Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire Empirical Proof God Exists

Fulfilled Biblical Prophecy:

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/default.htm

I hate to point this out, but you're supposed to believe in God on faith, not require empiracal proof. If that's your standard, there's a lot more empirical proof that evolution exists than there is that God exists.

Indy,

Since there is no evidence, at all, for evolution does it require more faith to accept it than to believe that God created by His Word?

Indy;
Thanks for the reply.

Actually I think you have articulated a common misunderstanding about the Christian Faith. Some commentators on Hebrews chapter 11 interpret the meaning like this; Faith is to have a strong confidence based on irrefutable evidence. The greek seems to bring forth the idea of a jury of sorts considering evidence and then coming to believe what the truth is. In other words, truth is determined through a careful examination of evidence, weighing it out with a cold sober mind and coming to a conclusion. Faith is to be persuaded of the truth, and then to trust and obey the truth.

I think if you look at the link you will have a lot of evidence to consider that cannot be refuted. How could a man know exactly where the Messiah would be born five hundred years ahead of schedule? How could David have "seen" the crucifixion and then described it 1000 years before the event. How could Daniel prophesy the year the Messiah would enter Jerusalem? On and on it goes.

Nonetheless real Christian Faith is not a leap in the dark, or a hope and guess positive outlook. It should involve critical thought and careful examination of facts.

Evolution reverses entropy in a closed system which is impossible.

Also the mathmatical probability of:

1) random chance constructing precise mechanisms
2) random chance assembling those mechanisms into a finely tuned working system, (ie., the living cell)

is so improbable that is considered impossible by some more honest scientists who are willing to admit a prime mover...

Dixie:

I don't understand why you guys keep saying that evolution reverses entropy in a closed system.

It doesn't.

Do you know what entropy means? Did you ever study thermodynamics in college?

I did.

I'm sorry, Dixie, but these prophecies all seem murky and vague to me. Different people can interpret them to mean different things. The link you provided does not tell anything about Daniel prophesying the year the Messiah would enter Jerusalem and does not seem to have any prophecy by David.

Ringman, you had better watch out.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution. Go to a city sometime (A city is a place where lots of people live.) They will have a building called a museum. Inside will be dinosaurs. Evidence of evolution.

If God created the Universe, then God created evolution, and you should think twice before denying the works and glories of God.

Indy,

If one goes to the museum, does he see something that is half dino and half something else? NO. Dinos are just one more evidence for God's creative power. You have been brainwashed since you were in kindergarten that dinos show us evolution. Where are the missing links for the intermidiates? If you read the facts, you would know the only thing that exists is the tips of the evolutionary tree. Everything in the fossil record is just like the living world. No missing links.

Ringman,

Oh?

Just the tips?

What about Australopithecus afarensis (the fossil called Lucy)? And all the intermediate forms between her and us?

What about the dozens of bird-dinosaurs (or dinosaur-birds) found since Archeopteryx?

What about the mammal-like reptiles of the Permian times, which are intermediate between mammals and reptiles, before dinosaurs. For instance they look like reptiles but with specialized teeth structures (Like mammals including humans) and mammal-type skull plate divisions. They also appear to have had fur or whiskers.

What about Eohippus, the dawn horse, and all its subsequent descendants. Eohippus started very small and with feet like a dog, and subsequent versions evolved hooves. There is a good continuum of fossils.

What about the proto-whales, which walked on land part of the time, and whose back legs atrophied until, in modern whales, they are just small bones hidden in the body?

I could go on, but it seems to me that YOU are the one denying the works of God.

All of the things that you have listed as evidence of evolution is merely speculation by evolution scientists. There are also creation scientists who don't get any credit for their work but have just as plausible theories. Evolution is only a theory and has never been proven. Those skeletons in the museums are not complete and have had missing bones filled in with artificial copies. If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

The claim that man has evolved from ape has been shown time and time again to erroneous. The fact the scientists still hold to it is attributed more to a philosophical presuppostion than any objective evidence.

Australopithecines are no missing link. Let me show you what some of today's leading scientists (many of whom are evolutionists) have to say about Australopithecines.

Anatomist Charles Oxnard says : " It is now recognized widely that Australpithecines are not structurally similar to humans, that they must have been living at least in part in aboreal [tree] eviroments, and that many of the later specimens were contemporaneous or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo."

Evolutionist and paleontologist Joseph Weiner says: " The first impression given by all the skulls from the different populations of Australopithecus is of a distinctly ape-like creature... The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female [bleep] with a remarkable closeness of fit. In this respect and also in the lack of a chin and in possession of stron supra-orbital ridges, Australopithecus stand in strong contrast to modern Homo Sapiens."

Sir Solly Zuckerman, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and chief scientist advisor to the British government says : "The Australpithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white."

I'll give one more quote. Richard Leaky, director of the National Museum in Kenya, and son of famous palentologist Louis Leaky says : "It is overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy champazee. The evidence for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvinving."

I know this is getting long winded, so I'll end end here, but I think it is important to mention that there are strong arguments refuting the idea that the other "transitional species" you named are in any way transitional at all.