When I was discussing different topics with a bunch of people who said that they were atheists, I happened to mention Bill Bryson and quoted from him a few times to demonstrate the errors in their thinking. You should have seen the reaction I got from those people. Comments like, ‘Bryson is only a travel writer’ or ‘he only wrote a popular book’ meaning that those facts discounted the material in his work and that the information was not valid.
So I said to them, ‘but he is interviewing real scientists. Arte they lying to him?’ I did not get much of a response to that as I recall. It seems that atheists will eat their own if the content of material is not presented exactly like they want it to be presented. The article at Age of Rocks I linked to yesterday reminded me of that episode as that person was talking about fossils and how the absence of a particular fossil discounts the flood account.
Those who do not believe will be unrealistic in their arguments against the Bible. They sure do not like it when the believer gets a hold of the facts about their theories for it reminds them how little they are basing their claims upon. A couple of cases in point here, first gravity, then fossils. Both quotes are taken from Bil Bryson’s book A Short History of Everything.
#1. Gravity: pg.14
What is extraordinary from our point of view is how well it turned out for us.If the universe had formed just a tiny bit differently– if gravity were fractionally stronger or weaker, if the expansion had proceeded a little more slowly or swiftly– then there might never have been stable elements to make you and me and the ground we stand upon. Had gravity been a trifle stronger, then the universe itself might have collapsed like a badly erected tent,without precisely the right values to give it the right dimensions and density and component parts. Had it been weaker, however, nothing would have coalesced. The universe would have remained forever a dull scattered void.
This is very unrealistic as it attributes finesse, sophistication, a knowledge of precision and other characteristics to a force that possesses none of those attributes. How could a non-intelligent, non-knowing, non-thinking force be so precise? Especially since gravity was a result of a catastrophe that set it free from its dark prison of a infestismally small point in nowhere and where it had no practiced bringing minute elements together to form planets, stars, galaxies, solar systems and orbits?
What we know of gravity is that it holds things into place with just enough force that it does not crush its charges and with the right amount of flexibility so that its charges are not flung out into space yet with enough force applied by its charges it lets them fly free. That kind of composure cannot be found as a result of a catastrophe, given the fact that gravity was the only character from that catastrophe to emerge fully formed and capable of doing its job.
There is just no reality found in the thinking of those who do not believe. But their problem is not with the construction of the universe it is with whom constructed it as evidenced by Bryson, secularists are willing to admit and accept that once there was nothing and suddenly there was something. As the following quote says:
From nothing at all, suddenly there were swarms of photons, protons, electrons, neutrons and much else– …
Their dispute is with God as The Bible says, ‘in the beginning God created…’ which tells us that something does not come from nothing and that the secularist’s problem lies with the existence of a Supreme Being. This problem of course, lies with the deception evil brings to their minds, a deception that leads them far from the truth into unrealistic ideas.
But unfortunately for the secularist, if you omit God, nothing makes sense and you can see that just by these two quotes. Inanimate objects like gravity cannot perform tasks requiring an intelligent being, they just do not have the capabilities and it is unrealistic to say that they can. You cannot omit God from the creative picture if you want the truth about our origins.
#2. Fossils– pg. 207
lN THE SUMMER’ of 197l, a young geologist named Mike Voorhies was scouting around on some grassy farmland in eastern Nebraska not far from the little town of Orchard, where he had grown-up. Passing through a steep-sided gully, he spotted a curious glint in the brush above and clambered up to have a look. What he had seen was the perfectly preserved skull of a young rhinoceros, which had been washed out by recent heavy rains
A few, yards beyond it turned out , was one of the most extraordinary fossil beds ever discovered in America, a dried-water hole had served as a mass grave for scores of animals—rhinoceros, zebra-like horses, saber tooth deer, camels, turtles. All had died from some mysterious cataclysm just under twelve million years ago in the time known in geology as the Miocene
My mind was brought back to fossils because of the article over at age of rocks
as they were arguing about the absence of a kangaroo fossil between where the ark landed and Australia proves that the flood did not take place. Well here is evidence that it did take place because those animals do not populate America today and none in recent history, i.e. 5,000 years ago and forward. You can dismiss the 12 million year date as that is read into the evidence for evolutionary purposes. That time frame is moot.
The fact that volcanic ash is at that site is more evidence for the biblical flood for we know that volcanic action was present when the flood took place. If we are to take the logic from the people at age of rocks seriously, then we must conclude that evolution is not true because we find no transition from these animals found in Nebraska anywhere in America nor in migration to their modern counterparts or their current homes. There is nothing to support their argument against the flood for they will defend their theory stating that fossilization is rare and that absence does not disqualify their process from existence or reality. Something they are attacking Ken Ham for using in defense of the flood.
You can read the whole story at the Smithsonian Magazine
and watch how they twist the evidence to fit their theory instead of using the evidence to find the truth. There is no transition in evidence, it is merely declared by Voorhies. What we have is evidence for Noah’s flood because we have the documentation for that event in the Bible and we have NO documentation for the event described by Bryson or the Smithsonian author. The latter two simply seek alternatives to explain what they have found because they have already rejected the truth of the Bible.
Believers do not need scientific explanations because we already have the truth about these discoveries and that truth is found in the Bible. Secularists want scientific explanations because they have a big void to fill and they have decided, from all the fields to choose from, that science will be the overall authority even though that field is rife with corruption, fallibility, sin,lies and human authored subjective opinions. They needed to replace the bible and secular science got the nod.
But it is unrealistic to do so because secular science cannot explain one discovery without the aid of the bible. Their ideas of what took place cannot be verified or supported by any scientific principle or experiment.
It is best to stick to the bible for that document was written by the only eye witnesses who were alive when all historical events took place rather than opting for a human version written by men who lived long after the events took place and have no clues whatsoever to help them discern what actually took place.