Five Arguments for God
This goes out to all my friends, both Christian and Atheist alike who stirred within me a spirit of fact and knowledge to show the facts as they are. Apologetics is a very strange field. It is as if a person seeks truth and only truth but it starts with the presupposition that truth exists independently of the observer and that truth can be found by the observer. Both of these are questioned and even dismissed in today's academic circles. They say things like "we need to be honest and consider that there is a high or lower probability that X occurs". I have had people tell me that it is a high probability that they have a nose on their face. This should show the absurdity one may go through in order to deny objective truth. Truth is the video evidence used to convict a criminal or exonerate the defendant. 1+1= 2 is the truth no matter what. Objective truth exists and we all know it does. In both these examples we show that truth does exist and can be found. Aristotle was also a seeker of truth and had the advantage of being aware of his own presuppositional viewpoint. He directly and plainly shows what is assumed and what must be supposed before laying out any argument. Using this method I have found that the biblical accounts and the laws of God are indeed truth and fact. In the following arguments I do not show the logical and mathematical evidence of each argument so much as simply tell you the results. I do this not to hide anything from you rather I hide it for you. My intention is that you choose to seek these things out for yourself and find what God has for you to discover within Himself and His creation. Find the thing that stirs questions within you as you read this book. Search for that thing and learn all you can of it. Better yet, pray repeatedly and often that God will show the truth of it to you. Know that the adage does apply here, "Be careful what you ask for , you just might get it".
The bible is the single greatest collection of wisdom on earth. Nothing even approaches the level of theology, philosophy, science, and humanity and the understanding of these that the bible does. We can show the truth of the bible in many ways, not a single aspect but in all aspects. I can use prophecy, the science, the theology, or the textual criticism to show the nature of the scripture to be fact. We can look at the history, the archeology, the continuity or many other things to show the special and divine nature of the scriptures. Scores of books have been written about this and in doing any research into any of these disciplines at all one will very quickly find the truth of the scriptures so long as we are interested in fact and hard science rather than distention and dodgy guesswork.
Moses knew there was a vast amount of water under the earth as stated in the flood narrative. Mankind only found this within the last 2 decades.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are recorded in the scriptures. Of course we did not know that until we found that they pretty much determined the state of the entire universe and then saw them plain as day within the Word of God.
The Garden of Eden being in the middle east between Tigris and Euphrates, and it just so happens to have the largest oil reserve on earth there. It at one time was a vast and lush rainforest abounding with life, that's why there is so much oil there. It makes perfect sense.
Every mountain top on earth is covered in oceanic fossils from a time much younger than the mountains. They are also covered in limestone, which at its constituent parts is rock and biomatter compressed together, these are massive graveyards. It is as if at one time the earth was flooded with water and the entire earth was destroyed killing all men and beast in a single massive event like the flood of Noah.
Logic being the rules that created and govern the universe as found in the first chapter of John. This explains why mathematics is such a great tool for understanding our environment. There's no other reason for math or logic to work in the universe except that it was designed to do exactly that.
On and on we go and find more and more scientific understanding, all collaborating exactly what we find in the bible.
The textual criticism of the bible is beyond reasonable dispute. We have more than 20,000 manuscripts from copies, more than 1 million tertiary documents, and Extremely early documents all attesting that the bible is accurate.
In fact Bart Erhamn who is among the very best textual critics on earth has only 2 things to speak against the scriptures. His disputes are based on the number of variants we have which only exists because we have an enormous and miraculous number of copies and manuscripts so of course we will have many spelling errors. If I hand write this book 10,000 times there will be far more than 100,000 spelling errors and that's just ten errors per book!. His second complaint is that we do not know how badly the scriptures were corrupted, but that assumes they were corrupted in the first place of which there is zero evidence of this. In fact the earliest manuscripts we have and the writings of the church fathers from the first and second centuries are extraordinarily coherent and validate one another, so much so that Dr. Erhman must reach to before the few decades that separate the resurrection of Christ and the writing of the first book to seek discordant possibility. Notice there is no data there, it is an assumption based on zero evidence of corruption and all evidence of fidelity. We have letters from early fathers such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Papias, Ignatius, Origen, Jerome, Clement, and many others all very early and all quoting extensively from the New Testament and Old Testament alike. This gives very early accounts of the scriptures that we can use in comparison to the earlier manuscripts providing the most abundant wealth of data available for any ancient book. Some of these writings are dated within 50 years of the resurrection of Christ. Given the extraordinary amount of documents, the fidelity of the documents, and the tertiary evidence confirming the documents this alone is a testable, verifiable, and observable miracle. No other book on the planet from before 1500 AD has anywhere near this data. The very best is still 2-4 orders of magnitudes less accredited than the New Testament depending on how much data you include.
The prophecies of the scripture are without equal. The average person who has not studied nor spent much time in church under an instructive pastor may not understand the nature of the prophecies. What we have are direct and impossibly accurate fulfillments of the precise and detailed prophecies given.
Consider Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Jesus was born in Bethlehem according to this prophecy exactly as stated.
Isaiah 35:5-6 “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy.
John 6 speaks of this as does John 5, and many other verses, exactly as prophesied.
Isaiah 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Consider Luke 1: 26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
Also, 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
It is extremely likely Luke got this information directly from Mary herself, Luke was also meticulous in his investigation speaking to first hand accounts as is known by the level of detail and the statements of Luke himself in the Gospel and the book of Acts.
Psalm 22 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me.
15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
This is an extremely vivid and accurate prophecy of the crucifiction. This form of execution did not exist in the days of King David 1000 years before Jesus was even born.
Crucifixion disjoints all your joints causing agony just as stated in the prophecy. Sweating of blood also is a medical condition caused by extreme stress. Jesus asked for a drink on the cross but when He tasted it and it was vinegar and gall He refused. He was parched just as spoken of. HIs hands (wrist) and feet are pierced in crucifixion. HIs bones were on display from the lashing He took at the hands of the roman soldiers. This lashing removes the flesh revealing the bone beneath. The soldiers also did gamble for the garments of Christs. This is an extremely detailed account of the crucifixion and can not be dismissed. These details would only be expected by an eye witness, not a prophet from 1000 years prior.
The resurrection was also prophesied.
Psalm 16;9 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure,
10 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
Hosea 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
These are but a few of the great many, hundreds in fact, of prophecies that are specific and true. Jeses was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, He was in the grave 3 days, He came from the line of David, and so many more. In fact entire volumes have been written concerning the prophecies and their direct fulfillment.
The theology of the bible is also beyond reckoning. In fact it is so very consistent I have taught entire courses from only the objections raised from skeptics.
Using only the Bible, Talmud, and a Greek/Hebrew lexical aid reference book, There is no objection I have ever seen that can not be definitively answered. Themes are carried across generations and cultural boundaries stretching thousands of years all consistent and true to origin. From the trinity to refining fire to sovereignty and mercy, from judgement and peace to honor and laws of the heart thousands of years, 33 authors in dozens of different cultures from Kings such as David and Nebachadnezzer to slaves such as Jeramiah, fishermen like Peter to educated men as Paul, all of them speak of the same things and carry the same concepts. There are more than 350,000 cross references from genesis to revelation, more than the entirety of the Encyclopedia Americana which has just over 150,000 cross references, a book built for cross referencing. It is among the largest encyclopedias ever and is a 30 volume set. The bible is nowhere near this size yet has more than twice the cross references.
How does a book written by 33 different people of various education, languages, and cultures, from different countries and spanning 3500 years all create a book so intertwined as to have more than twice the cross references of a massive volume of cross reference material designed explicitly for that purpose?
This is simply not possible by human standards and would require something quite more than human to accomplish.
There is also the uniformity aspect of the scriptures. From Genesis to Revelation we find a continuous and uniform theology. The aspects of God are congruent and uniform. The foreknowledge of God and the responsibility of mankind is uniform. The divisions within the church are based on ultimately inconsequential differences such as sacraments, the progress from a newborn Christian to a mature Christian, and emphasis of different parts of the scriptures. Every mechanism has different parts built to perform a different function so that the entire objective can be met. All hierarchies are the same way, so is Christianity. One body with different parts built for different functions. The sin nature of mankind and the consequences of this are proven time and again not only in the theology of the bible but in every person's life each day. The magnificent declaration that God Himself is seeking you and you yourself can know definitively who God is and what God is all about is an incredible statement that places the entire burden of Christianity at the feet of Almighty God directly. In fact if Jesus never rose from the dead there is no reason God can hold us in account for our sin or disbelief. The whole of the bible rests upon this single fact. Every narrative and reflection in the scriptures, all of them speak of redemption for one and judgement for another, just as is told in the final judgement. The uniform and congruent nature of these instructions and recollections is unmistakable. The theology of the scripture defies anything mankind can produce.
Thus we have a collection of verified scientific facts the ancients had no way of knowing in the most textually accurate and prolific book in all of history full of prophecies that have extraordinary details of future events written by many different people from different backgrounds in different cultures, in different languages and yet carrying an incredible and miraculous amount of congruent information and cross referencing itself to a truly stunning degree all the while giving us the most accurate and congruent facts of human life and interaction with God even into present everyday life.
No other book in all of mankind's history can do any one of these things and yet here we have all of this in a single book. The only possible conclusion is that this is indeed the very thoughts and instructions of God sent directly to mankind.
Acts Chapter II
Julius Caesar's history of the Gaelic wars is considered among the very best ancient documents we have.
The earliest copy is more than 800 years after he wrote it.
There's only ten surviving manuscripts.
There are 20 copies of Tacitus' The Annals written about 100AD and the oldest copy is dated to 1100 AD
There are 193 copies of Sophocles written between 500-400 BC and the oldest copy we have is from about 1000 AD as well.
The granddaddy of them all is the Iliad by Homer written in 900 BC. The earliest copy we have is from 400 BC which is 500 years after it was written. We have more than 1000 copies of this book. This number of copies and the early dates of the copies we have show tremendous reliability, among the very best of all ancient writings. This is the single most textually accredited book other than the New testament in history.
Now consider the New Testament.
We have 20,000 documents ranging from as early as 64 AD all the way through the middle ages to present. That's about 35 year after it was written
Here you can find a list.
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
This does not mention the 1 million+ documents we haven't gotten to that are stored at Cambridge.
The reason we haven't gotten to them is because it is extremely labor-intensive to handle these ancient documents without them falling apart. Some of them have to be done with x-rays.
Now among the New Testament manuscripts we have the book of Acts which is considered verifiable history because it mentioned specific places, governors, people, events, and several other historically verifiable facts that we have many other documents attesting to.
There's no other book in the entirety of the human race that has remotely as many verifiable facts, ancient manuscripts, documents, and as much historical accuracy as the Bible.
This has been verified repeatedly and often by every textual critic on the planet. Even Bart Ehrman's mentor attests to the historical accuracy of the book of Acts.
"Luke records an abundance of details, and this allows the careful student to check the ancient historian for credibility.For instance, the physician/historian mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine Mediterranean islands.In addition, he alludes to 95 different people, 62 of which are not mentioned by any other New Testament writer.Twenty-seven of these are unbelievers, chiefly civil or military officials" (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament – Its Background, Growth, and Content, Nashville: Abingdon, 1965, 171-172).
Bruce Metzger was Bart Erhmans mentor and professor and is considered the most gifted textual critic of the 20th century.
Now let's pay special attention to the second chapter of Acts.
Here we have Peter giving the first sermon after the ascension of Jesus.
Peter calls the crowd of Jewish people into account using the commandment to not bear false witness.
The entire crowd therefore is witnesses of everybody within the crowd both individually and collectively as to the accuracy of what he says.
If they lie it is punishable by stoning.
time and again he says "you yourselves are witnesses to these events" & "you yourself know".
This is the people that were in the crowd chanting "crucify him crucify him".
Now at the very strongest evidence one can provide is when your enemy or your adversary provides the proof of your claim directly.
There is no evidence that can compete with this in terms of its reliability and strength of argument.
Acts chapter 2 says that Peter held the crowd to account of the things they themselves had witnessed.
14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:
“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]
29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[f]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
This is consistent with everything we know from the destruction in 70AD, the records of the first century christian writings, and the swift spread of christianity.
A breakdown of this passage goes something like this:
V 14 Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem This establishes the audience.
V17-21 is the most prophesied verse in the entirety of the bible. This alone is prophesied no less than 17 times in the old testament. This had a tremendous impact on the crowd of jews as this is the one sign they could not ignore and is always associated with the coming of the messiah.
V 22 alone has the following references: "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."In this one verse three times does Peter hold them to account of what they themselves witnessed. Given the commandment to not bear false witness this had now the effect of placing them in the hot seat as it were. They could either choose to break the commandment or testify as to the truth of what they had witnessed. The placement in Jewish law and custom was now established. You see the law was their religion and sacred to them. They now were in the position that they themselves were the very witnesses against themselves where the entire crowd was also testifying against the entire crowd. Individually they could have lied but in a gathering of this size where everyone knew what had transpired Peter calls into account each of them individually to bear witness to these events of all persons there. If Peter was lying they stone peter for bearing false witness. That is not what occurred. These men under pain of death testified to the fact of the risen messiah, these men who chanted "crucify him!, crucify him!" time and again were called into account for their actions and these enemies of Jesus testified that Jesus had raised from the dead.
V23 is even stronger and places these men in the crowd who were paid by the chief priest to chant for the crucifixion of Jesus. Peter is accusing them directly of the death of Jesus. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
V24-31 Peter is referring to the prophecies and making the strong case again for the Messiah. These passages and the account of David is very strong evidence of the Messiah in the Hebrew tradition and Judaism. The people instantly knew Peter was speaking of the Messiah when quoting these verses.
V 32 needs no explanation: 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.
Vs 33-35 Peter circles back to what's going on right in front of the crowd, the speaking in native tongues and the holy spirit coming on the men.
V 36 Peter tells them very plainly Jesus is the Messiah and you crucified Him. “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
V41 is the clencher. 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
This is the very beginning of Christianity. The very first Christians that were not disciples or Apostles but believed that Jesus rose from the dead and was the Messiah that was to come were also the very ones that killed him. Christianity started right here in the middle of Jerusalem with the very people that chanted "crucify Him" repeatedly and sided with the Pharisees and Sadducees against the man that came to save them from their sins. This is another parallel in the account as the fact that the very first christians were also those that chanted for his death is a perfect parallel to the salvation narrative. In fact Peter being the one to deliver the message is even another level of parallel and irony as Peter was the one that denied knowing the Christ.
Here we have 3,000 people who they, themselves, were witnesses to all the events of jesus' arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection called into account upon pain of death to testify to the truth. The fact that it is enemies of Christ that testify to these events and are converted is extraordinary strong evidence. Anytime one who is an enemy is also providing the information that confirms the facts we know it is true. The enemies of Christ prove the resurrection themselves. 3,000 people of that crowd became followers of Jesus Christ that day.
Now given this argument you have no options but to either dismiss everything in ancient history as unreliable If you are going to dismiss this account or accept the 3,000 eyewitnesses to the events described in the Gospels became followers of Jesus when they were put to the test according to the Jewish law. We also know that the book of Acts was written between 62 and 64 AD. These dates are not disputed except by the extreme fringe.
Even atheistic and agnostic scholars agree to these dates for the book of Acts.
Life can not be explained by science.
Life is the first quest we should ask. Among all of the questions we ask as humans life is paramount and the fulcrum by which we balance all other discoveries and explorations. Without understanding life we have no way to fathom any other discovery properly. Therefore let us examine what life itself is. The definitions offered are many, we will look at the three most often used. As we work through each one we will see if indeed these qualify as Life.
From Oxford Languages
1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
2. the existence of an individual human being or animal.
Much of this definition works however it falls short. This is given in two parts, the first giving the idea of life and the second some attributes of life. In the first part we are told that life is the thing that distinguishes the organic matter from non-organic matter.
Life certainly is the thing that is different from dead things but that really doesn't answer the question at all.
In fact amino acids are organic matter and yet are not alive, only a special type of molecule.
a simple organic compound containing both a carboxyl (—COOH) and an amino (—NH2) group.
However this does not fulfil the second part of the definition. However a Virus does fill the second qualification of attributes (kind of), yet so does fire but fire is not organic.
So we have organic matter that performs at least a specific set of actions. Now we ask what does "organic" mean since we need organic matter for life.
1. relating to or derived from living matter.
Introducing this definition into the previous we find
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from matter that is not related to or derived from living matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death".
This does not work well at all. It is saying that life is the quality that is different between life and death. I am quite certain we already understood that and yet there is a lacking in this explanation.
A leaf falls from a tree. Some of its cells continue to function. Is the leaf still alive? Are only the functional cells still alive? That does not give a clear and definitive picture of life at all. Decaying matter is still organic matter and yet is certainly not alive. DNA can be removed from a cell and yet the DNA itself is only a very large molecule and is not alive itself. DNA is definitely organic matter.
A single man wihtout a mate fails this definitnion because he can not reproduce, however two humans of opposite sex can reproduce and therefore can only be alive when coupled with another thus bearing the abilty to reproduce. Likewise, mules are not alive as they can not reproduce, nearly all are sterile.
Here we find that the need for the separation between what is alive verses what is dead is not explained or defined at all. We also find that the attributes do work with some things that are dead such as fire and do not work with things that are alive such as a single human. Let us keep looking
The second definition says
"Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". NASA
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is now entering into biology.
The problem here is that the very best scientists on earth still debate strongly about the characteristics of evolution and darwinian evolution is most definitely not a factual representation of what we understand happens to life.
A self sustaining lifeform presents significant issues here. An infant is most definitely not self sustaining. Symbiotic life forms are also not self sustaining.
This also places the chemical system as the primary with two distinct attributes. Thus the definition says life is a chemical system. I am afraid life is abundantly more than a chemical system. Are you as an individual a chemical system that can self sustain and are capable of darwinian evolution?
Some might answer "yes". I would then ask you to demonstrate this ability please. Show me how you can perform darwinian evolution. If you can not provide adequate proof of this ability then you have failed the definition of life and are considered dead. This of course is absurd.
Let us be perfectly clear here. Darwinian evolution comes from a book with the subtitie "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''. Darwiain evolution is directly responsible for the American eugenics program, The Final Solution as espoused in detail by Adolf Hitler, and Abortion under the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger. Even the Soviet Union got involved with their own special brand of Darwinian evolution named "Lamarckism" and anyone who spoke out against this was sent to the labor camps. Darwinian evolution has no value placed on human life. This resounding fact has been played out for us over the course of the last century and a half.
The "Science" of evolution as described by Darwin has recently seen a huge blow to its foundation and many books have been written concerning the fatal flaws of its concepts by such renowned academics as Stephen Meyer, Georgia Purdue, Micheal Behe, and many more. You have enzymes in your cells that only exist to prevent exactly the kind of changes required by Darwinian evolution. This is called DNA polymerase and this is only one step of several that actively read and repair miscoded DNA.
Then there is the ENCODE situation where the entire mechanism within the DNA that had been thought to enable the mutations required for Darwinian evolution was discovered to be non-existent by the largest assembly of bio scientists on earth. When those who seek to confirm a theory find damning evidence showing the theory is not possible this becomes extraordinarily strong evidence that the theory has been falsified and is no longer valid.
Lets see what the scientists actually have to say about Darwinian evolution.
Dr. Yvonne Boldt, Ph.D. Microbiology, Univ. of Minnesota
“When Darwinian proponents claim there is no controversy regarding the cohesiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution as creator, they are merely expressing a heartfelt desire. … There is a growing contingent of scientists who have found the evidence for Darwinian evolution wanting, and who are ready and willing to debate Darwinists on scientific grounds.”
Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute and Maxwell Visiting Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University
“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical. The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”
Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however, I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.
These are a few of the entries from more than 1000 scientists that work in the biology field and disagree with darwinian evolution as a closed case based on the data. This is the direct result of the ENCODE project.
Therefore we have a space agency, citing biologic work and creating definitions that the best and largest biologic project ever conducted on earth has caused serious renouncing and dissention from this theory. Some at the cost of their career.
I think the space agency needs to rethink their definition.
It very strongly appears that Darwinian evolution is becoming a myth as we learn more and delve deeper into the human genome.
DR. Gerald Joyce who helped NASA build this definition says "The coolest thing in the discussion, which wasn’t in the plan document, was appreciating how Darwinian evolution achieves the key attribute of life, which is to allow complex systems to persist despite an often unpredictable and changing environment. And it does so through molecular memory in the form of genetic information that arises and is maintained by Darwinian evolution." (emphasis added)
Space.com Defining Life: Q&A with Scientist Gerald Joyce
By Leslie Mullen August 01, 2013 Accessed 12/4/2020 9:03 AM
Darwinian evolution does not do this at all. We have specific enzymes, proteins, transfers of information across DNA barriers and epigenetic structures that perform these tasks. All of this is built into the cell. We have specific mechanisms in place that function this way, it is not evolution at all but our cells do this. To say evolution does this is the same as saying evolution causes the battery in your car to recharge as your drive. Your alternator does this, not evolution.
Michele Behe is a PhD in Biochemistry and tried to prove darwinian evolution. The had grown weary of creationists advocating intelligent design and set out to end the debate by definitively proving evolution true. This has led him directly to become a strong advocate for the Intelligent Design movement. When NASA says "arises and is maintained by Darwinian evolution" They are placing a statement that can not be proven at all. Despite the many years and decades of trying to prove this as fact we have only succeeded in falsifying the theory time and again. This did not arise by Darwinian evolution.
The third definition we will look at is
“Life is an organized matter that provides genetic information metabolism”. We defined “genetic information metabolism” as the process responsible for, and involved in, DNA and RNA replication, methylation, repair, mutation, transcription, recombination, survival, and their spreading in both unicellular and multicellular organisms"
Tetz, V. V., & Tetz, G. V. (2019). A new biological definition of life, Biomolecular Concepts, 11(1), 1-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/bmc-2020-0001
A computer filled all of these parameters according to this definition.
THEORY| VOLUME 150, ISSUE 2, P389-401, JULY 20, 2012
A Whole-Cell Computational Model Predicts Phenotype from Genotype
Jonathan R. Karr 4 Jayodita C. Sanghvi 4 Derek N. Macklin Nacyra Assad-Garcia John I. Glass Markus W. Covert
Stanford News Stanford researchers produce first complete computer model of an organism
Stanford Report, July 19, 2012 MAX MCCLURE
Stanford scientists took 128 computers and a Linux based program designed specifically to mimic cell function and built a cell computer model of the simplest organism known. It ran for ten hours then crashed. Think of that. 128 computers and a special superfast program built explicitly for cell function can only run for a few hours. How much more complex is a human cell than these super sophisticated computers? yet the computers and 1's and 0's did the job and by this definition this mainframe of digital information is now alive as it fits the parameters of the definition. It is indeed organized matter and most certainly did provide genetic information metabolism.
A computer program simulation is not alive despite the scientists best efforts.
Life is not a scientific definition at all.
Genesis 2:7 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
This is why the word "human" means breathing dirt. Humus, Adam, and Human all mean dirt and man. Adam literally means "man of dirt".
In greek the word is "Pneuma" which is breathed. This is the same word used for spirit or the quickening of life within a shell of dirt.
God "Pneuma" into dirt and man came alive.
Life is the aspect of God that is spirit placed within mankind. The shell of our bodies is not who we are, this is instinctively known to all mankind.
We know that man is more than DNA and proteins and ribosomes. We are more than ATCG of our DNA and more than the environmental pressures molding us.
We are conscious, self aware, we are spirit and soul, we are purpose and ambition and love and fear.
Of course science can not define life. Life is from God and God alone. Jesus is the "author and sustainer of life". It makes perfect sense that science would fail at such an important and pinnacle task at the very front of exploration and the first question we ask as we begin to explore remains a complete mystery to scientists..
Life is part of God and can only be defined in terms of who God is.
Life is spirit.
We learn and grow. We can use laws to come to understandings, many of which are quite amazing with drastic consequences. How is this possible?
In "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" we find that there is no discernable reason for mathematics to work properly or to be useful in understanding a universe. Similar ideas have been discussed concerning logic, reason, epistemology, discovery, and thought. There is no proof or validation for the functionality of these tools or even the ability for these tools to be understood. The idea is that if we find a hammer, saw, nails, measuring tape, and all manner of other construction tools just happen to be laying right next to a pile of lumber and sheetrock, wire and shingles, as well as a blueprint for making a house with step by step instructions we would instantly know that the idea someone had was for us to be able to build a house here. Now it would be quite different if instead we found a crane and socket set, a computer and chisel, a caliper and micrometer next to the building material. There would be no functional purpose to the use of the tools in the building of the house. It is quite something that we have tools such as logic and the ability to use such tools as very effective mechanisms in the understanding of the universe around us. In fact we are the only creation that uses these tools to better understand ourselves. No other creation has the ability to self examine, certainly not to the extent that mankind does. We can show this best with a series of questions.
Why does math give us the ability to understand differences?
Why does the understanding of differences allow us to differentiate between two or more things?
Why does the difference of two or more things allow us to see how they are joined and function together?
Why is the understanding of the function of different things working together good for grasping the concepts of physics and chemistry?
Why is science such as physics and chemistry possible and useful?
How do the laws of learning and our ability to learn provide reliable information?
Why can we conceptualize and carry that concept to function?
Why is this process effective?
The questions and depth of the questions as well as the consequences of these answers can not be overstated. These are drastic questions with foundational consequences depending upon the answers.
Consider the laws. These are simply properties of the universe. We know many of these properties quite well and can make extraordinary measurements many times to the micro degree within magnitudes something like 10^-10th or better. The questions we are asking here are not about the measurements themselves nor the laws that govern the laws but instead the questions are concerning the reason we can make such measurements and find such laws.
Consider the alternative for a moment. Think about what this world would be like if mathematics had never been discovered at all. Technology stops at the stone age. The stars would still be considered strange lights in the sky. Biology would be a non-sequitur. Everything we use and all of our understanding would never have come to fruition. So now we need to look at why math works and how it works so very well.
Most people are only familiar with base 10 mathematics however there are other base mathematics and each has its strengths. Not to worry, I will not use equations here but only show the diversity of math to be useful. consider it a bit like the standard system vs metric system. Different ways of measuring but both are useful. Consider now that among all the various mathematics all we can really do is measure time, distance, and difference. Our time is governed by the earth's rotation around the sun and axis. Your clock on your wall is a miniature copy of the synchronization of the earth's axis and your calendar is its orbit around the sun. We then measure differences by dividing it up into hours minutes and seconds or days weeks and months. Why does this work? How come this is effective?
Here we have an example of a very easy and useful tool we all use every day and take very much for granted. Have you ever considered the idea that mathematics should not function as it does? There is no reason for it to work properly. In fact, logic can not prove mathematics to be correct and math can not prove logic to be functional at all. We have two systems here that neither can be shown to be effective by any measurable estimation and yet they very much are both useful and functional.
Is there even an answer to this question?
Are there reasonable and plausible explanations for the existence of logic and learning?
There are a few options.
The first option is that the universe is an ordered universe dictated by such laws as gravity and time. This however is demonstrably false not only by direct measurement but also by probability calculations of the universe. In fact entropy itself violates the ordered universe explanation. If we want an ordered universe heat death from using all the universes energy or all matter being enveloped by black holes is the way to go. we live in a very different universe than this and therefore we can not ascribe the laws and functionality of math to an ordered universe.
Another possibility is that math is simply an outpouring of the universe itself. That really does not help at all. It is a bit like saying a hand is an outpouring of a human and leaving the functionality and purpose hanging. It does not describe why it is useful nor does it explain its existence at all.
The only reasonable and plausible explanation is that we were meant to learn and explore and reason and find new things. One can not simply find the perfect and useful tools to do a specific task in place designed to perform that specific task without an intentional placement of those tools for the completion of that task. This is precisely the position mankind finds ourselves in. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw for the functionality of these tools is that we are tasked with using them. This requires a taskmaster and designer. The idea that it happened by accident is essentially zero, something like 1 in 10^40000 power. This, even by physics standards, is zero.
God placed us here with the tools required to explore and understand along with the ability and desire to do so and gave us the mind so that understanding can take place.
If external evidence does not convince you and logic of presuppositional argument does not sway you then you have one option left. Internal verified fact.
The Bible and logic therein as proof often times is said to be circular and not falsifiable. Here I will give you falsifiability as well as linear reasoning that you yourself will verify or falsify. It is quite simple to say you do not believe in speaking donkeys or men flying into the heavens. There are a few parts of the bible I still do not understand after decades of study so that a person without faith in Jesus would certainly struggle with certain passages. This however does not validate rejection of the bible because we can apply this same test to nearly anything. Consider algebra. In calculus I quickly learned how to plot equations very well. I have a difficulty with algebra and loved geometry thus it made sense for me to use as much geometry and trigonometry as possible to solve the equations. The difficulty with algebra does not disqualify the calculus at all. In fact there are those persons that hate trig and therefore are quite adept at algebra. One thing I learned quite late, much later than I should have, was that there are only 10 numbers and all we can really do with those ten numbers is add them together in various ways. This is extraordinarily basic and this idea is where we find the indisputable fact of scripture.
The crux of the matter is human sin. The harm we do to ourselves and others. Sin is explained as disobedience but that is not quite right. If I disobey an immoral instruction then my disobedience is actually a matter of faith and required by God. You may say disobeying God is sin. This is true but it is also only the symptom.There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament. Some of them are quite strange to us here in America in 2020. They would not appear so strange to a hebrew person in 1500 B.C. America has millions of laws so 613 should not be so difficult. Some are quite easy to follow. I do not believe I have any need for someone to tell me not to eat a bat or an owl however there it is. Others are very difficult indeed. Covetousness and lust are difficult for most Americans. These all can be boiled down however and indeed are reduced time and again. We can look at the Ten Commandments, most of which are broken daily. The atheist will object immediately as four of the ten are directly attributed to worship of the Christian God. That is ok. We can reduce this further and remove the direct worship of God and still prove the point. 1 JOhn 2 :16 says "For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world." meaning there can be as few as 3 commandments or three things that lead to sin. These can be said to be simply covetousness, pride, and lust. However these are all also egocentric and do not have positive impact on those around us. This may be why Jesus commanded us to “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22 37-40. Even here with only 2 commandments we will eliminate one of those for the sake of proof.
Jesus commanded that we love one another. Who can object to this as good and righteous? Who can say this alone can be an evil? This one thing we are given as the second most important thing we can do and all of mankind knows this commandment is true no matter what faith or lack thereof we have or follow.
As an atheist you know that this is true and good and yet you can not do this one thing.
This one thing that is required, this one thing that all reasonable persons agree to, this one commandment you can not adhere to.
Stop hurting one another.
1 John 1:8 says "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.".
If you can prove this wrong then you have just proven the bible is false.
Among the best people on earth, the very pinnacle of morality and honor among mankind we find that they themselves tell of how evil and wretched they are. Do you as a person claim to be better than Gandhi? Mother Teresa? Billy Graham? Martin Luther King?
I claim to be the worst of sinners, I know my sin very well and know my failures much better than anyone else.
Humans are powerless over sin and death. God is required to remove sin from us. This is a consistent theme throughout all of scripture. It is this very reason why nearly all atheists and agnostics I speak to refuse to acknowledge sin as a reality. Once they admit the fact of sin they find there is no escape from the consequences and their only real option available to them is to remove the idea of sin lest they be forced to submit to the fact that mankind is quite evil. The only problem is that when we look at even the universal basic natural law we find that even there we are incapable of removing sin from the equation.
If you can remove sin from yourself you no longer need Jesus. In fact if you are capable of doing this you just showed that Jesus was nothing of importance at all but only an insane fool. If you tell me you can love others perfectly and harm no one by your actions or lack of actions I just proved you to be harmful, for you just lied to me.
The truth is you do sin, just as all humans sin.
You harm those around you.
You lie and covet, lust and fear and hate just as I do.
The difference is that I do it less and less each day and find myself too busy chasing God to be involved in sin.
His spirit compels me to love others and I find a compassion welling up within me to propel me to action to care for my fellow man in a way indescribable to the agnostic. If a river of love is bursting forth from my inner spirit and the love given to me from God is so immense as to dwarf the mightiest of fountains on this earth how then can I deny the source thereof? If the warmth of a thousand thousand stars comforts me in an embrace of gentle grace, how then can I refuse the maker of that love? This is the commandment we break. This is the failure of mankind and the only remedy is the creator of all things, the Love of God in immeasurable love and mercy and grace.