Six major lies

Lie number 1: God doesn't exist

As stated, Enlightenment thinking and modernism have changed people's minds. This view has its roots in the 18th century, and in the following centuries it became increasingly dominant in the Western world. One important stage was especially the breakthrough of Darwin's theory of evolution. In a few decades, people began to believe that the universe and life in it can be explained without God's involvement in the matter. Theism seemed like an old-fashioned worldview.

   Typical features of Enlightenment thinking have been e.g. the following points:

1. Belief in human reason

2. Unlimited development optimism

3. The assumption that faith in God is due to a 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.

So who has the burden of proof: the person who believes in God's existence or the person who doesn't? To this, naturalists and atheists usually say directly: "If God exists, prove it to us!" However, the matter can also be reversed; naturalists and atheists can be asked: “If God does not exist, how do you prove it? How do you know that God does not belong to the sector that you have no knowledge of? He may be beyond our senses.

   It's the same thing as if someone loses his keys on the street. He looks for them under the street lamp, "because there is better light and because you can't see in the dark". However, it is possible that the lost keys are in that area in the dark, which the person is unable to see. Similarly, God can be in an area where we cannot see him.”

   If naturalists and atheists were consistent, they would have to admit that their view is based entirely on faith, just like belief in the existence of God. Their view is not scientific, because an absolutely negative statement ("God does not exist") requires absolutely certain and exhaustive information. None of the naturalists and atheists have that. Their knowledge is limited, maybe only a few prom of all knowledge.

   So how should this topic be approached? The best starting point is the probability of things. Which is the more likely option: God exists or he doesn't? We are going to explore this topic. To begin with, we pay attention to the beginning of the universe and life.

The beginning of the universe and life are two things that require an explanation. Currently, it is generally accepted among scientists that the universe and life in it had a beginning. Here are some comments on 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 18^th 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)

So even atheists admit that the universe and life must have started at some point. This is easy to understand for the following reasons:

• The universe is inexorably heading towards heat death - towards a state where all temperature differences have disappeared and where the amount of usable energy decreases and eventually runs out.

   This reduction in the amount of energy can be compared to when the wood in a campfire burns out. Once they burn out, they cannot be burned again - they are unusable. It shows how usable energy is decreasing all the time, and that somewhere there must be an absolute beginning and a limit beyond which one cannot go. It can be called zero moment. There must have been a moment when the clock, which is ticking towards heat death, started and when it stopps. This applies both to our own sun and to other celestial bodies that are still emitting energy. They must have a beginning.

• Also, life cannot be eternal, because the limited existence of the sun sets exact limits on life. The Sun has not always brought warmth and light to the earth; therefore there could not have been life. Without the sun, the temperature would be almost -273°C, it would be dark and the water would be frozen, and in those conditions no known life form could thrive. So life must have a beginning.

If atheist scientists admit that the universe and life had a beginning, how do they try to explain these things? When God is not taken into account, only the following options remain, i.e. the universe came into being by itself out of nothing and life came into being by itself. However, both theories have serious problems:

The universe created itself out of nothing. Meaning that atheist scientists believe that the Universe came into existence by itself from nothing. This is believed to have happened in the so-called Big Bang.

    However, this is a logically impossible option because nothing that does not exist cannot create itself and cause its existence. It's impossible. There is no known case where this has happened. Inanimate things such as stones, rocks, wheels, airplanes or anything else do not appear by themselves out of nowhere. Why would the universe, which is many times bigger than them, be an exception? This theory goes against the laws of logic and natural science.

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 arose by itself. What about the naturalistic theory of the origin of life? This theory is also weak because no practical evidence has been found for it. The more information has been accumulated, the more difficult the problem of the origin of life has been found to be over the decades. Some scientists admit outright that the issue will never be resolved.

    The following quote is related to the topic. It interviews Stanley Miller towards the end of his life. He has become known for his experiments related to the origin of life. J. Morgan said about 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)

The current sure knowledge is also that life can only be born from life. All life is dependent on previous life. Not a single exception to this rule has been found, so if life once began on Earth, but is not self-existent, then the source of life must be outside Earth. Is it not then reasonable to believe that it is God who has created everything, both the inanimate universe and life? This is the most logical option. The problem is that people do not want to accept God as the creator and do not give Him glory. That is why they resort to different and also 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 proofs of God. There are other factors in favor of the existence of God than the existence of the universe and life and their beginning. Other evidences include emotions, intelligence, morality and religion. Such facts are difficult to explain from an impersonal, lifeless and senseless initial state, as required in naturalistic theories. Instead, the more reasonable alternative is that reason, personality, and life existed from the beginning because these qualities were in God. It was like that even before the existence of life on earth. It is difficult to explain many special features of man and creation from a naturalistic point:

Emotions are a reference to the existence of a personal God, and that man in particular has received these qualities through creation. Naturalistic and atheistic theory assumes that our emotions come from inanimate, non-intellectual and impersonal matter, but that is a poor explanation. Does anyone even believe that an inanimate substance like a stone suddenly starts to smile, cry, laugh, get angry, fall in love, have a crush, fear or feel sexual desire? It is difficult to explain these things from a naturalistic perspective.

Artistry and a sense of beauty are qualities especially related to humans and also a reference to the existence of a personal God. Why is there poetry, literature, listening to music, producing music, art and mathematical talent? Or why do people have such a sense of beauty that they put attractive paintings on the walls or photograph nature with cameras and look at the pictures taken of it? If these things are not a reflection of God's limitless creation work, then where do they come from? Such things are difficult to explain from a naturalistic theory. It is hard to imagine how stone and other inanimate matter suddenly begins to feel a sense of beauty, likes music and begins to write stories. A more reasonable explanation is that these things are qualities obtained through creation that man can experience and practice.

Intelligence requires its own explanation. How could it have come from an inanimate substance like a rock or some space the size of a pinhead in the big bang? An inanimate substance like a stone cannot produce the information that exists, for example, in the human brain. A better starting point for the existence of intelligence is that it has always existed, and that human intelligence is part of the greater intelligence we have received from a supernatural being, God. We have intelligence and personality because these things were in God before us. Man is created in 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 his intelligence, personality, speech and other abilities.

   Carl Sagan has written about the human brain and its complexity as follows. Such things do not arise by themselves from inanimate matter like stone:

Expressed in bits, the information content of the human brain can probably be equated to the total number of connections between neurons, which is about one hundred trillion (1014) bits. If this information were written in human language, it would contain about 20 million books, as many as the world's largest library. Each of us has the equivalent of twenty million books of information in our head. The brain is an extremely large place in a very small space. (5)

Morality, or the sense of right and wrong, is a reference to God and how man is created in his image. It does not directly prove the existence of God, but it shows the difference between man and animals. If man's origin were from mere matter, he would certainly not distinguish between different actions. Mere inanimate matter cannot produce morality and a sense of right and wrong. How could a stone, an earth substance or a gas affect the fact that someone starts to feel guilty about what he has done (A father who has neglected his children because of drinking and wants to make up for it), that someone would start to feel bitterness for someone else’s actions (“He stole from me, lied about me, was offensive to me") or that someone makes a distinction between different actions? There must be a better explanation for these things than just matter.

   What can be concluded about morality? The best starting point is that the beginning of morality and ethics is beyond and is based on the good nature of God. Because He is good and perfect and because man is created in God's image, it explains the meaning of moral values ​​and norms. It is difficult to explain them from a materialistic worldview, but theism and the existence of God is the best starting point for their occurrence. The same has been admitted by several naturalists:

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

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

Religion. Above, it has been pointed out how there are properties in the world that are difficult to explain simply from an inanimate substance like stone. A stone does not by itself become a being that moves, feels, laughs, thinks, speaks, or feels guilty for wrong actions. A much better starting point is that these qualities come from God, who put them in man, and because man was originally created in the image of God (this image was distorted in the Fall).

   Religion and longing for God are also related to the same topic. Animals do not have religious consciousness, dreams of eternal life, sense of responsibility to God and they do not pray, but humans have these qualities. Naturalists try to explain that such things have arisen as a result of evolution, but the much more reasonable idea is that God exists and he put this quality in us so that we can connect with God and pray to him. The Bible proves that prayer, or crying out to God for help, was already present in the early stages of humanity:

- (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 that people believed was the denial of God's existence. Although the existence of an almighty and supernatural God cannot be directly proven, there are many facts that speak in favor of his existence. Such are e.g. the beginning of the universe and life, which naturalistic theories cannot properly explain. In addition, such traits as emotions, intelligence, sense of beauty and morality are good reasons to believe in the existence of a personal God.

   The same situation emerges in the approach to intelligent design. When naturalists do not admit the influence of a supernatural God at any point, they are also critical of the idea of ​​intelligent design. They outright reject what can be considered a logical consequence of 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. In this matter, however, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

• One interesting feature is that all naturalists admit the importance of intelligence and design in man-made things such as cars, rockets, bicycles, washing machines, cameras and other devices. To them, too, it is obvious that these inanimate devices show signs of intelligent design.

   Instead, when we move to the living world and man, naturalists try to reject the same thing. They believe that the traffic sign standing on the street is designed, but that living creatures are not.

   One example is also a statue that depicts a person. You can see hands, feet, the head, and other parts of the body in the statue. Everyone admits that it was designed by man and that intelligence was required to make it. This statue did not arise by itself. However, the statue, considered the result of intelligent design, is an insignificant artifact compared to a real person. The statue has no circulation, no heart and no lungs. It cannot feel, smell, see or hear anything. It cannot speak or move. It cannot eat food or feel tastes in its mouth. It does not feel love, hate, sadness, joy or any other emotions. It also cannot reproduce, which is possible for ordinary people.

   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 think they are wise and intelligent, in reality they are in the grip of spiritual blindness.

   It is worth asking such people, is there not an obvious contradiction in their thinking? How can a stationary traffic sign or statue on the street represent intelligent design, but living creatures cannot? Human designed objects are very simple compared to all life forms. So, if the existence of design is admitted in inanimate objects, shouldn't the same be done for living things as well? They are far more complex than any man-made object.

• When naturalism assumes that the arguments for an intelligent design are not science, but the arguments against it are science, that in itself is an absurd idea. What makes granting intelligence a religious view and denying it a wise and scientific view? Certainly nothing. It is only a preconceived view that one wants to hold on to. It has nothing to do with science.

   On the other hand, in everyday life and practical work, many scientists act contrary to the naturalistic concept. They admit the existence of intelligence or look for signs of it. The following examples refer to this:

• The SETI project is based on searching for intelligence in space just like it is on earth. The assumption is that intelligent life exists elsewhere as well.

• An archaeologist looks for signs of intelligence when digging in the ground. He is not interested in ordinary stones, but those with inscriptions or he is looking for objects that show signs of design.

• In the area of ​​technology, you can look for smart ideas from nature. For example, ideas for the design of airplane wings have been obtained from the wings of birds. Another example is the bows of Japanese high-speed trains, which are designed using the beak of a kingfisher as a model. This is how the trains have been made quieter, faster and they consume less electricity.

   In a recent Finnish science journal (Tiede 3/2014), more examples of how from nature has been sought as a model in technological design are reported. One article tells how Canadian researchers made a glass plate 200 times more impact-resistant than usual by taking a model from the mother-of-pearl of a seashell. The second article tells how batteries can be made even more durable by imitating the structure of a pomegranate. Such examples all point to intelligent design in nature, and how it can be put to good use.

The previous examples show that naturalists themselves do not believe in their own claims. They may reject intelligent design on a conscious level, but on an unconscious level they believe in it.

   Indeed, those with a naturalistic worldview are generally very reluctant to admit that intelligent design can be seen in animals, humans, and plants. It is difficult for them to admit it because they are committed to a naturalistic worldview. However, in their books and commentaries, this issue may occasionally come up, as the following comments show. They have to make an effort and lie to themselves to hide the obvious truth that the structures of nature are not simple. For example, Paul wrote aptly in the letter to the Romans about such people who do not respect God and who have become fools, even though they think they are 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: A leaf-eating giraffe, a flying albatross, a plunging tar swallow, a curving hawk, a leafy sea dragon invisible among seaweed, a cheetah accelerating to full speed after a turn, a gazelle leaping - 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 try to disprove intelligent design? The usual way is for them to try to draw attention to structures that they don't think lend themselves to intelligent design. For example, the following quote criticizes the human brain, even though it is actually the most complex known substance in the universe. (See Carl Sagan's earlier comment about the complexity of the brain) Many computers are simple compared to them. The authors may not have thought that when they criticize the structure of the brain, they are at the same time calling their own thoughts and opinions into question. How can they trust their conclusions if the human brain is just a lousy construction?

The brain is not the product of a super-intelligent and omniscient engineer, but – like all products of evolution – anything but a sophisticated structure assembled from the existing building materials produced by evolution. The human brain is the result of a short-sighted evolutionary process that has solved the current problems without considering the future evolutionary potential of selected structures. Because of this, significant developmental limitations may be found in the brain. (12)

If we look at e.g. animals with an open mind, we can certainly notice intelligent design in them. They would not be able to eat, move and reproduce if they did not have a functioning digestion, blood circulation, reproductive mechanism and functioning limbs. They wouldn't even be alive if these complex and intelligent structures weren't ready.

   What about a human? It is hard to imagine how the current structures could work better. For example, you can write, draw, throw a ball, push a ball, hang from a tree or carry things with your hand. Another example is the head, which has complex organs such as eyes, brain (thinking), nose, mouth and ears. Through the mouth we can also speak, sing, eat and breathe and feel the taste of food. A third example is reproduction. It involves the awakening of interest in the other sex, the compatibility of the genitals, the compatibility of the gametes so that fertilization can take place, the growth of the fertilized egg in the mother's womb into a baby of about three kilos, and the postpartum intake of nutrition from the mother's breasts. It is hard to imagine how such things could be planned better.

   Similarly, it is difficult to imagine how a person would have been able to design, for example, a bird's or a bat's wing to be better than what they are now. Proof of this is also the fact that the aircraft industry has looked for ideas from the wings of birds. It is much more logical to believe that these structures as well as reason, emotions, personality and senses have been ready through creation. It is an arrogant idea to dismiss the idea of ​​intelligence from the very beginning. No one can or has been able to show how inanimate matter like a chip of rock can become living beings with feelings, reason, and complex structures. It is not wise to believe that such things have arisen on their own.

   The following quote is related to the topic. The well-known atheist Richard Dawkins admits that the current structures are functional and organisms are functional. No exceptions to this have been found. Isn't this clear evidence in favor of the design argument and that it was there from the beginning? Otherwise, animals and plants could not even be alive. Such an observation fits poorly with the theory of evolution, but well with the creation model: 

The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (13)

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

In the previous paragraphs, two big lies have been brought up, i.e. the denial of God's existence and intelligent design. It has been established that these naturalistic notions are not very reasonable.

   Why, then, has God's existence and intelligent design been denied? One big reason is the theory of evolution.  When Charles Darwin popularized this theory, it became popular in a few decades. It led to the abandonment of God’s existence, and His role as the creator was questioned. It began to be believed that God's work of creation never happened, or at least that it could not happen quickly and only a few millennia ago. Instead, it was replaced by the assumption that the current species have evolved by themselves from a simple primordial cell. This point of view about slow development over millions of years comes up constantly, e.g. in nature programs. The programs are a small indication of how worldviews have changed over the past decades.

   What about the validity of the theory of evolution? Is it true or false? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

Cambrian explosion – fully formed species from the start. When we begin to explore the evolutionary theory, a good starting point is the so-called Cambrian explosion.In evolutionary literature, it means that multicellular life suddenly appeared approx. 550 million years ago (according to the evolutionary scale) and there have been no major changes since then. Stephen Jay Gould explains this remarkable event. He states that within a few million years, all the main groups of the animal kingdom were born:

Paleontologists have for a long time now known and been astonished by the fact that all the main groups 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 sixths of the current history, until approximately 550 million years ago evolutionary explosion caused all the main groups of the animal kingdom to appear only within a few million years…

    The Cambrian explosion is a key event in the life history of multicellular animals. The more we study this episode, the more we are impressed by the evidence of its uniqueness and decisive influence on the course of later life history. The basic anatomical structures born at that time have dominated life since then without significant additions. (14)

Harry Whittington, a paleontologist specializing in Cambrian fossils, continues on the same topic. After studying fossils from the Cambrian period, he has questioned the traditional evolutionary tree, in which all current species originate from one and the same primordial cell. (One of the most important and first evolutionary trees was drawn up by Ernst Haeckel. He has become famous for his fetal picture forgeries, which he had to admit were fakes. Haeckel's evolutionary tree has also been the basis for later evolutionary trees. In his evolutionary tree life was believed to have begun with the monera-mucus, which was later, in 1875, found to be a hoax. It was found to be a mixture of gypsum and alcohol.) He wrote in his book The Burgess Shale (p.131) in 1985 how animal species are more likely to have had many beginnings. His view agrees with the creation model, where species were created separate from each other from the beginning:

I am skeptical of those diagrams that depict the branched diversity of the life of the animal kingdom on the time axis and whose lower part depicts one basic animal species... Animals could have originated 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:

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries. (15)

What makes the Cambrian explosion problematic for evolution? There are two reasons for this, both of which support the creation model but not the evolutionary model. These reasons are:

Complexity at the beginning. The fact that Cambrian fossils are completely finished, complex and clearly separate and different from each other points to their creation. These first multicellular organisms are not simple or semi-finished, as the theory of evolution assumes, but as complex as today's species. They do not differ much from the current forms, except for those species that have become extinct.

   In addition, no simpler precursors can be found below the Cambrian fossils. If the evolutionary model were correct, simpler precursors should be found, but it has been impossible. The findings clearly support a creation model in which species were ready-made, complex and separate from the beginning.

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

   The Cambrian explosion is contrary to the previous observation. It shows that in the beginning there was an abundance of species, but now there are much fewer species than before. The trend has been that species are becoming extinct all the time, and they cannot be restored. If the evolutionary model were correct, development should go in the opposite direction, but that does not happen. This fits better with the creation model where there was an abundance of species in the beginning. The traditional evolutionary tree cannot be correct. A better option is that there have been hundreds or thousands of trees, each with branches. These branches describe the changes and differentiation that are possible within the limits of heredity. 

No gradual evolution in fossils. Another reason to be critical of the simple-to-complex theory is the observation that it contradicts the fossil record. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the world's most famous fossil researcher, and his friend Niles Eldredge have denied that gradual evolution can be seen in fossils. Dawkins' previous comment also said that "fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change".

   In practice, these observations mean that the most important evidence for the occurrence of evolution in the past is missing. If no signs of gradual development can be seen in the fossils, the theory of evolution cannot be true. This is true even if millions of years of time were available. The evidence is more suitable for the fact that the species have been separate from the beginning, as required 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 stated from the fossil record of that time that it did not support his theory. That is why he appealed to the inadequacy of the fossil record:

Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less perfect will certainly reject my theory (18).

But since, according to our theory, there must have been innumerable intermediate forms, why do we not find innumerable fossilized intermediate forms in the bosom of the earth? - - I think the reason for the lack of intermediate forms is that the annals of geology are incomparably more incomplete than is usually assumed. (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 following comments continue on the same topic. There are millions of fossils in museums, but it is impossible to detect a gradual change from one species to another. If the evidence is taken as it is, it supports the idea that the species were created immediately ready-made and separate from each other. This is what is required in the Bible's creation account:

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])

What about modern nature? By observing modern nature, the same thing can be observed. All species are ready and developed, and not like they have half-developed senses or limbs. They are not just developing and half-finished, but completely finished. Both of these observations - fossils and modern nature - therefore clearly point to creation rather than gradual development. The evidence should be taken as it is and not interpreted through a naturalistic worldview.

    Let's let the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins talk about it. We take up again his comments about how each species and each organ in each species is complete and perfect. This is a strong reference to 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 scientific world, as well as, the worldview of regular people. The theory of evolution and the long periods associated with it were generally accepted and began to be regarded as scientific truth. It began to be believed that life evolved from a simple primitive cell towards the present complex forms, and that it took millions of years. Therefore, the basis for the current Evolution theory comes from Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Without it, the theory of evolution would not have become as accepted as it did.

   However, it is remarkable that Darwin does not have any examples of real species changes in his book. A book that, as its name suggests, should explain the origin of species (from simple to complex), does not bring them up. Darwin was indeed a keen observer; he brought up good examples of changes within basic species, but was unable to demonstrate actual species changes. He himself had to admit that he had no 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 show that Darwin didn’t have evidence on the transitional forms. His examples were restricted to mere change 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. Previous comments also showed that paleontology disproves Darwin's theory, not confirms it.

Although Darwin could not show transitional forms in On the Origin of Species, he would have been delighted to see how the fruits of modern paleontology have strengthened his theory

… What is considered fossil evidence of a significant evolutionary transition? According to the theory of evolution, any two species, no matter how different, have a single parent species from which they are descended. This species could be called the “missing ring”. As we have seen, the possibility of finding such a single parent species among fossils is non-existent. There is simply too little surviving fossil record to justify the discovery of the parent species. (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.

More recently, it has been admitted that Darwin's "evidence" was actually philosophical without a greater scientific basis. To quote the influential evolutionist Ernst Mayr (Harvard University): "It must be admitted that two objections of Darwin's opponents are valid. First, Darwin gave embarrassingly little concrete evidence to support his most important claims." (Nature 248, March 22, 1974, p. 285) The evidence of evolution has never been strong, nor is it still. (25)

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the current situation is this: while Darwin is treated as a secular saint in the mass media, and while the theory of evolution is seen as an invincible challenge to religious claims, leading biologists take it for granted that the origin of species is still unexplained. In Nature magazine, Eörs Szathmary wrote an assessment of Jeffrey Schwartz's attempt to build such a theory and he began his assessment as follows: "The origin of species has long fascinated biologists. Although this is the title of Darwin's main work, his work does not offer a solution to the problem. Does Jeffrey Schwart offer a solution?  I’m afraid that generally speaking he does not do that. (26)

"It is quite ironic that a book that has become famous for explaining the origin of species does not explain it in any way." (Christopher Booker, Times columnist referring to Darwin's magnum opus, On the Origin of Species) (27)

Although evolutionists cannot show evidence of actual species changes in fossils or in modern times, they are right in one thing: there really is evidence for evolution. The question is precisely how evolution is defined. If it means changes within the framework of the basic species, everyone admits this. In these species, natural selection and evolution really happen. There are good examples of that in Darwin's books and other evolutionary literature. For example, the immunity of bacteria, the different colors of the birch meter and the finches of Galápagos Islands are usually mentioned. They are all variations within the framework of the basic species, because the species in question are at the beginning and at the end bacteria, birch meters and finches. They are about adaptation to different habitats, but not real species changes.

   That is why we should precisely determine, what is meant by evolution. Does it mean primordial cell - to - human theory or merely adapting to different environmental factors. Everyone admits the latter, but there is no evidence for the first.

   It is interesting that when evolutionists want to prove the primordial cell -to - man theory true, they use examples that belong to the category of adapting to the environment. What is causing this?

   Surely the best explanation is that they have no evidence of true species changes, but only have evidence for adapting. More than a hundred years of experiments with bacteria and banana flies and centuries of breeding have also shown that there are certain limits that cannot be crossed. Species do not change, but for example bacteria and banana flies remain bacteria and banana flies. Therefore, we must distinguish between changes and adaptations that have occurred within species from the notion that all current species are derived a single shared stem-form. They are two different things, of which only one has convincing evidence.

We can only speculate as to what motives led scientists to adopt the concept of a common progenitor so uncritically. The victory of Darwinism undoubtedly increased the prestige of scientists, and the idea of an automatic process fit so well with the spirit of the time that the theory even received a surprising amount of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it had been rigorously tested, and after that used their prestige to convince the general public that natural processes are sufficient to produce human from a bacterium and a bacterium from chemical mixture. Evolutionary science began looking for evidence to support it and began to come up with explanations that would nullify the negative 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 stated, experiments have been done with bacteria and banana flies for over a century. These experiments have repeatedly shown that mutational events are confined within narrow limits. Evolution stops if a change beneficial to the organism requires more than two simultaneous and complementary mutations. It has not gone beyond that. [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]. If the present is used as a key to the past, we can conclude that also in the past mutation events have been limited to an equally narrow sector. Experimental evidence points to small changes, but not to the fact that, for example, bacteria have changed into other 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 theory of evolution (all species originated from the same stem cell) is false because there is no direct evidence for it, why has this false theory gained support and been accepted?

   One reason is the assumption of billions and millions of years. It has been thought that what would otherwise be impossible and only happens in a fairy tale, becomes possible over long periods of time. So if a girl kisses a frog and it turns into a man, it's just considered a fairy tale. However, the same thing is science if enough time is allocated for it, i.e. 300 million years, because in that time the frog is supposed to have turned into a human. At least this is what is assumed in the traditional theory of evolution.

   However, the question is, are millions and billions of years also a lie? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

Space. As for the age of the universe and space, it is based on the idea of the Big Bang, which is believed to have happened about 13.8 billion years ago. In this theory, it is assumed that all matter was condensed into a space the size of a pinhead, which then exploded (the idea of a space the size of a pinhead appears in several books on the subject)

   However, if this thing is just a figment of the imagination—which it is, because nothing can come from nothing—the number 13.8 billion years has no meaning. It's a number that can be dismissed right away. It’s insane to think that the following things could come out of a pinhead sized space by themselves:

• The elephant and the grass that the elephant eats

• A fast-running cheetah

• Roaring lions

• Birds that can fly and chirp

• Mosquitoes that birds can eat

• Fish and the sea around them

• Beautiful and fragrant flowers and tens of meters high trees

• Billions of galaxies, stars and planets

• The sun, which warms and gives light

• People who can talk and feel emotions: cry, laugh, get angry, fear, grieve and fall in love

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

What about the concrete age of space, if the Big Bang is just a figment of the imagination? If we look into space, we cannot directly see its age. However, it is much more likely that the universe is very young than that it is very old. For when we can see millions of stars and galaxies in space that emit light, they point to a young universe. Or if the universe really was millions or billions of years old, it would probably be a very dark place because the stars and galaxies would have stopped radiating in space. The fact that they are still emitting, however, points to a young universe.

   What about our own sun? Some scientists have honestly admitted that they don't know its age. They have also admitted that the age of the sun is tied to the assumed age of the earth, and that evidence has been sought in this matter from the side of paleontology. Here are some comments from famous astronomers on the subject. By looking at the sun and space, we cannot know their age:

Eddington: On such an important issue, we should not blindly rely solely on astronomical arguments, but should turn to other, perhaps more convincing, evidence from the sister sciences... The age of the oldest rocks has been recorded as about 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. It was stated above that the age of space is not known to researchers. There is no certain information about it, only assumptions.

   What about the age of the Earth? Many people have the idea that its age has been determined from some of the Earth's own rocks and it has been given an age of 4.5 billion years.

   However, the former is not true, because the age of the Earth has been determined from the meteorite rock. The reason for this has been that the Earth is believed to have formed at the same time as the meteorites. However, not even a single stone has been found on Earth itself that has been defined as old as the previous figure of 4.5 billion years. The rocks defined as oldest have been less than 4 billion years old.

   However, there are numerous puzzles in measuring the radioactivity of stones, of which we will highlight a few. The concentrations of stones can be measured precisely, but it is questionable to relate them to the age of the stones.

Concentrations in different parts of the rocks. One important consideration is that different results can be obtained from different parts of radioactive stones, i.e. different concentrations, which also means different ages. For example, several different results have been obtained from the well-known Allende meteorite, with ages ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. This shows how a very small area can have different concentrations in the same object. It is uncertain to relate the concentrations of rocks to their age.

Old ages of fresh rocks. Another serious problem with rock radioactivity measurements is that quite fresh rocks have been able to give ages of millions or even billions of years.

   One of the most dramatic examples is the concentrations measured in the lava rocks of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii, which ranged from 160 million to 3 billion years old, meaning these results or concentrations are close to the oldest measured rocks on Earth. The problem, however, was that the Hualalai volcano erupted in 1800 and 1801, so the rocks defined as ancient were actually only less than 200 years old. When such discrepancies occur in measurements, they cannot be considered reliable. Another observation is that if all the rocks were really only less than 200 years old, why was there such a large discrepancy in their ages? This shows how unreliable measurements from rocks are. Hualalai's measurements gave the following results: 

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 the methods conflict with each other. One interesting observation is that age determination methods can give mutually contradictory results. The most accurate method in this area is radiocarbon measurement, and precisely this method conflicts with the geological table and other methods. This is shown by the following example, where a rock element and a tree were in connection 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. When such contradictions occur, it is clear that the measurements made especially of stones are on an unreliable basis. They give ages that are suitably large in terms of evolution, but they may not have anything to do with reality.

We have published detailed reports in which a tree found in a "250 million years old" sandstone or a volcanic rock "tens of millions of years old" received only thousands of years in radiocarbon age determination. When... Geologists take samples of volcanic rock, which is known to have erupted from a volcano in historical times, and send them to prestigious radiometric age determination laboratories, the "age determination" almost invariably gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions underlying the age determination are incorrect. (31)

Fossils found in the ground. It was stated above that the age of space and the rocks of the Earth is not actually known. They may as well be only thousands and not millions of years old. This is impossible to prove, although some may argue against it.

    What about the age of fossils found in the ground such as dinosaur fossils? It is important to emphasize that even their exact age cannot be determined. Fossils themselves do not tell us anything, and there are no notes about when they lived on earth. Anyone who picks up a fossil can notice this. From a fossil, it is impossible to determine when it lived on 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 it is not possible to know exactly, at what moment e.g. Cambrian organisms or other so-called ancient species became extinct, there is clear evidence that from it cannot be millions of years. One such fact is the presence of radiocarbon in fossils. Because the theory of evolution deals specifically with the development of living things over hundreds of millions of years, it is possible to prove this wrong if there is radiocarbon left in the fossils. Because when the remains of living organisms are measured with the radiocarbon method and the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there shouldn't be any of it left after 100,000 to 200,000 years.

   The fact is, however, that radiocarbon is repeatedly found in fossils classified as ancient, as well as in coal, oil, natural gas, the oldest life forms in deep-sea deposits (fossils from the Cambrian period), even dinosaurs and diamonds. Such discoveries would in no way be possible if it were a question of tens or hundreds of millions of years. The Radiocarbon publication in 1969 examined the results of 15,000 radiocarbon datings, stating, among other things, that

• Out of 9671 samples (trees, animals and humans) only 1146 (12%) gave a radiocarbon age of more than 12530 years

• in only three cases the age was defined as 'infinite'.

• some samples of coal, oil and natural gas gave a radiocarbon age of less than 50,000 years.

• the samples representing the supposedly oldest life forms in the deep sea deposits gave an age of approx. 40,000 years. (33)

So the fact is that radiocarbon has been found in coal deposits, oil wells and e.g. of Cambrian fossils. With the official half-life of radiocarbon being only 5730 years, there shouldn't be any left if these samples are from millions of years ago. The only possibility is that the time of death of organisms was much closer to the present, i.e. thousands, not millions of years away.

   Same problem is with dinosaurs. In general, dinosaurs have not even been radiocarbon dated, because dinosaur fossils have been considered too old for radiocarbon dating. However, a few measurements have been made and the surprise has been that the radiocarbon still remains. This, like the previous observations, suggests that these creatures’ extinction could not have been millions of years ago.

Fossils that are assumed to be very old are not usually carbon-14 dated because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that it has practically all decayed in less than 100,000 years.

   In August 2012, a group of German researchers reported at a meeting of geophysicists the results of carbon-14 measurements that had been made on many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! At least at the time of writing, the presentation is available on YouTube. (19)

In addition to radiocarbon, other finds have been made about dinosaurs and these finds also go against long time periods.  Such are e.g. unpetrified bones, proteins and DNA:

Unpetrified bones. As for the dinosaur bone finds, it is worth noting that several of their bones are still unpetrified and their substance contents have completely corresponded to fresh bones. It is remarkable because the bones should be tens of millions of years old.  These kinds of bone finds show that theories about dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old should be forgotten. They must really 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. It has been possible to isolate proteins such as collagen, albumin and osteocalcin from dinosaur remains. Interestingly, these substances are not always found even in animal fossils from modern times. For example, from one mammoth bone sample, which was estimated to be 13,000 years old, all the collagen had already disappeared (Science, 1978, 200, 1275). However, collagen has been isolated from dinosaur fossils. According to the professional magazine Biochemist, collagen cannot be preserved even for three million years at the ideal temperature of zero degrees 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 / The last limit of DNA preservation was found - dreams of cloning dinosaurs ended] 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 it's about animals that lived millions of years ago, it 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. It has been established that naturalistic theories have serious flaws. They are not able to give an answer to the origin of life and what is the origin of the current species. It is much more reasonable to believe in God's work of creation than in these unproven theories that are contrary to practical observations.

   Despite everything, the theory of evolution, which gained popularity through Darwin, has decisively influenced people's perceptions. It, together with liberal theology, has made people doubt God's work of creation as well as other historical aspects of the Bible, such as the reliability of the Gospels. In this matter, however, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

Naturalism in the background. 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 point of view is scientific, but the position of those who think in the opposite way is religious. They believe they are neutral representatives of science.

   However, the previous view is false for a simple reason: 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 the creation afterwards is also impossible. The limits of science come into play here.

   Thus, we are facing two opposing views that are based on faith: naturalism and theism.  Naturalists believe only in the existence of the cosmos, or matter, and that life was born and developed by itself. Instead, in theism, it is assumed that in addition to the cosmos, there is a God who created everything. Neither of them is a scientific view, although a person himself may think he is scientific and reasonable.

   What you should pay attention to now is that people who think naturalistically combine their own vision with science. They are committed to naturalism despite what the research results show. Even though the origin of life has not been proven and no examples of actual species changes have been shown, they still cling to a naturalistic worldview and these views. It is clear from a few 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)

Sir Arthur Keith: Evolution has not been proven and cannot be proven. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation that cannot be thought. (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)

So how does naturalism affect the study of the Bible? In short, those liberal scholars who are committed to naturalism reject as unscientific any passages that mention God's intervention in the events of the world. They explain everything from a materialistic framework, and therefore there could not have been God's work of creation in six days, fulfilled prophecies, the virgin birth, or the miracles of Jesus. They are considered unscientific because the universe is closed to all outside and supernatural influence and the laws of nature cannot be broken. It is considered impossible.

   It is not that liberal theologians have some new material at their disposal that others do not, but that naturalism guides their research work. This is very clear from the well-known representative of the Jesus Seminar, J.D. Crossan's statement. He said in the 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. Well-known 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)

One good 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 5,000 descriptions about the Flood, it still wouldn’t matter to the naturalists). However, such facts have no effect on naturalists, because they have rejected the possibility of the Flood in advance. Hardly any evidence leads them to believe that the Flood 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 says in his book "Beginning of History":

"We have the opportunity to prove that the story of the Flood is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family, and such a certain and uniform tradition as this cannot be considered an imagined fable. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a strong impression on the minds of the first parents of the human family that even their descendents could never forget 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 natives of the American continent had stories that had kept alive the memory of the 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 relete to the world’s highest mountain range, to its highest summit, Mount Everest. The first quote is from a book from 1938. Similar signs of marine life can be found in other high mountains. Naturalistic researchers do not connect this to the Flood either because of their worldview.

In the glaciers of the Himalayas there are bones of oxen and horses. An avalanche of ice that originated on a glacier at an altitude of 5000 metres brought such bones. A large English expedition, reaching almost the top of Mount Everest, discovered petrified fish at these heights 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. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. (Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55)

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 a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237, Pentti Eskola, Muuttuva maa)

Jerry A. Coyne's book on evolution (Why evolution is true, p. 127) tells how Darwin found fossilized seashells high in the Andes. The author admits that the mountain was under water, but does not 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 continue on the same topic. They admit that marine sediments are common on continents. However, it has not been linked to the Flood; surely because these scientists deny the possibility of a flood. The first of the comments is from a book by James Hutton, the father of geology, from more than 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 the continents, marine sedimentary rocks are far more common and widespread than all other sedimentary rocks combined. This is one of those simple facts that demands explanation, being at the heart of everything related to man's continuing efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (47)

Reliability of texts. When it comes to e.g. the events in the Gospels, it is true that miracles are mentioned in them - something that is a stumbling block for many naturalistic liberal scholars. However, if these events are real history, they belong to the realm of science and fact, not fable. Scientists themselves turn to fables if they try to deny real historical events because of their own naturalistic worldview.

   Of course, It is true of 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 good reasons to consider these events historical. It is due to e.g. of the following factors:

Eyewitnesses. The most scientific way in the field of history and when writing things down is eyewitness observations. There is no better and more scientific way because only eyewitnesses can provide reliable information.

   This condition is well fulfilled in the Gospels of the New Testament. The authors themselves were eyewitnesses or they had interviewed eyewitnesses. There can be no better foundation for the reliability of the gospels than this:

- (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.

The Acts of the Apostles also shows how Luke, the author, was seeing and experiencing the events himself. He wrote by using ‘us’, because he was involved in the events:

- (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 argue that the Gospels cannot be true because the disciples wrote them and because they arose out of the disciples' desire to exalt Jesus.

    However, the previous view is easy to refute with one point: the question is not whether the disciples wrote, but whether they wrote the truth. Only that matters, and nothing else matters. Among other things, the following verses suggest that an effort was made to stay true:

 - (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 noticed 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 James (Josephus).

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

The fact that the events of the New Testament and the Bible are true is therefore confirmed by other sources. Archaeology, the notes of historians and the mentions of the church fathers have repeatedly supported the historicity of the Bible. They mention the names of dozens of rulers, other persons and localities, several of which were initially known only on the basis of the Bible. It is a strong testimony that these things really happened.

    The next quote refers to Luke's accuracy as a historian (the other gospels tell the same things). If he was accurate in describing relatively insignificant details - the accuracy of which can be confirmed from other sources - why would he not have been accurate in describing miracles or those things that cannot be confirmed from outside? Only the naturalistic bias of unbelieving theologians prevents us from accepting this notion.

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 reliability of the New Testament increases with research, there is no doubt about that. Just as the reliability of any ancient document is enhanced by the fact that, as the excavations progress, it is established that the author has provided correct information about some place or event (...)

   – The consensus among both liberal and conservative scientists is that Luke was very precise as a 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. In addition to the Acts of the Apostles, Luke wrote one of the Gospels:

The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have long taken it for granted.

Some researchers and archeologists have spoken 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 stated, the Gospels and other biblical texts have been confirmed time and time again by archeology and other historical discoveries. It can be well concluded that the question is of historical events.

   For the sake of repetition, it is good to take a few examples from this area. They tell about people or places whose existence and historicity were suspected for a long time because there was little or no information about them in other sources. Later excavations and finds, however, gave confirmation that they were historical persons or places. The examples tell about familiar Bible names:

Belshazzar. The existence of this king who appears in the book of Daniel was long doubted. It was claimed that no person named Belshazzar ever existed. The critics were sure of it. Today, however, the Bible's account is accepted as true. This is a matter of science and truth.

Nazareth. For a long time, the existence of a city called Nazareth was doubted because, for example, nothing was mentioned about it in the Old Testament. However, excavations carried out in 1955 showed that this city existed in Galilee well before the birth of Jesus.  While thinking about the incident, Anthony Harvey wrote: “This little event is certainly not the only one of its kind. It is just one example of how archeology has increased the reliability of the Gospel accounts in recent decades." (51)

The high priest Caiaphas was a person mentioned in the Gospels many times. He was one of Jesus' opponents. Interestingly, his coffin and other coffins were accidentally found near Jerusalem when workmen were building a road. Jukka Norvanto tells about this find:

Archaeologists were called to the scene and it soon became clear that the coffins were from the 1st century and belonged to wealthy people. The dating was easy, because money was found in the chests, and you can often even see the year in which the money was printed. And that's not all. The coffins also had the names of the people inside them.

   The biggest news was that one of the coffins had Caiaphas' name on it. And when it is known from other sources that the only celebrity with its name from that time, i.e. from the 40s AD. was the high priest Caiaphas mentioned in the Bible, so there is no doubt that the person found was the same person from the Bible. This was, by the way, the first time that a biblical person, or at least what remains of him, has been found. Of course, from that time there have been several non-biblical mentions of many biblical figures, such as Pilate, John the Baptist or, for example, James, Jesus' half-brother. But Caiaphas is the only person, whose body has been found. (52)

Pilate. One passage that liberal theologians long doubted was Luke 3:1, which talks about a person named Lysanias as the tetrarch of Abilene. According to them, Lysanias had lived 50 years earlier and that Luke falsely claims that this man lived in the time of Jesus.

   However, archaeologists later found an inscription that mentions another Lysanias who was the tetrarch of of Abilene. There were two persons with the same name. This showed that Luke was right and a reliable source of information, but the skeptics' information was incomplete.

   In the same passage of Luke's Gospel and elsewhere in the Gospels, it is also told about the governor of Judea, Pilate. He was the person who ultimately condemned Jesus to death. Michael J. Howard tells how the historicity of this person was confirmed by a stone find in Caesarea. Pilate's name was on the stone:

For 1,900 years, Pilate existed only in the pages of the Gospels and in the vague memories of Roman and Jewish historians. Almost nothing was known about his life. Some said he never existed. But in 1961, an Italian archaeological expedition was working on the ruins of an old Roman theater in Caesarea. One of the workers turned a stone that had been used in a staircase. On the reverse side was the following partially worn Latin text: Caesariensibus Tiberium Pontius Pilatus Praefectus Iudaeae.' (To the inhabitants of Caesarea, [paying tribute to Tiberius] Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea) After this, there was no longer any reason to doubt the existence of Pilate. For the first time, the inscriptions provided evidence of the life of the man who ordered Christ to be crucified—even from the same time he lived. (53)

Lie number 6: Nothing can be known about God

At the beginning of the article, we started from the existence of God. It was stated that there are good reasons to believe in the existence of God. Especially the existence of creation testifies to the existence of the Creator, or God. The big bang theory based on naturalism cannot explain how things like galaxies, stars, planets, people, rocks, seas, birds, trees, elephants and everything that exists have come from a space the size of a pinhead. It is not wise to believe that everything has arisen by itself out of nothing. You don't need a university education to understand this, just common sense.

    Can we then know anything about God if he exists? One common perception and claim is that we cannot know anything, but this claim can be challenged. Through logical reasoning each of us can draw conclusions. They provide a lot of information if we want to look for it.

Living God. God must be alive because there is life in the world. Practical experience and knowledge is that life is born only from life, and not a single exception to this rule has been found. Thus, when life on earth is not eternal (the sun could not have shone forever, because otherwise its energy reserves would have been exhausted), it refers to a source outside the earth, i.e. God. He must have been and must be living so that life here on Earth is possible.

Strong. God must be powerful. No minor god or human can make galaxies, stars and planets or charge the sun with the energy that radiates heat and light to earth. None of the previous things can be successful for a person - everyone can try - and yet they all came at some point.. The only reasonable explanation is that an almighty and powerful God created them.

Intelligence. As already noted, man can design cars, planes and other technical devices. It's a testament to his intelligence. On the other hand, if a person is intelligent and there is intelligence in the world, it must have a source. Naturalists try to explain that intelligence arose by itself from inanimate matter like stone, but that is a poor explanation. A much more reasonable explanation is that there was intelligence before us because there is an intelligent God.

Person. God must be a person, because there are also persons on earth, and because people can experience emotions, think and communicate with each other (language). These kinds of things do not arise by themselves from inanimate matter like stone, but a personal and almighty God was able to put these qualities in the first people and thereby in their descendants.

God is the creator. Many features of God have been brought out above, such as the fact that He is a living, powerful, intelligent and personal being.

    Also, one thing that has already been covered is that He must be the creator. The existence of life and the universe cannot be explained in any other way than that they were created by an almighty Creator. They could not have arisen by themselves, although that is what is presumed in naturalistic theories. For example, the following verses refer to God as 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 you conclude that? One proof is that we humans are moral beings and make choices in everyday activities. We feel that many things are right and we should follow them, but often we can feel reluctance to do them. Everyone naturally knows what is the right behavior and how to treat others, but we can harden ourselves. This inner sense and understanding that prompts us to make the right choices is often called conscience. This point becomes very clear in the following verses. Paul writes that the deeds of the law – the concept of right and wrong – are written on people's 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.

To make the point clear, let's look at another related quote. Loren Cunningham, who has visited every country in the world, tells how the concept of right and wrong is common among all nations - regardless of whether these people have had contact with other civilizations or the Bible. Humans naturally know the difference between right and wrong behavior, even though they can harden 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 previous one, it can be concluded that if man is a moral being and knows the difference between right and wrong behavior, then God must also be a moral being. This is easy to understand through logical reasoning. Morality, or the concept of right and wrong, cannot arise from an inanimate substance like a stone, but God has been able to put this characteristic in people, because man was originally created in God's image:

- (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;

A few things that tell about God's characteristics have been brought up above. He must be alive, powerful, intelligent, personable, morality must be important to Him and He is the creator. Everyone can deduce this through logical thinking alone.

    However, there are other things we can know about God. We are not left to our own wisdom in this area, but God has already revealed Himself through His own Son and the apostles He appointed. We do not have to deal with an unknown God, but with a God who has revealed Himself. From this e.g. Paul spoke when he proclaimed God's message of 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.

So what can be known about God based on the revelation of the Bible? In this area, two important things emerge from the Bible:

• God's love for people

• God's anger against injustice and sin

God's love for people. First, there is God's love for people, which is accepted by almost everyone, and that is a wonderful thing. Based on the Bible, God is indeed love (1 John 4:8 ...for God is love.), that is, a loving God who wants the best for us and wants people to be with Him. One indication of that is e.g. the existence of colloquial language. We can communicate - not only with people - but also with God. It happens through prayer. Through it, we can turn from our hearts to the heavenly God and tell him our concerns, and above all, that we ourselves want to reach his connection.

    God's good will and love for people are told by e.g. the following verses: 

- (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 then has God's love come to the fore? This is precisely what the New Testament tells us. When man himself is deficient before God and because only God can atone for people's sins, the New Testament tells how Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came into the world and took away our sins. In fact, God was in Christ and reconciled the world to Himself, as it is explained in the Corinthians. God was the initiator and made it possible for us to have our sins forgiven and eternal life. The motive was his love for us. Let's look at related verses:

- (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 wrath against wrongdoing and sin. It was already pointed out above that when man is a moral being, 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 is indeed a moral being who hates injustice and sin. He has holiness, that is, hatred for sin, and love for people, as the following verses show. There is no contradiction in them. For example, an ordinary housewife can experience 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 in these matters.

- (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.

So God is light in which there is no darkness. Although He wants our best, he is also a holy and righteous judge who hates injustice and will judge it. Examples of God's anger towards sin are numerous. Historical examples are e.g. Noah's generation, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanites and also the Israeli and Judean states. They were not destroyed by chance, but because the evil in these societies had reached great proportions.

   What about the New Testament side? The most important example of God's wrath is eternal hell, where every unrepentant person will go. If this thing were not true, why, for example, did Jesus talk about it a lot?

- (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 quote is related to the topic. Many people have a wrong idea about God because they don't understand that He hates unrighteousness and condemns unrepentant people to hell. And in fact, only a God who reacts negatively to evil can be good. If he does not oppose evil and condemn it, he is not a good God.

God has also other characteristics than love. He is also just, righteous and holy.

    For example, imagine someone breaking into your home, beating your spouse, and killing your children. Later you talk to the police and ask: "Did you catch the culprit?" "Yes, we did, but we let him go free," the police respond. When you then start to wonder how such a thing is possible, you would hear the answer: "Yes, look, we are a state of love!" State of love! Why was justice forgotten?

    I think it's kind of strange that many complain about why God doesn't do anything about the evil in the world. Then when we say that He does—He condemns unrepentant evildoers to hell—He shouldn't do that because He is love! Many people's understanding of God does not correspond to the picture that the Bible gives of Him. His love and justice are not either-or options. Both are attributes of the same essence of God. When God shows mercy to a repentant sinner, He is expressing his love. When he condemns the unrepentant sinner to hell, He expresses His justice. (55)

On the other hand, when God is the judge, it is logical that he definitively defines what is right and wrong. Morality is not defined by Saddam Hussein, Hitler, a playboy, a burglar or polls, but by almighty God. This should be self-evident if we assume the existence of God.

    In modern times, many people may have a favorable attitude to e.g. extramarital sex or homosexual relationships, but the clear teaching of the New Testament is that they are wrong and lead to separation from God. Some may dispute this, but how do they know better than Jesus and the apostles he appointed, what is beyond the border? We should take seriously the warnings that came through them, such as e.g. the following verses:

- (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.

Lack of remorse as an obstacle. Two important characteristics of God have been highlighted above: His love for people and His holiness, i.e. how He hates injustice and sin. These characteristics do not contradict each other, but can be valid at the same time, as stated above.

    How do these things relate to man's relationship with God? If God hates iniquity and loves people, then what kind of person can have their sins forgiven and go to heaven? Does it apply to everyone or only those who turn to God and repent of their sins?

    The Bible's clear answer to the above is that not all people will go to heaven. That won't happen, but certain people, i.e. the unrepentant, will be left out.

    It is good to understand that a God who would forgive unrepentant sinners could never be a good God. He would be as evil as the evil he accepts if He only looked at everything through His fingers. In the same way, he would be morally even lower than humans, because in us evil causes a backlash and can arouse our sense of justice and anger because of injustices. 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. Therefore, we cannot expect Him to open the gates of heaven to 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 to get to heaven and what is our part in it, if this thing does not automatically happen to everyone. Is there a clear answer to that?

    The answer to the previous one, of course, is that if unrepentant wrongdoers cannot be forgiven and go to heaven, similarly, people who have genuine repentance and conversion to God can receive complete forgiveness and go to heaven. It's that simple.

    Jesus' description of the prodigal son is one example. It is the story of a person who was forgiven even though he had turned his back on his father. The Bible says that when the son repented, turned to his father and confessed his wrongdoing, the result of it all was that his father had mercy on him and accepted him.

- (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 way today. If we turn to the heavenly God, we can experience something similar. Everyone can experience the same as the prodigal son; he will be accepted once in the kingdom of heaven regardless of what his past has been like. The only condition is that we first turn to God and admit that we were wrong. Then we will immediately be forgiven for everything. The problem in the lives of many unrepentant people is precisely that they never take this step. They do not turn to God, ask for a new life, and therefore they cannot experience the forgiveness of sins. They will miss out on this experience. Therefore, do not act like this yourself, but turn to God, confessing that you have been far away from Him.. Let God save you so you don't regret it later:

"Oh, accursed, wretch! Cursed for all eternity! What a fool I have done to myself! What a foolish folly I was guilty of in choosing the short pleasure of sin at the price of such costly eternal trouble! How often was I told that it would happen! How often was I warned to leave the paths of sin that would surely consign me to the chambers of eternal death! But deaf as I am, I did not incline my ears to those warnings, though they warned so wisely. They often told me that my momentary pleasure would soon be changed to eternal trouble. 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 watches over my misfortune and mocks the loss that has come upon me. He could have helped me then, but I didn't want to. Therefore, these eternal pains are only the reward of my own actions, which I am condemned to suffer." (John Bunyan, Näkyjä taivaasta ja helvetistä [Visions of Heaven and Hell], p. 67)

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 receive mercy. We must turn to Jesus Christ in order to be saved and enter heaven. Only by receiving Him can we one day arrive in heaven.

- (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 only possibility to be saved and enter God's paradise. Therefore, do not personally turn your back on God's mercy. 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 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, bequeathed this decision to posterity: “Pardoning is an act for the legitimization of which acquittal is necessary, and acquittal is not complete without its receipt. 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.”

   The responsibility, as you see, is yours. If you do not accept God’s pardoning, He will not force you to do it. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so 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. www.kreationismi.fi

35. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146

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

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

More on this topic:

Dawkins and The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is known for his anti-Godliness, as evidenced by the book The God Delusion. Read whether Dawkins' arguments make sense or not

An open letter to Skepsis ry. The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so

A letter to freethinkers. A personal letter to freethinkers, that is, a discussion of freethinkers' worldview and action against God

Free thinking under analysis. Free thinkers consider themselves sensible in denying God. Does the arguments of free thinkers make sense or not? Read on and fins out!

Is God good or bad? Is God good and just or not? Many do not realize that Jesus was and is the perfect image of a heavenly God

The book and society. Read how the Bible and the Christian faith have affected literacy, health care, and other positive ways. Many are blind to this fact

Christian faith and prejudice. People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense

Why grace is rejected? The most common reasons and objections that cause people to turn their backs on God and salvation. Read why they are bad excuses

People who reject God. Today, people in the West reject God because they do not believe in creation or disagree on moral issues

Proof that God exists. Evidence of the existence of God. Read how nature, the perception of right and wrong, and numerous other factors refer to the existence of the Creator, or God