I've come to the conclusion that the evidence for an intelligent creator who pre-existed time to be overwhelming.I asked for him to expand on that, and that one problem I have with the claim that "something can exist before time itself" is that it cannot be tested or disproved, and therefore is not a good theory. Here's his response:
I'm referring to some of the deductions that I make on a daily basis when I ponder the human cell, relish a well written book, enjoy a beautiful painting or a soaring symphony. Does not the presence of a well written book point to an intelligent author rather than random assemblage of ink (where did ink come from?) on paper (how did paper come to be?) The same reasoning goes for a painting or a symphony.I must say, I agree with the fact that a well-written book points to an author. However, the reason I believe a book is not a random assemblage of ink is because I can actually trace it back to the author. Let's look at this from the standpoint of science. Let's say I have a theory that claims "Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box". My hypothesis is easily testable. We can simply do a little investigation with the publishers of the book, and ask who wrote it. We can call up Mike and get it "right from the horse's mouth". The same principle applies to just about any man-made object. We can easily trace it back to a designer using simple deductive reasoning. If I wanted to know where the ink came from, I could go to the book-making factory and see the ink myself. I can then go to the ink manufacturer and they can show me exactly how it's made. Same goes for the paper it's written on.