.... that there is no evidence for belief in any particular god,...
The fact that the universe exists and you and I and it, is evidence that something or someone caused it, if you believe in the law of cause and effect.
One option, believed for a long time, is that the universe itself is eternal, uncaused. There is a large body of scientific evidence that this is not so. Time, space, matter -- energy all came into being by way of something that scientists have labeled the "Big Bang".
So what ever whatever caused the Big Bang to go bang, had to have a cause or be uncaused. This First Cause cannot be dependent on or in any way limited to our time, space matter-energy universe.
Only the Bible portrays God as a transcendent, eternal Creator, entirely and completely outside of this fishbowl we call the universe and independent thereof.
And so far they have never directly found any so called black hole either. They have found what some _interpret_ as indications of the existence of a black hole, but never a black hole itself. What is interpreted to be a powerful gravitational field, can also be interpreted to be a powerful electric or magnetic field. What we observe is what appears to be an exceedingly powerful force associated with what has been called an immensely massive object, such as a black hole. It is _believed_ that this force is gravity, attributed to a huge mass, but it could also be due to the electro-magnetic force. We know that the electric force is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity.
If someone were to put two 200 ton locomotives on side-by-side tracks, outside of the Earth's gravitational field, they would attract each other with a force of about 18 g. In comparison, the force needed to tear the steel of the locomotive represents the electric force.
When black holes were first theorized, we considered them to be a cosmic sewer from which nothing, not even light can escape. Then observations were made of objects which were _believed_ to be black holes, which indicated that matter is ejected from these objects in intense "jets". This necessitated an extensive reworking of the gravitational theory involving black holes. If the electric force is active in these mysterious objects, then no theories concerning electricity and magnetism need to be rethought, in order to come up with a reasonable explanation of their behavior.
...The Big Bang is an event WITHIN the universe...
No, before "The Big Bang" there was no time, there was no space, no matter and there was no energy. Essentially, there was NOTHING. Current science theorizes about something they call a "singularity" that produced "The Big Bang". Scientific observations indicate that the universe, including time and space and matter-energy have not always existed. The non-existence of time is hard for time bound creatures like us to grasp. We have a hard time to imagine absolutely NOTHING.
Logically then, either this nothing is the cause of the universe or something or someone outside of and beyond our time-space-matter-energy caused the universe and everything in it to exist.
...The purpose of the probe is to measure magnetic field lines of the sun...
Does anybody know how to generate a magnetic field without the movement of charge? It has been an experiment clearly established and we use this effect every day, that electric currents produce magnetic fields. That is how all electric motors work. Since we can measure magnetic fields on the Sun, these must be due to immense electrical currents. The question then is: Where or what is the power supply that produces these currents? The only fact we know for sure, is that the sun does shine and that we are all glad of that. The giant camp fire idea of yesteryear, the currently in vogue thermonuclear fusion and the plasma lamp theory are all attempts to explain why in the sun does shine.
It is amazing that these theories put forth by Dr. Birkland about 100 years ago are finding supporting evidence by the latest, most sophisticated instruments with which to study our sun. One thing is for sure, these new data indicate that ignoring the electrical force in the operation of the large-scale universe needs to come to an end.
The cosmologists who admit only gravity as the controlling force operative in the large-scale universe, find it necessary to come up with all sorts of exotic constructs, such as black holes, dark matter and dark energy. If the 36 orders of magnitude greater electric interaction is ALSO taken into account, in addition to the force of gravity, then these exotic, weird figments of the astronomers imagination become unnecessary to explain the latest observation coming in from advanced, sophisticated space probes.
...Why not say the universe is ever-lasting itself?...
Because Einstein and other scientists, who don't necessarily believe in the Bible or God, have demonstrated that this long held belief that the Universe itself is eternal has no evidence. All measurements and observation show overwhelmingly that time-space-matter-energy all came into existence together. This event has been labeled "The Big Bang". Its echoes are still reverberating measurably through the entire universe. The motion of the stars and galaxies is also strong evidence against the idea of an eternal universe.
The Bible opens with the following sentence:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. Finally there is the One responsible cause for bringing it into existence.
Modern scientific observations give strong evidence that this is very likely correct.
You are right of course, I don't REALLY know, because I cannot read anybody's mind. Everybody, including atheists, has a world view. This is a set of underlying assumption or beliefs about reality and origins. Since atheists, by definition don't credit any sort of God or other intelligent being as responsible for how things came into existence, they have to formulate this to themselves in a satisfactory manner outside of a possible God.
I can see how a person can logically be what is commonly called an agnostic, saying they cannot know whether there is a God or not. Asserting confidently that there is no God is no different than asserting confidently that there is. Asserting confidently that I am wrong is just as illogical, because then you are also asserting that you or someone you basically agree with is right. An agnostic is in essence saying that he does at this time have insufficient evidence to believe there is a God. An HONEST agnostic may say that some level of evidence will change his/her belief.
In the end, all any of us can do is to weigh the evidence we have available to us. We have no absolute proof, one way or another. In fact, if you think about it, that is true in every area of life. There is no proof of anything. Like in a court of law, there is only evidence which the prosecution and defense interpret and try to get the jury to BELIEVE. In the end, almost everything comes down to BELIEF, not sure knowledge or proof. You believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning, but you do not KNOW that for sure. You believe that the airplane will get you to your desired destination. Most of the time it will, but sometimes it crashes. If you really and truly believed that the particular airplane you are about to get into will surely crash, you would stay off.
..One question though, why did an omnipotent being have to look for one...
He did not HAVE to, he could have simply wiped us all, but according what he tells us in his communication, "this book", he WANTED to rescue us from our predicament simply because "this book" also tells us that he is LOVE.
He did have a problem though, one worthy of deity. How could he do this and at the same time maintain his perfect justice? He had decreed the death penalty for all my and your lies and other sins as well as those of every other single human being that has ever stood on this planet. Perfect justice demands that the decrees of all laws MUST be carried out. Because we are all, without a single exception lawbreakers, we are all condemned under the law.
In order for this law NOT be carried out to the final judgment, somebody had to be found to take the rap. God had to find a guiltless human being who was willing to take the punishment the perfect law calls for. God searched the entire planet, but everybody here is already on death row, because we are all liars, thieves, adulterers and all kinds of hateful, murderous sinners. He tells us in "this book" that there is no one innocent, not even one.
His other choice, the choice of love and forgiveness, was for God himself to leave behind his deity, the splendor of his eternal existence and limit himself to the constraints of his own creation, as we are limited. He had to become a human being. He entered this world in the same manner as we all do. We celebrate this event still today all over the world -- Christmas.
This God-Man Jesus lived a perfect life. He never, even once did any of the bad things that most of us do every day. He took the punishment of the eternal law of God demands. Because he himself never sinned, even once, God could legally be justified in raising him from the dead as a sign for everyone that justice and love had both been satisfied.
That is the essential core message of this book, the Bible. The amount of print space afforded to the message of redemption and restoration far exceeds that devoted to creation. To create the universe and all life in it, God merely had to speak. To redeem you and me from the just punishment law requires for sin, he had to come here and die a horrible, painful death.
What do you think God will say at the final judgment to each and every human being who has rejected through unbelief his offer of grace and forgiveness?
...an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance...
An atheist is someone who confidently asserts that there is no God. Logically then, all that exists, has to be attributed to something else. That something else is the theory of evolution, which basically says that everything evolved over immense periods of time without any intelligent input. Maybe, there is an alternative you can tell me about.
(..No, a model for explaining something is one which matches the actual facts..)
Any model, no matter what it is about, is constructed on a foundation of underlying assumptions. No model can be or has ever been constructed solely based on facts. One basic assumption that all science makes, is that the laws of the universe are predictable and unchanging, rather than varying in some random manner and place. Based on the short time that observational science has existed, this assumption APPEARS to be correct. We believe, based upon the short time we have observed the speed of light for example, that it and its related "constants" is truly invariant over thousands or even millions of years. It is this belief in constancy, upon which every dating model is founded.
There is however evidence, that some of these constants upon which these dating models are based, are not constant at all in the LONG TERM. If you're interested in learning more about this, do some research on "zero point energy" and the "intrinsic properties of space" and "the expansion of the universe".
We know from countless experiments, that the speed of light depends on what the medium it traverses. If the properties of the medium, such as space itself changes, than the speed of light, will of necessity also have to change. As space itself expanded after what scientists call the "Big Bang", its properties also changed dramatically and along with that change, the speed of light and its related constants changed accordingly.
Therefore, models based upon the current belief that nothing has changed over time will give completely erroneous results. I'm sure you know about the garbage in garbage out rule of computing.
..You would think an Omnipotent being that is perfect would have thought about this before asking someone to write it down...
That is the wonder of it all, that he did know exactly what would happen and did not stop it. Like many books of instruction, such as many math textbooks, all or some of the answers are given in the back of the book. If you read the back of this book, the Bible, you will find that the author has shared pertinent information how it will all end.
There we read, that all people on this planet are divided into two groups. One group is those whose names are written in what is called the book of life. The other group of those whose names are absent from this book. All people, including you, are allowed to choose whether your name appears in the pages of this book of life. While still here, at this time, you can, no in fact you must KNOW, whether your name appears in there. Only those who have accepted God's free pardon, will be recorded in that book of life.
There is another book, or if you will express it in modern terms, a huge databank, that contains a complete record of your entire life, including all your private thoughts.
Scientists have given us some indication, that every experience and action anyone has ever had or done is recorded somewhere in the brain. By electrically stimulating some of these areas, these experiences have been recalled in stunning detail. If it is possible for us humans to do a complete core dump of a computer and then send that information who knows where, why should it be impossible for our Creator not to be able to do the same with our computer, our mind?
...both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death...
We also read that God is perfect and hates liars. Anyone who deliberately breaks a solemn promise, such as a marriage vow is a liar. There is a death penalty for liars, so why are you and I still be alive? Do you know anyone who has NEVER told a lie? I don't.
If a government makes a law and someone under its jurisdiction violates that law, then such a person becomes a lawbreaker, even if he/she only breaks it ONCE. The lawbreaker then has to bear whatever consequences were decreed for such lawlessness.
Getting away with lawbreaking can be attributed to certain reasons. One is that the lawgiver, overlooks the fact that the law was broken. That means the lawgiver is not really interested in justice.
Another might be that the law giver lacks the power to enforce the laws. That means such a law is toothless and has no value. Such a law might as well not exist. Another might be that an innocent party takes the rap for the guilty one.
Since the law giving God, being perfect and just, could not ignore his own laws, that option is not available. Anyone worthy to be called God must have the ability to make and enforce his rules.
So now the choice narrowed down to finding an innocent person willing to take the decreed punishment for breaking the law.
God searched, but could not find an innocent party among humans. We are all liars, thieves etc. and therefore guilty. So now the choice was narrowed down to either enforce the law on us all or become human and then take the decreed punishment Himself as a human. Because of His love for us that is what God did in Jesus Christ.
We are all under the sentence of eternal death, sitting here on Earth, on death row. However, what God did through Jesus Christ enabled him to offer a pardon for those WILLING to accept such a pardon and agreeing to not desire to be a liar, thief, adulterer etc. any longer. This doesn't mean we will no longer occasionally lie, steal, be unfaithful, etc, but that we have change of heart, a change of attitude about the seriousness of these offenses and earnestly strive to avoid them.
God doesn't want to execute the judgment on you or anyone else, but will be forced to in the end, if he desires to maintain justice, which he does. I have accepted his pardon and now He is waiting for you to also accept the pardon he freely offers.
...Then who created this infinitely-more-complex god?....
If you believe in the law of cause and effect, the effect of the universe has to have a cause, unless the universe has always existed. This is what scientists believed at one time. Einstein and others showed that there was a definite beginning. Scientists have labeled this "The Big Bang"
Ultimately, at some point, the first cause must be uncaused, eternal. The Bible is the only sacred writing that states clearly that God is eternal, transcendent, outside of space and time, without a beginning or end. He is independent of and not a part of this creation. If you build a chair or a computer, you do not become part of either. You may sit on the chair or manipulate the hardware or software of the computer, but you are never part of them.
Yes indeed, you got that one right! Is not the designer of a bridge or an airplane also more complex than either the bridge or the airplane? It is not the mind and its thinking processes far more complex than the processes in a computer that was designed by this mind? So yes, the transcendent Creator God, existing eternally outside of time and space, who produced the universe and all life in it from absolutely nothing, is infinitely more complex than his creation.
..No. Only Evolution is supported by all the data and contradicted by none...
Evolution is an attempt to explain how things got here, specifically things that are alive. Darwin's ideas have been extended beyond the sphere of biology. There is not one scientific experiment or observation that cannot equally be explained by the alternative worldview of creation.
(..These are extremely few compared to the total number of scientists..)
Since when has truth ever been a popularity contest, even scientific truth? If you would study the history of science, you would certainly learn, that it was more often than not, the lone voice in the wilderness that was finally proven to be correct. True scientific progress has never been a product of a committee or the consensus of a crowd.
Any model for explaining anything is nothing more than an expression of an underlying belief, a basic worldview.
The universe either involved by some process or it was created through the actions of an intelligent mind. Which one of these two alternatives do you consider to be a strawman. Perhaps you have another alternative means by which you believe the universe came into existence. Maybe you can explain that.
So now you expressed what you don't believe, but you have said nothing about what you do believe. The universe obviously exists, unless you're one of those who believes that everything is an illusion. So by what mechanism, do you believe in the universe came into existence.
...(bacteria's the most common but I also spotted one involving caterpillars)....
Yes, and in all of them, the bacteria, usually e-coli, were still always and forever bacteria (e-coli or whatever they started with) and the caterpillars remained always only caterpillars. Some caterpillars of course "evolve" into butterflies or moths. These butterflies then lay eggs, which hatch into, you guessed it, more caterpillars. Those caterpillars in these articles may have had different colors or spots, but they were still always, only and forever caterpillars, nothing else.
Cats make more cats, dogs make more dogs, humans make more humans. That is the laboratory we are all familiar with and we know it works. All Life-forms, without a single exception reproduce after their kind, just as God tells us in his book the Bible. Nobody, anywhere in any place has ever observed anything else.
...when compared to the evidence of an inferred age of the earth based on the genealogies in a book...
It isn't as if the human interpretations of the Bible are always infallible either.
In Exodus 20:9 you can read:
Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. You shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
From the context, being part of the Ten Commandments, it seems reasonable to conclude that the days of work are intended to be takes as six normal 24-hour days. It is now so unreasonable to conclude that the days of creation were not the same?
The question becomes, do we change the length of these "days" to accommodate the probabilistic interpretation of evolutionary theory? A transcendent Creator God, powerful enough to bring the entire universe into existence from nothing, could have done it in six days, six years, 6000 years, or whatever billions of years are deemed necessary by evolutionary requirements. Since he was the only one there, we either have to believe what he tells us or not.
The Bible opens with the following sentence:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Anybody who can believe that, should have no problem in believing what we humans call miracles or the supernatural.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. The one doing the action is Elohim in Hebrew. Interestingly, this is a plural word form.
...There are numerous vids on youtube of simulated evolution for even complex things, such as watches....
Of course you really believe that is how a watch came into being don't you! Seeing has never been believing and that is doubly true when it comes to digital images.
(..that humans are made from clay..)
Actually, it says they were made from Earth, soil if you will. If you analyze soil, or even clay as a type of soil, such as good a fertile garden soil, you will find the same elements in about the same proportion as they are in your body. This stands to reason, because everything you eat comes from the soil, from the earth. So then, the Bible is not wrong in stating that you are basically, or at least your body is, nothing more than a dirt clod. This is interpreting the facts of science, namely the elements in the human body, through a biblical rather than a probabilistic world view.
(...Six thousand years isn't nearly enough time for anything beyond simple quick-reproducing organisms such as bacteria to noticably evolve....)
If you would do a little study of the complexity of even a single living cell, and then do some statistical math based on your knowledge of this complexity, you would come to the conclusion that 6 billion years or 60 billion years or 60,000 billion years would not be enough time by any conceivable probabilistic process, to make such a complex structure.
(...evolution observed in the lab...)
No evolution in the larger sense has NEVER been observed in the lab or in nature. You are repeating an outright lie that has been foisted on you and you swallowed it hook line and sinker. There have been uncounted experiments, for example, to evolve fruit flies (drosophila). All that was ever demonstrated is that nobody can make anything but fruit flies from fruit flies. Some of them were rather grotesque and weird, but they were nevertheless all fruit flies and nothing but fruit flies. Again, this evidence supports the biblical statements about living things reproducing after their own kind. The Hebrew word commonly translated as "kind" does not necessarily mean the species. There are many kinds of dogs, and interbreeding them, as mankind has been doing for centuries, still has produced only dogs and no other kind of animal.
(..it's a much greater stretch to believe that this designer placed them to fool us..)
It's a much greater stretch to believe that a designer intelligent and powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, would have a logical reason to want to fool us humans, who he claims to love, like that.
(...Ultimately, if you understand evolution enough...)
I understand the mathematics of probability enough, as do many who doubt evolution, to believe that the immense complexity and variety of even single celled creatures, can be explained by any probabilistic process. Even the EXPONENTS of these numbers get into six or seven decimal places, for the number of nanoseconds the age of the universe would have to be, in order to produce such unimaginable complexity.
...This is about claiming that objective reality has been faked...
There is no such a thing as absolute objective reality, but only more or less believable evidence, given to us by our senses or their extensions by technological mechanisms. We further filter these evidences through our worldview, that is our basic belief system. A big cornerstone of the naturalistic, probabilistic, evolutionary worldview, is that only evidence our human logic and understanding can grasp can be "real and true" and is permitted to even be considered. Anything that comes their way that cannot be grasped by their finite mind, is summarily dismissed as supernatural and therefore automatically false. In this we are no different than our ancient forebears, who indeed were quite certain that the earth was flat and that disease was caused by bad humors. Letting of blood was supposed to get rid of these.
I'm sure, that you, as well as most of us have heard the saying: "seeing is believing". Yet we all know, at there are optical illusions where what we see does not necessarily correspond to what's really there. In fact, "the flat earth theory" is an example where seeing is NOT believing only for somebody with a higher external perspective.
(..clinging to the notion that the Earth is 6000 years old..)
Since nobody alive today was around to observe the formation of fossils, we have to BELIEVE what certain scientists think how and when fossils came to be. They claim to have certain evidence of this, but all evidence must be BELIEVED, it is not absolute proof. Just as in a court case, the prosecution and the defense look at the same evidence very differently, so too, do evolutionists and creationists explain the same evidence according to what they want to convince the jury to accept as truth.
...And how many who have decided that the book is wrong have personally conducted any of that research?...
In reality, there are a few people, highly intelligent, educated people who have set out to show that this book is wrong. These were honest skeptics who made a very thorough, rather detailed study of this book, the Bible in an effort to once and for all proven to be wrong and facts of science and history.
One of these comes to mind immediately and his name is Josh McDowell. You can learn a little about them on this link:
In the same article, mention is also made of Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard law school. His multivolume treatise on the rules of evidence still graces almost every big law office and court.
If you are interested, you may read about this man here:
He wrote a little book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists", wherein he scrutinizes the four Gospels of the Bible by the same rules of evidence that are still applied in courtrooms today. This book is in the public domain and ought to be available for free on the Internet.
NEVER makes any assumption? Scientists don't have a worldview with which they filter the evidence? In a court case, the prosecution and the defense may interpret the same evidence very differently. It is then up to the jury to decide whose interpretation they will believe. It is not the evidence itself that is the issue, but the interpretation thereof.
...I only wish you would be more tolerant of my intolerance...
You apparently have not learned yet, that those who rail most against intolerance, are themselves exceedingly intolerant toward those they strongly disagree with. Those are the kinds of people who screamed "crucify, crucify" because of their intolerance and hatred of the only one that ever lived, who could challenge friends and enemies alike with:
John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?
Evil, intolerant people hate, with a passion, anyone and anything that exposes their deeds and attitudes. They do not want to answer or be accountable to *any* authority other than themselves. The smallest thing in existence is not a quark or a neutrino, but a person all wrapped up in himself or herself.
...In order for creationism and evolution to be present at the same time, one of them has to be significantly wrong...
Scientific laws and observations are true and only they can be called "science". Evolution and creationism are two different ways of interpreting the same data. All data is filtered through two fundamental world views. The first, more common one holds, that everything in the natural world is there through probabilistic processes operating over immense spans of time. The second holds, that the complex natural systems we observe in nature exist because they were designed by an intelligent mind.
It is interesting that the first world view, the probabilistic one, is only applied to complex natural systems, but never to unnatural, human made complex systems. The second world view is more consistent, in that it sees design in natural complex systems, as well as in man-made complex systems. An amoeba is interpreted to have come into being by means of a probabilistic process, but a computer chip is interpreted to have come about by processes of design and thought. Yet, an amoeba is many orders of magnitude more complex, than even the most sophisticated computer chips available today.
I am surprised that this inconsistency does not bother more people.
...The bible is an archaic, brutal, ridiculous text of ancient folklore...
You are obviously misinformed about the nature of this unique book. There is no other one like it.
Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history, some of it written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
(..and that God gave us reason and logic in his own image..)
Exactly, and that is why we read in the Bible:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD;...
It is an admirable and good goal, which is encouraged in a number of biblical passages, to study the universe which the Creator God of the Bible brought into being. It is a good thing to learn about the theories and ideas of Einstein or other great scientists, but it is quite a greater honor and higher goal to get to know such people personally and interact with them face to face.
That is the ultimate goal the Creator God of the universe has in mind for you and me. He gave us humans not only the ability to observe and learn about his creation, but wants to honor us, by inviting us into a face-to-face, one on one relationship with himself.
Jesus DEFINES eternal life to be this knowledge of God:
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
This is not something you get after you die. You can experience it today, but only if you want to and are willing to believe.
The Bible is not about the religious trappings and rigmarole, which organized religion has brought us, but an intimate loving relationship which God desires for us humans, whom he has created in his image and likeness. If you were to dare read the Bible with that desire in your heart, it would become a new book to you.
...Creationists are actively trying to destroy science education in the United States...
Maybe some of them are, and those ought to be resisted. However many, myself included, resist the idea that scientific observations should all be filtered ONLY through an atheistic worldview. ALL observations of science, the actual facts, the actual data, can be interpreted through either one or the other of the two basic world views.
There are many scientists today, with just as many degrees in front of or after their name, that are increasingly uncomfortable with the mechanistic, probabilistic interpretation of the amazing world of nature. They may not even be believers or Christians, yet are seeking alternate interpretations of the raw scientific data and observations.
Why is it almost nobody has any problems with attributing a highly ordered system, such as a wristwatch, a computer chip or an airplane to intelligent design, but most are unwilling to make the same attribution to the origin of living systems? After all, there is one living system, called people, who are responsible for making watches computers have airplanes. Could there not be a higher intelligence, that is responsible for the design of these living people systems, which in turn can come up with all sorts of complex devices?
Slashdot Mirror
.... that there is no evidence for belief in any particular god,...
The fact that the universe exists and you and I and it, is evidence that something or someone caused it, if you believe in the law of cause and effect.
One option, believed for a long time, is that the universe itself is eternal, uncaused. There is a large body of scientific evidence that this is not so. Time, space, matter -- energy all came into being by way of something that scientists have labeled the "Big Bang".
So what ever whatever caused the Big Bang to go bang, had to have a cause or be uncaused. This First Cause cannot be dependent on or in any way limited to our time, space matter-energy universe.
Only the Bible portrays God as a transcendent, eternal Creator, entirely and completely outside of this fishbowl we call the universe and independent thereof.
....did anyone actually try looking for them....
And so far they have never directly found any so called black hole either. They have found what some _interpret_ as indications of the existence of a black hole, but never a black hole itself. What is interpreted to be a powerful gravitational field, can also be interpreted to be a powerful electric or magnetic field. What we observe is what appears to be an exceedingly powerful force associated with what has been called an immensely massive object, such as a black hole. It is _believed_ that this force is gravity, attributed to a huge mass, but it could also be due to the electro-magnetic force. We know that the electric force is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity.
If someone were to put two 200 ton locomotives on side-by-side tracks, outside of the Earth's gravitational field, they would attract each other with a force of about 18 g. In comparison, the force needed to tear the steel of the locomotive represents the electric force.
When black holes were first theorized, we considered them to be a cosmic sewer from which nothing, not even light can escape. Then observations were made of objects which were _believed_ to be black holes, which indicated that matter is ejected from these objects in intense "jets". This necessitated an extensive reworking of the gravitational theory involving black holes. If the electric force is active in these mysterious objects, then no theories concerning electricity and magnetism need to be rethought, in order to come up with a reasonable explanation of their behavior.
...The Big Bang is an event WITHIN the universe...
No, before "The Big Bang" there was no time, there was no space, no matter and there was no energy. Essentially, there was NOTHING. Current science theorizes about something they call a "singularity" that produced "The Big Bang". Scientific observations indicate that the universe, including time and space and matter-energy have not always existed. The non-existence of time is hard for time bound creatures like us to grasp. We have a hard time to imagine absolutely NOTHING.
Logically then, either this nothing is the cause of the universe or something or someone outside of and beyond our time-space-matter-energy caused the universe and everything in it to exist.
...The purpose of the probe is to measure magnetic field lines of the sun...
Does anybody know how to generate a magnetic field without the movement of charge? It has been an experiment clearly established and we use this effect every day, that electric currents produce magnetic fields. That is how all electric motors work. Since we can measure magnetic fields on the Sun, these must be due to immense electrical currents. The question then is: Where or what is the power supply that produces these currents? The only fact we know for sure, is that the sun does shine and that we are all glad of that. The giant camp fire idea of yesteryear, the currently in vogue thermonuclear fusion and the plasma lamp theory are all attempts to explain why in the sun does shine.
It is amazing that these theories put forth by Dr. Birkland about 100 years ago are finding supporting evidence by the latest, most sophisticated instruments with which to study our sun. One thing is for sure, these new data indicate that ignoring the electrical force in the operation of the large-scale universe needs to come to an end.
The cosmologists who admit only gravity as the controlling force operative in the large-scale universe, find it necessary to come up with all sorts of exotic constructs, such as black holes, dark matter and dark energy. If the 36 orders of magnitude greater electric interaction is ALSO taken into account, in addition to the force of gravity, then these exotic, weird figments of the astronomers imagination become unnecessary to explain the latest observation coming in from advanced, sophisticated space probes.
...Why not say the universe is ever-lasting itself? ...
Because Einstein and other scientists, who don't necessarily believe in the Bible or God, have demonstrated that this long held belief that the Universe itself is eternal has no evidence. All measurements and observation show overwhelmingly that time-space-matter-energy all came into existence together. This event has been labeled "The Big Bang". Its echoes are still reverberating measurably through the entire universe. The motion of the stars and galaxies is also strong evidence against the idea of an eternal universe.
The Bible opens with the following sentence:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. Finally there is the One responsible cause for bringing it into existence.
Modern scientific observations give strong evidence that this is very likely correct.
...You don't know what atheists believe,...
You are right of course, I don't REALLY know, because I cannot read anybody's mind. Everybody, including atheists, has a world view. This is a set of underlying assumption or beliefs about reality and origins. Since atheists, by definition don't credit any sort of God or other intelligent being as responsible for how things came into existence, they have to formulate this to themselves in a satisfactory manner outside of a possible God.
I can see how a person can logically be what is commonly called an agnostic, saying they cannot know whether there is a God or not. Asserting confidently that there is no God is no different than asserting confidently that there is. Asserting confidently that I am wrong is just as illogical, because then you are also asserting that you or someone you basically agree with is right. An agnostic is in essence saying that he does at this time have insufficient evidence to believe there is a God. An HONEST agnostic may say that some level of evidence will change his/her belief.
In the end, all any of us can do is to weigh the evidence we have available to us. We have no absolute proof, one way or another. In fact, if you think about it, that is true in every area of life. There is no proof of anything. Like in a court of law, there is only evidence which the prosecution and defense interpret and try to get the jury to BELIEVE. In the end, almost everything comes down to BELIEF, not sure knowledge or proof. You believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning, but you do not KNOW that for sure. You believe that the airplane will get you to your desired destination. Most of the time it will, but sometimes it crashes. If you really and truly believed that the particular airplane you are about to get into will surely crash, you would stay off.
..One question though, why did an omnipotent being have to look for one...
He did not HAVE to, he could have simply wiped us all, but according what he tells us in his communication, "this book", he WANTED to rescue us from our predicament simply because "this book" also tells us that he is LOVE.
He did have a problem though, one worthy of deity. How could he do this and at the same time maintain his perfect justice? He had decreed the death penalty for all my and your lies and other sins as well as those of every other single human being that has ever stood on this planet. Perfect justice demands that the decrees of all laws MUST be carried out. Because we are all, without a single exception lawbreakers, we are all condemned under the law.
In order for this law NOT be carried out to the final judgment, somebody had to be found to take the rap. God had to find a guiltless human being who was willing to take the punishment the perfect law calls for. God searched the entire planet, but everybody here is already on death row, because we are all liars, thieves, adulterers and all kinds of hateful, murderous sinners. He tells us in "this book" that there is no one innocent, not even one.
His other choice, the choice of love and forgiveness, was for God himself to leave behind his deity, the splendor of his eternal existence and limit himself to the constraints of his own creation, as we are limited. He had to become a human being. He entered this world in the same manner as we all do. We celebrate this event still today all over the world -- Christmas.
This God-Man Jesus lived a perfect life. He never, even once did any of the bad things that most of us do every day. He took the punishment of the eternal law of God demands. Because he himself never sinned, even once, God could legally be justified in raising him from the dead as a sign for everyone that justice and love had both been satisfied.
That is the essential core message of this book, the Bible. The amount of print space afforded to the message of redemption and restoration far exceeds that devoted to creation. To create the universe and all life in it, God merely had to speak. To redeem you and me from the just punishment law requires for sin, he had to come here and die a horrible, painful death.
What do you think God will say at the final judgment to each and every human being who has rejected through unbelief his offer of grace and forgiveness?
...an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance...
An atheist is someone who confidently asserts that there is no God. Logically then, all that exists, has to be attributed to something else. That something else is the theory of evolution, which basically says that everything evolved over immense periods of time without any intelligent input. Maybe, there is an alternative you can tell me about.
(..No, a model for explaining something is one which matches the actual facts..)
Any model, no matter what it is about, is constructed on a foundation of underlying assumptions. No model can be or has ever been constructed solely based on facts. One basic assumption that all science makes, is that the laws of the universe are predictable and unchanging, rather than varying in some random manner and place. Based on the short time that observational science has existed, this assumption APPEARS to be correct. We believe, based upon the short time we have observed the speed of light for example, that it and its related "constants" is truly invariant over thousands or even millions of years. It is this belief in constancy, upon which every dating model is founded.
There is however evidence, that some of these constants upon which these dating models are based, are not constant at all in the LONG TERM. If you're interested in learning more about this, do some research on "zero point energy" and the "intrinsic properties of space" and "the expansion of the universe".
We know from countless experiments, that the speed of light depends on what the medium it traverses. If the properties of the medium, such as space itself changes, than the speed of light, will of necessity also have to change. As space itself expanded after what scientists call the "Big Bang", its properties also changed dramatically and along with that change, the speed of light and its related constants changed accordingly.
Therefore, models based upon the current belief that nothing has changed over time will give completely erroneous results. I'm sure you know about the garbage in garbage out rule of computing.
..You would think an Omnipotent being that is perfect would have thought about this before asking someone to write it down...
That is the wonder of it all, that he did know exactly what would happen and did not stop it. Like many books of instruction, such as many math textbooks, all or some of the answers are given in the back of the book. If you read the back of this book, the Bible, you will find that the author has shared pertinent information how it will all end.
There we read, that all people on this planet are divided into two groups. One group is those whose names are written in what is called the book of life. The other group of those whose names are absent from this book. All people, including you, are allowed to choose whether your name appears in the pages of this book of life. While still here, at this time, you can, no in fact you must KNOW, whether your name appears in there. Only those who have accepted God's free pardon, will be recorded in that book of life.
There is another book, or if you will express it in modern terms, a huge databank, that contains a complete record of your entire life, including all your private thoughts.
Scientists have given us some indication, that every experience and action anyone has ever had or done is recorded somewhere in the brain. By electrically stimulating some of these areas, these experiences have been recalled in stunning detail. If it is possible for us humans to do a complete core dump of a computer and then send that information who knows where, why should it be impossible for our Creator not to be able to do the same with our computer, our mind?
...both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death...
We also read that God is perfect and hates liars. Anyone who deliberately breaks a solemn promise, such as a marriage vow is a liar. There is a death penalty for liars, so why are you and I still be alive? Do you know anyone who has NEVER told a lie? I don't.
If a government makes a law and someone under its jurisdiction violates that law, then such a person becomes a lawbreaker, even if he/she only breaks it ONCE. The lawbreaker then has to bear whatever consequences were decreed for such lawlessness.
Getting away with lawbreaking can be attributed to certain reasons. One is that the lawgiver, overlooks the fact that the law was broken. That means the lawgiver is not really interested in justice.
Another might be that the law giver lacks the power to enforce the laws. That means such a law is toothless and has no value. Such a law might as well not exist. Another might be that an innocent party takes the rap for the guilty one.
Since the law giving God, being perfect and just, could not ignore his own laws, that option is not available. Anyone worthy to be called God must have the ability to make and enforce his rules.
So now the choice narrowed down to finding an innocent person willing to take the decreed punishment for breaking the law.
God searched, but could not find an innocent party among humans. We are all liars, thieves etc. and therefore guilty. So now the choice was narrowed down to either enforce the law on us all or become human and then take the decreed punishment Himself as a human. Because of His love for us that is what God did in Jesus Christ.
We are all under the sentence of eternal death, sitting here on Earth, on death row. However, what God did through Jesus Christ enabled him to offer a pardon for those WILLING to accept such a pardon and agreeing to not desire to be a liar, thief, adulterer etc. any longer. This doesn't mean we will no longer occasionally lie, steal, be unfaithful, etc, but that we have change of heart, a change of attitude about the seriousness of these offenses and earnestly strive to avoid them.
God doesn't want to execute the judgment on you or anyone else, but will be forced to in the end, if he desires to maintain justice, which he does. I have accepted his pardon and now He is waiting for you to also accept the pardon he freely offers.
...Then who created this infinitely-more-complex god?....
If you believe in the law of cause and effect, the effect of the universe has to have a cause, unless the universe has always existed. This is what scientists believed at one time. Einstein and others showed that there was a definite beginning. Scientists have labeled this "The Big Bang"
Ultimately, at some point, the first cause must be uncaused, eternal. The Bible is the only sacred writing that states clearly that God is eternal, transcendent, outside of space and time, without a beginning or end. He is independent of and not a part of this creation. If you build a chair or a computer, you do not become part of either. You may sit on the chair or manipulate the hardware or software of the computer, but you are never part of them.
...so there's an even more complex creator...
Yes indeed, you got that one right! Is not the designer of a bridge or an airplane also more complex than either the bridge or the airplane? It is not the mind and its thinking processes far more complex than the processes in a computer that was designed by this mind? So yes, the transcendent Creator God, existing eternally outside of time and space, who produced the universe and all life in it from absolutely nothing, is infinitely more complex than his creation.
..No. Only Evolution is supported by all the data and contradicted by none...
Evolution is an attempt to explain how things got here, specifically things that are alive. Darwin's ideas have been extended beyond the sphere of biology. There is not one scientific experiment or observation that cannot equally be explained by the alternative worldview of creation.
(..These are extremely few compared to the total number of scientists..)
Since when has truth ever been a popularity contest, even scientific truth? If you would study the history of science, you would certainly learn, that it was more often than not, the lone voice in the wilderness that was finally proven to be correct. True scientific progress has never been a product of a committee or the consensus of a crowd.
.... It is a model for explaining ...
Any model for explaining anything is nothing more than an expression of an underlying belief, a basic worldview.
The universe either involved by some process or it was created through the actions of an intelligent mind. Which one of these two alternatives do you consider to be a strawman. Perhaps you have another alternative means by which you believe the universe came into existence. Maybe you can explain that.
...I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that...
So now you expressed what you don't believe, but you have said nothing about what you do believe. The universe obviously exists, unless you're one of those who believes that everything is an illusion. So by what mechanism, do you believe in the universe came into existence.
...(bacteria's the most common but I also spotted one involving caterpillars)....
Yes, and in all of them, the bacteria, usually e-coli, were still always and forever bacteria (e-coli or whatever they started with) and the caterpillars remained always only caterpillars. Some caterpillars of course "evolve" into butterflies or moths. These butterflies then lay eggs, which hatch into, you guessed it, more caterpillars. Those caterpillars in these articles may have had different colors or spots, but they were still always, only and forever caterpillars, nothing else.
Cats make more cats, dogs make more dogs, humans make more humans. That is the laboratory we are all familiar with and we know it works. All Life-forms, without a single exception reproduce after their kind, just as God tells us in his book the Bible. Nobody, anywhere in any place has ever observed anything else.
...when compared to the evidence of an inferred age of the earth based on the genealogies in a book...
It isn't as if the human interpretations of the Bible are always infallible either.
In Exodus 20:9 you can read:
Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. You shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
From the context, being part of the Ten Commandments, it seems reasonable to conclude that the days of work are intended to be takes as six normal 24-hour days. It is now so unreasonable to conclude that the days of creation were not the same?
The question becomes, do we change the length of these "days" to accommodate the probabilistic interpretation of evolutionary theory? A transcendent Creator God, powerful enough to bring the entire universe into existence from nothing, could have done it in six days, six years, 6000 years, or whatever billions of years are deemed necessary by evolutionary requirements. Since he was the only one there, we either have to believe what he tells us or not.
The Bible opens with the following sentence:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Anybody who can believe that, should have no problem in believing what we humans call miracles or the supernatural.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. The one doing the action is Elohim in Hebrew. Interestingly, this is a plural word form.
...There are numerous vids on youtube of simulated evolution for even complex things, such as watches....
Of course you really believe that is how a watch came into being don't you! Seeing has never been believing and that is doubly true when it comes to digital images.
(..that humans are made from clay..)
Actually, it says they were made from Earth, soil if you will. If you analyze soil, or even clay as a type of soil, such as good a fertile garden soil, you will find the same elements in about the same proportion as they are in your body. This stands to reason, because everything you eat comes from the soil, from the earth. So then, the Bible is not wrong in stating that you are basically, or at least your body is, nothing more than a dirt clod. This is interpreting the facts of science, namely the elements in the human body, through a biblical rather than a probabilistic world view.
(...Six thousand years isn't nearly enough time for anything beyond simple quick-reproducing organisms such as bacteria to noticably evolve....)
If you would do a little study of the complexity of even a single living cell, and then do some statistical math based on your knowledge of this complexity, you would come to the conclusion that 6 billion years or 60 billion years or 60,000 billion years would not be enough time by any conceivable probabilistic process, to make such a complex structure.
(...evolution observed in the lab...)
No evolution in the larger sense has NEVER been observed in the lab or in nature. You are repeating an outright lie that has been foisted on you and you swallowed it hook line and sinker. There have been uncounted experiments, for example, to evolve fruit flies (drosophila). All that was ever demonstrated is that nobody can make anything but fruit flies from fruit flies. Some of them were rather grotesque and weird, but they were nevertheless all fruit flies and nothing but fruit flies. Again, this evidence supports the biblical statements about living things reproducing after their own kind. The Hebrew word commonly translated as "kind" does not necessarily mean the species. There are many kinds of dogs, and interbreeding them, as mankind has been doing for centuries, still has produced only dogs and no other kind of animal.
(..it's a much greater stretch to believe that this designer placed them to fool us..)
It's a much greater stretch to believe that a designer intelligent and powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, would have a logical reason to want to fool us humans, who he claims to love, like that.
(...Ultimately, if you understand evolution enough...)
I understand the mathematics of probability enough, as do many who doubt evolution, to believe that the immense complexity and variety of even single celled creatures, can be explained by any probabilistic process. Even the EXPONENTS of these numbers get into six or seven decimal places, for the number of nanoseconds the age of the universe would have to be, in order to produce such unimaginable complexity.
...This is about claiming that objective reality has been faked...
There is no such a thing as absolute objective reality, but only more or less believable evidence, given to us by our senses or their extensions by technological mechanisms. We further filter these evidences through our worldview, that is our basic belief system. A big cornerstone of the naturalistic, probabilistic, evolutionary worldview, is that only evidence our human logic and understanding can grasp can be "real and true" and is permitted to even be considered. Anything that comes their way that cannot be grasped by their finite mind, is summarily dismissed as supernatural and therefore automatically false. In this we are no different than our ancient forebears, who indeed were quite certain that the earth was flat and that disease was caused by bad humors. Letting of blood was supposed to get rid of these.
I'm sure, that you, as well as most of us have heard the saying: "seeing is believing". Yet we all know, at there are optical illusions where what we see does not necessarily correspond to what's really there. In fact, "the flat earth theory" is an example where seeing is NOT believing only for somebody with a higher external perspective.
(..clinging to the notion that the Earth is 6000 years old..)
Since nobody alive today was around to observe the formation of fossils, we have to BELIEVE what certain scientists think how and when fossils came to be. They claim to have certain evidence of this, but all evidence must be BELIEVED, it is not absolute proof. Just as in a court case, the prosecution and the defense look at the same evidence very differently, so too, do evolutionists and creationists explain the same evidence according to what they want to convince the jury to accept as truth.
...And how many who have decided that the book is wrong have personally conducted any of that research?...
In reality, there are a few people, highly intelligent, educated people who have set out to show that this book is wrong. These were honest skeptics who made a very thorough, rather detailed study of this book, the Bible in an effort to once and for all proven to be wrong and facts of science and history.
One of these comes to mind immediately and his name is Josh McDowell. You can learn a little about them on this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell
In the same article, mention is also made of Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard law school. His multivolume treatise on the rules of evidence still graces almost every big law office and court.
If you are interested, you may read about this man here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf
He wrote a little book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists", wherein he scrutinizes the four Gospels of the Bible by the same rules of evidence that are still applied in courtrooms today. This book is in the public domain and ought to be available for free on the Internet.
...Science however...
NEVER makes any assumption? Scientists don't have a worldview with which they filter the evidence? In a court case, the prosecution and the defense may interpret the same evidence very differently. It is then up to the jury to decide whose interpretation they will believe. It is not the evidence itself that is the issue, but the interpretation thereof.
...I only wish you would be more tolerant of my intolerance...
You apparently have not learned yet, that those who rail most against intolerance, are themselves exceedingly intolerant toward those they strongly disagree with. Those are the kinds of people who screamed "crucify, crucify" because of their intolerance and hatred of the only one that ever lived, who could challenge friends and enemies alike with:
John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?
Evil, intolerant people hate, with a passion, anyone and anything that exposes their deeds and attitudes. They do not want to answer or be accountable to *any* authority other than themselves. The smallest thing in existence is not a quark or a neutrino, but a person all wrapped up in himself or herself.
...In order for creationism and evolution to be present at the same time, one of them has to be significantly wrong...
Scientific laws and observations are true and only they can be called "science". Evolution and creationism are two different ways of interpreting the same data. All data is filtered through two fundamental world views. The first, more common one holds, that everything in the natural world is there through probabilistic processes operating over immense spans of time. The second holds, that the complex natural systems we observe in nature exist because they were designed by an intelligent mind.
It is interesting that the first world view, the probabilistic one, is only applied to complex natural systems, but never to unnatural, human made complex systems. The second world view is more consistent, in that it sees design in natural complex systems, as well as in man-made complex systems. An amoeba is interpreted to have come into being by means of a probabilistic process, but a computer chip is interpreted to have come about by processes of design and thought. Yet, an amoeba is many orders of magnitude more complex, than even the most sophisticated computer chips available today.
I am surprised that this inconsistency does not bother more people.
...The bible is an archaic, brutal, ridiculous text of ancient folklore...
You are obviously misinformed about the nature of this unique book. There is no other one like it.
Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history, some of it written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
(..and that God gave us reason and logic in his own image..)
Exactly, and that is why we read in the Bible:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD;...
It is an admirable and good goal, which is encouraged in a number of biblical passages, to study the universe which the Creator God of the Bible brought into being. It is a good thing to learn about the theories and ideas of Einstein or other great scientists, but it is quite a greater honor and higher goal to get to know such people personally and interact with them face to face.
That is the ultimate goal the Creator God of the universe has in mind for you and me. He gave us humans not only the ability to observe and learn about his creation, but wants to honor us, by inviting us into a face-to-face, one on one relationship with himself.
Jesus DEFINES eternal life to be this knowledge of God:
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
This is not something you get after you die. You can experience it today, but only if you want to and are willing to believe.
The Bible is not about the religious trappings and rigmarole, which organized religion has brought us, but an intimate loving relationship which God desires for us humans, whom he has created in his image and likeness. If you were to dare read the Bible with that desire in your heart, it would become a new book to you.
...Creationists are actively trying to destroy science education in the United States...
Maybe some of them are, and those ought to be resisted. However many, myself included, resist the idea that scientific observations should all be filtered ONLY through an atheistic worldview. ALL observations of science, the actual facts, the actual data, can be interpreted through either one or the other of the two basic world views.
There are many scientists today, with just as many degrees in front of or after their name, that are increasingly uncomfortable with the mechanistic, probabilistic interpretation of the amazing world of nature. They may not even be believers or Christians, yet are seeking alternate interpretations of the raw scientific data and observations.
Why is it almost nobody has any problems with attributing a highly ordered system, such as a wristwatch, a computer chip or an airplane to intelligent design, but most are unwilling to make the same attribution to the origin of living systems? After all, there is one living system, called people, who are responsible for making watches computers have airplanes. Could there not be a higher intelligence, that is responsible for the design of these living people systems, which in turn can come up with all sorts of complex devices?