To have somebody say that something must be true, well why?
Or else what?
The or else is, if that's not true, then there must be a God, there must be a moral law,
there must be a final authority, and if there's a final authority, that means that he must
have to answer to somebody.
So it just seems like a cheap cop-out to say that something must be true or else.
It's like, well what's the or else?
The or else is that you have to answer to somebody, and that somebody's bigger than you.
So he believes spontaneous generation had to happen, that his life had to start from
non-living material, otherwise there would have to be a creator to create it.
I don't agree, there was a creator, happened to know him personally.
Science has to meet three criteria, it has to be demonstrated, it has to be testable,
and it has to be provable.
You can't demonstrate that a speck of dust exploded 4.6 billion years ago and created
all there is.
You can't demonstrate that, test it, or prove it.
So it's not science, it falls in the realm of religion.
To be able to make a scientific claim, you know the very first part of the scientific
method is to make an observation, well how could you observe billions of years when we've
only had this science around for a few hundred years?
Charles Darwin was clearly a racist, and it's evident by the title of his own book.
Once in a while I get people that really, or that claim they don't believe in evolution.
And my response generally is, well why not, really, why not?
Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution.
And those who are desperate to believe in evolution because it gives them freedom from
God for their lifestyle, it wouldn't matter what you showed them.
But if somebody's honest and open and sincere they're going to look, they look at an arrowhead
and you know, somebody made that, it's obvious.