Proof
"Prove to me that there is a God!!"
I hear it all the time. I hear it at work, on the bus, out and about in town, at the bank, at the movies -- anywhere. If the world knows that you are a Christian then you will hear this from time to time. "Can you prove that there is a God?" The answer is "yes". At this point though, let me say here the same thing I usually respond when confronted in such a way. Using a courtroom standard accepted throughout the world, it can be proved that there is a God, to a reasonable audience -- Beyond A Reasonable Doubt!
So, the story goes . . . A physicist walks into the office and lab of a friend and fellow physicist. He is astonished to find a very large and nearly perfect, working model of the solar system. It takes up most of the lab. He sees his friend sitting at his desk as though there was nothing new at all. So, he asks, "Where did this come from? Did you build it?"
The friend responded that he arrived in the lab the other day and it had "just appeared". He then told his friend, "I had all the parts already, just a bunch of leftover junk really, but they were all piled into a stack of boxes in the middle of the room. The next day, there were no boxes and this was here, just as you see it ... running."
"That's impossible" said the visitor, "there is no way this thing could have assembled itself from piles and boxes of parts." But, his friend insisted that this is exactly what had happened. So, walking around the model examining its parts and workings in amazement, he continued, "Something like this doesn't just come to be! It has to be designed. Parts have to be sorted and ordered. It had to be assembled by someone."
To which his friend replied, "Why?"
At the blandness of the friend's question the man said, "Nothing this complex in scope and motion, so detailed in its operations, could ever have simply appeared." The man continued, "For something such as this to work as it does, it requires an intelligence to design it, to select the parts and materials. Just to assemble it would require more intellect than most people have. It couldn't have simply happened."
At this point, his friend looked up from his desk and took greater interest in the conversation. He walked to the man and joined him at surveying the model and said, "But, that is exactly what you said you believe about the whole universe coming into being." The visitor
man looked up at his friend with a question in his eyes. "The universe," continued the friend, "is infinitely more complex than this model, but you and a great many others say that it simply developed itself from nothing into what it is today. The same people say that there was no designer, no selector of materials and no assembler."
The man looked at the friend in disbelief and said, "I don't understand."
"I know you don't understand. No one does. But to believe that the universe came into being the way you do is a direct contradiction to what you just said. By your own words, logic and reason demand the acceptance of a Creator for the universe." The visitor of great learning looked his friend full in the face and said, "I have been a fool; haven't I?" At this point his whole understanding of everything he knew was changed. It was changed because he took a look at the evidence with an honest, reasonable mind.
Common Knowledge Evidence and What it Supports
How some things you were taught in school contradict one another
We live in a solar system that contains nine (known) planets. Of those nine, only one is in a position and of a size and form to bear life. It floats in an orbit that ranges from 92 million to 93 million miles from the sun. If it were positioned just 2 million miles closer to the sun, temperatures would soar to unbearable highs, water would evaporate from the seas and rivers until the atmosphere was a steam bath with such heat and humidity as to be well beyond the most intense sauna in the world. This is how many hospitals kill germs on surgical surfaces; with steam. Unfortunately, on a global magnitude, it would kill everything else as well. If it were 2 million miles farther out, even the equatorial regions, jungles and swamps would freeze. In fact, if that were the normal position of the Earth from the beginning, there would never have been any wet or warm places.
If the Earth suddenly had a twenty percent greater land mass than it does, the amount of evaporation of water, condensation and precipitation would be dispersed to such a degree that little more than cactus would be able to survive almost anywhere on the planet. Grasses would be so few and far between that there would never be enough to sustain the animal life that the human population consumes, much less for the other animals that are required to keep the natural cycle operating. Soon, insects would overrun all grasslands and woodlands till they had eaten it all. Microbes such as bacteria would then rise up as the new power of the planet, infesting and infecting everything that was living to where soon even they would be out of food.
If the Earth had twenty percent more coverage by oceans, the amount of precipitation would increase to such a degree that Phoenix would seem like Hawaii. But, only for a while. In Hawaii it rains just about every day. Hawaii though, is fairly well sloped and its base is pumice and other hard volcanic residue. It does not erode easily. Further, the farmlands are in areas where erosion is not a real difficulty because the volcanic base creates "bowls" wherein lie the farmlands, so they do not easily wash out. But the rest of the world does not fit this description. Most of the planet's surface is easy to erode compared to Hawaii. Also, if it were raining on the rest of the world just about every day, what would it be like in Hawaii? Those bowls of farmland would soon become too wet for even rice. No, if this became the weather situation today, it would not take but five or ten generations for all the farm worthy soil to be washed away, all the cities to be flooded beyond being inhabitable. For all the rivers to rise out of their banks would only take a few days or weeks at best. The Mississippi, the Ohio, the Nile, the Volga, the Rhine, the Danube and all other large rivers would consume every major city and every village on their banks.
The Earth is tilted on its orbital axis at a 23 degree angle. This angle allows for more even distribution of temperatures across the planet in such a way as to result in seasons. This angle is accompanied by the orbital shift of about one million miles. Between the two, it allows for the northern hemisphere to have a decidedly different general climate than the southern, and both to be productive in their own necessary ways.
When it is Summer in the North, it is Winter in the South. During the northern Summer, the planet is at its farthest point from the sun, but the axis tilts in such a direction as to give the northern half a notably longer day than night. This allows for continental warming, which combined with atmospheric stability and oceanic currents produce the Summer season. In the Winter for the North, the Earth is actually closer to the sun, but the nights are longer than the days. The effect is reversed of that of Summer so that Winter's colder weather is the result. Because the Earth is closer to the sun during the Summer of the southern hemisphere, the Summer is much hotter in the south than in the north. This is because the days are longer than the nights AND the planet is closer to the sun. The overall result is that the southern hemisphere has the greatest supply of jungles and deserts. the plant life and animal life are drastically different from those of the northern.
If the tilt of the axis were less than it is, or non existent, then the equatorial regions would become unbearably hot. Even coffee or jungle could not grow there. The rainfall would come, but the temperatures of the area would almost never allow the water to reach the ground. This phenomena has been witnessed many times in the Mojave regions of the United States during Summer. The areas farther from the equator would be greatly changed as well. People and animals could probably live in two bands of land from about the twentieth to the thirtieth parallels on the North and South of the equator, but closer to the center would be too hot, and farther away would be too cold, and either direction would not allow for any food production at all. Even if there were such people living in those two bands, they would probably never even know about each other. It requires the natural resources of both hemispheres to make the technological advancements needed to make the journey through the band of heat, or even to ma ke anything much more complicated than a wheel.
If this axis were tilted to a greater extreme the area where life could continue would be around the equator. The farther one went from the equator the more extreme the temperatures would become. Winters beyond that area would be too cold for polar bears. Summers would be too hot for tarantulas. If the tilt were still timed as it is now, the southern half would never know Winter and Summer would never come to the northern.
As it is, the southern hemisphere contains much dense jungle and rain forest which provide the predominance of the planet's medicinal supplies and oxygen. The oxygen is provided by the incredible amount of plant life that breathes in carbon dioxide and expels oxygen. These same plants provide flora to make many of today's drugs as well as the homes for the fauna to maintain it. Much of the fauna is also useful for medicinal purposes. The northern hemisphere provides most of the food for the human and livestock populations of planet. It also has the more moderate climates needed for effective farming. The seasons allow for the farming of different kinds of crops. Some foods come up in Fall, while others produce in Summer. Some even produce in Spring and Winter so that there is a fresh food supply on hand at all times. If this delicate balance were changed, what would there be to eat? What animals or people could survive the wait between seasons to do the eating? Everything would have to hibernate, but that would not allow for farmers to tend the crops that would be needed when the hibernation season were over.
There are literally thousands of examples of pairs of animals who are totally dependent on each other. This is what is called a symbiotic relationship. One such example is the bacteria that live in the digestive system of a human being. Those same bacteria have no means by which to survive in any other place. The human host absolutely requires the presence of the bacterial for certain digestive functions as well as disease resistance. Without the human, the bacteria would die, and vice versa. If this were an evolved situation, which would have come first? The host would die without the guest if he were first. If the guest were first, he would die without the host. Similar relationships occur in more advanced animal life. But what about between plants and animals. A great many of the fruits and flowers that we take for granted everyday require pollination by bees. If evolution were a reality, how did they pollinate before there were bees? The easy answer would be to say that the bees came first. But the bees count on the fruit and flower plants as their sole source of food. If the bees were first then they would have become extinct from starvation without their plant hosts. It would appear reasonable to assume that both sides of each symbiotic relationship had to come into being at the same time. This reasonable assumption points directly at a Creator, not a happenstance.
Evolution Fails in its Own Theories
Evolution -- More of a Religion than a Reality
The primary driving thought for evolution is that advancements in development occur as a result of a need for an improvement in a species. It also more than implies that the survival of the fittest is the way and means of all development. But the two cannot coexist.
How could there be an inherent need for sight.? If an animal and all its ancestors had no sight, what would make the single example of any species suddenly have a need for sight? If it did, what would be the result of partially developed organs that would have to be present in the course of development? What happens to a creature in transition between the use of one means and another? Is the creature (like most of us) not very good at either? Or are we to assume that these "transition creatures (unlike the rest of the known species) become expertly adept at both? What causes a microbe to suddenly develop visions of grandeur that encourage it to begin the establishment of a spine? For something that lives in a spineless world the developing rigidity of a spine would slow it down and become a deadly thing that would allow whatever predators may be near to more easily eat the new form of creature. If it suddenly began to develop limbs somewhere along the way, those same limbs would get in the way and reduce its own mobility thus causing it to become extinct, thanks to the predator.
Some evolutionists believe that there is a natural order (an imprinted sequence of development) by which an animal is compelled to develop a new attribute, thereby creating the need for the physiological change of the species, and the species then develops according to that order. Note how they avoid words like plan and design. But if this were viable in the development of all creatures from the time of slime, it simply would not work. Just one question that comes readily to mind is "What about all those birds bashing their brains out on trees wishing to someday become woodpeckers?" You see, the very compulsion that they believe would create the need would also be the very death of the species that was striving to develop.
This process also becomes a difficulty in the arena of breeding. What happens when an individual suddenly has the rudiments of genitals? What about mammary glands? In the case of the addition of either of these features, mobility is reduced and the predator is there. Any additions to the operating systems of a species would result in a certain destruction of the specimen before it could ever develop into a species. The development of a new species also assumes that a new development of operation is found in both a male and female of the species, or that it at least does not get in the way of either survival or the attraction and breeding of the new species. For example, a sexual creature (one with genitals) cannot breed with an asexual creature (one without genitals). If a new specimen were male, where would it find a female?
To be very candid, to accept the premise of evolution requires greater faith and a greater number of tenets of faith than does Christianity.
For evolution to be remotely believable one must accept that invertebrates breed vertebrates, that these breed endoskeletal and exoskeletal animals, that those develop farther into fish and birds and beasts, etc. Of course this has never happened or been observed, even though scientists have been trying to make it happen for over a hundred years. There is no option, because every single minute development along the way is a major jump, even if it may seem minor. Even the differences between an ape and a monkey are profound.
One can breed various types of dogs with one another, but cannot breed dogs with cats. though there are great similarities between the two, there is no way of making a genetic match or link. Still, evolutionists would tell you that they are close enough in design, or they would say "construction", that there must have been a time when there were neither, but only one that was both. To accept this theory requires several essential elements of FAITH. Remember, accepting each "evolutional leap" is a tenet of faith -- from mono-cellular to multi-cellular to invertebrate to vertebrate to endoskeletal and exoskeletal -- from asexual to sexual -- then one must accept that these life forms were suddenly driven to live on the land rather than the sea. Since the seas are much more spacious and plentiful in supplies than the land masses ever would become, this makes absolutely no sense.
Foolishness in Forcing the Faith
In Evolution, the greatest tenet of faith that must be accepted is that life could come from non life.
The theory holds that sometime, in millennia past, there was a strike of lightening or some other energy supplied, that charged a series of amino acids (properly aligned by coincidence) and other stuff which suddenly resulted in the first and in fact a most simple life form. What makes this so hard to believe is that scientists have been trying to replicate life from non living matter since before "Frankenstein" was written. They have spent billions of dollars in supplies and materials, chemicals and equipment and created the most perfectly controlled laboratory environments in which to conduct their experiments. What has been the result after over a hundred years of trying and the spending of vast fortunes? Even though they know all the necessary ingredients and how everything should be aligned, they have yet to create life. Considering that this effort has been going on for so long, and so much has been spent, and so many have been involved, and that they have all kept records of their advances and failures so that each could build upon what the others have learned and they have still managed to only create failure.
What are the odds of the desired results of all these scientific
endeavors coming to be by random chance? According to some mathematicians, the odds of life coming into being from non live materials (if given 500 Billion years), through random chance is less likely than anything else in the world. It has been said that the odds are lesser that of a tornado passing through an automotive junk yard and producing a 747 jet liner when it came through. Who would be foolish enough to stand at the side of a junk yard when a tornado was coming and expect to have a new 747 delivered into their hands?
What Does the Earth Tell Us?
The Rocky Mountains, Swiss Alps, Andes, Himalayas and many others are made of hard stone. By hard stone we mean something hard such as granite as opposed to something soft, such as limestone. But even though they are made of hard stone, if they were millions or billions of years old, one would expect them to be far more worn by weather than they are.
They are, in fact, little more worn than the marble and granite statues of ancient Greece and Egypt. If we concede that they are almost five times as worn, and can date the creation of those statues at only two or three thousand years ago, we could only conclude that the tops of the mountains were only ten to fifteen thousand years old at the very most. But, the wear on those mountains is not even five times that of the statues, but more like three times. This would tend to indicate that the mountain tops are only about ten thousand years old or less. But, what does that say about the rest of the world?
Erosion is a fact of life that every farmer and fisherman knows well. The amount of silt deposited from the rivers of the world into the seas is also a fact that both must deal with. Fact is that if erosion continues at a virtually constant rate (and there is no reason to consider that it should not) then the amount of erosion each year would be the approximately same to where, in 14.000,000 years or so (give or take a million), there would be no dirt in which to farm at all. But farm we do. Now, some claim that tectonic shifting compensates for the errosion, but the fact is that the shifting only compensates for a small amount of the actual loss. So, farming becomes an absolute impossibility if the planet were several billion years old. If the planet were only one billion years old, the only thing there could be as top soil would be granulated "hard stone" such as granite, in which almost nothing will grow, much less anything edible.
Right Before Their Eyes
What Evolutionists Deny -- Even When They See
Many say that, due to evolution, man came on the scene rather late. These same "scientists" say that all of the dinosaurs were long extinct before the arrival of man. They say there is a gap of millions of years between dinosaurs and men. But that idea doesn't hold up very well in the face of a fossilized footprint of a dinosaur with a human footprint in it (Tarpley, Texas). The rock in which these footprints appear is of such a nature that it dries quickly and does not become pliable again, even when soaked. It also dries within days, not millennia. So the man had to step in the dinosaur's footprint within days of its being made. If dinosaurs were extinct a million years before man "evolved", how did that footprint get there? Could it be that the evolutionists were wrong? The corpse of a dinosaur was caught in the nets of a fishing vessel from Japan a few years ago and photographs were taken and samples of flesh taken to labs for study. The animal had died recently and had been gnawed on by fish as fresh meat. He didn't become extinct a million or two years ago. And more have been seen.
Radio Carbon dating is a process of determining the age of an ancient artifact, rock, formation, etc. A dating lab for this purpose was requested to determine the age of a handful of clams. They went through their processes and they decided that, due to the readings of the radio carbon dating, the clams must be several million years old. This was a great bit of knowledge to have at hand. But the clams were still alive when they arrived at the lab. They were opened up and the meat was still fresh. They could not even be twenty years old, much less a million. The process fails. Rocks taken in to be dated in such a manner were said to be over fifteen million years old, but they had come up in the Mt. Saint Helens eruption of the past decade. The process fails.
What does this evidence strongly indicate?
No, the evidence does not support evolution, nor does it support anything but creation. Only by creation could the immeasurable odds be overcome to result in a world so ordered and fruitful and productive. Only by creation could the symbiotic relationships of organisms come to be. Only in creation do the predator and prey have opportunity for the existence of both. Only by creation could you or I be anything more than self serving, instinct driven robots. There really is no other rational explanation for the existence of the universe. But that is not what they teach in the public schools of America. Why is that?
One of the major reformers of education in the past century said, "If we can prove evolution then we never have to be accountable to the God of the Bible." There's the motive. It is a motive that has been around for thousands of years. The motive is that we want to do what we want to do, and we don't want anyone telling us that we can't or shouldn't.
The proven agenda of the National Education Association and its associated organizations has been (for over one hundred years) to take the minds of children and to deliberately turn them away from God. That is the reason they have expanded the school day from four to eight hours, so they can teach children to be little godless socialists. That is why in 1964 they pushed so hard to remove prayer from schools. It is also why they removed the Bible as the primary textbook of the school, and have instead spent billions of dollars trying to denounce it and discredit it. Thomas Sowell said in the San Antonio Express News (8/4/96) "The power to brainwash the next generation with politically correct fads and fashions will be lost if parents keep their children out of public schools." But in light of the evidence, keeping children in government schools is a truly foolish thing to do. Why? The evidence points only to Creation, as any honest scholarship would tell.
But, what does this mean in the Bigger Picture?
This Page and All Connected to it
Copyright Keith Jenkins 1997
Best Viewed with
This Page Created Using
