For some reason, people actually believe in atheistic origin. By atheistic origin, I am referring to evolution, godless Big Bang, and abiogenesis as a whole: an attempt to explain the world without God. Anyway, I know the reason. The reason is that demons of Satan, "the god of this world," have blinded their eyes to the truth. They do not realize just how entirely invalid the theory is. It has little basis in fact, and by no means should be considered a viable explanation for how life has come to be. Right now, there is no reasonable theory besides Divine Creation. These points are the main problems with the shame to science that is atheistic origin.
- Everything temporal (existing in time, having duration) requires a cause. Causality, cause and effect, is a law of time. Thus, a problem arises. People often speak of the Big Bang, but claim ignorance as to its origin. The issue here is that, for some reason, atheists believe they need not explain from where the Big Bang came. This is ridiculous. Obviously, if causality is a law of time, then the Big Bang, being at the beginning of time, would require an atemporal (outside of time, eternal) cause. This cause would have to come from outside of time, and thus scientific means cannot explain it. For some reason, atheists tend to ignore or deny this argument without cause. They will say all day that it is ridiculous without providing logical proof that there is anything wrong with it. Actually, they most often say, "Who caused God?" However, since God is atemporal, He is exempt from the law of causality by definition. If one says this to them, they usually call it a cop-out. That is defeat, for this is simply a logical necessity.
- There has never been a recorded instance of complexity arising from chaos without external complex assistance. I said this in a debate before, and my opponent countered that it is simply a matter of ignorance. We just have never seen it, but that does not mean it cannot happen. The problem with this argument is that experiment and observation are the sole bases for true science. If atheists would like to believe in autonomous transformation of chaos to complexity, they may do so, but they must call it "faith" instead of "science," for its base is not in fact. Since we have never examined complexity arise from chaos by itself, we cannot claim it to be science. As well, since the assumption of its possibility is the cornerstone of atheistic origin, the entire theory cannot be considered science.
These first two points really should be enough to convince anyone who is thinking rationally that atheistic origin is at least a very shaky theory. Alas, though, not all respond as so, therefore I must continue. My next post will be about abiogenesis, the weakest point (well, they are all rather weak) of atheistic origin.