument because there’s no true benefit to that. In other words, if you really want to know if God exists, we can have a profitable discussion. If not, it doesn’t matter what I say, it will be ineffective to you. If you are determined to not believe or see the evidence for God, I won’t be able to “show” you otherwise.

    To be able to process the information accurately, you have to be willing to evaluate/see all the evidence.

    That being said, I am willing to give you some replies.

    Scientists have determined that all of life traces back to a single source. For the evolutionists, they assume this single “point” of life is the beginning of the Big Bang Theory. Phylogenetic Trees are used to describe the pattern of life from a single reference point. As one who sees evidence for a Creator, I would claim that this single reference point is none other than God Himself. I would also challenge the Big Bang Theory with the question of, “From where did that original single reference point of ‘life’ originate?”

    Science realizes that nothing comes from nothing in so many different ways. See the water cycle, life cycle, procreation, plant life, etc… For example, trees get their “life” from the water cycle which is a fantastic example of recycling. They also get their “life” from soil, which contains humus (decaying plant and animal material). They also get their “life” from sunlight through a process we call photosynthesis. The trees “breathe” by using carbon dioxide, which humans and other animal creatures expel. We in turn breathe the oxygen that plants release. As the trees age, they provide homes for animals, shade, and many other benefits to other living creatures. When they “die,” they fall to the ground, and the termites and other insects digest their organic matter, converting it into humus. The cycle continues… I could go on and on, but I think we get the point.

    To reiterate, if everything comes from one single reference point, I claim it is God. My reason is because the very definition of God is a Superior, All-Powerful, Self-existent God. He is the Source of Life; its originator. He is the source of time, as He started it all. Many would argue, from where did God come then? I would reply, if something “made” or started God, then that something is more powerful than God and therefore God. You see, the very idea of God is that He is all existing, all powerful, all good, all truth.

    You might ask why I include truth and goodness in that. I do because truth always trumps the lie… eventually. Love/goodness always trumps evil… eventually. Why? Because that is the very nature of truth and love. This is why not only do we see evidence for it, and God declares it to be so (and I personally have experienced this), but we know that God is a good and loving God. Love is more powerful than hate and evil. Truth is more powerful than the lie. Just like light is more powerful than darkness and drives darkness away. In fact, darkness is merely the absence of light; while, light is an actual “thing.” So, I would say there is a powerful “force” to love and truth that reveals, purifies, heals, empowers, creates, and describes.

    I thought it was interesting you used the evolutionary process to describe how murder might be considered “wrong.” First of all, I would say right and wrong is not a scientific concept but rather a moral concept. I would also have to respectfully disagree with you on the evolutionary process giving credence to murder being wrong. In fact, I would say the evolutionary process does the opposite. Let me explain.

    Evolution is all about survival of the fittest or natural selection. If evolution was the mere reason for determining a code of ethics, our ancestors would be more likely to murder in order to preserve a hardier race and to prevent inter-breeding of the weaker races. Why keep a child who has a handicap? They aren’t going to have as good of a chance of survival; “just kill them.” Yet, under a different code — the moral code — many parents choose to do everything they can to protect their “challenged” children and experience many blessings as a result. One very important benefit is the realization that worth is not based upon ones usefulness, performance, or attractiveness but upon the fact itself that every life has worth within its very origination.

    Using evolution to determine our ethics would actually promote more of what we could morally call “wrong.” For example, it is often easier and more materially beneficial in the short-term to lie than to tell the truth.

    Stealing would also be “okay” under evolutionary reasoning because it would increase your chances of survival.

    Same thing with greediness. Why give away what can increase your chances of winning over another?

    This brings me to another question. What is the purpose of life if there’s no God? It’s really a meaningless existence of trying to find as much pleasure as possible, but the deepest reach is as far as the temporal and material lasts.

    My point about God’s name being on our very breaths is meaningless if you don’t believe there is a God. I do believe there is a God, and it makes perfect sense to me that He’s going to leave a record of Himself and a “signature” on everything He has created. All artists leave their signatures behind, and surely a God of the universe would as well.

    God’s creation, His “artwork,” is one of the best evidences for Himself. There are so many amazing ways that His creation speaks of a God so complex that our human minds have yet to “plum” even the most shallow depths of its magnitude!

    Think of how our earth is the perfect distance from the sun to sustain life (gravitational pull, energy from the sun, etc…). Would that really have just happened by chance?

    Here’s a link with some more interesting scientific reasons to disprove the Big Bang Theory:

    My family is needing me so I will close this for now.

    Praying, my friend, that you find the truth because that is more important than winning a temporary debate. It really is a matter of “life” or “death.” “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

    1. Hi,
      you said before that you do not know at what place in my life I am… I am fifteen year old high school student. The reason for me to do this debating is that I want to look at the other side of argument. I mean what I could do easily is to search for people on internet who agree with me. I would be happy and would be sure that what I think is right and there would be no questioning. This is the way extremism work, and what I want to do is to challenge myself against the arguments of other side. There is no reason to believe in what I believe if I do not understand it or if I found that I can not get through the other’s side arguments. I want to enhance my knowledge from your perspective. I am glad that you said the part about ego, I am thinking about it a lot nowadays so that was definitely good to me. Plus, nobody can hurt me in theory, I do not fear the truth.

      Now lets go through the things you wrote:

      You wrote there that God alone started “all of life” and so on. You asked what did the big bang originated from, well.
      There are few options:
      Big bang is just another part in the cycle of what is called big bounce.

      Or big bang just appeared from what is called “primordial singularity” such a singularity could be there all the time as God is there according to you.

      You talk about evolution, and about right and wrong. Here you put an example of handicaped child.

      I agree, this child would be murdered in the past because there was nobody to look after it. Do you think that the mother was not sad? Well of course she was, her husband probably too. But at that time in long term, from evolutionary point of view it was better to kill the child. It was the right thing to do because whole tribe could have problems if there was anybody slower or not so smart. (They knew what moral was, it was just not beneficial to follow it.)

      Now? Well things changed a lot we still know that killing child is wrong, nothing has changed except that we do not to do this. We are so good at keeping people alive that we can keep alive even kids with handicapes.

      Well maybe stealing would increase your chance of survival, but in long term it may not be worth it because somebody can catch you and put you into prison, in past they would kill you. So stealing is not a good example because actually from evolutionary point of view it is beneficial only in very few cases and even then it maybe be just a random factor if in the long run it is really worth it.

      You also talk about the worth of life, I will try to think it through before I write something..

      Well you mentioned “purpose of life”. This is simple. So your purpose of life is God? I am not really sure how I should think of this. But OK. For example my purpose of life so far is to learn, learn about the world as much as I can. Have good kids so they can live through this wonderful world as I did. And enjoy life since it is only one.

      Well the thing about “the right distance from Sun to sustain life”. This one is tricky because what you actually did right there is that you think about you being here with such a low probability and at the same time you are here. This is problem of cause and result. You came here and you see how perfect everything here is. Well ok then but maybe the answer is that we were just not able to see the life somewhere else so we do not know how it is formed in various places.

      Now I will run through the problems at the page you send me:

      10) I do not know what is monopole moment or what.
      9) Yes this is famous problem in physics and noone is trying to hide that we yet do not know what to do with it. When such a thing happens it is not reason to create something unrational to explain it.
      8) We can not see further than the background microwave radiation.
      7) What about gravity?
      6) This is not right, we know that dark matter exists and we have proofs for that.
      Dark energy is more complicated and there are few theories about what it is.
      5) In expansion of Universe, particles are not traveling, the space between them is increasing.
      4) It would not be strewn across the Universe because of gravity. Yes entropy is increasing.
      3) I do not think that big bang says that everything is created from nothing. Plus modern physics breaks at such a point so it is wrong to assume anything.
      2) In title they say that data proves static Universe which is not true because we can observe inflation and Doppler effect and then in the argument they use Occams razor which is just a tool for science and because static Universe is wrong than then next theory must be the one of inflation and there is no use of razor.
      1) Nope, this is wrong. Complete misunderstand of how inflation works. If some Galaxy shines toward us a photon it will fly at the speed of light but at the same time the distance between us and the photon will increas so this means that we know that observational Universe is about 45 Giga light years in radius.

      This also ignores all arguments of other side.

      Have a good day!

      1. Are you ready? This is going to be long… 🙂

        Dear Dragallur,

        First of all, I congratulate you on wanting to learn and be open to learning. I too am a seeker. My goal though is to not just seek to learn but to seek the truth. Knowledge in and of itself is dissatisfying at the end. I believe that is why one of the wisest men who ever lived, Solomon, said in Ecclesiastes, “That it is all vain…”

        You are obviously an intelligent young person! What a marvelous thing intelligence is when used to find truth and to communicate it! As a God-follower, I believe your intelligence was not some random process of evolution but is in fact part of a greater purpose. You, my dear friend, have a purpose in this life, and it is for more than filling your head with lots of information. 🙂 Though information — particularly the right kind — can be beneficial to society, if it’s “truthful” information.

        Also, a friend of mine recently wrote a book called, “The Conversation,” by Michael Gannaway. I would encourage you to read it.

        Thank you for understanding why I questioned your motives for continuing the discussion. It certainly was not to offend you but was for me to understand more the direction and outcome of our discussion. (Our motivations will often determine our outcomes.)

        I thought it was interesting that these well-known proclaimed evolutionists made the following statements as to their belief system of evolution. I will explain later why I call it a belief system, and in fact, why I say, “Evolution is the religion of atheists.”

        Here are the lengthy quotes:

        “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This quote was not taken from a creationist but was from Professor D.M.S. Watson, a leading biologist and science writer who wrote, “Adaptation.”

        Here’s another quote from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, self-proclaimed Marxist, and renowned champion of neo-Darwinism:

        “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

        In our present culture, it is considered incompatible to be both a scientist and a creationist. Yet, there are many well-known scientists that also believed in the God of the Bible and His record of living things (the Bible): Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz, Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder, Pascal, Leibnitz, and Euler. These men were renowned in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, and mathematics.

        I love what the philosopher, C.S. Lewis, said in the following quote:

        “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.” — Refuting Evolution

        A tactic I often see within the scientific community is to name-call and thus shame people with opposite views into silence. That’s why creationists are accused of being unscientific and irrational. Yet, I think it is obvious that it is possible to be both a creationist and a scientist. In fact, science never works in opposition to creation, the Bible, and the proof of a Designer. In fact, the Bible has been far beyond its time in scientific and medical claims (DNA, life in the blood, spherical earth, solar system, rotation of the earth, etc…).

        You mentioned quite a few scientific theories so let me mention quite a few scientific facts that support a Young Earth Theory and dispute the Evolutionary Theory.

        Let’s first give the definition for the Big Bang Theory:

        1. There are no transitional forms of life to support the evolutionary Phylogenetic Trees. If this is the method that life forms “evolved” to arrive at what we see today, then there should be large amounts of transitional forms.

        As you know, there are two types of categories of skeletons that were found to supposedly be the “missing link:” Neanderthal man and Australopithecus africanus. A C.W. Oxnard published the result of a computer study of these sets of bones and determined that Australopithecines fits more the bones of an ape and should have been categorized as an ape – not a human. The Neanderthal man was also later determined to be that of the skeleton of an old man who suffered from Rickets and thus the reason for his stooped appearance.

        Stephen Jay Gould, in his book, Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, wrote the following in regards to this:
        “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

        The late Dr. Colin Patterson, author of Evolution, wrote the following: “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them… I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” (letter to Luther D. Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma)

        2. The Law of Biogenesis disproves evolution and corresponds with my premise that life cannot exist from nothing. Everything comes from something.

        3. Here’s another interesting article, explaining how the complexity of DNA disproves evolution:

        4. Our galaxies disprove The Big Bang Theory. In a quote, taken from his book, Teaching About Evolution, Dr. James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University, says, “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.”

        The spiral structure of the galaxies themselves are “young” in age. Let me quote: “As the stars orbit around the galactic center, the stars closer to the center revolve faster than the more distant stars. For instance, a start 8,000 light years from the galactic center will revolve approximately 2.8 orbits for every one orbit completed by a star 16,000 light years from the center. “ – Reasons by McDowell There are lengthy details to explain how this all works, but to summarize it, if the universe is as old as evolutionists claim, then there should no longer be spirals. Their very existence proves a younger universe.

        5. Mountains support a young earth. Professor of Geo-Archeology, Sheldon Judson, estimated that the rates of erosion show that elevation would be reduced to close to sea level in a span of 34 million years. Article describing the achievements of Sheldon Judson: A college thesis on erosion:

        6. The presence of red blood cells and hemoglobin found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone show that the earth couldn’t possibly be millions of years old. They can’t last more than a thousand years. See the following articles on this discovery: and There is controversy on this issue. One creationist wrote an article on this, saying this proves a “young” earth. His views were disregarded because it was not believed at that time that they were actual red blood cells. Yet, further articles in the scientific community are saying that these were indeed red blood cells, which they are using to prove that this means red blood cells exist longer than they thought. Huh? Their “proof” is because their premise is that dinosaur bones are millions of years old; thus, the red blood cells must survive for millions of years. That is what we call circular reasoning. Here are the articles describing the argument I just mentioned and the evolutionists’ claims: and

        7. Helium could also prove a younger earth due to the fact that it is still present in mountainous regions in North America. See this article, defining why helium is so quickly diluted within our atmosphere: The likelihood of it still existing after millions of years is improbable, at best.

        8. Supernovas seem to indicate a young earth as well. There are no widely, expanded Supernovas which you would expect if the universe was billions of years old, according to the physical equations.

        9. Irreducible Complexity is another interesting challenge for evolutionists. Yes, there is much debate over this, but I appreciate the following article that reveals the challenges for Darwin in this definition that supports ID (Intelligent Design).

        10. Mathematical formulas/ equations all operate upon predictable patterns and order. It is highly improbable that such systems would happen through random mutations.

        11. A Big Bang or explosion is said to have produced the basic elements of life that evolved into more complex species over time. Yet, this is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and to observable life as we see it today. Even proponents of the Big Bang Theory understand that there are unexplained discrepancies. Thus, they came up with the Big Bounce Theory. See this article: Yet, as this article proves, it’s still a theory as it has too many aspects that are not verifiable.

        12. The “new” element of this theory of evolution in itself raises doubts. If the Big Bang happened, is it likely that we would have just thought this up within recent centuries? See: I realize there are new discoveries all the time. Yet, it’s interesting to me that the concept of there being a god/God is something that is found in all ethnic groups throughout all periods of ancient and present-day history. This would be consistent with what we would expect if there was/is the existence of a God. He would make Himself known at times to humanity.

        13. The forces that would have been required to produce the Big Bang contradict the idea itself. When you look at forces, you understand that forces exist because of the interaction or influences of “objects” upon one another (i.e., gravity, contact force, friction, electrical forces, magnetism, energy (light, heat, kinetic, atomic, chemical, and potential energy). Each of these forces are dependent upon the existence of the essential elements of life: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Yet, we still cannot explain from where those elements originated. An explosion doesn’t just occur without there being a type of force or source of energy to initiate it. What created an explosion or reaction strong enough to create a massive “beginning?”

        14. How did life compress to a singular point? Would it not have taken an outside force to exert that much pressure in order to compress all of life into one singular point? This model then speaks of complexity (more complex forms) being reduced to simpler forms to create the singular point. This still does not explain from where those complex life forms originated. See this article:

        This also necessitates the question, “Does life exist or can it reproduce within a vacuum?” It is almost impossible to recreate this concept, as we cannot completely eliminate all forms of life, force, and energy in order to create this concept in the first place, which, in itself, proves the impossibility of it. Here are a few articles to read in regards to this: and

        We see a model of complexity within “simplicity” in the DNA code. Within the code, we have the necessary information for the construction of a complex form. See: and The DNA code may contain the information, but it does not contain all of the necessary elements to “create” the actual form.

        For life to exist, you have to take all of the many elements of life, and they have to come together simultaneously and in perfect order for life to “happen” as we observe it today.

        We could go back and forth giving out facts, and yet come no closer to agreeing with one another. My premise is there is a God, and yours is that there isn’t one. Regardless of the conclusions, it takes an element of faith in order to form any opinion. Restated, it takes faith to believe in anything.

        To me, it takes greater “faith” to believe that we all evolved by mere chance and that the strange concepts of dark matter and dark energy explain away all the incongruities within the concept of a Big Bang Theory.

        I can be an expert in my scientific field (a geologist, for example) and yet not be able to fully comprehend all of the concepts that a physicist might be able to prove. In other words, I can be an expert in one area but not in all areas – no human is. So, all humans base their assumptions on the findings of others, which we hope can be “proven” through other reliable means such as formula\equations. This is, in essence, a form of “faith.”

        I was explaining this very concept to my son today as we were discussing the definition for gravity and then discussing weight and how it is measured. We were discussing that Newtons (our unit of weight) = m/s2. We were then discussing position, speed, velocity, and acceleration and how they figure into the equation. The point of this is that I can teach these concepts to my son because of the reliability of the metric system. The fact that it is a consistent pattern makes it reliable. My point to this is, is it logical to assume that the complexity we see within life is just a result of chance, of an explosion, and of random mutation?

        Computers are incredibly complex, but they are in no way as complex as the human brain. Yet, we would never say a computer just evolved. (Of course, I understand we have observable proof that computers are the result of human ingenuity and intelligence. )

        As a Christian, who has personally experienced the Presence of God, I would say that I have observable proof that He exists. I know this may seem difficult for you to accept because it is not something you personally have experienced or rather of which you are aware. For me though, it doesn’t matter how many new theories evolutionists try to create, nothing can diminish my own personal experience.

        To me, the Big Bang Theory is equivalent to saying that there was an explosion in a sawmill (though to be accurate, we would have to go much further back – back past protons) and somehow over millions of years, visitors discovered brand-new, beautiful dictionaries, encyclopedias, children’s books, poetry, and every other manner of written word all awaiting in perfect order for a new and improved existence.

        The Big Bang Theory also takes faith because none of us who exist today were there to see it happen. There are no ancient writings concerning it, and it is a “recent” concept within the past few centuries.

        No one existing today was there to see Creation happen. Yet, God was, and He left a record throughout ancient history, confirming His Word. So many archeological discoveries validate the authenticity of the Word of God. (Could give you more details about this. E.G.: discovery of Hittites, Biblical King Hezekiah recorded in Code of Hammurabi, Dead Sea Chariots, etc…) References:,,,,

        I would say, “You cannot observe a world/universe where God does not exist to be able to show the contrast.” Why? Because a universe cannot exist without God.

        Taking this discussion back to an entirely different angle is the concept of morality.

        The evolutionary code of ethics is really a very selfish determinate for life. The motivation would be, “Whatever benefits me/self-preservation is ‘right’.”

        In fact, I think the “Hunger Games” is a realistic portrayal of what life would be like if evolution was our only source of “morality.” We would make alliances and keep them based to the extent with which they benefited ourselves. Selfishness would be the true “heart” or motivation of our ethics. We see this, in fact, within our culture that does not live by any higher “law” then themselves. If something is inconvenient, we abort it, we divorce/end it, etc… That is the “natural” law of man, if a “higher” law does not exist.

        You mentioned morality, but my question is, “From where do we get this moral code?” Is it really just a matter of evolved feelings? I look at our culture today, and I actually see a regression in morality. You mentioned how we know murder is wrong. Yet, more and more parents are choosing abortion to kill babies with defects. We could call it “mercy” killing. I though disagree. Who are we to judge someone else’s worth? Our humanistic reasoning would be based on someone’s usefulness or appeal, which ultimately is extremely self-centered. Yet, as a Christian, I believe that God sees worth very differently. I believe that we have worth because of our origination. Knowing this changes everything. It means that I love and serve even the most unlovable.

        The Christian “law of love” is superior to the evolutionary code of ethics and a more compassionate-basis of morality. Let me explain. The evolutionary code of ethics is all about the preservation and improvement of life. Therefore, everything is judged according to how it falls under these two categories. The worth of something/someone is based upon these two categories as well. In other words, if someone or something cannot contribute to the “betterment” of society in some way, then its usefulness or worth is considered less. Therefore, it would be easy to justify killing people with handicaps, the infirmed, the unborn, the aged, certain ethnic groups, certain levels of intelligence, personality… No surprise that this progression leads to followers of evolution producing people like Hitler, who believed in a superior race. See: See: See: There is an undeniable link from evolution to Nietzsche to Hitler, as this article explains:

        The Christian “law of love” is far superior. In fact, the greatest example is that of Jesus, who didn’t just die for good people but for sinners. The only “fault” He had was that He claimed to be the Son of God, and that is why He was crucified. Chapters could be written on all the proofs of His position as the Son of God. One simple proof is that of His disciples. They were terrified right up until the crucifixion and for the next two days, and then they completely changed after they witnessed the risen Jesus.

        As I discussed this with my son, if these disciples were lying about Jesus’ resurrection, they would only do that so long as it was perceived as beneficial to themselves. In other words, you lie for personal benefit or perceived personal benefit. In the historical period in which the disciples lived, it was the complete opposite for them. They knew that to claim Christ as their leader and to proclaim His resurrection would be considered ludicrous and would incur immediate personal risk. Yet, they not only persisted, they all were willing to die for their beliefs. This was not self-inflicted harm (as we see with some religions), but it was unflinching persistence in the face of overwhelming opposition. They were that convinced.

        Throughout the human records of life, there has always been a belief in some type of god. If you examine most religions, you will discover there is a very different “theme” between that of Christianity and that of other religions. Most gods are very similar to what a human might imagine in his mind would fit a “god.” Therefore, the gods are selfish and unforgiving, and allegiance to them is fear-based and work-based. This reflects what you would expect humans to originate: a concept of selfishness at its core that judges a person’s worth by its performance, productivity, or contributions to society. None of these gods are “loving;” they are merely a more powerful version of a self-centered human.

        Christianity teaches of a God who loves, forgives, and even dies for sinners. It introduces terms such as redemption, sanctification, and justification.

        The concept of forgiveness comes from Christianity. In our human hearts, let’s be honest that forgiveness is one of the hardest things to do often. In fact, we often justify bitterness because we think it is a way of punishing the offender. Yet, forgiveness is one of the most amazing concepts taught and exemplified within Christianity. It is its very foundation.

        Within a more compassionate form of “morality,” you might find people who would be willing to die for someone else. This is definitely superior to the evolutionary code of ethics, I might add. Let’s just suppose that human morality just “naturally advanced” to that degree… Where in humanity do we ever find someone good and even further yet, perfect, willing to die for one of the most debased human characters? The evolutionary code of ethics would certainly not support that concept. You would never have someone of more pleasant or beneficial character die in order for someone of less pleasant and beneficial character to survive. Under the more superior moral code of compassion, neither would this be something that humans would ever desire. We could understand someone sacrificing their life so that someone else considered good or of similar worth might live, but never that someone of goodness would die for someone of wickedness. Yet, that is what the Christian “law of love” exemplifies.

        The human concept of “love” parallels more of the Greek word Eros, which is sexual in nature (in other words more about pleasure, self-pleasing than sacrificial in nature). A more “advanced” human definition of love might be that of the Greek word Philea, from where we derive the concept of mutual affection that exists within families. This concept should include a degree of sacrifice; yet, there is also mutual benefit. The Greek word Agape is where we get the unprecedented concept of complete sacrificial and unconditional love. In fact, this word was not noted until the writings of the early Church. See:

        A good prototype between life examples of humanistic philosophy (evolutionary code of ethics) and that of faith-based philosophy influencing the function of life is between that of the Jamestown colony and the Plymouth colony. Most of the settlers who came to Jamestown were materialistically-motivated. Those who first settled in Plymouth came for the sole purpose of religious freedom. (They wanted to worship their God, as they felt led.) I realize there are many factors to consider when looking at the potential for survival for both colonies. Yet, there are some fundamental differences in belief that influenced their character, which did affect their survival.

        The Jamestown settlers were motivated by materialism and were unwilling to cooperate together or work in order to eventually receive the benefits. They wanted instant gratification (sounds familiar to our “godless” culture). They were unkind to the Native Americans and only wanted to subdue them. I realize that the tribes of Native Americans were different in capacity and character from those surrounding Plymouth; yet, the Jamestown settlers’ interactions themselves were to blame for a lot of what eventually transpired.

        The Plymouth settlers had their own challenges, but they were motivated by their faith to work harmoniously together. Within the “freedom” that faith produces, they were able to agreeably organize a form of government that we call, The Mayflower Compact. See: The Pilgrims (Plymouth Settlers) were also more congenial and respectful of the surrounding Native Americans and were able to benefit from a cooperative relationship between the two groups. The Pilgrims’ faith is what made the difference — not some “evolved” form of morality.

        In an earlier dialogue, I had asked you, “What is the purpose of life if there is no God?” You said that you would have to think about that more, but that you “live” for the accruement of knowledge (my own paraphrase). Accruing knowledge could be “satisfying” to a point if it elevates self; that is the “heart” of “self.” It could even be less self-motivated and be motivated to benefit others. This would, for certain, be more beneficial. Yet, if the knowledge gained is not “truthful” then how beneficial is it really? We can arrive at many different conclusions, but if they are not accurate, then what have we gained?

        We may observe that our society today is more sophisticated in many ways then earlier times. Yet, I would contend that a more sophisticated culture does not necessitate happiness or satisfaction.

        If the end result is merely a more pleasant existence (less turmoil and hardship in life), it still does not equate happiness. This is why the rich are often not happier than the poor. In fact, it often seems to be the opposite. This is why one of the richest and wisest men said the following quote:

        I conclude with this, the existence of a God explains all the complexities and order of the universe, it explains the sustaining of such a fragile balance of life, it explains a superior “law of love” that no human mind would every conceive of its own volition, and it gives worth and purpose to you and I as human beings.

        So, my friend, I encourage you to not just seek to gain knowledge but to know the truth/wisdom; for as Scriptures say, “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.” (I Cor. 1:8b)
        John 3:17New King James Version (NKJV)
        17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
        You, my friend, have Someone who has determined to love you unconditionally, completely, and perfectly.
        May I be so bold as to say that God is indeed pursuing you. The question is, “Will you be found?”

  2. Hi,

    Yes, the truthful information is the problem we are dealing with right now. Plus you simply need to have some knowledge because without it you wont understand the world around you and you wont be able to gain wisdom.

    You say that inteligence was not some random process. Well it was not because it was beneficial to be smart from evolutionary point of view.

    You quote DMS. Watson and that he is saying that evolution can not be proven logically, that at first is not true and in second, special creation really is incredible.. but that does not mean at all that it should be true, also I do not think that it is only alternative.

    If I understand correctly what Richard Lewontin is saying, is that science is full of materialism and that is the reason why God is not allowed there.
    Well but knowledge does not seem to me as a concept of materialism, and knowledge is the purpose of science, plus the reason why there is no God in science is that there is no prove for Him, it is just so simple.

    You quote C.S.Lewis also. So were are a product of accident and that means that we are actually accident, yeah ok I do not have a problem with that. The thing is that physical laws would be here even without us so no, astronomy is not an accident. Science as whole would be here even without us and we are trying to observe it, observe how the Universe works.

    The problem is that while science is rational, creationism is not. It is so simple as that even that it may be hard to take. Well I do not know what is written in Bible, maybe there is some partiall talk about spherical earth, solar system and so on, while I can not see how there could be anything about DNA, could you please specify this?

    1) Well maybe someone found “neanderthal” and then showed that it is just a person suffering from illness, ok then. But what about the other findings? There was not just a single skeleton and to all of them suffered from illness. I do not really understand the quote from Stephen Jay Gould, but there are proofs for all the human stages between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens.

    2)Well I searched some stuff on biogenesis.. and we were not able to make life for dead matter. I agree witht that but does it mean that it is not possible? No at all! This is the argument with lack of imagination. There are already many theories but none of them was shown to be the right one yet, that is just it. If something is not known it does not need to mean that there is God who made it.

    3)1)Well there is no argument actually, and intelligent design is far away from science because of argument of: lack of imagination and argument by ignorance.
    3)2)”This theory has heldep nothing in the progress of science.” What? Except that it is science and there is whole evolutionary biology. There is factual support for evolution. “Over 400 scientists are convinced by new scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is deficient.” Again, is this even statistics? How was is counted?
    3)3)As I said, there is not a perfect theory for biogenesis but that does not proof God or inteligent design.
    3)4)Well of course that if you just took something then it wont make something totally else. That is why scientists think that there are things that made this process possible and easier.

    4)No they do not revolve faster because of dark matter.
    5)I did not read it whole but it seems to me that he is not saying anything at all against evolution in abstract and conclusion. He saids that it was probably were slow or so.
    And well everything would be flat if there would be no plate tectonics, btw. What do you say on plate tectonics anyway?
    I did not read it whole but here it is said.
    7)”Helium runs away in geological timescales.”
    8)Does radius of 5.5 light years of Crab nebula seems to you like it is small? Well anyway when such a supernova explodes than it will over time fade (55,000 years). Plus actually supernovas go against young Earth, so I do not see the point of you showing this up. Supernova is a final stage of star, and stars do not explode in thousands of years, at least millions.
    Anyway some of those supernovas are far away so we actually see them younger. The closest is 7000 light years away.
    9)Again, intelligent design is just a “lack of imagination”. Yes things seem to be perfectly set to sustain life right here but we do not know what would happen if some things were different + since some constants are connected together out Universe is not so rare as it was thought.
    10)Yes mathematical formulas do not happen through random mutations. Math is just something humans created, it is a tool for real science and of course we see paterns and order but that is just because of the way it is designed, multiplication, adding, dividing, it is all set up by us to work in order, because there is order in math as we created it.
    11)This is not an argument. It is at least not contraty to second law of thermodynamics, I do not actually see way in which it would be, could you specify it? And yes, there are many unknowns and yes it is theory, that is the way science works. And “not verifiable”? It would be accurate to say “we are not yet able to verifie it.”
    12)God is there all the time because He provides the easiest solution and that is the thing that humanity wanted for most of its history.

    You say that it takes greater faith to believe in dark matter and so on, the problem is that you do not need to believe in it like in God. It is just there, whether you believe it or not. Science is not about believing.

    Yes nobody can be expert in everything but you do not need to be expert to find and understand evidence for old Universe.

    Well complexity just tended to increase as it was needed throughout the evolution.

    The power of science is that it does not matter that you do not believe in it because actually you will always see its effects, there is nothing like blindness towards science.

    Does it seems to you like a bad point of view when you want to survive and have children? Yes this is the way evolution works.

    Yes I would guess that abortion is special case of killing, and why not do mercy killing? Imagine how many people may then have hard life because somebody is not able to take care of himself and what is far more important is that they may even not be able to perceive the beauty of world but rather living through life not perceiving what is around them, is there actually any worth in such an existence? Please, I am not saying that we should start killing kids with defects, it is the decision of parents. What is the worth of existence when someone can not feel love and can not give love?

    Well maybe they have lower impact on society but because we are so good at keeping people alive and so good at planting food we can afford to let more people life and let them enjoy their lifes even that they do not contribute so much to humanity, nobody asks them for this, they can life like this if they want there is nothing bad on it so there is huge difference between us and Hitler.

    Take a tribe with strong man who leads them all. Then he has kid and the kid has some handicaps. But the tribe is strong enough so they can carry him anyway. Now what happens is that the leader sacrifices his life for the life of his kid. This is the way of religion. But what can happen then? The kid wont help the tribe because of his handicap and maybe they will even have to get rid of him because of lack of food and so on. Maybe so people will die because they wont have the help of their great leader, was it actually right to make the sacrifice for the kid then? Was not better to behave in the cold “evolutionary way”?

    I do not say that sacrifice needs to be bad move but it CAN be irrational and make much more problems.

    I agree that forgiveness is something amazing, even more in modern world where it does not need to cost your life.

    You write that existence of God explains everything, and yes it does. But also it does last thurdaism and flying spaghetti monster, are they good theories?

    You encourage me to find the truth, that is what I am doing right now, and I use facts to do it.
    Well the problem is that He does not show me His love in the way I would imagine, in way of science, that I could feel it without believing it.

    You were the only one to point arguments, now let me show some arguments for old Earth:
    Continental drift
    Carbon dating
    Distant starlight
    Impact craters
    All the ice ages in past
    Deep permafrost in Alaska so thick to show that it is thousands of years old.
    Petrified wood
    Radioactive decay

    And so on.. I belive that you must have something against those too, otherwise I have new evidence for where the “truth” lies and where I should seek the wisdom as you say.


    1. Two quick responses to the above: it is interesting to me that if we cannot “prove” in the physical world a spiritual belief, then we are called irrational. Yet, if your beliefs are unsupported, you blame them on our “lack of imagination.”

      Second thing I wanted to mention was that perhaps the reason why you have not recognized or experienced love is because you are trying to understand it from a scientific basis. Love is not a scientific equation. It cannot be understood in terms of science nor is it bound to it.

      You contrast believing black matter to believing in God. You say black matter is just there — whether you believe in it or not. I would say the exact same thing. Black matter is not something we can physically observe — just what we want to call its effects. Yet, I use that exact same premise to say that God cannot physically be observed (except when Jesus came to earth); yet, His effects can be observed.

      I could give you many reasons concerning how our dating methods are contradictory, proven by how the newly formed volcanic rocks from the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens were “dated” as being millions of years old.

      I am going to end this discussion, but I pray that you will find the truth.

      1. It is called the “argument by lack of imagination” it means that when something seems unbelievable to you than you will say that it is not true, which is irrational.

        Well love is scientific equation since we are made up of atoms and they behave under scientific equations, this equations is just very very complicated. Plus you can understand love in science, for example there are various hormones in our body when we feel love.

        Yes you can use the same thing on God but try to conduct experiment on the existence of God.

        Well I wonder what are those reasons while I will probably never know 😀 .. the thing is that scientific methods for radioactive decay and various dating are used all the time, and yet they were not proven wrong. That is my response.

      2. Dear Dragallur,

        I thought of this verse this morning: John 4:24King James Version (KJV)

        24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

        God is not a physical Being but a spiritual Being.

        We are not just mere physical beings, but we are composed of three parts: spirit, soul, and body. The soul comprises the mind, will, and emotions. God created us with the design that our spirits were to be in unity with His Spirit, our souls under that direction, and our bodies in alignment to the above. The humanist actually tries to operate the opposite way. He tries to live by the direction of his physical body. A more “spiritual” but still humanistic man will try to live by the directions of his soul. Thus, life is judged by the whatever his mind can reason, wherever his emotions lead him, and according to the dictates of his will. This is what leads us to “bias.” We all have a degree of “bias.” None of us can perceive any part of the physical world without it first coming through the perceptions of our worldview/our “bias.” For the “spiritually-minded” man or even better yet, Christian, his/her spiritual mind has been awakened by God’s spirit and the reception of the truth. This “awakening,” in turn, allows for all the information to be seen through a broader spectrum: the spiritual “eyes” and “hearing.” This is why in Scripture, God often speaks of a different type of sight and hearing. It is more than the physical. This is why God can only be fully understood first in the spiritual sense which opens your eyes to His Presence in the physical as well. Yes, He can be seen in the physical, but just as my first comment was made to you, a “blind” person cannot see that which can’t be measured in a physical sense. A blind person cannot understand color, just as a spiritually “blind” person cannot understand the mysteries of God. Color exists, but it is impossible for a person born blind to truly understand this.

        We are all born “blind” spiritually so it is impossible for the “natural” man to understand the things of God. It takes the Spirit of God to open our spiritual eyes, and it takes a willingness on our parts to surrender to Him.

        I know you said love can be understood in science, but only hormones can be measured. I can almost guarantee to you that the only love it can measure is the Greek form Eros and at most the Greek form Philea. It cannot differentiate the different types of love and certainly not the Greek Agape love. It cannot measure every character quality; yet, we know those qualities exist. Most, I might add are introduced in the Christian worldview (the Christian “Law of Love”).

        This may seem off-subject, but I wanted to include this link. The message in this is profound:

        I continue to pray that you would be able to look beyond the physical world and allow the Spirit of God to work in your heart.

        I leave you with these verses from God’s Word:

        Genesis 1:2King James Version (KJV)

        2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

        Genesis 41:38King James Version (KJV)

        38 And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?

        John 3:6King James Version (KJV)

        6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

        John 3:5King James Version (KJV)

        5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
        (Water here speaks of God’s cleansing — the redemption we have in Jesus Christ.)

        John 3:8King James Version (KJV)

        8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

        John 4:23King James Version (KJV)

        23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

        John 6:63King James Version (KJV)

        63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

        John 14:17King James Version (KJV)

        17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

        Romans 8:4King James Version (KJV)

        4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

        Romans 8:5King James Version (KJV)

        5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

        Romans 8:16King James Version (KJV)

        16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

        1 Corinthians 2:10King James Version (KJV)

        10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

        Corinthians 2:11King James Version (KJV)

        11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

        1 Corinthians 2:12King James Version (KJV)

        12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

        1 Corinthians 2:14King James Version (KJV)

        14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

        The biggest obstacles to knowing the truth are our pride and fear. They are actually completely related to each other. We are afraid to let go of control of our own lives so we cling to our pride, which manifests itself in self-preservation, self-justification, and self-rationalization. The truth is, we have elevated ourselves to our own gods. Therein lies our weakness. I wrote this blog post on the connection between fear and pride:

    2. Dragallur,

      If you believe the Biblical account, as I do, you would see how a Great Flood, answers all the discrepancies in “dating” and explains why there is much evidence of a catastrophic flood of great magnitude (fossils found on tops of mountains), large quantities of fossilized creatures including species together from different dating periods, the ice ages, messes with the ability of carbon dating’s accuracy (and it’s been proven inaccurate many times as I mentioned with recent volcanoes), the Grand Canyon, radioactive decay, etc… Just like the science community has come up with “dark energy” and “dark matter” which cannot really be proved, except by it supposedly explains away the problems with the Big Bang Theory so the Flood does indeed answer these other questions.

      The Bible also mentions the Continental Drift and speaks of a time when the earth was broken apart. Here is where the God element changes everything again. God can do anything and is not limited to a time. The scientific world is trying to use these methods to prove God doesn’t exist, but they are ignoring the fact that God could and does exist, and He interferes with all their equations (skews them). We see this happen all the time in other ways within this world. Take weather reports — how often their predictions get skewed and aren’t totally reliable. There are too many variables that can affect their “readings.” Sure, there is some accuracy because God created the scientific world in order to operate according to His will.

      The thing is that if there is a God, then He controls the physical realm to serve His purposes. Thus, there are many variables that can “throw off” or skew scientific evidence. We know this is the case in many other realms, which is why we try to take account for unknown variables. If God is the unknown variable, how do we take account for Him and His influence on the physical realm? The problem is the scientific world cannot account for God. We cannot predict Him fully and thus give scientific formulas to explain how those off-set our other findings. Make sense?

      You mentioned Supernovas. Well, there is an age-old question, “What came first? The chicken or the egg?” According to the Bible, He created everything in a mature state, which explains why dating methods would be skewed. In other words, how can you measure something when it already came at a mature age, and what “age” would that have been? Complicates things, right? Evolutionists assume that they can date a “Young Earth” and disprove it because some things appear much older. Well, that makes sense if God created everything with a mature beginning, rather than at the first stage of development. This would also explain why we see evidence for a “Young Earth” and some things that are more mature in dating.

      There is evidence for a Young Earth (remember how shocked NASA was when there was much less dust on the moon then they thought there would be?)

      Let me include this quote:
      The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

      “Locked” articles (indicated by the red padlock icons below) can be opened by magazine subscribers. Simply enter secret code from page four of your copy of this issue!

      #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

      For Additional Information:
      •The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
      •The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
      •“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)

      #2 Bent Rock Layers

      For Additional Information:
      •Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
      •“Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
      •“Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)

      #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

      For Additional Information:
      •Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
      •More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils

      #4 Faint Sun Paradox

      For Additional Information:
      •The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System

      #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

      For Additional Information:
      •The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
      •The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
      •“The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)

      #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

      For Additional Information:
      •Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
      •Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
      •The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
      •“Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)

      #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

      For Additional Information:
      •Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
      •Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
      •Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
      •“The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
      •“Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)

      #8 Short-Lived Comets

      For Additional Information:
      •Comets and the Age of the Solar System
      •Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
      •More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’

      #9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

      For Additional Information:
      •The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
      “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)

      #10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

      For Additional Information:
      •Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt

      On a side note, the Bible predicts that in the “End Times,” the sun will stop shining. This is when we know that He will bring to pass all things predicted in the last book of the Bible, Revelation. He gives other historic, economic, and social signs as well for those times.

      The problem with all of this is you have to know two parts of the equation in order to find the missing part. In evolution, they are trying to take two missing parts and trying to come up with all kinds of reasons and numbers to fit the one missing part in order to complete the equation.

      In the Biblical account, we have our two parts and can then work to complete the equation. The problem is if the first part of your equation is off, it messes with all the other equations.

  3. I just wanted to add that I do not want this conversation to give any bad feelings. It does not matter if it wont end in any benefit, I will anyway think of Christians and religion the similar: That religion and Christianity and the concept of God is extremely interesting, and I wont ever think anything bad about Christian people because that would be just a prejudice and not getting the whole point.

    1. Dear Dragallur,

      I just updated my last comment. 🙂 More thoughts that came to me at 2:30 a.m. 🙂

      Yes, and may I say that I have enjoyed our discussion as well because it is obvious you are a person of intelligence but also of respect. I hope you have in no way felt disrespected by me. That has never been my goal, but only to try to communicate that belief in God has an intelligent basis.

      I believe, that you have contacted me for a reason. To you, this may seem like random chance, but to me, I see the “hand” of God in leading you to this discussion. My prayer is that you might become aware of His pursuit of you.

      You were created for a purpose, and the purpose is good and far exceeds your wildest human imaginings!

      I wish I could introduce you to many Christians who live out their faith in life and who have amazing testimonies of how God has radically changed their lives. I personally have been so changed by God, but the thing that has changed me the most is His love. When I finally experienced it for myself, it was the most powerful “force” I can ever describe. It changes everything!

      I really pray that you find the “truth” and that you will experience His love.

      My thanks to you for challenging me to learn from the greatest Professor ever — the Omnipotent and Omniscient One!

      Wishing you the best…

      Feel free to read more of my blogs.

      1. You know what I like about a part of the Christian community? The people are nice, I do not know you but the comment is nice, I like that and it does not matter if we will or will not “believe” the same thing. I like how religions unite people as far as it is in the peace 🙂 . This thing I like about the pope. There are so many people happy by seeing him and it does not matter if he is right or not.

        The thing I could find in your comment is that: Were you changed by the God or by your believe in Him? While anyway there may be good something totally different then we imagine, but the truth is that I am not willing to accept young Earth or the Bible, because they do not seem to be right for me, at least for now, before I find the evidence.

      2. Hi again!
        The fact that we are composed of three things, mind, will and emotions is not a fact at all. I could add anything there and it would have just the same weight, there is no prove to such a thing.

        Again how do you know that God created us and we are not just a product of evolution?

        Well you talk about bias and I agrese on the first part but how do you know that you are not biased all the time even when believing in God?

        How does this broader spektrum looks like? Certainly not that you will start to believe in young Earth.

        This thing with blindness towards God, well I do not really like that because it sounds to me like it is completely made up. You do not have actually any observations to prove that you are not actually fooling yourself and making up the God in your mind. It is only you and certain group of people. We can be much surer that science is right because again, it does not matter if you believe in it or not. Right now it is just a word against word and I have no reason so far to trust the other side when they can not come up with data or rational proof but rather analogy to blindness.

        You say something about types of love, I do not know anything about that but since there is nothing in the science that is “outside of human body” I will say that all qualities can be measured and written in scientific formula. From what science knows for now, you could theoreticly describe whole Universe in equation and there was no proof yet that it should not work like this so it is irrational to say those things you mentioned about love.

        Again, even if I would start to pray in God and truly believe Him.. how would I ever now that I am not just fooling myself with this belief?

        In the end you talk about pride and fear, this I could turn against you and it would have the same effect.


      3. You are absolutely correct! I do have a “bias” towards God, and it is because I have experienced Him. I know you can only take my word for it. We can all tell you how He has changed our lives, but you would still want to measure that scientifically, and that could be to an extent (improved behavior, happiness, peace, truthfulness — think lie detector, etc…). Everyone has a “bias,” and that “bias” interferes with our abilities to make honest judgments. That is why there is a higher standard, which I believe is the Bible. The Bible is the “measurement” by which we judge things according to the truthful perspective.

        Yes, pride and fear was my original motivation for believing in God. That all changed when I experienced God’s Presence in my life and His love. It completely changed the way I approached my faith, my interactions with others, and who I am as a person. In fact, I would say most religions are based upon a foundation of fear and pride. Actually everything — every person functions from those two basic motivations without the influence of God.

        As I said before, the scientific world assumes there is no God so they can’t account for His input in the Universe, and thus, all their equations can be “skewed” due to this very important missing element to the equation. In other words, we have neglected the “God” force to the equation.

      4. And this is why the Bible says that only the spiritual man can receive the things of God. If God is the missing element, you are absolutely right! It takes faith, as you call “blind” faith, to believe in this God whom you can’t measure. Yet, I say He is definitely just as “measurable” as the theories of dark energy and dark matter and even more so, I believe. He is just as believable (more so, I believe) than some explosion that occurred that somehow produced these highly complex life forms that resulted in the world we have today. Yet, we can’t even reproduce this theory even on a small scale in real life. The best we can do is see crystals grow as a result of a volcano, but that forgets the missing element of outside forces and elements that contributed to this.

        To me, that is “irrational” and leaving out the possibility of a God is a “Lack Of Imagination.” 🙂

        Again, we could go back and forth on this, but it all comes down to how we relate to this world. I relate to it from a spiritual view which in turn helps me to interact with the soul-led, and then physical world through its “lens.” You are trying to look at the spiritual, “soul” aspect, and then physical world from a physical perspective. The problem is the physical world is very limited in its ability to understand the soul and completely hindered in its ability to perceive the spiritual dimension, unless God chooses to speak to you audibly (which He has with many people).

        There are a few key elements to actually “hearing” God speak, you have to believe that He will, you have to be willing to wait for Him to speak, and you have to be willing to receive what He tells you. God has spoken to people who didn’t want to hear Him, but not as often. Even then, it didn’t change their lives positively, unless they were willing to then “receive” His Word.

        Again, must end this. I have many other responsibilities… 🙂

        I will continue to pray for you — that your spiritual eyes would be “opened.” I say this only because I want you to “experience” God as I have. He changes everything!

      5. Hi,
        what I see all the time in all those arguments is that those are just so freaking unscientific it hurts. When you search just a little bit you will soon find the answers that were found in past tens of years.

        Fossils found on top of mountains: no this is just a prove that mountains are rising from bottom to top and then back eroding.

        Carbon dating: right it is not so accurate for longer times BECAUSE we do not have so many older standards.

        Grand Canyon? Nope, do you think that one flood would make one kilometer deep and thirty kilometers on height canyon? Water runs on surface, it does not cut such a things in month are what ever was the length of the flood.

        As I said: dark matter is proved, it is just so simple.
        Where did this water came from and where did it dissapeared (in flood)?

        You talk about continental drift in very bad way. What if I would say that the reason for Mount Everest to be so high is the pine standing on the surface of Mars? You can not do anything with such an argument because this pine on Mars is invisible. This is the same thing, here science lays a problem. This problem is hard to solve. What creationists do? Well they say that God did it because he can do anything in no time. Ok, problem solved we can move on. This is just so absurd!

        Yes there are many things that can change the weather (heard of butterfly effect?), it is just so simple we are not able to predict on long terms. This is also selective bias. You look only for the information when it is falls but do you actually have statistics on how often weather predictions are right on next two days?

        Well trust me, science will take account for God at the moment when he is found to BE, I have no problem with that.

        Again I can say that the world was created last Thursday. Now prove me wrong, you can not, that is the problem with God, what you just did was explain some problem with the easiest solution, the God but it could also be the pine standing on Mars. Yes you have explained everything when you say that God made it in mature state, this is because it can not be falsificated, and when something can not be falsificated it does not mean that it is true. Pine can not be falsificated, does it mean that it is there?

        Well maybe NASA was shocked, ok so what does this mean? Well they maybe did not accounted for something.. it was 40 years back.

        1)Because there are just 20 centimeters of material on your garden does it show how old is the Earth?
        2)Just please look somewhere before posting argument:
        3)I already wrote you about this one yesterday
        4) Explanations of this paradox have taken into account greenhouse effects, astrophysical influences, or a combination of the two. – wikipedia
        6)As Phil Plait says: what can be found in one rock does not need to be found in other rocks, actually what this argument is trying to show you is that all rocks have been found this way.
        7)False again:
        8)Single one of astronomy arguments are simply wrong, new comets can be created.
        9)Salt no:

        Are they really trying to put two missing part to get one? Can you give some example?

        I am not acknowledged of any “equation” in any sense in Biblical account.

        Well about bias, still you could be just fooling yourself, it does not explain anything.
        Missing part of equation? Nope, this part of equation was not proven and yet, everything works without it.

        There was not proven any element outside the forces and elements so you do not actually need to take account of it.

        There is no prove of soul so why should it exist? On the account of pine or the God?


      6. I end with this because I have no desire to just debate to debate… just to “prove” something…

        The factor missing from the equation is the God-force upon life and all of its events. It would be like leaving out velocity in the equation with respect to time. See: Think of all those Kinematic equations. None of them are accurate if you leave out the influence of a force and its measurable effect within an equation.

        I rest my case that life is the best proof that there is a God. There has to be an origination to life, and it is not an empty vacuum with nothing within it, which is the only way we could logically explain how “Nothing” produced something. Without the Life-Creating God, the accurate “beginning” to this world would be “Nothing resulted into nothing” — not “Nothing resulted into everything.”

  4. Pingback: Creationism vs Science: The separation | Science and rationality

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s