CXIII. The Atheist Dilemma

Is God real?  This is the question that actually makes or breaks all life.  If God is real then we need to find out what He wants.  If God is real then we need to understand what our future holds.  If God is real then we need to try and do what we can to follow Him.  If God is real we have all the answers to life that we need.  If God is real then we have purpose.  If God is real we have a relationship.  And there can be more that is added to the list but, if God is not real then to be honest nothing matters.  If all we have is this life and no consciousness after we die then why even live this life?  But because there is a God, all things matter.  This causes a dilemma for the atheist.  Most atheists believe in nature as the ruling essence of existence (although they will not acknowledge that specifically) with science as their religion (although they will argue they have no religion) and evolution as their savior. But the same three things that are the basis of their beliefs are also the same three things that are their biggest obstacles.

They cannot answer three questions, realistically.  Yes, they can rationalize their thoughts and use human logic to disregard religion and belief in God, but it always falls short and they don't even know it.  Here are the three questions:

1. What lies on the other side of the universe?  Or Where does the universe end?
2. What is the hardest thing to believe in about God?
3. Where did all life begin?

What the atheist will do with these questions is they will take the first one and say it is a misleading question.  They will claim that you are limiting them in their choices, or they will say "the question implies there is something beyond the natural world, so it is invalid", or they will give you some pet answer that atheists are now using about multiple universes.  That will be discussed later.  For the second question, they will give you reasons about what they dislike about God or what they dislike about what the Bible says. That is not answering the question being asked.  Sometimes they will say you can't prove a negative so they will not answer.  And of course some may say the pet atheist answer of "who created God if He created everything" and think they have a valid point.  This will be discussed later.  Then the third question they will usually hijack.  This one they will either answer with, "I don't know and neither do you", or they will say "I don't know...but it doesn't take a Creator to have life".  Or they will go the whole evolutionary route starting with conditions of the universe and amino acids, and RNA, and energy sources.  Again this will be discussed later.

WMAP

Raisin Bread Analogy

So what is the answer to the first question?  There are only a two choices in reality.  Either the universe is infinite or the universe is finite.  There is a problem for the atheist here.  If the universe is infinite then it goes against the science they believe in.  NASA says it is not infinite.  Steven Hawking says it has a beginning.  The latest scientific model explains that the universe is conical. Cone Expansion Earlier models say it was like a loaf of bread, expanding where it can pushing the oldest stars and clusters of the universe out to the brim. Raisin Bread Theory  But both of these go against infinity as a choice. Even worse, if the universe is infinite then it actually explains one of the issues atheists have with God.  How can God be infinite?  Who created Him?  How can atheists believe what they do if something natural can be infinite and not believe something that is more powerful than nature not be infinite?  The second answer by atheists to this question says that the universe came from another universe and those came from other universes, called Multiple/Parallel Universes.  But the issue doesn't change.  One of them has to be the original.  One of them has to be the first and therefore it all had a beginning and is still not infinite.  So the second option is the only option.  The universe has to be finite.  So, what lies on the outer side of the universe?  What is on the outside of the cone or raisin bread?  Their answer:  absolutely nothing.  Well, that is exactly what the Bible says. Thought XLV.  Strike one.

So, what about the second question?  There are infinite (see what just happened) answers here.  But what usually comes up are things like: if God is real then why do bad things happen?  Or, if God is real then why does the Bible say this or that?  Well, the problem is, even though these questions may have actual answers, it is not answer to the question being asked.  The question is, what is hard about believing God exists, not what issues you have with God.  Here is this dilemma for the atheist. Atheists can not use the argument of if God is real then why do bad things happen because how can you blame God for things if He is not real?  Nature to an atheist is the all-powerful force driving life. If God is not real, there would still be death, caused by nature (the essence of all living to the atheist). yet they still believe in nature.  So if nature causes death then by the same argument they gave about God, they should not be believing in nature.  This is not to presume that death is good because "God did it" or say that death is OK.  That is an issue even Christians have a hard time with and even people like Job had issues with this topic.  No one knows why God does things at times.  But that is not the question.  God is still an option of existence no matter what or how you feel about God.  If you believe that way then you are an atheist but a better term for you would be anti-Theist, Atheism. You just hate God, but turn it into a disbelief.  The second answer they say for this question is you cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on the believer.  But if that is the case then why do so many atheists go to the internet, forums, and discussion boards just to say, "there is no God"?  Why do they burden themselves by going to these places?  In both cases, they are really acknowledging the existence of God.  The most common answer is, "if God created all things, then who created Him?". The answer to that lies in the first question.  If space, which is natural, can be infinite then so can a super-natural being.  Strike two.

Finally, the third question is one they think they have an answer to.  Where does life begin?  This is where their savior comes in--evolution.  But some of the other answers may be, "I don't know".  That is a good answer but they will feel the need to add, "and neither do you".  Their ego will not just let them say, "I don't know".  Well, we do.  Another answer would be, "a Creator isn't needed for life to begin".  But, that does not answer the question.  Even if evolution was true, it still had to have its start somewhere.  But, it is not true, Evolution.  And for the Christian, evolution is not an option since God did not use it, Theistic Evolution.  Many scientists have stated that life points to a designer.  The atheists now have come up with new theories like RNA World and the Origins of life,  RNA World but again, they only show life itself, not the actual beginning of life.  In the end they can't admit but nevertheless is true, they don't know where life begins.  But we do.  The Beginning.  Strike three.

CX. Science in the Bible.

Did you know the Bible is full of scientific facts that even predate all the fields of science?

Physics says that the whole universe is made up of four things; time, space, matter, and energy.  This is something that even Albert Einstein believed in and was even his foundation for his theory of relativity.  But he was not the first person to write about this.  Genesis 1:1-3 says:

• 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
• 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
• 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The very first thing the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So what right? When the Bible says "in the beginning" it is talking about time.  Before the creation there was no time.  He created the heavens (space), and the earth (matter).  Then later God created light.  Light is a form of energy. So the Bible has proven the ideas of Einstein, or maybe Einstein has given scientific validity to the Bible.

Geology says that the all the world's land masses were once connected called Pangaea.  If you look at any map of the world you could see how that works.  Move Africa and South America closer and closer and you can see how the pieces of the puzzle fits.  Alfred Wegener was the first person to have a complete study done on this topic.  But he was not the first person to actually write this idea down.  Genesis 1:9-10 says:

• 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
• 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Still in the same passage as the ones above Genesis explains the beginnings of the tectonic plate theory.  The whole world was one land mass.  Now, how we got to seven continents is where science and the Bible may disagree but remember which one explained it first.  History says that usually the first source is the best source.  And the Bible says the world was flooded by an underground fountain (the deep) and also rain from the atmosphere.  If the water burst through the ground that would leave voids and breaks in the plates allowing them to slide and collide.  Water is the most destructive force upon the earth, worse than wind or fire.  Water would change the landscape and God would do the rest.

Physics also says that light travels. Again, another idea of Einstein who borrowed the ideas of Ole Roemer, a Danish astronomer in 1675.  James Maxwell from Scotland then discovered that light moves as a wave. And that this movement is constant.  Light is a form of energy and moves at a constant rate.  Were these people the first to write this idea down?  No.  Job 38:19-20 says:

• 19 Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place,
• 20 That you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?

Light has a path?  Light has a home?  Yes, because if you go back to the 3rd verse of the whole Bible God created the light.  It had a beginning and has been moving ever since.  The home of light is from God.  The light spiritually speaking is Jesus.  He is the beginning.  It comes form Him.

Geography (and satellites) tells us the earth is round.  Well, duh, we can see that now.  But many people from the past, and some may have been believers, had thought the earth was flat.  But, that was mostly a theory by seafarers and not the average person.  But that's not the point.  Galileo and Copernicus were two scientists who first started to publish their ideas about this topic.  Unfortunately, there were many religious leaders who denied this claim and punished Galileo and they were wrong to do so.  If the religious leaders really knew what the Bible said Galileo may have made even more discoveries.  But was he the first to write this all down?  No.  Job 26:7-10 says:

• 7 He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.
• 8 He wraps up the waters in His clouds, and the cloud does not burst under them.
• 9 He obscures the face of the full moon and spreads His cloud over it.
• 10 He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness.

There was a circle on the surface of the waters.  This circle is referring to the rest of the earth and its atmosphere. The boundary of light and darkness shows the separation between the atmosphere of the earth and the rest of space.  But what about the earth's location compared to the rest of the universe?  Verse 7 says the earth hangs on nothing.  Sure sounds like space.  And later on in Job it even names two specific stars, Pleiades and Orion.

Chemistry says that all matter has weight and mass.  Mendeleev put together our first periodic table labeling the elements in order of mass in 1869.  He claimed all elements had an atomic weight based on protons and neutrons. Even air, or oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen if you will.  Was he the first to say that air has mass? No.  Job 28:25 says:

• 25 When He imparted weight to the wind and meted out the waters by measure

God gave weight to air and He set the gases into motion.  We all know from meteorology and Frances Galton in the 1860's that air masses move in two patterns; high pressure systems and low pressure systems. One moves clockwise, the other moves counter clockwise.  Was he the first to say this?  No.  Are you seeing a pattern here?  Ecclesiastes 1:6 says:

• 6 Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north, the wind continues swirling along; and on its circular courses the wind returns.

Oceanography says the ocean currents moves in circular patterns such as clockwise and counterclockwise. called sea currents.  Well guess what?  Psalms 8:8 says:

• 8 The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

The seas have paths.  Matthew Maury in 1825 discovered this.  But not before the Bible mentions it.

There is even more that can be added, such as the Bible stating there are physical laws of the universe, explains the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that we are in a 3 dimensional existence, there are seasonal changes, and last but not least even explains the big bang.  Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But where and from what?  The answers are from somewhere in His power and from nothing.  All of a sudden there was light, time, matter, space, motion, energy, laws, everything we know...from nothing, hence a big bang.

And get this, most of this is found in the Old Testament in either Genesis or Job, the two oldest books written. Almost 3500 years before Newton wrote his laws. Before any field of science was developed. Before we knew anything about the stars and gravitational pulls God had already written down or explained these things to us.  All we need to use is trust the Bible is real because if it isn't then neither is science.  So the answer to the title question is the Bible, but don't exclude science.

CVI. The Great Debate

On February 4, 2014 the debate of our times took place in Petersburg, Kentucky.  A modern version of the Scopes Trial, if you will took, place between Bill Nye, an American student of science and educator and television personality and Ken Ham, an Australian student of science and founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.  It was cordial with both sides addressing each other with respect and allowed each side to completely have their own time.  The debate was of course between evolution and creation and focused on the topic of "can creationism be considered viable science?".  That calls to mind the poll that was taken here a few months ago and that basically describes what the actual underlying topic was about.  Can God be proven?  Here are the results:

• 50% said Yes. But faith is also needed with science.  This is the correct answer.  Faith and science can go hand in hand.  They were never meant to be opposite of each other.  But the problem is in today's world as Ken Ham stated in the debate the world has drawn a wedge between them and makes it look like they can not coexist (paraphrased).  Science was created by God, i.e., He set laws in motion.  Gravity, speed of light, elements, and life forms were all from Him.  Our faith tells us more though.  Science we use to prove things.  Faith we use beyond what we can prove.
• 12% said Faith is all you need to prove God.  This being a Christian site and many of the followers are Christian makes it simple to understand many would pick this option.  But this is a biased opinion and in not viable to "prove" God.  Faith is all you need to see God but not to prove the physical existence of Him, especially since He is spirit.
• 6% said Yes. He left scientific evidence for us.  If this was the case then all would believe.  Yes, there is a lot of evidence that points to a Creator (more later for that point) but some things it takes the spirit of God to understand.
• 0% said No. Science refutes God.  Absolutely not.  The only ones who would say this are those who have been blinded by their own humanism thinking they have enough intelligence for the whole world, while not admitting it.  Those who would have chosen this option try to make believing in God a matter of rationality.  As in if you believe in God then you are not a reasonable person.
• 0% said Doesn't matter.  Then why the debate? Why is faith and science always clashing.  Why do people get so offended and uptight when discussing these two topics at the same time?  If anyone picked this one it's because they do not care about anything.  If you do not care about where you came from then you would not care about what you are doing or where you are going.
• 12% said Not sure. Understood.  This topic for those who are neither strong in their faith nor rely upon scientific fact will look at both sides and struggle with it.
• 18% said Other.  These people are crazy.  What would be a 3rd option?  They won't be back to read this anyway.

Bill Nye and many others have a hard time with the faith part.  This biggest obstacle it seems is finding evidence without the Bible or using any faith.  One of his major points that he kept coming back to was how he "as a reasonable" man can see how creation is a viable theory to how we got here.  What people like him do not understand is that when they try and use reason they they themselves are using their own personal faith.  All they do is replace creationism with humanism.  They rely upon man's fallibility to explain an infinite universe.  In the debate he brought up how the universe shows signs of being older than the what a literal interpretation of Genesis says.  For example:  How could  light from a planet that is 13 light years away be seen by human eyes if we have only been in existence for 6000 years?  Here is where faith comes.  But, it will be foolish to those who try to disprove God.  When God created Adam, He created him fully developed, not as a child.  Adam was a man with a fully developed body, brain, and could take care of himself.  If there was a doctor and would have been able to do an operation on him he would have found that Adam would have appeared to be a man of maturity even though he was only 1 day old.  The same it was with the universe.  God created the universe with all the laws of science in place.  The first words were "Let there be LIGHT".  And light was everywhere throughout the universe, in place, spread out farther than we will ever know, even perhaps passed the 13.4 billion light years we assume.  Was there a big bang?  Sure.  Out of nothing, in one split second all that we know and beyond came into being already in place and fully developed.  This was one of the main points Bill Nye could not answer when questioned.  What was it before the big bang.  He said, he did not know.  There is the most compelling evidence for a Creator.  Something had to start the big bang.  There had to be something before there was all of this.

 

The one thing that Bill Nye could not do during the debate was refute the existence of God.  And no scientific study nor any scientists will ever be able to do that.  At one point in the debate he argues the Bible and its authority calling it an ancient book.  Funny how he and his like rely on other old things but not this one.  Arguing against God may not have been the topic but rest assuredly it was one of his goals:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/16/bill-nye-religion-is-the-enemy-of-science.

 

This is not to say that Ken Ham is correct on everything.  However, since he does not deny the existence of a Creator then his starting place in finding all the right answers has more authenticity.  It is when he adds his own personal feelings and ideas that it becomes no better than the secular sceince field.

Science should be embraced.  The scientific method can and should be used when all possible.  But when there are no answers that science has to offer and an ancient book has aldready been written years before any scientific discovery had been made explains it all then that is where faith comes in.
 

For more about evolution and a more accurate understanding of creationism, read the following Thoughts:

http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolution
http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/search/label/Creation

XCII. Natural Rights

John Locke in the 17th Century said that all men have natural rights. There are two things that deal a blow to evolution with this statement.

1. Who gave them these rights? God did of course. Just being alive does not constitute power or freedom. A tree is alive but shares no power in this world, nor a fish, or bird. They can not speak. They can not reason. Therefore they can not know the difference. A fish will keep swimming. A tree will keep growing, and a bird will keep singing. Now mammals will show that they know the difference, yet they only have two responses, flight or fight. Love by a dog is actually the fight response. It stays and reacts to what is given to them. Humans are different. They can actually initiate the situation. They can respond, or not. They can reason, or not. They can speak. They have authority. Given by God. Yet to each fellow human they have responsibility, something else animals do not have. This responsibility means that some need protection from the powerful, hence rights.

2. What constitutes a human? At what point does man gain rights? Was it Neanderthal man? Was it Homo Erectus? Was it Australopithecus afarensis? Was it a primate of the first kind? Or was is algae? Is it fair to say since we all come from the same single cell organism that Homo sapiens are the only ones with natural rights? Yes. Because they are the only man created by God. The others are just figments of man's imagination (flawed science)they are not man; or they are just deformed humans (those who do not meet high standard visual desires of others).

Using science (deism and enlightenment) to show once again evolution is not a valid theory.

XCI. The History of Man (Short Version)

Chapter One.  The Big Bang

Before there was anything there was nothing, absolutely nothing.  No time, space, or matter.  Then all of a sudden with one breath of an intelligent designer created everything.

 

Chapter Two.  Evolution

The Intelligent Designer then started to design light and life.  With each new passing of the concept called "day" came a new design  Each day was now counted as time.  The idea of light came into fruition and was placed into the space.  Then life appeared from the earth.  Vegetation grew.  A food chain had been started.  Fruits, vegetables, and lush fields had been pulled from the waters.  Single-celled organisms pulsated and multiplied.  Then self-propelled life formed.  First came the fish from the waters, then birds from the air, then reptiles from the slime, and then mammals from the dust.  Finally a design called man also appeared from the dust of the earth but had within it the essence of the Designer which gave it the ability to survive and be the fittest.  This man was naturally selected to be the leader of all matter.  The whole design was completed and came from matter.  All of the known designs for science was now ready for studying.  Everything that can be discovered was placed into motion.

 

Chapter Three.  Revolution

Man saw the design and wanted more than just being the leader.  It wanted more.  It wanted to be more like the Designer.  It rebelled.  All the fruits and lush fields would now have to have a price to pay before man could attain some.  The Revolution failed.  Many now saw the Designer as a dictator and stopped following Him.  There has been revolution ever since, each one fails.  No one is perfect.

 

Chapter Four. A Brave New World

With the revolution came many changes.  Fields dried, man lied, woman cried, paradise died.  Years passed and things just got worse.  The Designer (dictator) chose one of the men and decided to redesign some things.  Although He kept the same design he allowed some changes.  The man he chose took all of the remaining life forms into a huge boat; some were perhaps babies.  Unfortunately, some had already been killed when the revolution happened.  Land shifted, waters crushed, bones were buried, debris floated.  Man was given a second chance to live in a brave new world.  But man would not listen to the Designer again.

 

Chapter Five.  Geneology

One family whose father was a man named Abraham stayed close to the Designer and His design.  Because of this man's faihfulness a promise to bring man back to the Designer was given.  A nation born out of faithfulness was brought forth to save the world from it's arrogant pride.  But even this nation fell into the same pattern that all other nations had.  Even though this nation would falter, the promise to save mankind would still be fulfilled.  But many would not listen.

 

Chapter Six.  Pax Romana

Time went on, nations rose and fell.  Then on a quiet night, a young woman gave birth and the promise came into fruition.  The Designer sent a piece of Himself to His design.   The baby grew in wisdom and stature.  When He became a man He taught of love, healed those who were broken, forgave the sinners.  He lived perfectly, but died humbly, and yet resurrected regally.  Even as the world mocked Him, He laid down His life and bled so the world could be forgiven.  He was tortured.  He was bruised.  He was beaten.  He was spit upon.  All for love of His father.  He was the Son of God, yet, many still did not listen.  Even though the ultimate act of love was demonstrated mankind refused to listen.  Instead, man tried to explain it with gnosticism, man tried to forget it during the dark ages, man tried to change it during the Renaissance, but the act of love remained the same.

 

Chapter Seven.  Growing Pangs

The world now, since it rejected the Son, is going through growing pangs.  Man hates man due to arrogance and ignorance.  Man kills man through war and stupidity.  Man destroys the environment through negligence and greed.  Man eliminates animals through insensitivity and sport.  Man thinks he is the new designer and distorts the original idea of the design.  Man blames the original Designer, still thinking He is a dictator and creates new rules saying the design is outdated.  Man hates dictator and still mocks the Son.  Matter is trying to show man that time is ending but man will not listen.  Time is showing man that matter will not last.  The rest as they say is history.  It repeats itself.  Man still denies the Designer.  And even now blames the Designer for all of the problems that man has created.  Man finds excuses about God and the relationship we are to have with Him.  God will soon finish His design and the pattern that He had thought of before time.

 

Chapter Eight.  Secundo Adventu Veniens

On another quiet night perhaps, the Son will return.  Jesus Christ will return and all those who listened to real history will go with Him to a new Paradise.

 

The End.

LIX. The Antitheory of Evolution

A thesis is a statement that needs to be proven.  An antithesis is a word or phrase that shows a negative connection between two things, to err is human.  A theory is an explanation that has been tested and has shown a connection between facts and guesses.  If these are all true then that means evolution is an antitheory; an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.  Now this (antitheory) of course  is not a real word (anti theory of something though is real) but nevertheless is a real concept.

Here is a little math lesson for you to help explain the whole concept.

• 1+1=2  and   2+1=3  and   3+1=4  and   4+1=5  and  5+1=6

And so on.  One should get the picture.   There is a progression, a natural progression, to get from one number to the next by adding the same element.  You can not get from 1 to 6 in progression by going straight from 1 to 6.  There are steps in between.  Evolutionists find 1 and they find 6 very easily.  They may even find 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well with research and artifacts.  But they forget there may be infinite rational numbers in between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3678, and 1.976544324565.  All fall in between the two whole numbers of 1 and 2.  Evolutionists find the whole numbers only and say that the theory of evolution is the only reliable collection of facts there are.

In other words, they have been searching for the "missing link" or should we say "links" since the study began.  They think they have found all they need because they have 1-6.

Here is the problem in reality:  they may have found different species that look like they were once related, but they didn't.  They have only found the "whole numbers".  For evolution to work and become a law of nature each stage of evolution has to be found.  Each and every minute mutation has to be found.  And they are not.  There are only bits and pieces of one species and bits and pieces of another completely different species and then they try and connect them.

If evolution was real here is what it means.  Two species have an offspring.  The offspring either picks up a recessive gene or for some unknown reason has a brand new gene, a mutation, that no other specie has had before.  Now this offspring will find a mate and have an offspring of its own.  Somehow this recessive/mutated gene gets passed on to where it eventually becomes the dominant gene or the mutation becomes the norm, not only in its own family line but apparently other family lines.  This single mutation, which is now a common characteristic, makes a new species and the process starts all over.

Over after millions of years and mutations do we finally get modern man.  We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.  But where is the 3.2?  Evolutionists have only found the "complete" stages of the process.  They have not found all the intermediate stages to fill the gaps.  Oh, some will say they have by claiming they have transitional fossils with the truth etched in them.  Or they will state that they have found groups of species with the same mutation to prove that communities of these species flourished and not just a fluke, thereby proving the evolution process.  They will usually tend to leave out that there are still way too many gaps. Donald Prothero, professor of Geology at Occidental College, said that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species.  95% is of unknown origin.  (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi029041.html)  And by the theory of Darwinism, as defined by http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html, Multiply by "budding" into  new species.  Budding of course meaning one species splitting into a new species by retaining as many characteristics as the original species while developing something different to make a new species (1, 1.1, 1.2...).  However, is there evidence that shows how an amoeba became a man with every step of mutation/evolution accounted for by budding?  No.  Why?  Because it isn't the answer.   

Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.

Now none of this is saying that two people with blond hair as a dominant gene can not have a baby with dark hair to where eventual dark hair will become dominant.  But they are still people, not another species.

Evolution is a antitheory, an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.

XLV. The Dark Side

Close your eyes for 5 seconds and reopen them. Go ahead, no one is watching. What did you see? Nothing right? But was there really nothing there? No. There was something. There was still a thought going through your mind somehow. There may have been a memory flashing in. There may have been sound on the outside that you could hear. The wind was blowing somewhere. Electricity was flowing from one place to another. Your blood was still pumping. There is more than just darkness. Even though you shut your eyes and saw nothing there were things still going on around because in this universe there is no such thing as nothing!

Have you ever thought about what nothing (real nothing) is? It is void of all known things. Time, space, dimensions, laws are all void in a real nothing. It is something we really can not comprehend because we are in existence. But where did we come from? How did we come into existence? You know the answer. Just say it. God. What did He create us (the universe) out of? Nothing!!

But, some who read this may answer about where we come from as:

1. primordial soup
2. from something else
3. it doesn't matter, it is nonsensical
4. i don't know

Well, there are some problems with these answer. Let's take them one by one:

1. Primordial soup-Everything that was made is a huge accident. The laws of the universe just by happen chance formed into consistency and never contradict each other. Out of chaos came harmony. We are here because for some reason an accident happened and we are now caught in this vast experience of existence created by...nothing. How can something so extensive in time, distance, and mass come out of nothing? It can't. There had to be something before something. Of course the atheist will cry foul here. Wait and listen for it. "who then made God?", "infinite regression", "the chicken or the egg?" To understand where the designer came from is not in the capability of the creation itself. A car can not understand the mechanic. A piece of art can not understand the artist. They are two totally different dimensional beings. Convenient isn't it, atheists, non-theists? But it is the truth. God was never designed. Again he is in a higher dimension we can not know until we are with him (or not). Time is a figment of man's imagination. It was made by man to separate days and nights, years and decades, to count his own days. God does not have time. He was always here and always will be. That is why he is called the great "I AM". Time does not really exist. We made it up.
2. From something else-Humans came from a lower form of primate which came from a lower form of mammal which came from reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish...the amoeba. With each new species of development cam a higher form of intelligence and complexity. If we are so advanced then why all of the mutations that destroy people? Is that a higher form of species? No. Where is the newest form of primate? The only thing we keep finding are primates of the past. When will we see that next evolutionary process starting to take place? Plus, even if evolutionary process is accurate, then where did the first species come from? Oh yeah...see point #1.
3. It doesn't matter. It is nonsensical. There was a big bang and that is it. Everything before this bang is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? The beginning of our existence answers all the questions we have. If there is a God that created then we can trust the Bible and what it says. Jesus is LORD, Savior and will return. If there isn't a God then our whole lives are nonsensical. Why are we here? And if there isn't a God, how did we get here? Oh yeah...see point #2.
4. I don't know. The best answer out of the four. At least it's something to work with and not argue about. It has no wrong conclusion and perhaps has an open ended process of learning about all of it.

Here is the point: those who do not believe in the existence of God are saying whether they admit it or not that this "something" we know as our entire existence, i.e.; time, life, space, etc., came out of nothing. Not the concept we know as nothing with our eyes shut but out of complete nothing, void of all things possible. Some will say that is not what they believe but there will not be another answer given. Now how is that saner than believing in a loving Creator who wanted us to love for Him and gave us a free will. This is where the "prove God exists" argument comes in. Read the following then: http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2009/06/xxxiv-atheist.html

XLI. The Beginning of Man

Were we as humans part of an accident waiting to happen? After the accident occurred were we as humans waiting for our existence to appear after billions of years of evolutionary change? Did we have to wait our turn to become the dominant species or were we always here, in one shape or form? With some exceptions, the following generalization should be pretty accurate. The pure Creationist will tell you that man has always been here since day 6 of God's creation. The Christian scientist may add that man has always been man but it did take billions of years for him to exist. The pure Scientist will tell you that man as we know today had to wait his turn but may have had ancestors being the dominant species for millions of years. The non-believer, non-scientist will not have any idea anyway. What was the beginning of man?

Could man just be an ape like creature that has developed into an intellectual monster over years of genetic change and mutations? Why is man and ape so similar to each other? There has to be a connection. Perhaps there is.

Man is animal-like. But by scientific definition, man is an animal. He belongs to the animal kingdom. He belongs to the primate family. But he does not belong to the same genus and species as with other primates. Here, he is on his own. There must be a reason why we are not closer to each other. Even science claims there is a difference at this point.

Evolutionists claim that we have many ancestors but can not really find that "missing link". Each new find they will use as part of their evolutionary thought process which they will claim makes them right. But with each new discovery there usually is something just not making the complete connection. Evolution means small changes over a long period of time. Most species that have been found are still too far apart in their genetic make up from each other to be that last link. Why? Probably because there is no final link. Usually, when they find a "link" they only find one of its kind. Maybe this one just happened to be the malformed creature of its genus. Sometimes there have been more than one of that link found in one place or even spread out in the world but if you look at the species they claim to be humanoid, homind, or man-like you can judge for yourselves. The following website has concept drawings of what some feel these creatures would look like: http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm. Perhaps they are just apes that have been extinct. We have killed off many of species of primates already. The mountain gorilla could be one of the next ones to go.

Man may be animal but only because God made man from the same material that he made animals; flesh. But there is a huge difference. Man may be the same on the outside but on the inside, not organs and things but deeper than that, man is completely different.

Life itself varies from its makeup from life forms to life forms. Plants are alive. They reproduce. They have "blood" in them. They "breathe". But they can not think. They do not reason. They are not animals. Fish, birds, Amphibians and reptiles are alive. They are animals but they are cold blooded animals. Their instincts rely on their environment. They migrate due to weather patterns. They feed off each other. They do not reason and therefore are dependent upon their surroundings for survival. Mammals are alive. They are warm blooded. Many can reason and can survive outside their environmental settings. Their brains are larger than the rest and therefore can not only react in a flight or fight mode but can investigate the situation. Man however is beyond all of this. Plants are monochotomous. They have physical reaction but that is it. Animals besides man are dichotomous. They react physically and mentally to its surroundings. But man is trichotomous. We not only have physical bodies for reaction to our environment and mental capabilities to reason and investigate but we have a spirit within us given by God. We have compassion, we can predict outcomes because we have a conscience and can learn from our mistakes. We have a morality system. The problem is many think we are just animals and so we act like animals. We act on instinct instead of values. When we fall on desperate times we act like animals. We fight or fly. When we rely upon God we remain different from the rest of creation. We are not animals in this instance. We are spirits with flesh. Our beginning came from a Creator. Our beginning starts with our Creator. The beginning of man is in God's image.

V. Evolution is a Joke

Evolution is only a theory yet we treat it as if it were a fact. Science and evolution actually are not the same. Science uses the scientific method to prove things. Real science will not or can not be disputed. Real science uses a step of the scientific method called "observation" to prove things. The actual steps that they still teach are:

1. Observation---We say we have observed this. We say we have seen animals turn into another species. But evolution is supposed to take millions of years. There has also never been a fossil found in any "transitional" state. Evolution can not be observed.
2. Hypothesis---We have made an hypothesis (evolution). Life started from a big bang and a primordial soup.
3. Data Collecting---We have collected data but the data is only based on assumptions, i.e., big bang, meteor strikes, etc. We try and place variables into the equation. But we don't know if the variables are the absolute truth and facts can only stand if everything is a constant, no variation in the outcomes. Such as a dinosaur is lying by a crater, so therefore this dinosaur was killed by a meteor. But what if the dinosaur was old and fell into the crater and then died? There was a variable there that was not considered.
4. Test---We have tested it. We have stated that the universe started from one point and life eventually expanded from this point. Real science has found that non-living matter can not produce living matter; biogenesis. Life can not come from things that are not living. Life always come from life. Oxygen can not produce a lung. Louis Pasteur was one of the first to acknowledge this.
5. Conclusion---We have made a conclusion. And that conclusion is that evolution is the truth.

Now how can evolution be the truth when one step can not be done (#1), one step is flawed information (#3), and one step has been proven wrong (#4)? And since three of the steps are now invalid, evolution can not be considered a science. Evolution can never be proven because the first theory of evolution is proven to be wrong. Hence, it is a joke. Worse yet, a lie.