If you have questions or topics you want me to write about, or you just want to chat, then send me an email or post a message on any of my pages.
I recently watched a Youtube video entitled, “As an atheist, I Refuse to Believe in the Invisible Sky Daddy.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynQIG_T6lLY). Not wanting any argument, but simply wanting to voice my thoughts on the video, I commented. My comment was not a reply to any other comment, but another individual felt like replying to my post and starting another impossible Youtube debate. Hence, I decided to further voice my thoughts upon the video and upon the reply to my comment.
Currently, this has been the dialogue, but when I post my ridiculously long debate reply (the third section), I’m sure some form of answer will greet me. I do not anticipate that it will be a series of four-letter words, since the man who replied to my comment seems reserved enough, but it will most likely come back full-circle, as that is how Youtube debates work; they go in circles, with no end in sight. Thus, I intend to cut off debate in a friendly fashion once he gives his rebuttal… though I may be tempted to not end the debate. It seems that debates on Youtube are less for the benefit of convincing the other individual and more about entertaining one’s self through the pleasure of debate and critical thinking.
Original Comment written by myself: Sarah
“Who are you? What is the purpose in your life? Without a Creator, who formed His creation with an intended purpose, we are purposeless beings; no higher or lower than bacteria, no more smart or stupid than a turkey… It is up to each individual to decide if his or her life has purpose. But if God truly did not exist, and life ends with emptiness, then life has no purpose; suicide would only be logical and such weak sentiments as love, mercy, or grace would be completely non-existent. Each person has a choice, either to repent and have eternal life in Christ or to remain unrepentant and have eternal death. I, for one, cannot deny my sight; I see the touch of a loving Creator. You can argue that God is a murderer for sentencing murderers to death. You can argue that God is jealous for not allowing His little children to be sacrificed to idols. You can even argue that He is contradictory for being a just Judge while suffering an innocent man to die for the sins of the world… But you cannot argue that God does not exist, no more than you can argue that the wind doesn’t blow, that the earth is not round, or that you are the center of the universe.”
Original Reply: Erik
“Whether we’re “higher or lower” than bacteria is meaningless. In terms of complexity, we’re obviously “higher,” as if that has any impact on our existence. We’re obviously smarter than a turkey, regardless of whether god exists or not. It IS up to everyone to decide if their life has purpose, and unlike theists, we don’t rely on threats from a holy book to make our decision.
“Love, mercy, and “grace” all derive from our existence as social animals. We love those we care about because we’re a social species, and it behooves us to care for our own.
“Your last example is hilarious, because the Bible itself says we are the center of the universe. Except we aren’t. No Atheist can “claim God doesn’t exist.” Most of us aren’t making that argument. We’re simply saying that the evidence for you claims has not met its burden of proof. Given sufficient proof, I’d be happy to accept theistic claims. Go ahead and get started on that. I’ll be listening.”
My First Rebuttal: Sarah
Sorry, I sort of made [and now I actually have made] a blog post here, but surely it is Youtube’s fault for allowing so many characters :).
It’s funny; when I had brought up “complexity of human life” to one of my professors, his answer was quite different. He told me that Darwinian evolution was never meant to create creatures that are “better” than the other; it simply works like a tree. Branches grow off the same branch in multiple directions, with no one direction being higher or lower (unlike the graphs that show a monkey “progressing” into a human being). In other words, Darwinian evolution could just as easily have the human evolutionary chain be broken, where a monkey evolved to a cat, which then evolved into a elephant, and so on and so one, until a furless creature was born. (Evolution is not in the business of creating more complex or “higher beings,” only randomness that is not quantifiable). Looking at evolution this way, it is an even greater miracle that human life exists at all and we have not devolved into puddles of primordial ooze.
As far as threats from the Bible; what defines a threat, but words that have no actions to back them up? However, the threat of living in sin, defying one’s Creator, is that we will submit ourselves to the basest of actions; which commits our bodies to self-destruction. Since the Bible was removed from schools in 1963, divorce rates have gone up by 111%, violent crimes have gone up 995%, unwed birthrates have gone up 325%, sexually transmitted diseases have increased by 226%, unmarried couples living together has gone up by 536%, illegal drug use has gone up 6,000%, and child abuse has increased by 2,300% (Original Intent by David Barton). Those statistics are less of a threat and more of a reality. And those statistics, as well as higher statistics for other base actions were prophesied of in Romans 1:18-32. So, you say that the Bible threatens you to choose a Creator, when it is the result of your actions, as well as those of every sinful being, that threatens us to choose a perfect Creator who can correct our mistakes and set us free from the eternal consequences of our sin.
How can human kind be called “social animals” when we hate, abuse, and murder one another? If there truly was an encompassing logic to our evolving from rocks and primordial ooze, then we would always be united in our endeavor to evolve into forms of life that are stronger and better than the ones before. But how are these mortal, finite bodies, better than the infinite lives of rocks and ooze? A more logical form of evolution would have resulted in beings that continued to be infinite like the ooze and rocks that started it all; once they “came into being” their “being” would have no end. The whole point that this video and this ministry is trying to make is that believing in evolution takes a huge leap of faith, more so than believing in a Creator God, because evolution cannot even be observed as much as the invisible hand of the wind. The only thing we see of “evolution” is microevolution; every living creature produces “after his kind” (Genesis 1:24-25). A dog will never naturally give birth to a cat and a human will never naturally give birth to a fish (unlike what the Darwinian “tree” posits). I do not have enough faith to believe in Cosmic Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Planetary Evolution, Organic Evolution, or Macroevolution, as none of those theories are fallible within the realm of observable science; they can only be accepted on faith.
If God does not exist, but evolution naturally produces some form of love, mercy, and grace, then why do some people senselessly kill innocent children? Why are there diseases or poisonous plants and animals? If we all evolved from the same thing and are brothers and sisters, then why does such hatred exist between humankind? It’s sad how most people use such excuses to argue against the existence of God. Some say, “If God did exist, then He would stop bad things from happening.” The Bible shows clearly that God will forgive and save those who seek forgiveness and salvation, those who truly repent and turn from who they were. But if an individual or a nation remains unrepentant, then they will receive the end result of the satisfaction of their lusts, envies, and pride: death. Hatred and senseless killing exists because sin exists, because there is an ultimate measure of “right” and “wrong,” because God made this world to be perfect… but He also gave His creation a choice, so they would not simply be mindless followers. Under evolution, it does not advantage us to take care of our own, since less people would mean more “stuff” for the few people remaining. Giving birth to a little baby does not guarantee that a mother will love her child, as evidenced by abortion or the recent starvation of a child in Hood County, Texas. It is impossible for “good” to result from evolution, since there is no “good” or “bad” claimed by Darwinian evolution, only a tree of random chance that could place the value of murder above the value of birth.
The “evidence for your claims” of evolution “has not met its burden of proof.” That mankind recognizes an absolute “evil” only further proves that sin exists, that we cannot escape it, and that we bring the consequences from sin upon ourselves. However, that there is any good at all in the world is evidence that we have a Creator who sowed a conscious into the heart of His creation. And that we have a reference point for definitions of “good” and “evil” is thanks to the Holy Bible, written by God through dictation.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say, “The earth is the center of the universe;” that was apparently a claim held long by the Catholic Church, but there was never a verse to back it up. Though you say it is hilarious, it is more of a sad revelation that non-Biblical doctrinal messages twist perceptions of truth and move to invalidate the Bible.
Second Reply: Erik
If you could cite your statistics, that would be awesome. All evidence I’ve seen says violent crimes are down drastically, particularly since the 70s and 80s.
Even if they were true, please provide evidence that your claims are true. The Bible says there is a “firmament” upon which the stars sit. It suggests light was created before the stars. It claims that an ark held every species on the planet. If you want to argue science, you won’t find your proof there.
My point is this: Through most of my teenage years, I desperately tried to square the Bible and Christianity with my perception of the world. Upon failing, I resorted to deism, then to agnosticism, then to atheism. I’ve never been shown sufficient evidence. Upon seeing it, I’d gladly accept your account of existence as true. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: The natural order is never suspended. Is it more likely that it was, or that our beliefs are misplaced?
Not that this will make any difference. Theists of all stripe already have their conclusion. They’re working backwards.”
Third Reply: Erik
Oh, and for what it’s worth, the idea that evolution claims a dog would birth a cat is ludicrous. I feel that when I hear that argument, all it proves is that you aren’t even interested in learning what you’re arguing against. “Macro” and “micro” evolution are not scientific terms. They’re ideas created by Creationists to confuse the fact that they’re identical outside a sufficient amount of time.
Again. Using that argument shows you aren’t actually interested in a real debate. If you are, please let me know. You seem more civil than most Youtube theists.”
Second Rebuttal: Sarah
To your first question, here are the sources:
– Divorce rates: US Center for Health Statistics and Vital Statistics of the United States.
– Violent crimes: Statistical Abstracts of the US, the Department of Commerce, and the Census Bureau.
– Unwed birthrates: Department of Health and Human Resources and Statistical Abstracts of the US.
– Sexually transmitted diseases: Center for Disease Control and Department of Human Resources.
– Unmarried couples living together: Statistical Abstracts of the United States.
– Illegal drug use: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
– Child abuse: US Department of Health and Human Services.
– Child Maltreatment: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.
All of this information is summed up in David Barton’s book, Original Intent (the data presented is over the period of years from 1951 to around 1994).
In a graph presented on page 249 of Barton’s book, there was a slight dip in violent crimes from 1.3 million to about 1.25 million in 1985, but the decrease was short lived, as violent crimes were shown to increase to over 1.9 million by 1994 (compared to approximately 225,000 right before 1963).
If you would give me the passages that teach how “there is a firmament upon which the stars sit,” then I will start my reply from there. As far as all animals fitting on the ark, we must not forget simple genealogies, where science has traced back genealogies of dogs to a single dog (notice that a dog is still a dog, not a different species). The diversity of “breeds” within species that we see today would most likely not have been present during the time of the flood, just as the diversity of human kind would not have been present, since only eight humans were on the ark. Instead, it was after the flood that species became more diverse (since the genetic code was so wide, multiple variations could result from one “father” and one “mother,” which were present on the ark for each species). And when you state that the Bible is not science simply because you find it impossible how God created light before He created the Sun, Moon, and stars, you forget that no one was present “in the beginning,” only God. There are many theories on how the earth was formed, but not a single theory can be proven within the realm of observable science, since the “beginning” cannot be observed, nor can it be duplicated (if it could possibly be duplicated, then we would see viable clones and virtual immortality today).
Though I do think it is amazing that we can still wonder at certain things in this world, it just goes to show that we still have so much to learn. For one, the Bible teaches that, in Heaven, there will be nothing like the Sun to shed light, but light will come from God Himself (Revelation 21:23). It seems that you are making the judgment that something is impossible simply because you were not there to see it for yourself and I suppose that is the reason that it does take faith to believe in Christ and a Creator God. But faith is also required to believe in Darwinian theories for the origins of man, as evolutionists also cannot see back in time millions of years, neither can they observe how the human form we see today could have miraculously evolved from anything else other than a higher form of human.
Since we can observe the affects of entropy, we can only conclude that the human genome is deteriorating from a higher or more complex form. The deterioration of the human genome would, in effect, be a score for the Genesis account of Creation, since God created Adam and Eve and all the earth and called it “good.” In other words, God made everything right the first time (no more “evolving” needed); the full capacity of the human brain could be used, genetic diseases prevalent today would have been non-existent, the immune system would be top notch, and everyone would have naturally lived longer. Some scientists even claim that with such deterioration as we see today, it is possible for humans to become extinct within the century. Notice that deterioration is present in every species where “time” is the ultimate enemy, not the fuel to “improvement.”
You say that macro and micro are simply evolution, not being separate theories of evolution, so, if time is supposed to be the friend of evolution, then evolution in its entirety has been disproven (instead of simply disproving Macro-evolution). All we are left with is the Creationist’s theory of microevolution, which has been observably proven. But these changes within species are evidence of deterioration from a higher form to a lower from within a species, not from a lower form to a higher form within a species or from a higher form in one species to a lower form in another species.
Though evolutionary scientists have claimed that intermediary species show how we evolved from other forms of life, such evidence cannot be claimed to be scientific; observable science shows that we were once “more evolved” than we are now. If we had evolved from a lower species, then we would expect to already have suffered extinction… It seems the theory that God created our world is far more believable than the theory that we have evolved over millions of years. Yes, they both require faith, but observable evidence points to the hand of a Creator, not random mutations that started randomly due to a random cataclysmic event that randomly happened in a universe that was not a universe (simply nothingness that had come from nothing, was going nowhere, and had neither rhyme nor reason).
Honestly, I could never be an evolutionist or atheist, because the burden of observable evidence is too far removed from evolution and atheism. From what I have found, there is simply not enough evidence to prove evolution or to prove that God does not exist. If anything, the frailty of our human form and the evidence that we were once not as frail as we are today tells me that somewhere in the past someone totally messed up and caused us to become as fragile as we are. That huge “mess up” was when God’s creation chose to disobey Him, though He had provided them a home, safety, love, and friendship.
(Updated November 23, 2013)
If you have questions or topics you want me to write about, or you just want to chat, then send me an email or post a message on any of my pages.