Atheists say they don't believe in God. The funny thing about that is: God doesn't believe in atheists. Why not? He has dealt to every man the measure of faith (Romans 12:3). If you've ever ONCE walked into a building without fear that it would fall in on you, you know what faith is. If you've ever ONCE ridden in a car without fear that you would wreck before getting to your destination, you have demonstrated faith. You didn't "see" anything in order for you to believe things were going to be OK. Every man/woman has the ability to believe in God.
Nothing but sophistry; tiresome, unconvincing sophistry at that. Last I checked, whether a building will fall depends on the people who made it, not on some deity. Furthermore, those people are liable if something goes wrong, meaning they'll be held accountable, so they have a strong incentive to make it right to begin with. None of those things require faith in the sense that you want others to assume. And as for cars, have you seen some of the foolish stunts that people pull while driving? I don't live in terror of getting in an accident, but I am exceedingly watchful to prevent one from happening. How does that require any sort of faith?
Sin is the transgression of the Law (I John 3:4). The moral Law of God (the 10 Commandments) has been written by God on the tables of your heart. The conscience God gave you bears witness with His moral Law that it is wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery, and lie. Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Sin is what separates fallen mankind and God. Sin is disobedience to God's holiness. That's what Romans 3:23 means when it says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We've missed the mark. The 10 Commandments show you about sin. They bring the knowledge of it. Paul said in Romans 7:7 that he had not known sin, but by the Law. The Law of God is by no means outdated. It still has the power to stop every mouth (Romans 3:19), thus putting an end to sinful man's self justification. Our legal system is based on the moral Law of God. Murder, theft, fraud, perjury, and lying to police ALL stem from the 10 Commandments. Even adultery is still on the books in some places; it WILL result in a court-martial in the military.
Sorry, but no. None of those laws are written on the tables of my heart or anyone else's. We learn them from our culture and society - which is not based on some divine law, but on what is necessary for the people of a society to get along together. Indeed, the very fact that we have laws on the books and punishments for violating those laws is a pretty dead giveaway that those laws are not inherent to humanity, and that includes the ten commandments which you presumably revere.
Sin is a serious matter to God. He will not at all acquit the wicked (Nahum 1:3) and by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7). As a righteous judge, God will punish wrong (Romans 12:19). By examining how you've measured up to keeping the 10 Commandments, you can EASILY see where you've failed. Thus, you know that you WILL be found guilty before God on the day of judgment. You'll be condemned to the Lake of Fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. Since we've all sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), you can understand why the Bible says in Romans 3:10 that NONE are righteous (good in God's sight). Man's "good" deeds don't outweigh his bad ones. All your righteousness is as filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6).
Sorry, but again, no. What you're saying here is that your god will punish sinners in his own time - which means that until then, they're perfectly free to commit as many sins as they want. Furthermore, his punishment system leaves far too much to be desired. The only punishment is to be tossed into a lake of fire, presumably forever, regardless of what sins one has committed? That's like saying that a person can commit any crimes they want for a given amount of time, but once that time is up, even if they tried to be good, they get to spend the rest of their lives suffering endless agony. If that's the justice of your god, you can keep it.
God told Noah in Genesis 9:4 that life is in the blood. That is so true. Red blood cells transport nutrients/oxygen to your body's tissues. White blood cells and antibodies fight illness. Even the movement of blood through your body is necessary for regulating body temperature. What happens if one loses too much blood? That's right: he'll die. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that without shedding of blood there is no remission (forgiveness of sins).
It is not difficult to figure out that blood is necessary for our survival. Indeed, all you have to do is watch someone, or something, die to realize this. Why did Noah have to be told by a god that blood was life? I am also not impressed by the statement you cite from Hebrews 9, as there is no reason to conclude that sins can only be 'cured' by shedding blood.
So, here we are: sinful mankind separated from our Creator. We're unable to pay our fines for breaking God's Law. We are without hope and doomed to spend eternity in separation from God. That is exactly why Jesus Christ, the Son of God, entered the world. He saw the shape of His creation. The good news (which is what "gospel" means) is that Jesus Christ, who NEVER sinned (Hebrews 4:15) shed His blood for ALL at Calvary. He died in our place, taking upon Himself ALL the wrath of God for sin. When He cried out, "It is finished!" before dying on the cross, He was proclaiming that He alone had accomplished all the work that was necessary for paying for our sins. We couldn't do that, but Jesus did. Three days later, He rose from the dead, showing that God accepted His sacrifice for all mankind. His resurrection brings about our justification in the eyes of God. Although our righteousness is meaningless to God, when a person turns away from sin (the very thing Christ died for) and accepts what Jesus did for them at Calvary, he/she becomes robed in the righteousness of Christ and is made right in the eyes of God. The blood of Jesus is the ONLY thing that cures mankind's sin problem. Jesus Christ said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me." Rather than give us eternal justice/damnation for our sins, God thought we were worth allowing His Son to die so that we could be forever with Him in Heaven.
I wonder if you've realized how diabolical your god's con scheme is? Arbitrarily decide that various things, including fully natural parts of our genetics and biology, are 'sinful'; set the penalty for committing any sin, even the slightest one, so high that it's impossible to do anything to prevent it; then present an alternative which just requires us to devote our lives worshiping the very god who is holding this Sword of Damocles above our heads.
The devil (also known as Lucifer or Satan) was cast out of Heaven for rebelling against God. Certainly no human being has done the same amount of bad in this world as the devil has, but failing to accept the sacrifice Jesus made for your sins at Calvary and continuing to live in sin puts you in direct rebellion against God: the same thing for which Satan was thrown out of Heaven. Religion is mankind's way of dealing with his guilt about the wrongs he has done. God has a plan. His plan is for you to repent of your sins and embrace what Jesus Christ did for you at Calvary.
Small wonder Lucifer rebelled, with your god setting up this vile and devilish scheme to force people to worship him or suffer an eternity of punishment. However, that presumes that what you believe is true, which you have not established.
"Neither is there salvation in ANY other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Couldn't care less what someone who bought into your god's scheme (or maybe invented it) has to say.
Proponents of the Big Bang Theory say hydrogen gas was the chief element of the matter that just happened to explode all those billions of years ago. Then the higher-level gases evolved. One of the endless holes in the evolutionary theory is that Hydrogen is #1 on the periodic table, and Helium (which is a noble gas that virtually doesn't bond with any other element) is #2. Hydrogen is highly flammable, but helium is not (remember the Hindenburg).
Do you have any idea of what you're talking about? The Big Bang consisted of energy, not matter, and it was not until that energy had expanded (and cooled) sufficiently that atoms could actually form. Leaving that aside, how are the positions of hydrogen and helium on the periodic table 'holes' in the evolutionary theory? Even helium will fuse if the temperature is sufficiently high (as happens in stars), and that's how higher elements, such as carbon, formed.
When our supposed ancestors left the water for the land, did they have gills or lungs? Gills don't work on land, and lungs don't work under water.
Yet we see humans going underwater, so why is it so hard to believe that a marine animal with gills could go on land, and eventually develop a means to breathe on land as well as underwater? Indeed, there are actually such animals; for example, the lungfish breathes using gills under most circumstances, and using lungs when the water is not breathable.
I assume you realize the VAST differences between the male and female sex organs. Evolution offers NO logical mechanism to explain reproduction. Our "ancestor" would have to split into each human counterpart whose sex organs evolved together at the exact rates to allow for reproduction.
They are hardly as vast as you seem to think they are. Yes, they are significant, but the differences between species are far greater, and evolution already offers a perfectly good way in which a species could diverge into dramatically different forms. In practice, reproductive organs are simply a highly specialized way to exchange genetic information in offspring. The very first reproductive organs were almost certainly far less different from each other than the ones today are.
How does evolution explain the various languages? If we all came from the same ancestor without God's presence, we should all speak the same languages. Chinese differs greatly from English, which differs greatly from German. The languages are much more than dialects. God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel.
It sounds like you don't understand linguistics and the development of language anymore than you understand Big Bang cosmology or evolutionary theory, which is unfortunately not surprising. The fact of the matter is that languages are already known to diverge and change, without requiring a god to magically 'scramble' them. If you have a group of people who speak the same language, and that group is separated, their language will eventually diverge into two or more closely-related languages. For example, the various Romance languages all diverged from Latin in a similar manner.
Explain the structure of an atom. Like charges repel, and unlike charges attract. The nucleus of an atom consists of positively-charges protons as well as neutrons that have no charge, but supply atomic weight. Of course, negatively-charged electrons spin around the nucleus. Since gluons (an idea of what bonds the nucleus together) have been disproven, why do the protons in the nucleus stay bonded together and not thrust apart? Furthermore, the electrons should attract to the nucleus rather than remain at a distance. Colossians 1:17 says that by Christ all things consist (are held together).
The strong interaction holds protons together, not the will of some god. And since when have gluons been disproven, seeing as scientists have actually observed them in experiments? As for electrons, the reason they orbit is because they are very energetic particles; it's the same principle by which planetary orbital mechanics work (except at a much smaller scale). Seriously, you should actually study these sciences instead of dismissing them based on writings from people who knew even less than you do. If nothing else, it would make your arguments more effective; it certainly can't make them less.
Nine muscles attach to the human tail bone. It's NOT a so-called vestigial organ that proves evolution as once thought.
Okay, so why are there any muscles that attach to the tailbone, if they are not the last remnants of an actual tail? I believe that animals with tails have a similar set of muscles as humans do in the same location.
Radiometric dating methods (such as potassium-argon and carbon-14) are known to differ by millions of years when performed on the same sample. Furthermore, there have been experiments done to show that the shells on LIVING snails dated millions of years. Those are some OLD snails!
The reason snail shells are old is because snails use various minerals to form their shells, and the means by which their shells are formed do not change how old the materials themselves are. And when you're dating things, you expect some room for error; if you're dating a sample that's a thousand years old, you'd expect to see variations in the result. A difference of +/- 10 years is only an error of 1% when you're dating something about a thousand years old; scientists are more than willing to work with an error of 10% either way in most situations, which would be a hundred years. So if you're dating something that's a hundred million years old, scientists would expect results anywhere from 110 my to 90 my - a range of 20 million years. So why are you decrying this so much?
How does evolution's doctrine of survival of the fittest explain people's willingness to lay down their lives and put themselves in harm's way for others? It goes against the grain for old Darwin, doesn't it?
Because "survival of the fittest" only applies to a species, not an individual. An individual which gives up its life and makes it possible for many other members of its species to live fits right into evolutionary theory.
There are true/definite limits to biological change. Dogs produce dogs and violets produce violets. God set forth life according to "kinds." Where are the transitional-phase creatures (i.e. those between the stage of chimps and humans) for us to observe today?
Evolution isn't about magical change, it's about divergence. Dogs have already diverged from other mammals, so you won't get dogs turning into cats or pigs; if you were to go back in time, you would find that something else diverged (over long periods of time; we're talking hundreds of thousands of years at the minimum) into dogs and other related animals. As for the "transitional" primates you talk about, they're no longer around, because they couldn't compete very well with humans. You'll note that even today, monkeys and gorillas and chimps, all of which are primates and thus are very closely related to humans, are at threat of extinction because they cannot compete with humans and are losing the habitat they need to live. So why is it so difficult to accept that the same thing happened in the past?
Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis 1 we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence. The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
Genesis a creation myth invented by humans who wanted to try to explain how the world came to be, but didn't have the information needed to actually explain it, so they came up with something that made sense to them (and likely modified it over time). Furthermore, the Genesis myth has a number of things which do not fit the explanation you're trying to craft. For example, according to the myth, the Elohim created light (as in, the bright blue sky) before the sun, even though we know today that the sun is the source of that light and the reason the sky seems to be a bright blue.
Evolution cannot explain pleasure – even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
No, pleasure is an evolutionary adaptation. If you feel pleasure when doing something, you're more likely to do it. If that pleasurable sensation is linked to something like, say, mating, then the organisms will be more likely to mate and thus propagate their species. And at its heart, pleasure is caused by a chemical reaction. We can observe this in drugs which cause a person to go into an ecstatic, pleasurable state, for example.
We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone – as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
There is no magical "spark of life" that causes things to live, and to die if if is not present. The reason that organisms (which breathe air) die if they do not have it is because they require substances from within the air (oxygen and carbon dioxide, usually) in order to perform the chemical reactions which generate energy. Especially in humans and high-order mammals, our brains require a lot of energy in order to function; if we do not have oxygen, that energy cannot be produced, and the brain will quickly cease to function. It is really no more complicated than that.
A newly-hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts. A parrot can be taught to swear, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image. The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
Sorry, but no. Instinct does not require a god to instill it; it simply requires that the organism possesses the genetic instructions to form the nerve pathways which operate instinctively (that is, autonomously). Also, the conscience is a development of empathy; if we feel bad about doing something that harms someone else, it is our empathy that causes it. The conscience does not require a god to magically create it.
Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, God’s Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
Yes, it can, because love is an expression of empathy, and it's been very well demonstrated that empathy is a large part of the reason our species has been so successful.
No scientific theory is considered absolute. A theory's validity is based on proving empirical evidence for the hypothesis. The 2000 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "empirical" as information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. The 2005 edition of Webster's New Dictionary of the English Language defines "empirical" on page 161 as "based on observation; also: subject to verification by observation or experiment."
This is certainly true. But the fact that science is not absolute does not mean that you can claim that your religion is.
Based on the previous definitions for "empirical," the existence of God is observable by the things which are seen (Creation) and everyone is without excuse in understanding this (Romans 1:20). God is observed/experienced in the lives of those who have believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as they experience a transformation in their lives by turning away from their sins and trusting in Him for salvation. God's work is observed/experienced in answered prayers, miracles, and healings. Finally, God's existence is verified by experimental methods. Proverbs 8:17 and Jeremiah 29:13 both promise that those who seek after God WILL find Him. This method involves humbling yourself and coming to God in faith, believing that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that DILIGENTLY seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).
Did you know that it's been shown that people who perform some behavior which has no purpose will over time rationalize a purpose for doing it? The same applies to religious beliefs and religious rituals, the difference being that the other members of that religion suggest that the purpose causes the rituals, rather than the rituals causing the purpose.
To be blunt, you have no real answers. What you have are a mass of opinionated assertions that are designed to stop people from questioning the things you believe in. But since you have nothing that really supports them except reasoning and logic, your assertions fail of their purpose.