Nature

Main page | Jari's writings

Six major lies

 

 

Believing in evolution and in the wisdom of people is common place in today’s society. It is some kind of a progression belief, where it is thought that mankind is constantly developing towards perfection, once enough time has passed. This enlightenment belief and modernism, which began in the 18th century, is based on virtually unlimited faith in humans, but it rejects God’s announcement. Darwin’s theory plays an important role in it, as it brings forth the idea of development.

The purpose of this text is to lead the reader to major questions, hence we’ll have a closer look at many counter arguments against God that come from the Enlightenment and modernism. The fundamental truth ought to be an important topic also for those, who don’t believe in God’s existence or don’t care about Him. It is something that is worth familiarizing oneself with.

Do the ideas deriving from modernism have grounds or not? If we take a closer look at the subject matter, we can see that it is not necessarily the case. Instead, it is more likely that these ideas are based on lies, which control the human mind. This possibility, which is also suggested by the strong headline of this text, should be considered. We will begin with the existence of God.

 

 


Lie number 1: God doesn’t exist
Lie number 2: There is no intelligent design
Lie number 3: All species descent from the same stem cell
Lie number 4: Millions and billions of years are true
Lie number 5: The Bible isn’t historically reliable
Lie number 6: Nothing can be known about God
 

 

Lie number 1: God doesn't exist

 

As already noted, the ideas of enlightenment and modernism have changed how people think. The roots of this ideology come from the 18th century, and it gained a more dominant status during the following centuries in the Western countries. The breakthrough of Darwin’s evolutionary theory was especially significant springboard for the ideology. In a few decades people began to believe that the Universe and all life in it could be explained without God. Theism seemed like an old-fashioned way to look at the world.

The following ideas have been typical for the enlightenment ideology:

 

1. Faith in human intellect

2. Limitless development optimism

3. Presumption that faith in God is caused by the lack of knowledge. He was needed earlier, when people sought explanations for natural phenomena. But as our knowledge about the nature increased, our need to use God as an explanation, decreased in turn.

 

Who needs to provide evidence for their views then: people who believe in the existence of God, or people who don’t? This is usually what naturalists and atheists have to say about this: “If God exists, then prove it to us!” However, we can turn this around; we can ask naturalists and atheists the same question: “If God doesn’t exist, then how do you prove it? How do you know that God is not a part of that sector, which you know nothing about? He could exist outside of our senses.

It is comparable to a person losing their keys on the street. He searches for them under the streetlight, “because he can see better under the light than in the dark”. However, there’s a possibility that the keys fell to the dark area of the street, where the person cannot see. Similarly, God could be somewhere, where we are not able to see him.

If naturalists and atheists were logical, they would admit that their views are completely based on belief, as is the belief in God’s existence. Their view is not scientific, because an absolute negative claim (“God doesn’t exist”) requires absolute and exhaustive information. Yet, no naturalist or atheist possesses such information. Their knowledge is limited, perhaps covering only a hint of the whole information, if that even.

How should we approach this topic then? The best place to start is to discuss the likelihood of different alternatives. Which one is the more likely alternative: God exists or that He doesn’t? We are going to investigate this matter. To start with, we will address the beginning of the Universe and life.

 

The beginning of life and the Universe are both two things, which require an explanation. Today, scientists agree that the Universe and life in it has had a beginning. Next we’ll have a few comments related to the subject:

 

Arthur Eddington (an English astrophysicist in the 1930’s): When we go back in time, we will come to a more and more organised world. Finally, we will come to a moment where all materials and energy are as organised as can be. We cannot go beyond this point. We have come to a point in time and space that cannot be crossed, and that can only be described by the word "beginning" (...) To me, it is completely natural to accept the conclusion that the current natural science offers for the future – the heat death of the universe. (1)

 

William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time. (2)

 

Abiogenesis theory, which was predominant during the 18th century, suggested that organisms were born out of abiotic matter. In 1860s Louis Pasteur proved that it was not the case. According to our current perception abiogenesis has taken place, but supposedly only once. (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3 [School biology, high school course 2-3], 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 172)

 

Therefore, atheist scientists admit that the Universe and life had to begin at some point. This is easily realized from the following reasons:

 

• The Universe in inevitably headed towards heath death - a state, where all temperature differences have disappeared and where the amount of usable energy decreases and eventually runs out.

This energy decrease can be compared to wood being burned out in a campfire. Once the wood has burned out, it cannot be burned again – the wood is unusable. It illustrates, how usable energy is constantly decreasing and that there needs to be an absolute starting point and a limit somewhere, which we cannot go by. We could call it the ground zero. There must have been a moment, when a clock approaching towards the heath death, has began to tick and the moment when it will reach the end. This applies to our Sun, as well as, to other heavenly bodies that still radiate energy. They must have had a beginning.

 

• Also, life cannot be eternal, because the limited time of the Sun sets particular limits to life. The Sun has not always brought warmth and light on Earth; hence, it’s not possible that there was life either. Without the Sun the temperature would be approximately -273 °C, it would be dark and water would be frozen, and no known lifeform could survive in those conditions. Therefore, life must have a beginning.

 

If atheist scientists agree that the Universe and life has a beginning, then how do they attempt to account for these things? If we rule out God, the following alternatives will remain, which are that the Universe came about by itself from nothing, and that life came about by itself. Yet, both theories have major issues:

 

The Universe came about by itself from nothing. Meaning that atheist scientists believe that the Universe came  into existence by itself from nothing. It is presumed to have taken place during the so-called Big Bang.

However, logically this is an impossible alternative, as nothing that doesn’t exist, cannot create itself and cause its own existence. It is impossible. There are no known cases where that would have happened. Abiotic matter, such as stones, rocks, bikes, airplanes or any other objects don’t just appear from thin air. Why would the Universe, which is much larger than anything else, be an exception? This theory goes against logic and the laws of nature.

 

Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (3)

 

Life coming about by itself. How about naturalistic theory on the origin of life? This theory is also weak, as there has not been any practical evidence found to suggest it. The more knowledge we have acquired over the decades, the harder it has become for us to explain the origin of life. Some scientists directly admit that the mystery of it might never be solved.

The next citation is relevant to the issue at hand. It interviews Stanley Miller during his last years. He has become well-known for his experiments concerning the origin of life. J. Morgan says the following in the interview:

 

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (4)

 

Also, the current definite understanding is that life can only begin from life. All life is dependent on previous life. No exceptions to this rules have been found, hence if life has once started on Earth, but doesn’t come from previous life, the origin of life must come from outside the Earth. In that case, isn’t it reasonable to believe that there is a God, who created everything, both the lifeless Universe and life itself? This is the most logical alternative. The problem is that people don’t want to accept God as the creator and give Him the glory. That is why they rely on other false explanations.

 

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

- (Rom 1:19,20) 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

 

- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

 

- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer

 

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

Other evidence for the existence of God. There are other supporting evidence for God’s existence than the existence of the Universe and life and their origin. Other pieces of evidence are, e.g., emotions, intelligence, morality and religion. These kinds of notions are difficult to explain from an impersonal, lifeless and senseless primary condition point of view, as is presupposed in naturalistic theories. Instead, a more rational explanation would be that reason, personality and life have always existed from the beginning, because God has these qualities. That’s how it was even before there was life on Earth. From a naturalistic point of view it is difficult to account for many special features that people and the cosmos possess:

 

Feelings are an indication towards the existence of a God, who has a personality, and that humans have specifically received these qualities through creation. Naturalistic and atheist theory presumes that our feelings come from lifeless, non-intelligent and impersonal matter, but that is a poor explanation. Would anyone believe that a lifeless substance, such as a rock, would suddenly begin to smile, cry, laugh, get mad, fall in love, have a crush, be afraid or feel attraction towards the other gender? These things are difficult to explain from a naturalistic point of view.

 

The quality of being artistic and having a sense of beauty are both especially human related characteristics and are also an indication of the existence of a God, who has His own persona. Why is there poetry, literature, music listening, music production, art and mathematical talent? Or why do people possess such a sense of beauty that they place lovely paintings on the walls or take pictures of the nature with cameras and then look at the photos? If these qualities are not a reflection of God’s limitless creation work, then where do they come from? These concepts cannot be effortlessly explained from a naturalistic point of view. It is difficult to imagine that a rock or any lifeless matter would all of a sudden feel a sense of beauty and start liking music and start to write stories. A more rational explanation is that we possess these qualities, because of creation, and we can experience and practice these things.

 

Intelligence requires its own explanation. How could it originate from a lifeless matter, such as rocks or how could it come from a pin sized space in Big Bang? A lifeless matter, such as a rock, cannot produce the information that is found in the human mind. A better basis for intelligence is that it has always existed and that humans’ intelligence is a part of that greater intelligence, which we have been granted by a supernatural being, ergo God. We have intelligence and personality, because these qualities have been in God before us. People were created to be the image of God (Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.), and that explains our intelligence, our personalities, our ability to speak and our other abilities.

Carl Sagan has written the following about human brains and their complexity. These kinds of qualities don’t come about by themselves from lifeless matter, such as rocks:

 

If expressed in binary digits, the information content in human brains can probably be paralleled to the total amount of connections between neurons, which is about a hundred billion (1014) bits. If this information were to be written in human language, it would contain about 20 million bindings, which are as many bindings as there are books in the world’s largest library. We all have information equivalent to 20 million books in our heads. The brains are an extremely large place inside a very small space. (5)

 

Moral, ergo the sense of right and wrong is an indication to God’s existence and an indication of how people were created in His image. It doesn’t directly prove the existence of God, but it does show the difference between animals and humans. If we, humans, originated purely from matter, we would hardly make a distinction between different actions. Mere lifeless matter cannot produce moral or a sense that knows right from wrong. How could a rock, gravel or some gas impact in a way that someone would begin to regret their actions (Father, who has neglected his children due to drinking and wants to make amends), or someone would start to feel bitterness for someone else’s actions (He stole from me, lied about me, was offensive towards me”) or that someone would make a difference between different actions? These things must have a better explanation than sheer matter.

What can we conclude based on moral? The best argument is that moral and ethics originate from the afterlife and are based on God’s good nature. Because He is good and perfect and because people were created in His image, these things explain the significance of moral values and norms. From a naturalistic point of view they are difficult to explain, but theism and the existence of God create the best basis to account for their presence. This has also been admitted by many naturalists:

 

J.L. Mackie: If (...) there are (...) moral values, God’s existence is more likely than it would be without them. Thus there is (...) a defendable argument on morals for the existence of God. (6)

 

Paul Draper: “The moral world (...) is very likely, if theism is true.”  (7) 

 

Religion. Above we mentioned, how there are qualities in the world, which are difficult to explain by an origin that is just a rock-like lifeless matter. The rock itself doesn’t turn into something that moves, feels, laughs, thinks, speaks or accuses of wrongdoing. A much better basis is that these qualities originate from God, who has put them into humans and because humans were created in the image of God (this image was tainted in the Fall of man).

Religion and longing for God are also related to the same issue. Animals don’t possess a religious consciousness, dreams of eternal life, sense of accountability to God, and they don’t pray, but people do possess these qualities. Naturalists try to account for them by saying that these qualities are a product of evolution, but a more rational reasoning is that God exists and He is the one that placed these qualities in us, so that we could be connected to Him and pray for Him. The Bible shows that a prayer, ergo asking God for help, has existed since the beginning of human existence:

 

- (Gen 4:26) And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call on the name of the LORD.

 

 

 

Lie number 2: There is no intelligent design

 

The first major lie, which people believe in, was denying God’s existence. Although, we cannot directly prove the existence of an almighty and supernatural God, there are many aspects that speak for his existence. Such things include, e.g., the beginning of the Universe and life, which naturalistic theories cannot properly explain. Furthermore, such features as feelings, intelligence, sense of beauty and moral are also good reasons to believe in the existence of a personal God.

The same initial setting can be seen in people’s attitudes towards intelligent design. While naturalists don’t acknowledge the influence of a supernatural God at any moment in time, they also have critical attitudes towards the idea of intelligent design. They downright reject the one thing that could be considered a logical cause in their materialistic worldview. They assume that besides the cosmos, ergo matter, there is no God, and that is why they also disagree with intelligent design. However, one should pay attention to the following aspects related to this issue:

 

• An interesting commonality is that all naturalists admit the importance of intelligence and design in the objects produced by humans, such as cars, rockets, bikes, washing machines, cameras and other devices. They also consider it to be evident that these abiotic devices showcase traces of intelligent design.

However, if we shift onto the living world and people, naturalists will try to reject the same concept. They’ll think that a traffic sign on the street is designed, but that living creatures are not.

Another example could also be a statue, which resembles a human. You can see hands, feet, the head, and other parts of the body in the statue. Everyone agrees that a person designed it and that it required intellect. This statue did not come to be by itself. However, a statue, which is considered the result of intelligent design, is an insignificant piece of handcraft, when compared to an actual human being. A statue doesn’t have blood circulation, heart or lungs. It doesn’t feel, see nor hear anything. It cannot speak or move. It cannot eat food nor does it have a taste in its mouth. It doesn’t feel love, hate, sorrow, joy or any other emotions. It also cannot reproduce, which is possible for most humans.

What does this mean? The signs of intelligent design are clearly there and visible, but people’s spiritual blindness prevents them from seeing it. Although they regard themselves as wise and intelligent, in reality, they are spiritually blinded.

We ought to ask these people, whether there is an apparent conflict in their thinking? How could a still traffic sign on the street or a statue represent intelligent design, but living creatures cannot? The items designed by people are very simple compared to any lifeform. Thus, if we admit the intelligent design in lifeless objects, shouldn’t we also do the same with living creatures? They are far more complex than any object designed by humans.

 

• When arguments for intelligent design are not regarded as science in naturalistic circles, but arguments against it are seen as science, it is an irrational way of thinking. What makes acknowledging intelligent design a religious view and denying it a wise and scientific view? Possibly nothing. It is only about views based on biases, which people want to hold on to. It has nothing to do with science.

On the other hand, many scientists act against naturalistic views in their everyday lives and practical work. They admit the existence of intelligent design or look for signs of it. The following examples are suggestive of this:

 

- SETI –project is based on searching similar intelligent life that is found on earth from space. The supposition is that there is intelligent life elsewhere as well.

 

- An archeologist searches for signs of life, when he digs the ground. He is not interested in ordinary rocks, but rocks that have writings on them or alternatively he looks for artifacts that display signs of design.

 

- With the help of technology intelligent ideas can be searcher from the nature. E.g., the wings of birds have generated ideas for designing wings for airplanes. Another example is the front parts of the Japanese high speed trains, which design has been inspired by the beak of the Common Kingfisher. This has led the trains to be quieter, faster, and they consume less electricity.

The new Finnish science magazine (Tiede 3/2014) gives more examples on how nature has inspired technological designs. One article describes, how Canadian scientists were able to make sheet glass 200 times more shockproof than it normally is by copying the nacre of seashells. Another article describes how mimicking the structure of a pomegranate can make batteries more durable. These kinds of examples suggest intelligent design in the nature and how it can be used to benefit.

 

The preceding examples show that naturalists themselves don’t believe in their own claims. They might reject intelligent design on one level, but on another unconscious level they believe in it.

Those, who are devoted to a naturalistic worldview, usually admit quite reluctantly that people, animals and plants display signs of intelligent design. It is difficult for them to admit it, as they are committed to their naturalistic worldview. However, sometimes this issue might appear in their books or in their comments, as the following comments indicate. They struggle and lie to themselves in order to hide the apparent truth that natural configurations are not simple. For example, Paul wrote in the Romans very aptly about these kinds of people, who don’t respect God and who have become foolish, even though they consider themselves wise. (Rom 1:19-22): Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 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: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

 

Darwin: Another premise to believe in God that relates to reason and not to feelings, seems more cogent. You see, it is extremely difficult or rather impossible to imagine that this enormous and wondrous universe, including humans, who can look far back into the past and far into the future, had come into existence by pure accident or without any intermediation. While wondering this, I feel as if I must look for a First Reason, which had an intelligent mind, somehow comparable to human mind, and thus I can be called a theist. (8)

 

Jerry Coyne: If there generally are verities about nature, the fact that plants and animals seem to be complexly and almost perfectly designed to live their lives must be considered as one of these verities. - - Where does this all lead up to? To a master mechanic of course. - - The more we learn about animals and plants the more we are wondering, how well their physical structure is fitted to their life style. What would be a more natural conclusion than to think all this compatibility is the result of intelligent design? Darwin, however, looked the other way from the obvious and suggested – and supported it with detailed evidence – two ideas, which made thoughts about intelligent design vanish forever. These ideas were evolution and natural selection. (9)

 

Francis Crick: Biologists must constantly keep in mind that, what they are seeing is not designed, but the result of evolution. (10)

 

Richard Dawkins: Leaf eating giraffe, soaring albatross, swooping sparrow, circling hawk, leafy seadragon invisible in the midst of seaweed, cheetah speeding up to its maximum speed after a turn, hopping gazelle – the illusion of design is intuitively so strong that one must truly strive to think critically and to overcome the temptations of naive intuition.  (11)

 

How do scientists with a naturalistic worldview attempt to deny intelligent design? They usually pay attention to structures that in their opinion don’t fit into the idea of intelligent design. For example, the next quotation evaluates human brains, although, in reality they are the most complex thing known to exist in the Universe. (See Carl Sagan’s earlier comment on brain complexity) Many computers are simple in comparison. The writers might have not realized that, when they evaluate the structure of brains, they also question their own thoughts and views. How can they trust in their conclusions if the human brain is merely a lousy construction?

 

Brains are not a product of highly intelligent and omniscient engineer’s work, but nothing else than – as all evolutionary products – an exquisite system constructed from already existing building materials, which are the products of evolution. The human brain is a result of a shortsighted evolutionary process, which has solved problems of that time without considering the evolutionary potential of the selected structures. This is why we might find significant developmental constraints in the brains. (12)

 

If we, e.g., look at animals with an open mind, we can be sure to notice intelligent design in them. They would not be able to eat, move or reproduce if they didn’t have a functioning digestion, blood circulation, reproductive mechanisms or functioning limbs. They would not even be alive if these complex and intelligent structures weren’t complete.

How about people? It is difficult to imagine, how our current structures would function any better. For example, we can write, throw a ball or a shot put, hang from trees or carry items with our hands. Another example is our head, where we have complex organs, such as the eyes, brains (our mind), nose, mouth and the ears. With our mouths we can also speak, sing, eat, breathe and taste food. A third example is reproduction. It has to do with attraction towards the other gender, the compatibility of sex organs, the compatibility of gametes so that conception can take place, the growth of the fertilized egg into a three kilogram baby inside the mother’s womb and nutrition consumption after birth from the mother’s breasts. It is difficult to imagine, how these things could have been designed any better.

Similarly, it is difficult to imagine, how people could have designed, for example, birds’ and bats’ wings to be any better than they already are. The fact that airplane manufacturers have looked for inspiration from bird wings also attests to intelligent design. It is much more rational to believe that these structures, intelligence, emotions, personalities and senses would have already been in us from creation. It is arrogant to think that intelligence hasn’t been there from the beginning. No one has been able to show, how a lifeless matter, such as a piece of rock, would have generated living creatures that have feelings, intellect and who are structurally complex. Believing in these things coming about by themselves is not wise.

The next quotation is related to the issue at hand. Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins admits that current structures are functional and that organisms fulfill functional requirements. No exceptions have been discovered to refute this.  Isn’t this clear evidence for the intelligent design argument and that it has been there from the beginning? Otherwise, animals and plants wouldn’t even be alive. This kind of observation doesn’t really fit into the evolutionary theory, but goes 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. (13)

 

 

 

Lie number 3: All species descent from the same stem cell

 

In the previous chapters we brought up two major lies, which were the denial of God’s existence and intelligent design. We have concluded that these naturalistic views are not overly sound.

Why do people deny God’s existence and intelligent design? A major reason for this is the evolutionary theory. When Charles Darwin popularized this theory, it became successful in a few decades. It led to the abandonment of God’s existence, and His role as the creator was questioned. People began to believe that God never created anything or that if creation was real it could have not happened in a short period of time and only a few millennia ago. Instead, a presumption of current species being developed by themselves from a simple stem cell took over. This idea of slow development over millions of years can be constantly seen, for example, in nature documentaries. These documentaries are a small indication of, how the worldview has changed over the last few decades.

How about the accuracy of the evolutionary theory? Is it true or false? One ought to pay attention to the following aspects in regards to this issue:

 

The Cambrian explosion – fully formed species from the start. When we begin to explore the evolutionary theory, a good place to start is the discussion is the so-called Cambrian explosion. In the evolutionary literature it means that multicellular life appeared suddenly ca. 550 million years ago (according to the evolutionary scale) and no major changes have happened after that. Stephen Jay Gould explains this peculiar event. He notes that within a few million years all main groups of the animal kingdom appeared:

 

Paleontologists have for a long time now known and been astonished by the fact that main phyla of the animal kingdom appeared rapidly during a short period of time during the Cambrian period… all life, also the ancestors of animals, stayed unicellular for five sixth of the current history, until approximately 550 million years ago evolutionary explosion caused all the main phyla of the animal kingdom to appear only within a few million years…

The Cambrian explosion is a key event in the history of multicellular animals. The more we explore this period, the more impressed we are by the evidence of its uniqueness and its imperative effect on, how later life’s history would play out. The anatomical basic structures that appeared back then, have dominated life ever since without any significant additions. (14)

 

Harry Whittington, a paleontologist specialized in the fossils from the Cambrian period, follows up on the same topic. After having researched the Cambrian period fossils, he has questioned the evolutionary family tree, where all current species descent from the same stem cell. (One of the most pivotal and first evolutionary family trees was constructed by Ernst Haeckel. He has become famous for fabricating fetal pictures, which he had to confess to. Haeckel’s evolutionary family tree has also served as a base for later evolutionary family trees. In his tree, life was thought to have begun from Monera, which afterwards, in 1875, turned out to be a hoax. Monera was discovered to be a mix of plaster and alcohol.) In his book The Burgess Shale (p. 131) in 1985 he wrote how animal species have more likely had different roots. His view is in accordance with the creation model, where all species were created differently from each other from the beginning:

 

I have skeptical feelings towards diagrams that picture the divided variety of animal kingdom and, whose bottom consists of one base animal species… Animals might have appeared more than once, in different areas and at different times.

 

Richard Dawkins, well-known for denying God, has also referred to the Cambrian explosion. He admits that complex fossils seem to have appeared into the strata out of nowhere, and that there are no earlier and simpler fossils underneath them. Yet, he appeals to the lack of fossil data, meaning he uses the same argument as Darwin used to:

 

Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change. - - For example, strata from the Cambrian period from 600 million years ago are the oldest strata that contain fossils from most of the vertebrate phyla. On top of that, many of them are already quite far developed. Because there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared on these strata from thin air… Regardless of their school of thought, all the evolutionists agree that in this area there is a huge gap in the fossil discoveries. (15)

 

What makes the Cambrian explosion problematic from the evolutionary standpoint? There are two reasons for this, and both of them support the creation model, but not the evolutionary model. They are as follows:

 

Sophistication in the beginning. The fact that Cambrian fossils are fully formed, sophisticated and also different from each other, suggests that they were created. These first multicellulars are not simple or semi-formed, as the evolutionary theory presumes, instead they are as sophisticated as the current species. They barely differ from the current forms, except those species that have become extinct.

Moreover, earlier and simpler pre-forms have not been found beneath the Cambrian fossils. If the evolutionary model was true, we should find simpler pre-forms, but so far it hasn’t happened. Observations clearly support the creation model, where species are fully formed, sophisticated and were different from each other from the beginning.

 

Abundance of species in the beginning. If the evolutionary model and the family tree were true, in the beginning there should have been only one stem cell, where all the other species gradually would have developed from. The number of species should have increased more and more with time. As time went on more species should have developed from that one or the few species that were in the beginning.

The Cambrian explosion goes against this remark. It shows precisely that it was in the beginning, when there was an abundance of species, but now there are far less species than there used to be. Species becoming extinct has been the general trend, and we cannot bring them back. If the evolutionary model was true, the development should be quite the opposite, but that is not the case. The reality is more compatible with the creation model, which states that in the beginning there was an abundance of species. The traditional evolutionary family tree cannot be true. A better option is that there have been hundreds or thousands of family trees, which all have branches. These branches stand for change and variation that is possible within the boundaries of genetic heredity.

 

Fossils don’t display gradual development. Another reason to be critical towards the from-simple-to-sophisticated theory is noticing, how it’s contradictory with the fossil data. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the most famous fossil researcher, and his friend Niles Eldredge have disclaimed observable gradual development in fossils. Dawkins’ former comment also stated that ”fossils don’t form a chain  composed of small barely visible changes”.

Practically, these observations denote the lack of most important evidence for evolution to be true. If the fossils don’t display any observable signs of gradual development, then the evolutionary theory cannot be true. That is the case, even if there would have been millions of years to utilize. Evidence fits better to the notion of species being different from the start, as is posed in the creation model:

 

Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- 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. (...) (16)

 

Niles Eldredge:  We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (17)

 

Even Darwin himself noted that the fossil data of the time didn’t support his theory. That is why he appealed to the lack of fossil data:

 

People who believe that the story told by geology is somewhat complete will probably reject my theory without a second thought. (18)

 

But as according to our theory there must have been countless amounts of transitional forms, why don’t we find countless amounts of permineralized transitional forms from the crust of the earth? - - I believe the reason for the lack of transitional form is that geological chronicles are much more imperfect than commonly presumed. (19)

 

But I could never have even imagined how weak is the evidence given by even the best preserved geological layers. The lack of innumerable intermediate forms between species that should have been living during the early and later stages of each formation has put my theory to a major test. (20)

 

The subsequent comments will follow up on the topic. Museums have millions of fossils, but there is no way we can interpret them as having a gradual shift from one species to another. If we take the evidence as it is, it supports idea that species were created in their fully formed forms from the beginning and that they were different from each other. This is what the history of creation in the Bible posits:

 

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.” (21)

 

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 [22])

 

How about the current nature? If we observe the current nature, we can detect the same pattern. All species are complete and fully developed, not in a way that they would have semi-developed senses or limbs. They are not in a developing stage nor semi-formed, but fully developed and formed. Both of these observations – fossils and the current nature – suggest clearly towards creation and not towards gradual development. We should take the evidence as it is and not attempt to interpret it from a naturalistic viewpoint.

We’ll let a well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, talk about the issue at hand. We will revisit his comment on each species and each organ inside those species being complete and perfect. This is a strong indication towards creation:

 

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. (13)

 

On the Origin of Species, a book by Darwin. When Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species (1859), it affected the science world, as well as, the worldview of regular people. The evolutionary theory and long time periods associated with it were widely accepted and people began to regard them as scientific truths. People started to believe that life developed from a simple stem cell into the current complex forms, and that the whole process took millions of years.

Therefore, the basis for the current evolution theory comes from Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species. Without the book it would have not become as popular as it did.

What is peculiar, however, is that Darwin hasn’t included any examples of real species transformations in his book. The book, which according to its name, should explain the origin of species (from simple to sophisticated), doesn’t bring up crucial evidence. Darwin did make some very precise observations; he introduced us to good examples of changes within the created kinds, but he couldn’t show us any real changes of species transforming into another. He himself had to admit that he didn’t have any direct evidence:

 

I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (23)

 

The subsequent comments follow up on the topic. They point out, how Darwin didn’t have evidence on the transitional forms. His examples were restricted to mere changes within the created kinds, which is a completely different thing to the notion of all current species being descendent from the same stem cell. Therefore, the book that should explain the origin of species and provide examples, fails to do so.

   The first comment comes from a well-known evolutionist, Jerry A. Coyne. He too admits that Darwin was not able to show any transitional forms in his book On the Origin of Species, but that nowadays paleontology (fossils) is confirming Darwin’s theory. However, Coyne himself partly refutes his own statement. Earlier comments also point out that paleontology debunks Darwin’s theory, meaning they don’t reinforce it.

 

Although, Darwin could not evidence transitional forms in the Origin of Species, he would have been delighted, how the fruits of current paleontology have reinforced his theory

… What is considered fossil evidence for the significant evolutionary transition? According to evolutionary theory two species, no matter how different, stem from one species, which is their shared ancestor. This species could be called the “missing loop”. As we have seen, the possibility of finding this kind of singular ancestor from the cluster of fossils is nonexistent. There is simply too little preserved fossilized material to expect finding the common ancestors. (24)

 

Encyclopedia Britannica: It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.

 

Recently, it has been admitted that Darwin’s ”proof” was actually philosophical reasoning without a great deal of scientific basis. I quote from the most presticious recent evolutionist, Ernst Mayr (Harvard University): “One must grant Darwin’s opponents the validity of two of their objections. First, Darwin produced embarrasingly little concrete evidence to back up some of his most important claims.” (Nature 248, 22 March 1974, p. 285) The evidence for evolution has never been strong, nor is it strong today. (25)

 

Perhaps the most staggering point about the current situation is the following: although in the mass media Darwin is considered to be a secular saint and evolution theory is thought to be an unbeatable challenge to religious claims, the leading biologists consider it to be self-evident that the origin of species is still not discovered. In the Nature –magazine Eörs Szathmary wrote an evaluation of Jeffrey Schwartz’s efforts to construct such a theory and he began his evaluation like so: “The origin of species has for long fascinated biologists. Although this is the heading of Darwin’s magnum opus, it does not provide a solution to the problem. Will Jeffrey Schwartz provide a solution? I’m afraid that generally speaking he does not. (26)

 

”It is rather ironic that the book, which became famous for explaining the birth of the species, does not actually explain it at all.” (Christopher Booker, writer of Times when quoting Darwin’s magnum opus the Origin of Species) (27)

 

Although, evolutionists cannot show proof for real species transformations through fossils or by looking at the nature today, they still are correct about one thing: There really exists proof for evolution. But it is depended on, how we define evolution. If we define it as changes within the created kinds, everyone would agree. Natural selection and evolution are indeed taking place in the created kinds with observed variation. There are good examples of this in Darwin’s book and in other evolution literature. For example, the immunity of bacteria, different colored pepper moths and the finches of Galápagos Islands are frequently brought up. They all showcase variation within the created kinds, because the species in question stay as bacteria, as pepper moths and as finches at every stage. Variation is about adapting to different environments, but not about species actually transforming into another.

That is why we should precisely determine, what is meant by evolution. Does it mean the molecule-to-man theory or is it merely adapting to different environmental factors. The latter is agreed by everyone, but the former doesn’t seem to have any evidence.

What is interesting is that, whenever evolutionists attempt to prove the molecule-to-man theory, they use examples that belong to the category of adapting to the environment. Why is that?

It must be, because they don’t possess real evidence for species transforming into another, but only have evidence for adapting. Experiments on bacteria and fruit flies that have been going on for over hundreds of years and for centuries ongoing breeding, have also showed that there are certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. Species don’t turn into other species, because, for example, bacteria and fruit flies still remain as such. Therefore, we must differentiate variation within species and adaptation from the notion of all current species stemming from a single shared stem-form. They are two different concepts, and only one of them has convincing evidence.

 

We can only present presumptions on the motives that lead scientists to assume that the notion of a common ancestor is without criticism. The triumph of Darwinism undoubtedly increased scientists’ authority, and the idea of an automated process fit so well with the spirit of the time that the theory also gained a lot of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it was rigidly tested and after that they used their authority to assure wide audiences that natural processes are enough to produce human bacteria and the chemical compounds of the bacteria. Evolution theory began to search for evidence to support itself and started to fabricate explanations to annihilate any contradictory evidence. (28)

 

David Griffin: I have been assured that there are evolutionists, who have described, how the necessary changes could have happened. When I ask, what are the books, where these descriptions can be found, I either get no response or I get referred to books that don’t have these descriptions. Everyone seems to know about the descriptions existence, but I have not yet found anyone, who would know where to find them. (29)

 

As already noted, bacteria and fruit flies have been experimented on for over a century now. These experiments have repeatedly shown that mutations are limited within narrow boundaries. Evolution stops if the change beneficial for the organism requires more than two simultaneous and complementary mutations [Ralph Seelke (2005) ”What Can Evolution Really Do? How Microbes Can Help Us Find the Answer?” Uncommon Dissent Forum, August 2005, Greenville, SC.   /  Behe, MJ (2010) Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and ”the first rule of adaptive evolution.” Q Rev Biol 85:419-445. http:dx.doi.org/10.1086/656902]. We have not been able to go any further than that. If we consider the present day as the key to the past, we can conclude that mutations have been limited within a narrow sector in the past as well. Experimental evidence suggests slight changes, but they don’t suggest that, e.g., bacteria would have changed into another species.

 

British bacteriologist Alan Linton: Science makers reject theories, which have been proven to be untrue. Based on this, Elredge claims that science has not been able to cancel the evolution theory in 150 years and that is why the evolution theory has won. In other words, the evolution theory is based on the idea that science has not proven the theory false. He believes that the evolution theory can be scientifically tested.

   But where is the experimental evidence? In scientific literature, there is no evidence that one species would have evolved from another species. The bacteria are the simplest examples of independent life and they fit ideally well to this kind of study. The age of one generation is 20–30 minutes. A population can be achieved in 18 hours. However, the history of bacteriology of 150 years does not offer any evidence that one bacteria species would have changed into another in spite of the population having been exposed to powerful chemical and physical mutative genes and that only the bacteria have outside DNA molecules of the chromosomes (plasmids) which can move from a bacterium family to another. Because there is no evidence of species changes in the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, not to mention species changes between higher multicellular organisms. (30)

 

 

 

 

Lie number 4: Millions and billions of years are true

 

 

If the traditional evolution theory (all species descend from a shared stem cell) is a lie, as there are no direct pieces of evidence towards it, then why has it gained so much support and acceptance?

One reason for this is the presumption of billions and millions of years. People have thought that, what would otherwise be impossible and only happens in fairytales, would somehow be possible if we add enough time. As such, if a girl kisses a frog and it turns into a man, then that would be considered a fairytale. However, the same phenomenon is considered science, provided that we add enough time, which would be 300 million years, as people assume that the frog has turned into a man during that time span. At least this is what they assume in the traditional evolutionary theory.

The question is, are the millions and billions of years also fabrication? When it comes to this question, you should take into consideration the following aspects:

 

Space. When it comes to the age of the Universe and space, they are based on the notion of Big Bang, which is believed to have taken place approximately 13,8 billion years ago. This theory presupposes that all matter was condensed into a space smaller than a pin, which then exploded (the idea of a pin sized space is introduced in many books dealing with this issue).

However, if this whole thing is pure imagination – as it is, because nothing can come out of nothing – the number 13,8 billion as a year has no meaning. It is a year that can be disregarded straight away. It’s insane to think that the following things could come out of a pin sized space by themselves:

 

• An elephant and the grass it eats

• A fast cheetah

• Roaring lions

• Birds that can fly and chirp

• Mosquitoes that the birds can eat

• Fish and the oceans around them

• Beautiful scented flowers and trees that can be dozens of meters tall

• Billions of galaxies, stars and planets

• The Sun, which provides us with warmth and light

• People that can speak and feel emotions: cry, laugh, get angry, be afraid, mourn, have a crush and fall in love

• Tasty strawberries, bananas, blueberries, peas, grapes and nuts

 

How about the concrete age of space if the Big Bang is only imaginary? If we look into space, we cannot directly determine its age. However, it is much more likely that the cosmos is fairly young, rather than very old. Because when we look into space and see millions of stars and galaxies that radiate light, they are suggestive of the Universe being young. Or if the Universe truly was millions and billions of years old, it would most likely be a very dark place, because galaxies and stars would have ceased to radiate in space. That fact that they still do radiate, suggests the Universe is young.

How about our Sun? Some scientists have honestly admitted that they don’t know the age. They have also admitted that the age of the Sun is tied to the alleged age of the Earth, and that they have turned to paleontology for evidence. Next we’ll have some comments on the matter coming from distinguished astronomers. By looking at the Sun and space, we cannot be certain of their age:

 

Eddington: When it comes to this kind of important question, we should not only trust the astronomical arguments blindly, but should turn to other, perhaps even more convincing, evidence from sister sciences… The age of the oldest rocks have been stated to be 1200 million years… Of course the Sun must be much older than the earth and its rocks.

 

George Gamov yr. 1953: The Sun is now only 3 or 4 billion years old… why is that?... because the estimated age for earth is approximately in the same range.

 

Sun expert John Eddy: It is possible that the Sun is 4,5 billion years old. However, based on some new unforeseen conflicting results, frantic recalculations and theoretical revision, I suspect that the number (the age of the Sun and the earth) could be closer to bishop Ussher’s estimates. I don’t think that there is much observational astronomical evidence coming against this. Astrophysicists are now turning to paleontologists, when it comes to determining the age of the Solar System.

 

The Earth. Above we noted that the age of space is not known to researchers. There is no certain information about it, only mere assumptions.

How about the age of the Earth? Many people have this idea that the age of the Earth has been determined from some rocks and that the end result is 4,5 billion years.

The former does not, however, hold true, as the age of the Earth has been determined by using meteorite rocks. The reason for this is that people have presumed that the Earth was formed at the same time as the meteorites. However, no one has found nearly as old rocks as 4,5 billion years from the Earth itself. The oldest determined rocks have been 4 billion years.

However, there are several problems with radioactive dating, and we will discuss some of these issues. It is true that we can measure the concentrations of rocks accurately, but it is questionable to associate the results to their age.

 

Radioactivity in different parts of the rock. One crucial point is that it is possible to get different results from different parts of the radioactive rocks, ergo different amounts of radioactivity, which means that it’s possible to have different ages for one rock. For example, the famous Allende meteorite has received different ages ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. This shows how very small areas of the same object might have completely different amounts of radioactivity. It is problematic to associate radioactivity of the rocks to their age.

 

Old ages of new rocks. Another severe issue with radioactivity measures is that fairly new rocks have displayed ages of millions or even billions of years.

 One of the most dramatic examples can be found in Hawaii, where radioactivity measures taken from Hualalai volcanic rocks varied between 160 million and 3 billion years, which would mean that these measures come close to being one of the oldest measured rocks on the Earth. However, the problem here is that the Hualalai volcanic eruption took place during the years of 1800 and 1801, meaning that in actuality the supposed age-old rocks were only under 200 years old. We cannot consider these measures reliable if we detect such incongruities. Another observation is that if the rocks actually were only less than 200 years old, then why was their age range so large? This proves, how unreliable rock measures can be. These are the measurements received from Hualalai:

 

1. 160 million years

2. 791 million years

3. 960 million years

4. 1500 million years

5. 1580 million years

6. 2040 million years

7. 2470 million years

8. 2960 million years

 

When methods contradict each other. It is interesting to see that dating methods can produce results that are in conflict with each other. The most precise method in the field at the moment is radiocarbon dating, and it is precisely this method that is in conflict with the geologic time scale and with other methods. This is demonstrated in the following example, where a rock element and a tree were connected to each other. The tree was dated only to be thousands of years old by the radiocarbon dating method, but the rock was dated back to millions of years by the same method. When these kinds of incongruities occur, it is clear that especially rock measurements are unreliable. They do provide suitably old ages for the evolution, but they don’t necessarily have anything to do with reality.

 

We have published detailed reports in which wood found in sandstone that was “250 million years old” or in volcanic rock that was “tens of millions of years old” was dated with radiocarbon as only being a couple of thousands of years old. When (...) geologists take samples of volcanic rock that is known to have come from a specific eruption and send them to a highly respected laboratory doing radiometric dating, the "dating" almost always gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions on which the dating method is based are erroneous. (31)

 

Fossils found from the Earth. Previously, we noted that in reality no one knows the age of space nor the ages of Earth’s rocks. They could just as easily be thousands of years old and not millions of years old. It is impossible to prove this, although some might claim otherwise.

How about the age of fossils that can be found from underneath the ground, such as dinosaur fossils? It is important to highlight that their age is also undeterminable. Fossils don’t tell us anything per se, and they don’t have any tags showing us, when they lived on Earth. This can be understood by anyone, who has seen fossils. Based on a fossil it is impossible to determine, when it once roamed the Earth:

 

There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science. (32)

 

Although, we cannot precisely know the time, when e.g. the Cambrian organisms or other so-called ancient species got extinct, there are clear indications that tell us it could have not been millions of years ago. One such indication is the presence of radiocarbon in fossils. Thus, when the evolution theory specifically talks about the hundred million year development of living creatures, it is possible to prove them wrong if the fossils contain radiocarbon. As when radiocarbon dating examines the remains of living organisms and the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there should not be any of it remaining after 100,000 – 200,000 years.

The truth is, however, that we constantly come across radiocarbon in fossils that have been classified as ancient, and also in black coal, oil, natural gas, the oldest lifeforms from deep sea strata (Cambrian fossils) and even in dinosaurs and diamonds. These kinds of findings would not be possible if we were dealing with tens or hundreds of millions of years. Radiocarbon publication from 1969 examined the results of 15,000 radiocarbon datings and came to the following conclusions

 

- from 9671 samples (trees, animals and humans) only 1146 (12%) generated a radiocarbon age that was more than 12,530 years.

- there were only three cases, where the age was determined as ‘infinite’.

- some black coal, oil and natural gas samples generated a radiocarbon age that was below 50,000 years.

- the lifeform samples from deep sea strata, which were presumed to be the oldest lifeform samples, generated radiocarbon ages of ca. 40,000 years. (33)

 

Hence, the truth is that radiocarbon has been found from black coal strata, oil wells  and also from Cambrian fossils. As the official half-life of radio-carbon is only 5730 years, there should not be any of it left if the samples are from millions of years ago. The only possibility is that these organisms’ moment of death has been far closer to our time, ergo thousands of years ago and not millions of years ago.

We have the same issue with dinosaurs. People haven’t generally even done radiocarbon dating on dinosaurs, because their fossils have been thought to be too old for radiocarbon dating. However, some datings have been done and it has been a surprise that there has still been radiocarbon left. This as well as the previous observations suggests that these creatures’ extinction could not have been millions of years ago.

 

It is not common for fossils that are thought to be very old to get a carbon-14 dating, because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that all of it has practically decayed in under 100,000 years.

In 2012 during August a group of German scientists in the convention for geophysicists reported carbon-14 dating measurements, which were made from many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the measurements, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! The presentation can be seen in written form on YouTube. (19)

   How were the measurements received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The measurements can be found here: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. This incident tells us, the impact of naturalistic paradigm. It is nearly impossible to be able to publish measurements conflicting it in the science community dictated by naturalism. It is more likely that pigs fly.  (35)

 

Dinosaurs have been a subject to other kinds of discoveries in addition to radiocarbon remains, and these discoveries also go against long time periods. These are, for example, unfossilized bones, proteins and DNA:

 

Unfossilized bones. When it comes to dinosaur bone discoveries, it is remarkable that many of the bones are still unfossilized and their contents have been equivalent to fresh bones. It is remarkable, because these bones were supposed to be dozens of millions of years old. These kinds of bone discoveries show that we ought to forget about theories on million year old dinosaur fossils. In reality, they must be only a few thousand years old:

 

C. Barreto has examined young dinosaur bones with his team (Science, 262:2020-2023). It is exciting to see that the examined bones, which were estimated to be 72-84 million years old according to the evolution theory, were not fossilized. The amount of calcium and phosphorus in them is equivalent to current bones. The original publication reveals the marvelously preserved microscopic details on the bones. (36)

 

Collagen and other proteins. Different proteins, such as collagen, albumin and osteocalcin have been abstracted from dinosaur bones. Interestingly enough, these proteins are sometimes not found from fossils that belong to current animal species. For example, a mammoth bone sample, which was estimated as 13,000 years old, had no more collagen left in it (Science, 1978, 200, 1275). Yet, it’s been possible to extract collagen from dinosaur bones. According to the Biochemist special journal collagen is not able to be preserved for three million years even in the ideal zero degree Celsius(37).

 

DNA. Some news have reported, how DNA has been found in dinosaurs, although the same substance is not always found in mammoth or human fossils. What makes these DNA findings challenging from an evolutionary standpoint, is that is has been calculated that the half-life of DNA is only 521 years [As was reported by Yle uutiset (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012) in an article called ”DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi”] and that after 10,000 years there should not be any left (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). Yet, it as well as other quickly decaying substances has been detected in dinosaur fossils. If they were animals that lived millions of years ago, these findings shouldn’t be possible.

 

 

 

Lie number 5. The Bible isn't historically reliable

 

In previous chapters we have, e.g., discussed the evolution theory and the origin of life. We have noticed, how there are severe gaps in naturalistic theories. They cannot provide us with the answers to life’s origin and to current species’ origin. It is much more rational to believe that God created everything, than to believe in these unproved theories that go against practical observations.

Despite everything, the evolution theory, which became popular due to Darwin, has crucially affected people’s perceptions. It combined with liberal theology have made people doubt God as the creator and also other parts of the Bible in terms of reliability, such as the reliability of the Gospels. However, when discussing these matters, you should pay attention to the following aspects:

 

Underlying naturalism. It is common for scientists, who reject creation, and for liberal theologians to say that their views are based on logical reasoning. They think that their outlook is scientific, and that people, who think the opposite, possess a religious opinion. They regard themselves as neutral representatives of science.

The former view is false, however, and there is a simple reason for that: we cannot prove the events of the past, such as the coming about by itself, which is something that these people believe happened, because we cannot go back in time. Proving creation afterwards is also impossible. That’s where we meet the boundaries of science.

Thus, we are facing two opposing views that are based on belief: naturalism and theism. Naturalists only believe in the existence of the cosmos, ergo the existence of matter, and that life began and developed by itself. As opposed to theisms, where it is presumed that besides the cosmos there is also a God, who has created everything. Neither one of these views is scientific, although people might think of themselves as being someone, who is scientific and reasonable.

What should we pay attention to here, is that people with naturalistic views associate their own perceptions with science. They have committed themselves to naturalism, despite what findings suggest. Although, the origin of life has not been proven and no one has been able to provide examples of real species transformations from one species to another, they still hold on to their naturalistic world view and they don’t want to let go of their perceptions. This can easily be seen from these statements:

 

George Wald: When it comes to the origin of life on earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or the coming about by itself (evolution). There is no third option. Coming about by itself has been proven wrong 100 years ago, but it leads us to one single option: supernatural creation. We cannot accept this on philosophical basis (because of personal reasons), and that is why we choose to believe in the impossible: that life began on its own by accident. (38)

 

L. T. More: The more someone studies paleontology, the more they will become convinced that evolution is merely based on belief; exactly the same kind of belief that one must possess, when facing the great mysteries of religion. The only option is special creation, which could be true, but is irrational. (39)

 

D. Watson: Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed, or that it could be proven based on logical and consistent evidence, but because the only alternative is special creation, and it cannot be considered. (39)

 

How does naturalism affect the studying of Bible then? To put it short, those liberal researchers, who are committed to naturalism, reject all such things, where God has intervened with the events of the world, and they have deemed them as unscientific. They explain everything from a naturalistic standpoint, and that is why God having created everything in six days, fulfilled prophecies, virgin birth and miracles done by Jesus cannot be true. They are regarded as unscientific, because the cosmos is closed from all external and supernatural influence, and the laws of nature cannot be broken. It is considered impossible.

It’s not that these liberal theologians would have any new data available to them that no one else has, but it’s naturalism steering their research. This comes apparent from a well-known Jesus Seminar representative’s, J.D. Crossan’s, statement. He said the following in Chicago Tribune Magazine:

 

In my opinion the laws of physics have always been the same, during the first century as well as today. (40)

 

A few other quotations point to the same direction. Distinguished liberal researchers are convinced that there cannot be any miracles or anything supernatural:

 

David Friedrich Strauss: Thus, when we are faced with a story of a phenomenon or event that is clearly stated to be or that is assumed to be caused by the direct influence of God or the influence of a person with supernatural powers, we must consider such parts of the story untrue. (41)

 

Adolf von Harnack: We are completely convinced that everything happening in time and space take place subject to the laws of nature. Any "miracles" that break the order of nature cannot happen. (42)

 

A great example of liberal theologians’ and naturalists’ attitudes is their attitude towards the Flood. The following citations tell us, how nations have preserved heritage stories of the Flood. According to some estimates, there are nearly 500 pieces of such heritage stories. (The numbers don’t matter. Even if there were 5000 heritage stories about the Flood, it still wouldn’t matter to the naturalists). These kinds of facts, however, don’t affect naturalists, because they have already rejected the idea of the Flood’s possibility. Hardly any evidence will make them believe that the Food actually happened:

 

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (43)

 

Lenormant made the following statement in Beginning of History:

“We are able to prove that the story of the Flood is part of the universal traditions in all branches of the human family, and anything that is such definite and uniform in the tradition can surely not be considered an imaginary tale. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a huge impact on the first of the human race that even their descendents have not forgotten it.” (44)

 

Peoples of different races have different heritage stories about the enormous flood catastrophe. The Greeks have told a story about the Flood, and it is centered around a character named Deukalion; even long before Columbus, the Native Americans had their own stories, which had kept alive the memory of a great flood; Tales about a flood have been moved on from generation to generation up until this day also in Australia, India, Polynesia, Tibet, Kašmir and Lithuania. Are they all just tales and stories? Are they all made up? It is presumable that they all describe the same great catastrophe. (45)

 

There are also visible signs of the Flood in the nature, as water has covered those areas that now are mountains and dry lands. The following examples can be found from the world’s highest mountain range, from its highest summit, Mount Everest. The first quotation is taken from a book, which is from the year 1938. Similar signs of sea life can also be found from other high mountain ranges. Even this is something that naturalists don’t associate with the Flood, because of their world view.

 

There are bones of oxen and horses in the Himalayan glaciers. An ice slide starting at a glacier at the altitude of 5,000 metres (three miles) brought such bones with it.

   A large British expedition that almost reached the peak of Mount Everest found petrified fish lying on the mountain. (46)

 

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. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)

 

The third example relates to the Alps. A Finnish geologist wrote many decades ago, how it is possible to find sea creatures’ remains from the Alps:

 

There is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the 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. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. 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 are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…) 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)

 

Jerry A. Coyne’s evolution addressing book (Why Evolution Is True, p. 127) tells how Darwin found fossilized shells from high parts of the Andes. The writer agrees that the mountain has been under water, but still doesn’t believe in the Flood:

 

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.

 

The following comments will follow up on the topic. It is agreed in these comments that oceanic sediments are just as common on mainlands. It’s just that people haven’t been able to make the connection between that and the Flood; probably because these researchers reject the possibility of the Flood. The first comment comes from James Hutton, often referred to as the father of modern geology, and his comment was said over 200 years ago:

 

We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)

 

J.S. Shelton: On mainland, oceanic sediment rock foundations are far more common and wider than all the other sediment rock foundations combined. This is one of the simple facts that requires explanation, as it is in the core of everything that is associated with humans’ continuous efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past.  (47)

 

The reliability of the texts. When we are talking about, e.g., the events from the Gospels, it is true that they involve miracles – a case that seems to be a stumbling block for many naturalistic liberal researchers. However, if these events are a part of the real history, then they belong with science and facts and not with fairytales. Researchers themselves rely on tales if they attempt to deny real historical events based on their own naturalistic world view.

It is true of course, that nothing can be proven as certain afterwards from history, and this also applies to the events mentioned in the Bible and in the New Testament. However, there are adequate reasons to consider these events as historical. The following reasons are as to why:

 

Eyewitnesses: The most scientific way in the field of history, and when things are being recorded, are the observations of eyewitnesses. There is no better and a more scientific way, because only the eyewitnesses can provide reliable information.

This condition is well met in the Gospels of the New Testament. Writers themselves were eyewitnesses or they had interviewed eyewitnesses. There could not be a better basis for the Gospels’ reliability:

 

- (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

 - (John 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

- (1 John 1:1-3) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked on, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

 - (Luke 1:1-4) For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

 

It also becomes apparent in the Acts, how Luke, the writer, was there to see and witness the events. He wrote by using ‘us’, because he was there:

 

- (Acts 27:1-8) And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus’ band.

2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.

3 And the next day we touched at Sidon. And Julius courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go to his friends to refresh himself.

4 And when we had launched from there, we sailed under Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.

5 And when we had sailed over the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia.

6  And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy; and he put us therein.

7  And when we had sailed slowly many days, and scarce were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering us, we sailed under Crete, over against Salmone;

8  And, hardly passing it, came to a place which is called The fair havens; near whereunto was the city of Lasea.

 

Speaking the truth. Many liberal theologians claim that the Gospels cannot be true, because the Apostles wrote them and because they were created from the need to raise Jesus.

The former view is, however, easy to refute with one case: it’s not about the Apostles writing them, but whether they wrote according to the truth. Only that resolves the issue, and nothing else matters. For example, the following passages indicate, how it was important to stick to the truth:

 

 - (John 19:35) And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true: and he knows that he said true, that you might believe.

 

- (John 21:24) This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 

 - (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

Secondly, it must be recognized that the Gosples address major public events and there were famous people involved, such as rulers and high priests (Herod the Great, Pilate, Caiphas the High Priest and his father-in-law Annas, Joseph of Arimathea, the prominent member of the Council, Herod Agrippa, Gamaliel, Proconsul Sergius Paulus, Proconsul Gallio, King Agrippa, Governor Felix, Governor Porcius Festus, etc.). The Apostles could also appeal to the fact that the events had happened publically and were known to others as well. These kinds of aspects indicate that these really were historical events.

Accordingly, as the Gospels were written in a situation, where there were hostile attitudes towards Christianity, it would have been easy for the antagonists to debunk the texts if they would have not been true. They were eyewitnesses as well.

On the other hand, the fact that Christianity spread quickly during the first and the second century, indicates that the Gospels are about historical events that were known to everyone. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for Christianity to have spread so quickly.

 

- (Matt 4:24,25) And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

 

- (Mark 3:8) And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came to him.

 

- (Matt 14:16,20,21) But Jesus said to them, They need not depart; give you them to eat.

20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

 

- (Matt 16:9-11) Do you not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?

11 How is it that you do not understand that I spoke it not to you concerning bread, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?  

 

- (Acts 2:22,40,41) You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the middle of you, as you yourselves also know

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.

 

- (Acts 26:24-26) And as he thus spoke for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself; much learning does make you mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

26 For the king knows of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

 

 - (Acts 10:37,38) That word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

 

Other sources. How about sources outside of the Bible? It is interesting to notice that even if we didn’t use any texts from the New Testament or other Christian material, we could still gather the outline of Jesus’ life from non-Christian sources. Secular sources bring forth similar aspects of the life of Jesus and the early congregation as the New Testament puts forth. This shows, how the events of the New Testament have been a part of the public knowledge. They didn’t take place in any hidden and far away location, as Paul used to say to Festus. (Acts 26:24-26) And as he thus spoke for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself; much learning does make you mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knows of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

 

- Jesus was a man filled with wisdom, if he can even be called a man (Josephus).

- Jesus was known by the name Jesus the Nazarene (Talmud).

- He said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Talmud).

- He was a teacher (Josephus, Talmud).

- He had disciples (Talmud).

- He worked miracles (Josephus, Talmud).

- His disciples healed the sick and worked miracles (Talmud).

- Pilate (26–36 A.D.) condemned Him to death (Tacitus, Josephus) because of the provocation of influential Jewish men (Josephus) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14–37 AD.) (Tacitus).

- He was condemned to death on the cross (Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Talmud).

- There was darkness at the time of His crucifixion (Thallus).

- He was crucified during the Passover (Talmud).

- He rose from the dead (Josephus).

- The successors of Jesus regarded Him as God and sang songs to praise Him (Plinius the Younger).

- He had Jewish and Greek successors (Josephus).

- Faith in Christ originated from Judea (Tacitus, Josephus) and spread to Rome from there (Tacitus).

- Jesus' successors were called Christians (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius the Younger).

- Jesus had a brother called Jacob (Josephus).

- Jesus was called Christ or the Messiah (Josephus).

 

The fact that the events of the New Testament and the Bible are true, thus gets confirmed by other sources. Archeology, notes from historians and also mentions from the Church Fathers have repeatedly endorsed the historical nature of the Bible. They mention dozens of rulers’ names, other persons and places, and many of them were originally known from the Bible. It is strong evidence to suggest that these events really happened.

The next citation indicates Luke’s accuracy as a historian (other Gospels talk about the same cases). If he was precise in describing relatively insignificant details – whose correctness can be verified from other sources – then why wouldn’t he have been accurate in describing miracles or those cases that cannot be externally verified? Only a naturalistic bias that faithless theologians have prevents them from accepting these notions.

 

In a sense, this is exactly what archaeology does. If ancient historical details have been proven to be correct time and time again, we should also trust the stories of the historian in question that cannot be confirmed in the same way.

   I asked for a professional opinion from McRay. – What do you think: does archaeology prove or disprove the reliability of the New Testament when archaeologists study the details included in the stories?

   McRay immediately replied. – The studies make the New Testament more reliable, there is no question of that. Just like any ancient document is more reliable if archaeologists notice when proceeding with their digs that the author provided correct information about a location or event. (...)

   – The consensus among both liberal and conservative scientists is that Luke was a very faithful historian, McRay replied. – He was a learned man, he was eloquent, his command of Greek was almost classical, he wrote like a well-educated man and archaeological findings have proven time and time again that Luke was very precise in his writings.

   McRay added that in many cases related to the harbour stories, scientists at first thought that some of Luke's references were false, but later findings have confirmed that he wrote the information correctly. (...)  One prominent archaeologist carefully studied Luke's references of 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands without finding a single error. (48)

 

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. 

 

The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) Any attempt to reject the fundamental quality of the history of the Acts, even in the small details, seems absurd. Researchers of the history of Rome have for a long time regarded it as self-evident.

 

Some researchers and archeologists have spoke out about, how archeological findings verify the historical nature of the Bible:

 

Keith N. Schoville: " It is important to understand that archaeological excavations have produced a lot of evidence that clearly proves that the Bible is not filled with false information. To this day, none of the historical events of the Bible have been proven false on the basis of this evidence obtained by archaeological research." (49)

 

Nelson Glueck: " 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." (50)

 

As already noted, the Gospel and Bible texts have been reinforced time and again  by archeology and by other historical discoveries. We can easily conclude that the events are historical.

To recap we are going to look at a few examples related to the issue at hand. These examples are about people and places, whose existence and historical status were speculated for a long time, because there was little to no information at all about them in other sources. Later excavations and findings, however, provided a confirmation that they were in fact historical people and places. The examples talk about familiar names from the Bible:

 

Belshazzar. The existence of this king, who shows up in the Book of Daniel, was speculated for a long time. People claimed that a person named Belshazzar never existed. The critics were absolutely sure of that. Today this Bible narration is recognized as real. It’s about science and truth.

 

Nazareth. For a long time people doubted the existence of a city called the Nazareth, as there were no mentions of it, e.g., in the Old Testament. Excavations in 1955, however, showed that this city did exist in Galilee way before the birth of Jesus. While thinking about the incident, Anthony Harvey wrote: ”This little incident truly is not one of a kind. It is merely an example of how archeology has reinforced the reliability of the Gospels over the last decades.” (51)

 

High priest Caiphas  was a figure mentioned many times in the Gospels. He was one of the adversaries of Jesus. Interestingly enough, his ossuary and other ossuaries were accidentally found nearby Jerusalem, when construction workers were building a road. Jukka Norvanto tells us about this discovery:

 

Archeologists were called to the scene and soon it was revealed that the ossaries were from the first century and belonged to wealthy people. Dating the ossaries was easy, as money was also found inside the ossaries, and you can often make out the year that the money has been pressed. And that’s not all. The ossaries also contained the names of the people that were inside.

The biggest news was Caiphas name on one of the ossaries. And as we know based on other sources that the only famous person of that time, ergo from ca. 40th century A.D., was the high priest Caiphas, who was also mentioned in the Bible, it could not be any more certain that the person found was the same as the one mentioned in the Bible. By the way, this was the first time, when a person from the Bible, or what is left of him, has been found. Of course, many mentionings have been found from that time that haven’t been from the Bible, but can also be found in the Bible, such as Pilate, John the Baptist and also Joseph, Jesus’ stepbrother. But Caiphas is the only person, who’s body we’ve been able to find. (52)

 

Pilate. A verse that was for long speculated by liberal theologians was Luke 3:1, which talks about a person named Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abilene. According to liberal theologians Lysanias lived 50 years earlier and that Luke falsely claims that he lived during the time of Jesus.

However, archeologists later found another inscription that mentions another Lysanias, who was the tetrarch of Abilene. There were two people who had the same name. This showed that Luke was right and a reliable source of information, but the skeptics’ information was inadequate.

Pilate, the prefect of Judea, is being mentioned in the same verse from Luke’s Gospel and elsewhere in the Gospels. He was the person, who eventually sentenced Jesus to death. Michael J. Howard tells how this person’s historicalness was reinforced by a rock discovery from Caesarea. The rock had Pilate’s name on it:

 

For 1900 years Pilate only existed on the pages of Gospel and in the vague memories of Roman and Jewish historians. Near nothing was known about his life. Some said that he never even existed. But in 1961 an Italian archeology expedition worked at the ruins of an old theater in Caesarea. One of the workers flipped a stone that had been used as part of a stairway. The following partially intact Latin inscription was on the back of the stone: Caesariensibus Tibernum Pontius Pilatus Praefectus Iudaeae’. (To the [honorable] inhabitants of Caesarea from Tiberieum Pontius Pilate prefect of Judea) After this, the existence of Pilate was no more questioned. - - Now,  for the first time inscriptions provided evidence for the person’s life, who had sentenced the Christ to be crucified – and those were even from his time period. (53)

 

 

 

Lie number 6: Nothing can be known about God

 

We began this text with God’s existence and we concluded that there are valid reasons to believe in it. The existence of the cosmos especially proves the existence of the Creator, ergo God. The Big Bang theory based on naturalism is not able to explain, how such things as galaxies, stars, planets, people, cliffs, oceans, birds, trees, elephants and everything that exists could have come from a pin sized space. It is not wise to believe that everything came about by itself from nothing. To understand this one does not need a university degree, one only needs common sense.

Can we know anything about God if He exists? A common perception and claim is that we cannot know anything about Him, but we can contest this claim. With logical reasoning we can all draw some conclusions. It’ll provide us with a lot of information if we only want to seek that.

 

Living. God must be living, because there is life in the world as well. The practical experience and knowledge is that life only comes from life, and there are no observed exceptions to this rule. Hence, because life here on Earth is not eternal (it is not possible that the Sun would have shine forever, because its energy sources would have run out already), it suggest to an external source that is God. He must have been and must be living, so that life here on Earth is possible.

 

Powerful. God must be powerful. No little god or a man can make galaxies, stars, planets or load the Sun with the energy that radiates warmth and light onto the Earth. None of the above is possible for humans – anyone can try – and still all of them have come from somewhere. The only reasonable explanation to this is that an almighty and powerful God has created them all.

 

Intelligence. As already noted, people can design cars, planes and other technical devices. That is an indication of His intelligence. Meaning, if people are intelligent and there is intelligence in the world, it must have a source. Naturalists try to explain it in a way that intelligence came about by itself from a stone like lifeless substance, but that is a poor explanation. A much more sensible option would be that there has been intelligence before us, as there is an intelligent God.

 

Persona. God must be a persona, because there are personas on the Earth, and because people can have feelings, can think and communicate with each other. These kinds of things don’t just come about by themselves from stone like lifeless substances, but a God who has a persona could have placed these qualities into the first humans and through them into their children and so on.

 

God is the creator. Above, we have introduced many of God’s features, for example, that he is living, powerful, intelligent and a being with a persona.

Another thing that we have already discussed is that he must be the creator. We cannot explain the existence of the cosmos and life with any other way than by saying they have all come from the hands of God. They could not have appeared by themselves, although that is what is presumed in naturalistic theories. The following passages, e.g., suggest that God is the creator:

 

- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 

- (Rom 1:25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

- (Eph 3:9) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

 

- (Mark 13:19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time, neither shall be.

 

- (Ps 19:1) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.

 

- (Room 1:19-22) 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:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

A moral being. God is also a moral being. How can we come to this conclusion? An indication of this is the fact that we, humans, are moral beings and we make choices in everyday life. We feel many things to be right and that we should adhere to them, but often times we might feel reluctant to do so. Everyone knows naturally, what the right way to behave is, and how to treat others, even though we are capable of hardening our feelings. This inner sense and understanding, which urges us to make the right the choices, often goes by the name of conscience. This comes apparent from the following passages. Paul writes that the laws – perception of right and wrong – are written in our hearts:

 

- (Rom 2:14-16) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves:

15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

For this issue to become clear, we are going to look at another quotation relating to the matter. Loren Cunningham, who has visited every country in the world, tells how the notion of right and wrong is common in every nation – regardless of whether they have been in contact with other civilizations or the Bible. Humans know by nature the difference between right and wrong behavior, even if they would have hardened their hearts:

 

I have met people from every country in the world and noticed that the idea of love, responsibility, right and wrong, conscience and moral exists in every culture. Every language has a concept for right and wrong. This has been even before any contact with other civilizations or with the Bible. (54)

 

From the former we can conclude that if people are moral beings and know the difference between right and wrong, then God must also be a moral being. This can only be understood through logical thinking. Morality, ergo the concept of what is right and wrong, cannot come from a stone like lifeless substance, but it is possible that God has put these qualities in people, because people were originally created in the image of God:

 

- (Gen 1:26,27) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

Other things we can know about god

 

- (Hebr 1:1,2) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,

2 Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

Above, we have discussed some things that describe God’s qualities. He must be living, powerful, intelligent, have a persona, moral is an important thing to Him and He is the creator. These are things, which everyone can understand by merely thinking logically.

However, there are other things as well that we can know about our God. We were not left to figure everything out on our own, because God announced Himself through His own Son and through the Apostles that He chose. We don’t need to be met with a God who is a stranger to us, as He has announced Himself to us. This is what, e.g., Paul said, when he was telling about God’s salvation to the Athenians:

 

- (Acts 17:15-34) And they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens: and receiving a commandment to Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him to Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof you speak, is?

20 For you bring certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

22 Then Paul stood in the middle of Mars’ hill, and said, You men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.

24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by are and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:

31 Because he has appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained; whereof he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear you again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.

34 However, certain men joined to him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

 

What can we know about God based on the announcement in the Bible? In regards to this, there are two important things that come up in the Bible:

• God’s love towards people

• God’s hatred towards injustice and sin

 

God’s love towards people. Firstly, there is the love of God that he has for us humans, which is agreed almost by everyone, and that is a great thing. According to the Bible God truly is love (1 John 4:8 … for God is love.), that is a loving God, who wants what’s best for us and wants to connect with us. A sign of this, among other things, is our ability to speak. We can communicate – not only with other people – but also with God. This communication happens through prayer. Through prayers we can turn to our heavenly God in our hearts and tell Him our worries and especially our wishes to connect with Him.

For example, the following passages talk about God’s good will and His love for people:

 

- (Luke 2:13,14) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

 

- (1 Tim 2:3,4) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

How can we see God’s love then? This is what specifically the New Testament tells us. For as people are imperfect before God, and as only God can atone people’s sins, the New Testament tells us, how Jesus Christ, the Son of God came to Earth and took away our sins. Actually, God was in the Christ and atoned the world through Himself, as is explained in the Corinthians. God was the initiator and made it possible for us to be forgiven for our sins and that we are able to receive an eternal life. His motive was His love towards us. We are going to look at passages relating to the subject matter:

 

- (2 Cor 5:19-21) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be you reconciled to God.

21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

- (Rom 5:8) But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

When God has prepared salvation for us, it also means that we receive salvation through grace, meaning it is a gift. We should not reject this gift:

 

- (Eph 2:8-9) For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

- (John 4:10) Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that said to you, Give me to drink; you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water.

 

- (Rev 21:6) And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.

 

- (Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

God’s hatred towards injustice and sin. We already mentioned how people are moral beings and how God must also be one. We can deduce this information with logic and we don’t need special announcements to understand it.

The same thing comes up in the Bible. God truly is a moral being, who hates injustice and sin. He possesses holiness, which is hate towards sin and also love for people, as the following passages suggest. They are not contradictory in any sense. For example, a regular mother can feel the same. A mother can have love for her children and also hate for whatever is trying to hurt her children. There is no contradiction here.

 

- (1 John 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

 

- (1 John 4:8) He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.

 

Therefore, God is light, with no darkness. Although, He wants what’s best for us, He is also holy and a righteous judge, who hates injustice and will condemn it. There are multiple examples of God’s hatred towards sin. Historical examples are, e.g., the generation that lived during Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of Canaan and also the Israeli and Judean states. It wasn’t a coincidence, when they faced destruction, as evil had taken over an immense proportion of those societies.

How about the side of the New Testament? The most important example of God’s hate is the eternal hell, where all people, who don’t regret, end up in. If this wasn’t true, then why was, e.g., Jesus talking about it so much?

 

- (Matt 8:11,12) And I say to you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

         

- (Phil 3:18,19) For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

 

- (2 Thess 1:9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

 

- (Rev 20:12-15) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

The following quotation concerns the subject. Many have a faulty perception of God, because they don’t understand that He hates injustice and will condemn people, who don’t regret their sins, into hell. And actually, only that kind of God can be good, who reacts to evil with negativity. If He doesn’t oppose evil and condemn it, He is not really a good God.

 

God also has other attributes than love. He is also fair, righteous and holy.

For the sake of an example, imagine that someone violently broke into your house, abused your spouse and killed your children. Later you talk to the police and ask: “Did you catch the felon?” Yes we did, but we let him go”, the police replies. When you become distraught and wonder how such a thing can be possible, you get an answer: “Yeah listen here, we are a nation of love!” A nation of love! When did we lose our sense of justice?

In my opinion it is fairly strange, when people wonder why God doesn’t do anything to the evil that is in this world. And when we say that He does – He condemns bad people, who don’t have remorse for their actions, into hell – then people say that He shouldn’t do that, because there is love! Many people’s perception of God doesn’t match with the one that is provided for us in the Bible. His love and fairness are not either-or-alternatives. Both are the attributes of the same God. When God has mercy on a person, who has regretted their sins, He shows His love. When He condemns a person, who doesn’t regret their sins, into hell, He shows His fairness. (55)

 

On the other hand, when God is the judge, in the end it is He, who determines what is right and what is wrong. Moral is not defined by Saddam Hussein, Hitler, playboy, a burglar or gallop polls, it is defined by the almighty God. This should be a given, provided that we believe in God’s existence.

These days many might be approving of, e.g., extramarital sexual affairs or homosexual affairs, but the New Testament teaches us that these things are wrong and that they lead us further away from God. Some might try to deny this, but how do they know Jesus and His chosen Apostles any better from the other side? We ought to take seriously their warnings, such as can be seen in the following passages:

 

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Impenitence as an obstacle. Above, we discussed two of God’s important attributes: His love for people and His holiness, which is His hatred towards injustice and sin. These attributes don’t contradict each other, but can be simultaneously present, as already mentioned.

How do these things relate to people’s relationship with God? If God hates injustice and loves people, then what kind of a person can receive forgiveness for their sins and get to heaven? Does it concern everyone or only those, who turn to God and regret their sins?

The clear answer from the Bible states that not all people inherit God’s kingdom. Heaven is not for everyone, and certain people, meaning the people without remorse, will be left outside.

It is important that we understand that a God, who would forgive unrepentant sinners, could never be a good God. In that case, He would be equally as bad as evilness, which He would accept if He looked at everything through His fingers. Similarly, He would morally be even lower than us, because evil brings about a counter reaction in us and can evoke our sense of justice and also evoke anger towards the injustice. Therefore, if God acted indifferently and accepted everything, He could not be a righteous God. In that case, He would give His blessing to evil, and we cannot expect that from Him.  And that is why we cannot expect Him to open the gates of heaven for unrepentant people:

 

I’m not of the same opinion with those who explain that heaven is open for everyone. As I thank God for Him not making us judges of our fellowmen, I see that the Bible clearly teaches that there are people who will be left outside the Holy City when their life here on Earth has come to an end. One of my friends told me long time ago about a young woman who imagined that God would never close the gates of Heaven from anyone.

That young woman amused her brother’s little daughter one day by telling her a story of “Children in the Woods”. When she finished the story, the child asked with anxiety, “Did all the children go to heaven?” “Yes, they did, my darling," the aunt answered. “But what happened to the bad men?” the child asked. “Oh, I think that God took them to heaven too.” “But won’t they kill children there again?” inquired the little one with anxiety. The practical nature of the question was too much for the aunt’s philosophy, and she saw now – as never before – the impossibility of the righteous God acting that way. (56)

 

The next question is, how we can get to heaven and what is our role in it if it’s something that is not just automatically handed to us. Is there a clear answer?

And again, the answer of course is that if unrepentant wrongdoers are not forgiven and won’t get to heaven, accordingly people, who have a genuine regret and a conversion to God, can receive complete forgiveness and earn a place in heaven. It’s as simple as that.

The story of the prodigal son that Jesus told serves as an example of this. It is a story about a person, who was forgiven, although he had turned his back on his father. The Bible says that when the son regretted, turned to his father and admitted his wrongdoings, what followed was his father’s mercy and he was welcomed back.

 

- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

 

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

It is still the same today. If we turn to the heavenly God, we can experience something similar. ”For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom 2:11) and that is why anyone can experience the same fate as the prodigal son did; he received a place in the heavenly kingdom regardless of what his past was like. The only condition is that we first turn to God and confess our sins. That is when we are forgiven for all that we’ve done. The problem with many unrepentant people is that they never take this crucial step. They don’t turn to God, ask for a new life, and that is why they cannot experience the forgiveness of sins. They will miss out on this experience. Therefore, don’t make the same mistake by acting this way, instead turn to God and recognize that you have been away from Him. Let Him save you, so that you wouldn’t have to regret your decision later:

 

Oh, damnable, nasty! Damned for ever! How foolishly have I done to myself! Of what stupid absurdity was I guilty as I chose the pleasure of sin for a short time at the price of high eternal torment? How often to me was said that it would happen like this? How often was I warned to give up the paths of sin that certainly would lead me to cells of eternal death! But I, like a deaf, did not listen to those warnings even though they warned so wisely. They said to me often that my short pleasure will soon change into eternal torment. And now my too sad experience says to me it, it really says, but it is too late to help because my eternal part has been determined for ever.

   "Why was I given the chance? Why had I been equipped with an immortal soul? Why did I not care about it? Oh, how my own neglect pierces me so dreadfully and I still know that I cannot and will not die. But to live a deadly life is worse than ten thousand deaths, and I still could have been helped once but I did not want to! Oh, this is the gnawing worm that never dies. Once, I could have been happy; once I was offered salvation but I rejected it. If it had happened only once and I would have rejected it, even that would have been unforgivable foolishness, but it was offered to me a thousand times, and I resisted it as often (so lousy I was). Damn the sin, which with its deceitful enjoyment enchants mankind to eternal destruction! God called me often but I resisted Him as often. He reached out his hands but I did not care. How often did I go against His commands, how often I resisted His reprimands! But now, the situation has changed, for now He follows my accident and mocks the ruin that has come for my part. He could have helped me then, but I did not want His help. Therefore, these eternal pains are just a reward for my own deeds and I am condemned to suffer."  (John Bunyan, Näkyjä taivaasta ja helvetistä [Visions of Heaven and Hell], p. 66-68)

 

RECEIVING GRACE. When we noted earlier that everything has been done for us and we can get to heaven only because of grace and through Jesus Christ, it also has significance on our lives. We must turn to God and accept grace. We must turn to Jesus Christ in order to be saved and to receive a place in heaven. Only by letting Him into our lives can we find ourselves in heaven in the end.

 

- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

 

- (John 6:67-69) Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

 

What if we reject God’s grace and Jesus? What if we don’t care about Him and our future life? Will there be any consequences? Will it affect our eternal life?

The answer is that then we would have to pay for our sins ourselves. We would have to atone our sins in eternal hell – a place, where there is no way out. In that case we would have turned our backs on the one change to be saved and to get to God’s paradise. Therefore, don’t make that personal choice of turning your back on God’s grace. Let Him save you today, so that you wouldn’t have to regret it later. It is the best decision you could ever make.

 

In 1892, Wilson and Porter were sentenced to be hanged for a mail robbery. Porter was executed, but Wilson was pardoned. He rejected his pardoning, and judge John Marshall of the Higher Court left the future generations this statement: “Pardoning is an act that is not legal without releasing the person, and release is not perfect without receiving. The person to whom it is offered can reject it, and if it is rejected, we do not deem the Court fit to put it into effect by force.”

   As you see, you bear the responsibility. If you do not accept God’s mercy, He will not force you. “How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?” (Heb. 2:3) (57)

 

My friend, if you are damned, it is not because of your sins, but because you have not received mercy that God offers to you through Jesus. That is why it is fair. If you reject Jesus, what can God do? You then dismiss your only hope of salvation. (58)

 

The prayer of salvation. Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES:

 

1. John D. Barrow : Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 37

2. John D. Barrow : Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 36,37

3. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivett & Gary Habermas (edeted) in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122

4. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

5. Carl Sagan: Kosmos (Askild & Kärnekull Förlag, 1981), p. 277

6. J.L.Mackie: The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.

7. Paul Copan: “The Moral Argument” teoksessa Paul Copan & Paul K. Moser (toim.) The Rationality of Theism. London: Routledge, 2003.

8. Charles Darwin: Elämäni, p. 55,56

9. Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution is True

10. Francis Crick: What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery (1988), p. 138

11. Richard Dawkins: Maailman hienoin esitys, evolution todisteet (The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution), p. 342

12. Ylikoski Petri & Kokkonen Tomi: Evoluutio ja ihmisluonto, p. 194

13. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

14. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 115,116,141

15. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

16. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

17. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

18. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 457

19. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 222

20. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 446

21. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

22. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö and Markku Särelä, p. 19.

23. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

24. Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta, p. 60

25. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257

26. Rodney Stark, p. 184

27. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19

28. Philip E. Johnson: Darwin on Trial, p. 152

29. David Griffin, 2000, Religion And Scientific Naturalism, State University of New York Press)

30. Alan Linton: ”Scant Search for the Maker”, Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001

31. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34

32. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278

33. Tiedot sivulta: www.kreationismi.fi

34. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://_www. youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

35. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146

36. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 63

37. Nielsen-March, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist 24(3):12-14, June 2002; www.biochemist.org/_bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

38. Dennis Lindsay: ”The Dinosaur Dilemma”, Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

39. Usko ja tiede, toim. Pauli Ojala, p. 190

40. J.D. Crossan, lainaus J. Lyonin artikkelissa ”Gospel Truth…”, Chicago Tribune Magazine, 17.7.1994, p. 8

41. David Friedrich Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. London: SCM, 1973

42. Adolf von Harnack: "What is Christianity?, p. 28-29, New York, Putnam, 1901

43. Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78

44. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5

45. Werner Keller: Raamattu on oikeassa, p. 29

46. Raamatullinen aikakauskirja, p. 17

47. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated

48. Lee Strobel: Tapaus Kristus (The Case for Christ), p. 132-134,136

49. Keith N. Schoville: "Biblical Archaeology in Focus" (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 156)

50. Nelson Glueck: Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31

51. John Young / David Wilkinson: Käsittely jatkuu (The Case Against Christ), p. 133

52. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos 1-5, p. 23

53. Michael J. Howard: Unearthing Ponius Pilate, The Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 24.3.1980, p. B1, B2

54. Loren Cunningham / Janice Rogers: Kirja joka muuttaa kansat (The Book that Transforms Nations), p. 133

55. Pasi Turusen nettisivu

56. D.L. Moody: Kristinuskon rikkaus, p. 114

57. Oswald J. Smith: Jumalan pelastus, p. 35

58. Oswald J. Smith:Maa johon kaipaan, p. 89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

 

 

  

 

Grap to eternal life!