In debates between atheists and creationists (A&C), they seem to follow a pattern quite different from usual debates. Initially both sides present their cases and then refute the oppositions claims under normal circumstances; but in A&C debates what happens is, the Creationist side talks first and the Atheist always answers back according to what the other has said; so there is no presentation being made about why atheism is more correct than theism. Atheists always finish their sentences by saying that there is "not enough evidence that there is a God", but the creationist could say "there is not enough evidence against the existence of God" which would be equally true (in scientific terms). "What is your evidence that proves there is no God?" and "Why are you so sure that you're correct?". This is the place where things get stuck but at the end of the debate, a standing ovation is given (mostly) to the atheist; but why? Is it because they did not lose?
After all the atheists stay atheists and creationists stay the same; due to both sides not convincing each other not even a single bit. This shows that debates are not the way forward and a new approach should be taken; which I believe is dialogue, trying to understand why the other believes in this way and try to find common grounds. May be there is a lack of knowledge – this could be true for both sides; or due to certain taboos imposed on them during early life – again could be true for both sides, not just for creationists. However I have to say that I do not like the idea of atheists trying to prove that a god does not exist at each opportunity, when there cannot provide any evidence to demonstrate what they are saying. When they should be saying "I believe there is no god", they say "there is no god" which is the exact opposite of what they are asking from creationists; respect for their beliefs!
As a believer in God, I think that everything and anything that is around us could lead us to God and the true religion. After all we have science – which is an authentic source; we have history, again an authentic source; and the information gained from these fields could rule out all the false religions and made up myths and lead to the truth. Thus for example if a religion believes that smoking is good for your health, then we can deduce from the knowledge gained from science that this religion is a fraud and manufactured by people – probably by tobacco sellers. While saying all this, if one still wants to believe that smoking is good for them then we have to respect the choice they are making; not meaning that we should not carry on warning them.
Coming back to what I said about "everything and anything" leading us to God, there are a few examples which have caught my attention during my studies and personal experiences, which have made me say "this cannot be done without a creator/designer" and increased my faith in God.
Before I start with the examples I want to say that atheist evolutionists assume that an operating system (ie Windows) exists within organisms which recognise a certain DNA sequence (ie AATTCGA) as coding for a certain protein, which has been worked out as the Amino acid code (or genetic code); but what is not thought on is how that operating system came into being. To make what I said more clearly; as I press the keys on my keyboard, certain values appear on the screen. To make an analogy, "theory of evolution" says that a book can arise from random pressing of the keyboards; and even they accept that all the species we see today could have come about with astronomically small probabilities – these numbers are considered impossible in statistic yet atheists want to believe that this can happen. I respect that belief but what is assumed is that the keyboard codes for the values; but who coded these? For example if you are using Microsoft Office Word to write a book, then you know that Microsoft are the coders of this operating system. So moving on from the analogy; who coded the Genetic code? Why does UAG code for stop (or AUG for start and methionine etc)? A real question to think about...
The first example is going to be the sperm (see:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm); which is the male gamete. The sperm's main parts are its head, midpiece and it tail. In the head, are the genetic information and the acrosome which contains enzymes needed to digest the ovum. In the midpiece, mitochondria are included, which generates ATP (energy) for the sperm to travel with the help of its tail. Out of the hundreds of questions that can come to mind, a few of them would be: How does the sperm know that it has to travel a long way so that it is equipped with mitochondria and a tail? How does the sperm know that it will encounter the egg membrane and is needed to be digested (and equip itself with appropriate enzymes)? Without an intelligent designer none of the answers given to these questions would make sense.
Then there is the phenomenon of chromosome packaging (see:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome and read DNA packaging section); which is an impossibly complex process involving packing of 2 metres of DNA (in humans) into a (less than) sphere with 5 micrometer of diameter, while also organising it so that essential parts could still be accessed for use by enzymes to support the cell and organism. The DNA is first wound around structures called nucleosomes; then these nucleosomes form solenoid-like structures and the process is carried on with the formation of loops within loops; finally giving rise to the metaphase chromosome, which resembles the shape of X with the help of a scaffold being formed and the loops of DNA being wound around it. There are books written about only just this part of DNA packaging and I leave it to you to decide how and why the DNA is packaged in such a way. All this would have seen like magic if we were to magnify what is going on microscopes more powerful than electron microscope (which is the best we have at the moment).
Next one I'll keep it short; which will be about our nostrils' angle which diverts exhaled air coming from the lungs. This air would be full of moisture and it would have left the top side of our lips (where the moustache forms) wet all the time leading to irritation; but what we observe is the incredible use of geometry, our nostrils are neither too vertical or horizontal. The former would cause irritation as mentioned above, whereas the latter would cause us dust, dirt and strong wind to blow through our nose and cause suffocation. Another one to think about...
Last one is the Yucca moth (which I will leave the miracles of this insect for you to search), which shares an amazing bond with the Yucca plant. The plant needs the moth for pollination but the moth needs only to eat the nectar from the plant. Even though it is not her job, the female moth gathers pollen into a ball and carries it in her mouth to another Yucca; enters flower and deposits pollen ball on stigma. It then pierces ovary wall and lays eggs in the Yucca ovary; finally, she climbs up to the anthers and collects pollen, ready to repeat process in a new flower. However the grubs develop and eat only 20% of seeds; the grubs then chew out of ovary, drop to ground and pupate until Yucca flowers again. This is being tried to be taught as a contract being signed between the two species; which is nonsense of course – since taking a decision like that would require intelligence from both sides; but that is what was said by an atheist teacher of mine...
To conclude, science is an authentic source which tries to observe what happens in the material world and tries to come up with explanations and it can only be complementary with religion and not against it since they try to answer different things, with the latter trying to understand the metaphysical world.
I personally respect atheists as they are people who did not accept something just because their parents have told them to believe in them; but the struggle to find the truth must not end after they have left their inherited religion, but truth-seeking must go on until death, and this goes for everyone. People must also be sincere about whether truth is what they want or what they want is what they as truth.
