# Apologetics against atheism Atheists represent a unique type of [religion](religion.md) because they typically don't recognize they have an actual religion. - It's a [cultural](people-culture.md) indoctrination, often because they have conformed to [scientism](science.md), and often also ascribe to [transhumanism](https://gainedin.site/machines). - While many of them are taught the value system from an early age, some of them are legitimate fools (Psalm 14:1). - For this reason, be very careful how much time you spend around them, since it can be detrimental to your mental health. - Discrediting the scientific community is a generally lost cause (e.g., Piltdown Man), since most of them aren't even aware they've been [indoctrinated by atheists](https://gainedin.site/scientism/). Thankfully, they do thoroughly document their theology online, so you have plenty of time to research it for yourself. ## Old vs. New Earth creationism The scientific community at large advocates [a specific cosmology](https://gainedin.site/myth-secular) derived from the extrapolations of *thousands* of scientific papers: 1. The universe was formed from a Big Bang explosion, though we don't know why and it might involve a multiverse or something else. 2. At some point after trillions of years, life emerged on Earth. It was a single-celled protozoa that appeared from something odd like lightning striking water to create perfect conditions for life. 3. After billions of years, complex life evolved into many of the forms we see today. 4. Some millions of years ago, humanity evolved from apes. Therefore, any repudiation of any of those domains essentially frames the necessity for intelligent design. - It's worth noting, however, that the refuge of most atheists in the absence of sufficient evidence is to believe in a "semi-intelligent" designer (i.e., some other imperfect being that simply had advanced technology or some unnamed power). ## Discrediting the Big Bang The laws of thermodynamics don't work with a singularity, since there has to have been some sort of acting force to have triggered it. ## Discrediting the formation of life Life is [absurdly complex](science-life-biochem.md), so it's almost impossible to justify how all the aspects of life occurred by random chance. - Most assertions imply a multiverse, but that doesn't remove the unlikelihood aspect, to the point that it would require more than septillions of alternate universes to create a specific condition we exist in. ## Discrediting evolution's timetable The evolutionary timetable has infiltrated most of society at least somewhat. - To this end, most cosmological justifications around [the Bible](bible-1_torah-gen.md) tend to give either [Old Earth or New Earth creationism](people-conflicts-christian-2_debatable.md). There are some inherent flaws in the evolutionary model. - Charles Darwin himself indicated that the only way his idea would work would be if we found vast amounts of missing links everywhere, which we haven't found. - Most of the dating is based on carbon-14's radioactive decay, which is an extremely volatile measurement when we don't even know what the carbon density of the original lifeform would have been. - The geological proof with rock strata has organisms like trees and skeletons that seem to have been preserved across multiple geological eras. - The taxonomy does accurately go back to the family (e.g., wolves and dogs are all related by a common ancestor), but there are severe gaps in lifeforms to explain [most orders and all classes](science-life-biochem.md). - The record shows that there were clearly larger animals at one point, but for some reason we don't know they all died off. The best counter to the evolution assertion is the canopy theory, which validates how a worldwide flood would have happened. - The idea was that there was a gigantic water vapor layer covering the earth, which empowered several things: - The increased air density allowed larger lifeforms like what we've seen. - That amount of water would have been sufficient to have created a worldwide flood. - The increased plant life would have also heavily fertilized the soil. - We know dinosaurs are genetically the ancestors of modern reptiles, and we also know that reptiles don't stop growing until they reach a constraint in their environment. - The canopy theory's dense air could also have empowered people to live longer like in Genesis 5. - Any "neanderthals" we've found (very few) would have been people who lived hundreds of years, since our foreheads and ears never actually stop growing. There are other qualities, however, that represent very difficult justifications for evolution to explain. - For some reason, most higher-order animals love to play (e.g., dolphins, cats). While younglings at play can be training, adults will often maintain play even when there is no more training benefit and when it actually presents a survival risk. - For an unexplained reason, animals all love when being petted or rubbed. This doesn't make any logical sense, especially with lower-order animals like reptiles and bugs. - If the universe was created for our enjoyment and experience, this is an easy explanation, but not when everything is configured for survival of the fittest. ## Discrediting the formation of humanity Believing we descended from apes means we must believe in [the Idiot Ancestor theory](https://gainedin.site/idiot-ancestor/), which has some inherent issues explaining ancient societies without outside involvement like space aliens. However, one philosophical problem emerges with believing humanity evolved from apes, and that comes from our capacity for existential reasoning. - Effectively, there is zero survival benefit for us to think about what happens after we die, and in fact presents grave risks: - Philsoophical thinking over things like what happens after we [die](hardship-death.md) or what will happen in 1,000 years causes [anxiety](mind-feelings-fear.md) and [stress](mind-feelings-happiness-stress.md), which interfere with productive propagation of the species. - While [abstractions](https://gainedin.site/abstractions/) have value, they don't have as much value when compounded, and are a huge part of how our comparatively larger brains work. - The human brain is absurdly powerful, but it creates tremendous risks in its presence, since younglings are useless and vulnerable for far longer in their development than any other organism. - This can be easily explained by our purpose being to have a relationship with God, but survival of the fittest can't justify its existence.