Want Some Answers ???


David is chair of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

Hi David,

I will try to address some of your email and overlook caustic and sarcastic comments. But that aside, itís clear you are agnostic not atheist. With many beliefs about atheism and life.

But you donít know if there is a God. I do however, not from '
indoctrination' or culture but other reasons. Itís good you have beliefs about right and wrong and truth and see purpose in life. You speak of higher standards and greater wrong, thatís good. Not like the atheist Dawkins -

ďLife has no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good nothing but blind pitiless indifference.Ē (Dawkins R. Quoted from, The Dawkins Delusion, Scheff Liam. 2007 Salvo.2:94)

To you truth, justice, love, rights, values and meaning in life are all important. Thatís great, I can identify with that. Atheism doesnít recognize an ultimate right, but you and I do because man needs universals by which to judge. If one has no basis on which to judge then reality falls apart, fantasy is indistinguishable from reality and there's no value for a man and right and wrong lack meaning.

Atheism says, Ďmake up your own minds what's right or wrong, that can be whatever you wantí. We know that doesnít work. People get wrong beliefs and harm others. While atheists can describe how physical strength works, what it involves, it's effects. They can't derive any idea as to how it ought or ought not to be used. They have a 51% view of morality - the majority must be right (even if they are wrong). Anyway back to your mail.

>>Hello Mark, That is wonderful news about all the free advertising. Where is the evidence for the non-existence of the other 3,000 gods? Surely, you have it or you would believe in them otherwise. Sure, if you have universally acceptable evidence, I would love to see it. Funny though, one would think that such evidence would have everyone believing in your god, and they donít. <<

What "evidence" would a true atheist accept? None! You insist thereĎs none of a creator God. I have mentioned 3 times that there are good arguments pointing to evidence of Godís existence. You have shown no interest, but Iíll include them this time (below). They are "universally accepted" as pointing to evidence. So could you please provide your evidence that there is no creator God. 'I would love to see' that.

>>I assume you have proof that fairies at the bottom of the garden are not real. Can you pass that on to me? Thanks.<<

We already agreed regarding the lack of creditably of 'fairies'. Donít know about you (an agnostic) but the position of the atheist certainly lacks scientific creditably, because his "nothing created everything" violates the basic laws of science.

>>If everyone believes a lie, it is still a lie. The growth in religion in developing nations is happening, so is murder and mayhem. Have you a point in this ad populum argument? <<

Well Iím glad here you recognize universals and absolutes. Yes there are things that are always wrong or always right regardless of what people believe. What we call the moral argument for Godís existence.

If man is nothing but chemical material, the product of an 'up-bringing' then you could hardly accuse him of wrong, or punish him for wrong. If he kills another, it may be what's right in his culture. Punishment is silly if we are merely physical animals.

Ethics are not testified by science but transcendental. If moral values exist and can be known, it isn't strange to say God exists and can be known since moral and religious knowledge are similar. The Creator then, isnít an inanimate force but a moral being and must have standards.

>> Please stick to what I say and not what you would like me to say. People once believed the Sun revolved around the earth. Not just some people but all people. Science showed that they were all wrong.<<

Keep in mind astronomers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were all creationists, and Herschel and Maunder. Both Copernicus and Galileo were young earth creationists. Its well documented that the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment, not the Catholic church. The Catholic Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities, that Galileo was contradicting the bible. That is why they opposed him.

It was Keplerís Christian faith had led him to a pattern of thinking which had eventually enabled him to solve the riddle of planetary motion where so many other scientists had given up trying. Kepler had sought and found a simple logical pattern for planetary motion which reflected Godís wisdom. As he wrote, ĎWe see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner

The bible described the earth as a sphere (Isa.40:22) hangs in space (Job.26:7) yet revolving (Lk.17:24) and the universe expanding (Pas.104:2).

>>Most Atheists were raised in religious cultures and many in religious homes. They were lucky and escaped the indoctrination cycle. The statistics on cultural indoctrination are so obvious it is silly to argue against them. You were raised in a Christian culture. Just admit it and stop the nonsense.<<

Most atheists are the end product of Darwinian evolution. Raised and conditioned in a Western atheistic education system and indoctrinated into believing evolution. If not, why are students are NOT allowed to submit papers critical of Darwinian evolution, or be failed? Why are teachers, if critical of evolution before students , cautioned or fired? Why are qualified profession scientists persecuted, rejected by colleges, treated with intolerance, censored for rejecting evolution? And not allowed to submit contrary articles to journals?

>>Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism, as it has no credible science in accredited and peer reviewed studies is mythology. Maybe you could point some studies out which disprove evolution in accredited scientific journals.<<

Evolution is not a scientific fact. If Ďscientific factí or evidence doesn't fit the theory, its ignored. Why endorse a theory we donít see happening, thereís no proof it has and we donít know how it has?

Evolution is wrongly accepted as ďfactĒ. The scientific community has a wide radius of thought and not united on evolution. If itís a universal law of nature, why has the scientific community not found one instance of change from one species into another? How is more and more information added to the DNA? Information must be perfect at the start, or there is no life. Male and female didn't evolve, that must be perfect at the start.

So David, where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? Please write and tell me wonít you. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those Ďmissing linksí have not turned up. Iím surprised if you have no knowledge of this.

There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted 100,000 years there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. And thatís ďthe factsĒ!

This evolutionist wrote, ďIn fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to Ďbendí their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof" (A Physicist Looks at Evolutioní Physics Bulletin. Prof, Lipson [Physics] vol.31 1980 p.138).

>>The earth is not millions of years old; it is aged in the billions. As I explained, intuition is not a good guide. People thought intuitively that the sun orbited the earth.<<

What's the evidence for that age? Evolutionary theory changes weekly and every year. No soon they say 'we now know' than next week all the dates change AGAIN. And the dates don't come from carbon dating, that only measures c14 for thousands of years. Not radiometric methods, that give's ratios (not date s). All methods can give different dates. There are big assumptions and guesses trying to date from percentages. There is no totally fool proof method for dating the past. Rocks don't come with 'name tags' on them with their age.

But today thereís more scientific reasons than ever that the earth is young. Plenty of science books and highly qualified scientists who reject the billions of years demanded by evolutionists because of scientific evidence. For them evidence for Noah's flood explains better what we see in the rocks and land than billions of years. Evidence that favours a young earth -

(1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
(2) Not enough helium in the atmosphere.
(3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly,
(4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, don't need such time-spans.
(5) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
(6) Comets disintegrate too quickly.
(7) Not enough mud on the sea floor.
(8) Not enough sodium in the sea.
(9) The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
(10) Many strata are too tightly bent.
(11) Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages."
(12) Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
(13) Helium in the wrong places.
(14) Not enough stone-age skeletons.
(15) Agriculture is too recent.
(16) History is too short.

So why not believe the science? One professor mentions there are as much as 200 scientific evidences for a young earth. Evolution needs deep time for the theory to seem plausible. Yes some allow their belief to effect their science, (as atheists), but we all have the same evidence (rocks fossils etc) we interpret them according to our worldview. I say evidence best fits a biblical world view.

>>Yes, there is a conspiracy against creationists. I believe it is the devil at work. Bible rant about a god and his son which is himself, dying and going to heaven to be with himself is real science isnít it? And it makes a whole lot of sense as well.<<

You donít know if thereís a God but believe in a devil? Hard to take you seriously. I might answer your mail some other time. I'll finish with those arguments pointing to evidence of Godís existence. Go here http://answers.net.nz/Other/atheis1.htm

Dawkins wrote Ė "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years AFTER THE UNIVERSE EVOLVED OUT OF LITERALLY NOTHING is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Yes all he can say is that the first cause for the universe is uncertain or unknown. And before the cosmic egg is more uncertainty. This is a non-answer because we know from nothing, comes nothing. Yet he believes nothing created everything. So for the first argument the atheist doesnít have an answer. Do you?

Best wishes,