|
|
|
Questions for the doubter and naysayer
Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith
I have thought many times about why people reject God and Jesus. Why do they despise eternal life; the thing that is the most important and valuable to me? Why are they not at all interested in it? This has puzzled my mind and I have often wondered about it. Of course, Paul wrote in his time”But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). This verse seems to be very true. Because how common it is that spiritual things and turning to God are completely strange to most people, and they don't even want to think about these things. They have a prejudice where they have locked the door of their heart, to inside which God and Jesus have no business. This lock is almost impossible to open because people are so bound by their preconceived notions. I personally consider these attitudes and thoughts to be satan's lies with which he tries to prevent people from being saved. In any case, the following there are some questions for doubters and naysayers, that is, those who doubt the validity of the Christian faith or who directly reject Jesus and God. If you are such a person, the following lines are for you. Are you ready to think about the validity of the Christian faith, or do you reject this matter roundly?
1. Do you not believe in the existence of God?
The first question is related to the existence of God. When I myself lived as an atheist, I denied the existence of God. I acted like atheists act and considered myself very intelligent when I didn't believe in God. However, there are many proofs for the existence of God, if you look for them. I only bring up creation, that is, the existence of the universe and life. For example, Paul referred to it as clearly showing the existence of God:
- (Rom 1:18-20) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Why then can the existence of God be deduced from the creation? The answer is simple: no atheist scientist has a scientific explanation for why the universe and life exist. They are deadlocked on three issues:
1. Where did the universe come from? The first problem is the existence of the universe? Where did galaxies, stars, planets and moons come from if there was no Creator? Even atheist scientists admit that these heavenly bodies have not always existed, but have a beginning. Thus, they have suggested that they originated from empty when "nothing" exploded in the so-called Big Bang. However, this is an absolutely impossible idea, because it is impossible to take anything from nothing. Then we go against the laws of science. Among others, David Berlinski has stated on the subject: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)
2. Where did life come from? Another problem is the existence of life. If you believe that life arose by itself, how do you prove this? Attempts have been made to solve this issue for decades, but atheist scientists are at an impasse. The reason is simple: only life can create life, and it cannot be created in any other way. No exceptions to this rule have been found. This clearly refers to God for the first life forms. Or if you don't believe in God's creation, why don't you present evidence to the contrary? Don't try to make up imaginary stories about how life arose by itself, when there is not a single piece of evidence to support this. Even several atheist scientists have been honest enough to admit that life cannot arise by itself. Only God could have created life on earth.
3. Where are the semi-finished organs? The third problem is related to the theory of evolution, which atheist scientists believe in. They think that all plants and animals today, including humans, came from the same primordial cell. (E.g. Darwin and the atheist scientists who follow him are indeed right that species change within the framework of their heredity, and selection made by man (breeding) can influence the appearance of organisms. However, such change has nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution, in which all modern species are believed to have inherited from the same primordial cell. Modification has clear limits that cannot be crossed. Decades of mutation experiments and selection made by man, i.e. breeding, have brought these limits to the fore, and no evidence of the birth of new information, which the theory of evolution requires, has just been observed.) What is the practical evidence? If the theory of evolution is true, we should see millions of semi-finished organs and intermediate forms. Instead, if God created everything, the current species as well as the fossil species should be fully developed and ready. Which of these views is true? There is no ambiguity about this. All current and fossil species have always been found ready and developed. This clearly refers to God's work of creation and how everything was made complete right away. Even Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist, admits that every species and every organism in every species that has been studied so far is good at what it does. Such an observation fits poorly with the theory of evolution, but well with the creation model:
The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (1)
When modern species are fully finished and perfect, the same is true for fossils. They have always been found ready, not half-finished. The fossils found in the soil show no signs of the gradual development required by the theory of evolution. This is remarkable because at least one hundred million fossils have been excavated from the earth. Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist (atheist) of our time, has admitted: ”I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...)” (The Panda’s Thumb, 1988, p. 182,183). If the theory of evolution is true, why is there no evidence of intermediate forms in natural history museums either? These museums should have the evidence for the existence of intermediate forms that the theory of evolution requires, but they do not, as the following quotes show:
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (2)
None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [3])
The following statement continues on the same subject. The late Dr Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist and fossil expert at the British Museum (Natural History). He wrote a book about evolution - but when someone asked him why his book didn’t have any pictures of intermediate forms (organisms in transition), he wrote the following answer. In his reply, he refers to Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist in the world (bold added):
I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray? I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence. (4)
Many people who reject God believe in millions of years. They think it proves the theory of evolution correct, even though millions of years in itself is no evidence for this theory at all. It was already stated above that the evidence from fossils and modern species does not fit the theory of evolution but creation. Furthermore, the birth of life is only possible through God. Can millions of years be proven right? Can not. They are most commonly based on radioactive measurements of rocks, but it is questionable to trust these measurements. What is causing this? The reason is simple: these methods have been tested in practice on substances known to have crystallized very recently, but the results of the measurements have not supported this (recent crystallization). One example is the lava fields of the Mt Ngaurruhoe volcano in New Zealand, which were created by eruptions in the 20th century. They are therefore supported by eyewitness observations. What did the measurements show? Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). What were the results? Here is a summary of them:
• In the potassium-argon method, the age of eleven samples varied between 270,000 and 3.5 million years • The rubidium-strontium isochron gave an age of 133 million years • The samarium-neodymium isochron gave an age of 197 million years • The lead-lead isochron gave an age of 3.9 billion years, even though the age of the samples was less than a hundred years. The error is therefore several billion years. This last method is so significant that the age of the earth was calculated at 4.5 billion years with the same method. This age was obtained by Claire Patterson in 1956 from meteorites, on the basis of which the age of the Earth was deduced.
What can be concluded from the above? The examples show that if radioactivity measurements are not reliable when the time of crystallization is known, how can they be reliable when it is not known? It is not wise to trust methods if they have been tested to be completely unreliable in practice. What about radiocarbon measurements? This method differs from other methods in that the measurements are not made of rocks but of organic samples (remains of plants and animals). Also, the official half-life of radiocarbon is only 5730 years, so there shouldn't be any left after 100,000 years. What do the measurements show? Measurements have been made for decades and show an important fact: radiocarbon (14C) is found in fossils from all eras (according to the evolutionary scale): Cambrian fossils, dinosaurs and other organisms that have been considered ancient. Also, no coal has been found that lacks radiocarbon (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). The measurements give approximately the same ages for all the samples, so it is reasonable to believe that all organisms have been on earth at the same time, and it is by no means millions of years ago. The conclusion from the radiocarbon measurements is simple. When this substance is found in organisms of all eras, including dinosaurs, as well as carbon deposits, life could have existed on Earth for only a few millennia. This is the most reasonable conclusion based on the measurements. Another brief reference to dinosaurs, which are said to have lived millions of years ago. However, if millions of years are true, why are from dinosaurs, which are considered the best representatives of millions of years, found materials that should not have survived for millions of years. Radiocarbon, whose official half-life is only 5730 years, has been found in dinosaur fossils (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html). DNA, whose half-life has been calculated as only 521 years (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13.10.2012, DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat), has been found on them [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 december 2012]. Similarly, blood cells [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], soft tissues and proteins have been found in dinosaurs [Schweitzer, M. and 6 others, Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis, Science 324 (5927): 626-631, 2009]. They should not survive for more than 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379]). Why do People's old folk tales also repeatedly talk about dinosaur-like Dragons as normal animals? (the name dinosaur was invented only in 1841 by Richard Owen) The World Book Encyclopedia has referred to these accounts: ”The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.” What can be concluded from the above? It's pointless to talk about millions of years, because dozens of dinosaur fossils point to a short age, like the references to dragons in human tradition. Dinosaur fossils don't have age labels, but at least they can't be more than 65 million years old. Several of them are at least as well preserved as the mammoths, so there is reason to believe that the millions of years are a lie. They can't be true.
3. Do you doubt the historicity of the Bible?
One reason people reject God and the Christian faith is the
perception that the Bible is not a historical book. Here,
too, the background is very much the theory of evolution and
millions of years. It is thought to invalidate the history
of the Bible, especially its first chapters.
But but. As stated, the theory of evolution with it's
millions of years is a lie. That is not true, because life
cannot arise by itself and because all species have always
been found completely ready and developed, as is to be
expected if God created everything. He did not create
half-finished organisms, but completely finished ones. And
half-finished organisms could not even survive or reproduce.
They would immediately become extinct if their structures
were not functional.
However, there are hundreds of proofs for the historicity
of the Bible. For example, the Flood is an easy thing to
justify. The reason is that around the world, in the
folklore of peoples, almost 500 Flood stories have been
found. Taken together, these accounts from around the world,
although they vary somewhat, are compelling evidence.
Another similar evidence is the remains of marine life found
in all the high mountains. They are found in the Himalayas,
Alps, Andes and other high mountain ranges. Below are a
couple of quotes from the scientists' own books. If this
evidence of the remains of marine life in the high mountains
is not sufficient evidence for the Flood, what is?
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found
fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains.
It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry
A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true],
p. 127)
There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of
the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps,
in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone.
Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the
rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain -
if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually
find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They
are often badly damaged but it is possible to find
recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or
skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are
spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of
double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this
point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many
sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom
of the sea. (p.
236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has
for many years researched these marine fossils in the
Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole
aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies,
relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are
found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea
level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found
as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)
At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a
trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface
corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from
low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips
of limestone are found, which arose under water from the
remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo
ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
There is plenty of other evidence for the Bible's
historicity. It manifests itself in the fact that dozens of
figures from the Old and New Testaments - kings, prophets,
apostles, not to mention Jesus - are mentioned in other
sources and archaeological finds. It is pointless to claim
that it is not about historical events and persons, because
other sources refer to the same things.
A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of the classical era who
has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law,
wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman
Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 173). He states that
attempts to deny its reliability are absurd. Luke, who wrote
the Acts of the Apostles, also wrote one of the Gospels:
The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be
amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental
historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem
necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have
long taken it for granted.
The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck has also written
(Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31) about archeology related
to the Bible.
He shows how archaeological discoveries confirm the
historical reliability of the Bible:
Absolutely and certainly speaking, not a single
archaeological finding has ever questioned any passage of
the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the
historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline
or in detail have been made.
(5)
One reason people reject God and the Christian faith is the perception that the Bible is not a historical book. Here, too, the background is very much the theory of evolution and millions of years. It is thought to invalidate the history of the Bible, especially its first chapters. But but. As stated, the theory of evolution with it's millions of years is a lie. That is not true, because life cannot arise by itself and because all species have always been found completely ready and developed, as is to be expected if God created everything. He did not create half-finished organisms, but completely finished ones. And half-finished organisms could not even survive or reproduce. They would immediately become extinct if their structures were not functional. However, there are hundreds of proofs for the historicity of the Bible. For example, the Flood is an easy thing to justify. The reason is that around the world, in the folklore of peoples, almost 500 Flood stories have been found. Taken together, these accounts from around the world, although they vary somewhat, are compelling evidence. Another similar evidence is the remains of marine life found in all the high mountains. They are found in the Himalayas, Alps, Andes and other high mountain ranges. Below are a couple of quotes from the scientists' own books. If this evidence of the remains of marine life in the high mountains is not sufficient evidence for the Flood, what is?
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)
There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…) At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
There is plenty of other evidence for the Bible's historicity. It manifests itself in the fact that dozens of figures from the Old and New Testaments - kings, prophets, apostles, not to mention Jesus - are mentioned in other sources and archaeological finds. It is pointless to claim that it is not about historical events and persons, because other sources refer to the same things. A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of the classical era who has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law, wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 173). He states that attempts to deny its reliability are absurd. Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, also wrote one of the Gospels:
The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have long taken it for granted.
The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck has also written (Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31) about archeology related to the Bible. He shows how archaeological discoveries confirm the historical reliability of the Bible:
Absolutely and certainly speaking, not a single archaeological finding has ever questioned any passage of the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline or in detail have been made. (5)
References:
1. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153 2. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94 3. Cit. from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö and Markku Särelä, p. 19. 4. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16 5. Nelson Glueck: Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31 6. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa? Maailmankatsomusten perusteet puntarissa (The Universe Next Door. A Basic World View Catalog), p. 36,37
Scientific view of the world. Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview. I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Scientific view of the world. Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview. I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview
|
