if so called scientiest claim that there were creatures here millions od years ago?

Question

then why dont they show that JESUS was and is real

Answer 1

becouse they would rather dig up old bones from the past. mabe some day they will go to his grave site and show the proof but untill that happens i keep praying for everyone.

Answer 2

The reason why scientists don't show that jesus was and is real is that they are perpetrating a world wide cover up. Scientist have had physical proof of the existence of jesus for centuries. It is absurd to think that if science could discover the remains of dinosaurs and other animals from millions of years ago that they couldn't discover the remains of the most influential man in history from a mere 2000 years ago. "Scientists" (whom i like to call "The Man") have the remains of jesus, the entire cross, the Ark of the covenant, the original 10 Commandments, and Noah's Ark stored at area 51. They are stored right next to the chambers holding the frozen bodies of John Wayne, Elvis, Big Foot, Bruce Lee, Lenny Bruce, Jim Morrison, JFK, Jimmy Hoffa and Ronald Regan. Are 51 is also the modern home of Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

Answer 3

First of all, god is outside the scope of science. Besides that, there's plenty of evidence that creatures existed millions of years ago. There is no evidence that Jesus existed at all. Modern biblical scholarship makes a very compelling case for the idea that Jesus never existed... that he was, in fact, entirely fictional.

The Jesus Puzzle
http://pages.ca.inter.net/%7Eoblio/jhcjp.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Answer 4

Jesus didn't leave fossils. Or, for that matter, any historical evidence at all. The earliest known "gospel" was written about 150 years after he allegedly died -- lots of time to make up fairy tales.

Answer 5

There are many scientists who are Christian and give witness to Jesus. Basically scientists are in the business of science which deals with facts not faith.

Answer 6

They have already shown that Jesus was real- the historical record proves that- I'm not sure where you are going with this? Are you saying why don't they prove the existence of God? Well isn't that what faith is all about?

Answer 7

Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

Answer 8

Because the idea of God has no scientifically testable predictions about the real world.

Answer 9

Because scientists are usually smarter than someone who might attempt that.

Answer 10

"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there." [Robert A. Heinlein]