Welcome to Theologetics

Almost everyone, non-believers and believers seems to be familiar with the Flood story. This raises a few uncomfortable questions for Christians but unfortunately this seems to be a topic of choice for the skeptic to easily conclude that “if God is all loving and all peace” then why would he destroy everyone, including innocent babies and pregnant women? Therefore either the Judeo-Christian God does not exist or He is evil” So how does one sincerely answer this difficult objection? First we need to understand that since the skeptic is using the Bible as a reference for their argument then it’s only fair that they take the Bible as a whole. I wanted to illustrate an example to support my reasoning.

“No one knows the character of Harry Potter unless they watch his movie or book. One can easily select a random paragraph and find Harry Potter killing a monster and use that as the basis for his argument-that Harry Potter is evil. That is opaque and unjustifiable to the character due to the limited view. But when we expand our scope and read the chapter, we can then see the reasoning behind it: Harry Potter killed that monster because it was evil. We now have a more definitive understanding of Harry Potter. However, when we read or watch the entire series, we now then have an overall view to make accusations and conclusions on who Harry Potter actually is as a character based on the sum of all details of his actions and what the reader tells us about him. We can obviously identify that Harry Potter is indeed a courageous Hero trying to rid all evil and restore peace and harmony.”

This is the same for the Bible. We must grasp it as a whole to understand the centralized theme of God’s purpose and who God actually is. Now this may be an open invitation for a nonbeliever to state circular reasoning. But that is not the case. If one is to use the Bible as a source for their argument then it is reasonable to use the same material to draw an opposing argument.

So what does the Bible tells us about God?

* God is just
* God is love
* God hates evil
* God can not contradict himself or He wouldn’t be God
* His ways are higher than our ways
* We are limited in our knowledge
* He knows the final outcome

Some may argue that God is supposed to be all love. Yes that is true but God is also all just. God cannot be more love than He is just. It is perfectly balanced. He must punish those that sin and he detest sin because it interrupts peace and harmony. Also, it wouldn’t make sense for God to be a judge and be unrighteous Himself. His perfection is the standard and reference to our judgment.

With that being said, let’s move on to the Flood account. Just to review, the Flood occurred in the times of Noah where every man and beast, with the exception of Noah, his family, and 2 of each animal in the ark, were destroyed. Genesis tells us that during this time:

* Men’s hearts were wicked and all they thought of was evil all the time (Genesis 6:5)
* The Earth was corrupt and full of violence (Genesis 6:11)
* The holiness of people were gone and completely corrupted (Genesis 6:12)
* The Earth was so evil it made God’s heart grieve in pain that He made them (Genesis 6:6-7)

We could only imagine how vile and wicked the Earth was, to the point where God was heart-broken. Remember, since God is all-knowing, He knew that mankind was headed towards eventual self-destruction unless He intervened. But through his mercy He gave us hope by starting all over again and wiping the Earth of all evil except the righteous.

So what about the babies? This is probably one of the most difficult ones to answer. We must understand that God is the sovereign creator of life and as the creator, He has every right to take life because it belongs to Him. I do not have the right to take your life because I do not own it.

Furthermore, if God did not put a stop to all this evil, mankind would surely perish and you probably wouldn’t be reading this as we speak. We know that before God flooded the Earth, innocent babies were already dying from the evil and warfare. If they didn’t die young, the chances are that they probably would grow up to be evil and thus continue on with the endless cycle of mass evil.

But let’s say that God didn’t allow the babies to die and rid the evil of only mature men, women, and those at the age of accountability. Who then would nurse all those millions of babies? They would eventually suffer a slow death from animal attacks, the heat, freezing to death, starvation, and thirst. This is by far crueler then a quick death. It is easy to see that God is preventing the babies from impending cruelty. God could have chose to keep the babies alive however the Bible does not really state as to exactly why he didn’t. We just know that God chose that method for a higher reason that we could think of.

The skeptic also has a hidden assumption that all death is evil and the final outcome which is not true. When you understand that you understand the fate of the innocent babies.

The Bible gives the titles to babies as “innocent” (Jeremiah 19: 4, Jeremiah 2:34, Jonah 4: 11, Job 3: 16)

Ecclesiastes 6: 3 If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better than he ­ 4 for it comes in vanity and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. 5 Though it has not seen the sun or known anything, this has more rest than that man, 6 even if he lives a thousand years twice ­ but has not seen goodness. Do not all go to one place?

Matthew 19: 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (NKJV)

Matthew 18: 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

In summary, The Bible makes it clear that God had a grand purpose for the flood and if these babies were innocent then they would surely be in the protective hands of the merciful God and in Heaven, experiencing eternal paradise.

More related Blogs:
Historical Jesus and what the early Church Christians believe he was
Did Jesus die on the Cross and Resurrect?
Was Jesus a copy of the other gods like Horus?
Why does God allow Evil and Suffering?
Where did Morals come from?
What the Bible says about Reincarnation
What the Bible says about Astrology
Did Mary assume into Heaven?
Nephilim, Fallen Angels, Giants, and sons of God
Book of Mormon VS The Bible
Why Won’t God Answer my Prayers?
Why I CAN’T be an Athiest. Athiesm is illogical
Why did God order Genocide and murders in the Bible

As a former professing Catholic for almost 20 years one of the most difficulties I encountered was the doctrines around Mary. I grew up reciting the rosary and kneeling before a statue of Mary. She was given so much significance as a powerful icon in the church. I accepted everything I was taught. As I got older I began to question these things about my faith and why I did the things I did. This is natural for all Christians. I began to study scriptures more to find answers but instead stumbled upon more questions than answers. I had to press the “I believe” button and remove my questioning attitude because the thinking was already thought for us by bishops and popes deceased for thousands of years. So I began to earnestly seek other Catholics with the hopes that they may provide direction and revelation to the dogmas of Mary. Many of them have cleared a lot of misconceptions but for the most part were either unable to sufficiently answer or remained avoiding the main concern about the assumption and coronation of Mary.

My question was “how do we know that Mary assumed into heaven and was crowned as a queen?”

First and foremost, Catholics will often say that Elijah, Enoch, and Jesus ascended into Heaven so why is it impossible for Mary to? My answer to that is simple. I am not denying that an assumption is impossible but there are no evidences for Mary’s. God’s Word tells us that these men ascended into Heaven and they also had witnesses as evidence. Unfortunately that cannot be the same case for Mary. I honestly don’t have a difficult time believing that Mary assumed into heaven if I have sound evidence for it. So where is the evidence?

A lot of Catholic will have the tendency to recite “tradition, tradition, tradition and not just “sola scriptura”. So I was enticed to study extensively for hours and trace back where this doctrine originated from. Did someone witness her assumption? Was this a revelation? I wanted to start from Scriptures and found information that was inconclusive or no mentions of her assumption or coronation. “Maybe it wasn’t mentioned there for some strange reason even though Elijah’s, Enoch’s and Jesus’ were and for the most part they had witnesses”, I thought to myself. So I took the next step and bought several books from the writings of the early Church fathers such as St Clement, St Ignatius, St Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, and Polycarp to start at the roots of the infant church. After all, John the apostle was entrusted by Jesus to take care of his mother, Mary and through apostolic succession, it makes sense that he would pass down everything he knew about Mary to Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Ignatius right? Well that wasn’t the case. I was quite surprised when I found no mentions of a coronation or an assumption for the first 400 years. I mean, these were supernatural, rare events that give Mary a more definitive role as a sinless queen so it should have been worth recording. Catholics then say that not everything was recorded but the fact remains that Mary, although not really emphasized from these early church fathers, was already written about. So what did these Church fathers say then?
In the year 130 Irenaeus wrote about her. He was familiar with those who had been close both to Peter and to Paul and who “had still the preaching of the blessed Apostles ringing in their ears” He said:

“As Eve was seduced by the speech of an angel, so as to flee God in transgressing his word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the angel’s speech, so as to be God within her, being obedient to this word. And though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey him; that of the virgin Eve, the virgin Mary might become the advocate and as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved- a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’ obedience.” (Against Heresies, 3, 19) (130 A.D.)

St. Justin in 110-165 A.D. writes:

For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One to be born of her should be the Son of God, answered, Be it done to me according to thy word. And so by means of her was he born, concerning whom we have shown so many Scriptures were spoken; through whom God overthrows the serpent, and those angels and men who have become like to it, and on the other hand, works deliverance from death for such as repent of their evil doings and believe in him (Dialogue with Trypho, 100 A.D.)

Eve was called the mother of the living …after the fall this title was given to her. True it is…the whole race of man upon earth was born from Eve; but in reality it is from Mary the Life was truly born to the world. So that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary became the mother of all living (St. Epiphanius, Against Eighty Heresies, 78,9)

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” [1207] But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold. (On Psalm XXII. Or XXIII. From the Commentary by the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, on “The Lord is My Shepherd.”)

In summary they believed that:
-Mary existed
-Mary was a woman
-Mary was a holy virgin who gave birth (The apostles creed, #3, Marcellus/ Nicene creed/ Greogary of Nazianzus An examination of Appolinarianism/ the Anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria)
-Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God, God of the living (Ignatius, Ad Trall, ix, x/ tome of Leo ep xxviii
-Unlike Eve, Mary was obedient and righteous
-Mary was a practicing Jews and married to Joseph

Doesn’t this already sound like what the Bible already claims about Mary? Yet it’s a bit odd that these church fathers couldn’t even spend an additional 10 seconds to write about her coronation or assumption if it was such an undeniable absolute truth? This leaves us with 3 conclusions: They either didn’t believe it, weren’t familiar with it because it didn’t happened, or were suppressing the truth. Was there a reasonable explanation that this information was withheld? Some Catholics will state that they didn’t write about her because she was still alive and didn’t ascend yet. Well the problem with that is she couldn’t have lived any longer than 100AD in which was the earliest time frame that the church fathers wrote. That argument is invalid. Imagine if every biographer of Abraham Lincoln wrote only about his birth but all failed to record his death, legacy, and presidency. Those are some of the most important events and the pinnacles of his life which are definitely worth recording. That is the same case with every single early church father for the first 400 years. They all left out the assumption, a miraculous and rare event but took the effort to state that she was sinless, an obedient Jewish woman, and servant of God who gave the human birth to our Lord and Savior. Once again did they all conspire to leave that out or did they leave it out because it never happened? So where does this dogma originate from? We first see this belief in 400AD.

St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

The earliest account of a Church Father speaking of the Assumption of Mary was Epiphanus who stated:

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.” Epiphanius,Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737

Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, “Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

“Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires” (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Another Father, Gregory of Tours, narrates the event of her death and Assumption:
“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306

So this belief was entirely based on speculation and not actual facts with eye witnesses as was Jesus and Elijah’s. But yet there are still more problems with that.

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected the book which taught the assumption of Mary as heresy, labeling those who put forward the idea as heretics (see Liber qui appellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio sanctae Mariae, apocryphus under books to not be received. In 520 AD, Pope Hormisdas issued his own decree reaffirming the one put forth by Gelasius also condemning the book which taught the the assumption of Mary and its authors as heretical
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

The major problem with this was it was written almost 4 centuries later. Too late to be accurate and plenty of room for myth and legend to creep in.
But Catholics will contend that her unknown burial location or the fact that her death was unknown was evidence that she was assumed. Lack of evidence are not facts.
Well, there are no mentions of Joseph either, does that mean he assumed into heaven?
There are no mentions of Zachariah’s and Elizabeth’s (who were perfect candidates of assumption by being righteous and filled with the holy spirit) ever dying so should we automatically conclude that they went into heaven?

John Chrysostom commenting:

“Tell me, are not the bones of Moses himself laid in a strange land? And those of Aaron, of Daniel, of Jeremiah? And as to those of the Apostles we do not know where those of most of them are laid. For of Peter indeed, and Paul, and John, and Thomas, the sepulchers are well known; but those of the rest, being so many, have nowhere become known. Let us not therefore lament at all about this, nor be so little-minded. For where-ever we may be buried, ‘the earth is the Lord’s and all that therein is.’ (Ps. xxiv. 1.)” (Homilies on Hebrews, 26:2, v. 22)

Some Catholics contend that she assumed body and soul. On the contrary many Christians especially in the east believed that she actually died a natural death and was buried and celebrate that day because of it. So what is the point of a tomb if there was no body and death? The Dormition of the Theotokos (Greek: Κοίμησις Koímēsis, often anglicized as Kimisis) is a Great Feast of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches which commemorates the “falling asleep” or death of the Theotokos. Now this adds to more complicated questions.
So did she die or not or did she assume before death or after? Who are we to believe and what good evidence do they have for us to believe them?
If she did die before assuming, there would be even further complications of her burial site. Some Christians believe she died in Llanerchymedd, others in Ephesus, Turkey or Jehosophar in Jerusalem. So which tomb was supposedly empty to conclude that she assumed into Heaven? No one can agree but for some reason without explanation or evidence, Catholics seem to have it accurately figured out. If these churches and denominations are in disagreement as to whether Mary died or not then why should we believe them if they state that Mary assumed?

But then Catholics will also argue with the following:

By becoming man, Jesus was born under the law (Gal. 4:4) and was bound to obey the commandment to honor his mother. The Hebrew word for “honor” does not imply mere courtesy, but the bestowal of honor and glory. By preserving Mary’s body from corruption, Jesus fulfills the command to honor his mother in a way that only a divine Son could. What person, if he had the power to prevent the corruption of his mother’s body, would not do so? The love of Jesus for his mother seems to be the strongest argument for her Assumption. (Catholic.forum. how to argue for Mary’s Assumption)

“Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not fail her, being the most perfect observer of the divine law, to honour, besides his Eternal Father, His most beloved Mother. In fact, since He was able to do her great honour as to keep her safe from corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He actually did so…
- (Pius IX), INEFFABILIS DEUS

Not necessarily, that is a theological assumption from men not based on any concrete facts. The fact is that Christ also said in Matthew 22

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

We find many references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in the book of John (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2 and John 21:7, John 21:20).
Does this mean that because Jesus had to fulfill the greatest commandment of loving his neighbors, he exemplified this law by assuming every person into heaven especially the disciple he loved most? That’s not true at all and the biblical facts show it. I find it interesting how Catholics say one of their strongest evidence is some analogous thinking like this: Since Mary was sinless and Jesus was to honor his mother, what better way to assume her to Heaven and not leave her for corruption? That’s understandable and the theological implications make perfect sense. However, according to Catholics, man cannot properly interpret the Bible himself without the assistance of the Catholic Church, so Catholics must then prove that the early church father’s shared that same idea and it was traditionally passed on. Do they have writings to back up that assertion? If so, where is the evidence that the early church fathers shared that idea and passed it on? I cannot find a single source of evidence for the first 400 years. I challenge Catholics do the same.

Catholics will go on to say that a skeptic who denies Christ’s Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary’s Assumption. (Catholic forum: how to argue for Mary’s assumption)

This is a self defeating statement because the resurrected Christ actually had witnesses by the hundreds and was around for 150 days eating, drinking, and associating with the apostles after his crucifixion. In fact, the Bible records Jesus ascension and the witnesses. Even the angels in his tomb clearly stated that he has risen. That was not the same case for Mary- no witnesses at all.

On one case a Catholic told me that it is an infallible truth that Mary did die because Pope Pius seems to be favoring it. However, why didn’t he include that in the dogma but instead left it open ended. Still, why are Catholics in disagreement today? If Catholics claim that Mary’s dormition and the assumption from her dormition was passed down from tradition then what exact burial place did she assume? What official document says that?

Catholics are also notorious for keeping accurate records of their saints. In Foxx’s Box of Martyrs, Catholics can accurately account on what happened to almost every single Saint. However, the most important Saint, Mary, has no mentions about her death or assumption at all. How is that even the most relatively insignificant saints are properly accounted for but the greatest of them all has no single slot in this book?

Many Catholics aren’t even aware of the real reason how that dogma became instituted. Here is what TIME magazine reported:

Some 200 years ago, a monk wrote to Pope Clement XIII begging him to define the bodily Assumption of Mary as “a most certain dogma of faith.” Clement passed the matter on to the Holy Office. In 1863, Spain’s Queen Elizabeth made the same request. Pius IX, though recognizing the Queen’s good intentions, was somewhat annoyed at a temporal sovereign’s interference in sacred matters. He replied: “I am not worthy to publish such a dogma. The wishes of Your Majesty, the holy wishes of Your Majesty, will no doubt some day be satisfied if the large body of the humble faithful persevere in prayer to this end.”

“. . . Is it permitted [liceat], is it convenient [deceat], is it opportune [expediat to adhere to these requests [for the dogmatic definition of the Assumption]?” The letter explicitly asked the “Venerable Brothers” if, “according to your wisdom and prudence, you believe that the Bodily Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin be established and defined as a dogma of faith and if this would be in accord with the wishes of your clergy and people.” The Pope is reported to have said that the “answers, in their great majority, are favorable.” -Time Magazine

After reading this blog please understand that I am not condemning or judging Catholics as a whole. If it wasn’t for Catholicism then I probably would of never been introduced to Jesus. My belief is against the dogmas of Mary. This is my original work from my months of investigation and I also used credible references. I do come in a humble spirit to stand to any corrections of errors that I may have made. However, my heavy research has lead me to conclude that Mary’s assumption is a theological opinion from fallible men with no evidence at all. Catholics are banking their entire faith on the theology of a few men.

More related Blogs:
Historical Jesus and what the early Church Christians believe he was
Did Jesus die on the Cross and Resurrect?
Was Jesus a copy of the other gods like Horus?
Why does God allow Evil and Suffering?
Where did Morals come from?
What the Bible says about Reincarnation
What the Bible says about Astrology
Did Mary assume into Heaven?
Nephilim, Fallen Angels, Giants, and sons of God
Book of Mormon VS The Bible
Why Won’t God Answer my Prayers?
Why I CAN’T be an Athiest. Athiesm is illogical
Why did God order Genocide and murders in the Bible

NOVA was featuring a special one day regarding the Dover Trials. The name happened to be: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. I found it very interesting when they reenacted Behe and Miller on the subject of irreducibly complexity. You might be familiar with the famous “mousetrap analogy”. If you aren’t familiar with that term I wanted to briefly quote what that means according to Behe and share Miller’s opposing view on it or you can watch the video. I also wanted to explain why I believe there are major flaws with Miller’s idea and that it still maintains problems for the evolutionist.

An irreducibly complex structure is defined as “. . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” (Behe 1996a, 39) Why would such systems present difficulties for Darwinism? Because they could not possibly have been produced by the process of evolution:

“An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. …. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.” (Behe 1996b)

He also states that Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. “Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory…

One prime example is through the use of the flagella of the bacteria. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.”

However, Miller deliberately claims he has refuted the idea of irreducibly complex. In his works, he states the following:

“Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as “virulence factors,” and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Büttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum

It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

In summary, Miller is stating that the flagellum’s base for the syringe and the rotary tail is essentially the same. If you strip away a few components of the rotary tail, it can function by serving another purpose- a syringe, thus eliminating the idea of irreducibly complexity.

I want to illustrate what Miller is trying to convey here with a simple analogy.

If you start with a box it can serve as a storage. Over time, evolution can slightly modify it such as elongating the ends and it could now serve as a boat. If it mutates and 1 wheel evolves, it now can operate as a wheel barrow. As the process continues it can evolve 4 wheels and now can serve as a cart/carriage. Going backwards in time we can see that it we remove a certain component, it would be used as something else.

A first glace would indicate that this argument does Miller justice because during successive transition each component could functionally serve a purpose. However that would only be valid if the original component was a pre-cursor to each successive transition up to the latter.

The only problem with Miller’s example using the TTSS and the rotary tail is that there are no transitional phases in between the TTSS and rotary wheel. Evolution could not make such a huge leap and there are no viable mechanisms that would of that. It would require multiple random mutations with very specific parts and several very specific adjustments to the existing parts such proteins used for the entire rotational device. AT least 30 extra specific proteins apart from the 10 homologous ones.

Even if there were transitional phases what purpose would they serve? It would be a non-functional flagellum. In order for Darwinism to be true, functionality must be maintained at all times or living things would not survive during those slow transitions. What’s halfway between a syringe and a propeller? The bacteria equipped with this half way syringe and propeller would render the bacteria useless and a sitting prey, less likely to survive. Darwinian mechanism requires a selectable function if that mechanism is going to work. It does not select for future function. Once that function is realized, the Darwinian mechanism can select for it.

William A. Dembski points out another huge problem. Water has been around since the origin of life.  Mike Gene  notes that the TTSS is restricted “to animal and plant pathogens meaning that the TTSS could only have been around since the rise of metazoans. Gene continues: “In fact, the function of the system depends on intimate contact with these multicellular organisms. This all indicates this system arose after plants and animals appeared. In fact, the type III genes of plant pathogens are more similar to their own flagellar genes than the type III genes of animal pathogens. This has led some to propose that the type III system arose in plant pathogens and then spread to animal pathogens by horizontal transfer…. When we look at the type III system its genes are commonly clustered and found on large virulence plasmids. When they are in the chromosome, their GC content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. In other words, there is good reason to invoke horizontal transfer to explain type III distribution. In contrast, flagellar genes are usually split into three or more operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome. There is no evidence that the flagellum has been spread about by horizontal transfer.” This would point that the TTSS evolved from the flagellum, complicating it more for evolutionist.

Last but not least, even if the bacteria contained the 3 mechanisms and proteins necessary for a flagellum, a flagella would not be formed. Why? Because of genetic regulations within the bacterium- localization and the right order configuration. It’s not enough for these 3 mechanisms to form and then snap together to become a flagellum. And yet, if these proteins are perturbed from their precise amino-acid sequencing in the flagellum, they will in all likelihood not be adapted to each other and therefore fail to form a functioning flagellum

I even find it humorously ironic how Miller explains the flagellum controversy using a mousetrap that was designed intelligently!

Unfortunately for Miller, his argument is invalid.

I have read and watched countless debates on both sides of Theist VS. Atheist and admit each side does commit to convincing arguments with strong key points. Each side has its own aggressive competitive proponents that are intellectual and have something actually good to contribute to a debate. Topics can vary from evolution, morality,possibility of miracles, to biblical credibility and so on. You can even break down the sides into smaller groups; you get those crazy ID proponents or fundamental Christian that are hypocritical by judging you and claim with the help of their supposed “gods-of-the gaps” you’re going straight to hell. Some of them have no idea how to spell “evolution” much more than explain it and that comes altogether with a lovely bundled package of “circular reasoning”. They seem to be using the easy “1 minute-just add water” straw man attacks and the verbal cut and paste from Christian propaganda websites right? On the other hand you get the intelligent atheist that knows more about religion than a Christian does and has pledged allegiance to his Sam Harris’ poster and has every single copy of good ‘ol Dawkin’s books. Or, you sometimes get the idiotic ones that tend to agree with everything the intelligent evolutionist says and has nothing else to say but malicious ad hominem attacks or use the ever so old, over-exhausted, and boring phrase, “there is no god”, thinking they did an outstanding job contributing  to the argument because no one has thought of that genius phrase before. You know what I’m taking about especially if you watched them on youtube and chances are, you’re probably thinking, “what a loser, this guy is living in his mom’s basement.” Despite all of this, there are many reasons on why I find it rather difficult to be an atheist which is just as emotionally charged as intellectually motivated. Usually the argument always gravitates towards other subjects deviating from the main point.  I like to stick to my main point and that specifically involves a little common sense and cosmology, the perfect theological margarita.  Without further due, these are my main reasons:

A majority of scientist now adhere to the belief that the Big Bang in fact did happen and science strongly points this out. This is the same science that atheist claim proves evolution. But what makes something scientific? Well, it must include observation, testing, and retesting. The difficulty in cosmology of when and how the universe was created is that it was never observed or ever will be, never tested, or can never be retested.  Now we can only speculate using “logic” and science presupposes logic.  The atheist Elvis has left the building of  science and is now on the same planes of logic as the theist is. At this point both can agree that the universe was created but both contrast with who or what created the universe.

But this is where the direction of the atheist becomes a burden of a challenge.

According to the famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, he supports the idea that time is a physical property and was also created when the universe was created.

The Nature of Space and Time, Hawking stated, “Today virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang.”

Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R. 1996. The Nature of Space and Time, p. 20.

In other words, time was created during the Big Bang. So whatever created the universe was not operating in our natural linear time. It was transcending it by acting in another dimension of time or it was eternal. Our natural sciences that we use weren’t even born yet. So why should we use natural science to explain a phenomenon before the “natural” was born yet? Science can’t account for its own origin.

It’s like me saying, “I live in a house I built before I was born” or it’s like someone using a ruler to physically measure a thought. It doesn’t make any sense and is completely absurd!

Furthermore  there are different models of the Big Bangs that are accepted. The first one is that nothing created everything but we all know that nothing creates nothing much less everything in the universe.  That’s illogical so now atheist roll their sleeves and get creative by claiming that scientist explain it by stating that the moment before the Big Bang, matter was  infinitely condensed into a point of singularity, with infinite temperature and the forces of gravity, nuclear force, weak force, and electromagnetic force were all unified, it was dimensionless, and infinitely dense, and then exploded. Does this explanation sound like real science to you? In fact it contradicts every science we know of today. So are we using our natural science to explain something that doesn’t behave naturally or governed by natural laws and constants we use for our natural science, that isn’t even calculable, or measurable? What doesn’t align with science is usually scrutinize and labeled as “magic” to an atheist but yet this is what they actually believe!! They are giving a non-scientific explanation. It’s not a matter of science vs. religion it’s a matter of good science vs. bad science.

We also know that a powerful explosion of great magnitude from the Big Bang as scientist claim should never even cause matter to group together. When we observe the natural world we see that explosions do the opposite: they separate matter, not clump them together. In addition, explosions do not create or form new things with complexity, organization, and design. That is 100% consistent 100% of the time and 100% observable. So what makes us think this is possible? So the atheist at this point is left in a 2 way dead end because they unwillingly admitted they either believe in miracles or they believe in what they label as magic as they criticize the theist to. If they believe in miracles then by default God is now possible.

Next,  we also understand that in order for things to change states they must have the potential and outside agent(s) to activate its potential to an actual. Let’s use a seed for example. In order for a seed to become a flower it must have the potential to become one and be dependent on forces outside of itself such as air, water, sunlight, carbon dioxide, soil, all combined to catalyze it into a tree. The seed can’t be responsible for its initiation or own change of state unless something acts on it just as this point of singularity cant either. Before altering states and commencing a Big Bang it requires something to depend on outside of itself and must have had that potential to be actual.  Any other belief is illogical.

So since the universe was created it must have had a creator. Since it was designed, it must have had a designer. Since time was created then this thing that created the universe was certainly either acting on another dimension of time or is eternal. That is not natural so it eliminates the need for another universe since universes are natural and are also governed by time.

Matter and space were also created so this thing was not governed by space and matter meaning it was non-spatial and immaterial.

So we take a close look at intelligence.  Let’s start with what science tells us because science seems to be  only source of truth for all atheist for some reason. Well, according to science, intelligence can only be a product of intelligence and that is 100% observable, 100% of the time, 100% testable and 100% re-testable. There is no other way. It never fails so why do atheist suspect otherwise? If an airplane were created and operated by luck and chance then why should we trust it? Likewise, if our minds, the most complex organ in out body were created with luck and chance, then why should we trust what our minds are telling us? So the atheist once again positions themselves in a 4-fold awkward position:

(1) if they consider themselves intelligent then it had to come from an intelligent being                 (2) if they aren’t intelligent then why should we listen to what they have to say and how would anyone know anything?                                                                                                                                             (3)If their minds came from an unintelligent random process of luck and chance than why should I trust what they are telling me?                                                                                                                   (4) if they provide an explanation that is not scientific, then they openly admitted that science can not account for everything and that there are other sources for discovering the truth.

Finally, the atheist is left to answer this uncomfortable but fitting question of what supernatural, non-material, non-spatial, eternal, powerful, designing entity with tremendous force created the universe.

The atheist then brings out his rusty, handy old “Carl Sagan-then-what-created-god card”.

Well, with Bob Barker, Survey says: since the universe was created, it must of had a creator. Since time was created, then whatever created it was outside and ungoverned by time meaning it was eternal and didn’t have a beginning or end, thus was never created.

To the theist this conclusion leads to the the obvious and I’m proud to be part of it. Unfortunately, the atheist is left with one finger scratching his head thinking how to find the loopholes in the logic itself. With nothing left to say, they resort to their top secret weapon by saying, “we don’t have the answer just yet and science will eventually reveal it to us”, realizing that it wasn’t an answer and this tactic only gets him off the hook for now (even though I just mentioned that science is rendered useless to explain it because it was not born yet).

They like to hide in fear behind their  Uncle Science thinking he’ll protect them but fail to realize that science is not the only way to find truth and no the only begetter of absolute truth.

Science can not explain what mental images you are thinking, it can only measure the chemical reactions and electrical activity in your brain. That’s a matter of introspection.

Science cant tell  you happy or sad you were 5 years ago at your aunts house for Christmas. That too is introspection.

Science cant scientifically prove the statement itself, “science proves everything”

Science can’t prove for its own existence.

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

More related Blogs:
Historical Jesus and what the early Church Christians believe he was
Did Jesus die on the Cross and Resurrect?
Was Jesus a copy of the other gods like Horus?
Why does God allow Evil and Suffering?
Where did Morals come from?
What the Bible says about Reincarnation
What the Bible says about Astrology
Did Mary assume into Heaven?
Nephilim, Fallen Angels, Giants, and sons of God
Book of Mormon VS The Bible
Why Won’t God Answer my Prayers?
Why I CAN’T be an Athiest. Athiesm is illogical
Why did God order Genocide and murders in the Bible