We also deny that the rocky mountains are made of peanut butter and that the ocean is actually strawberry Jello; things which are obviously false. Genetic mutations cannot and do not cause increasing complexity. Science proved this by irradiating fruit flies for tens of thousands of generations. The only thing they were able to produce is messed up fruit flies which reverted to their original form in subsequent generations once the radiation was removed. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that even under conditions that could never have happened under carefully orchestrated procedures that amino acids couldn't randomly form a single protein, let alone the sequence of left handed proteins needed to create the simplest of living things. So an understanding of science confirms that life could neither begin nor advance without external direction; in this case from the Lord.
Science, properly understood, compliments religion. It does not and cannot contradict it because science is the study of the natural world and religion is the study of the supernatural world. Science can no more disprove the Bible than biology could contradict cosmology. Yes, we know creating the universe in six days violates natural law. The difference is that we believe in an authority much higher than natural law.
Argument from complexity is flawed.
If you are going to argue that because the universe is so complex it had to have a creator, the creator must have been much more complex to create a complex universe and still exist in his own complex self. So if we say all complex things must have a creator, the creator who is much more complex must also have a creator, and then that creator must have a creator, it becomes infinite regression.
The truth is we don't know, and probably never will. The chance of "God" coming from nothing, is more implausible than a universe coming from nothing, so you are not answering a question but proposing a bigger one.
KWCrazy said:
Absolutely untrue.
If I told you I had a friend named Bill you could believe me or not.
If you met Bill, ate dinner with him, went to his house, spent your days with him and talked with him on a regular basis then you would know that Bill was real. If someone then told you that Bill's existence was an unsupported assertion, what would you think?
In the old covenant God regularly proved His existence to man. It was much more difficult for man to find favor with the Lord and it required the sacrifice of something they could barely afford to lose. In the New Covenant the only requirement is faith. Because faith is the key to salvation and because faith is the belief in the things unproven, were God to prove Himself to you it would be impossible for you to have that faith. That said, faith is hard; especially when others challenge it on a daily basis. It's easy for people to sew the seeds of doubt, especially if you are less than diligent in your devotions to the Lord. We all know that much of what is written in the Scriptures violate natural law. Some of us submit to a higher law. Some do not.
You are making an invalid comparison and irrelevant conclusion. If I went to Bill's house and ate dinner with him in person, and could see him as well eating dinner with me, confirming the constant of both realities, spent my days with him in person, talked to him, yes I would think he was real.
However this is nonsense to say that going to church is eating with christ, you get that from a book which you blindly believe, you do not talk with him, speak with him, he is not physical, he is not distinguishable from simply talking to an inanimate object thinking in your head you can hear him. Bill is. You have not even remotely demonstrated Jesus to be real.
Let me give you a little hypothetical shall we?
Say there's a person for example, who lives in the house next to yours. Now this person isn't ordinary you see, he believes he is Elvis Presley. He truly, in his heart of hearts, believes with all his might that he is Elvis, he is not trying to convince himself that he is Elvis, he knows he is. You can go to him and say he is not Elvis, but he will consistently deny it as if you have no evidence, he also claims the death was a lie, he claims this is really him and you can't prove it isn't. However, does this make him Elvis Presley? No it does not.
You see, subjective truths have no business in effort to find an objective truth. Just like the man who thinks he's elvis, the fact you think you are speaking and talking to Jesus, spending time, and eating with him, does not mean you are actually talking to Jesus in the slightest NOR does it mean it is true in any way shape or form.
What you have done is you have attempted to give a subjective argument and pass it off as an objective one, where you have provided NO objective evidence, and NOTHING that would make your claims any more valid. Claiming that you have just made some huge revelation or have proven anything is intellectual dishonesty to the highest degree.