Christians are frequently asked to "provide proof God exists". The reply is always "take a look around you!"

Question

Atheists look around themselves and say "the creation doesn't prove a creator!", it's all how you interpret it.

Well, let's ask atheists to provide proof for evolution. But you can't advance anything that must be interpreted. Fossils aren't proof because they need interpretation. Were they laid down in the flood, or were they buried in a "geologic layer" corresponding to an evolutionary epoch? Both are interpretations based on a belief system.

Micro-mutations cannot be advanced as proof of evolution because all they have been observed to do is serve as a quality control mechanism, never a speciation converter.

If you hold evolution as scientific fact, yet you cannot produce proof, your belief in evolution is a religion, no different than my belief in creation.

Please no ad homonym attacks. Don't call me names, or make derogatory comments about how stupid religion is, or that God doesn't exist. Yeah, we've heard it all before. It's neither interesting or enlightening.

Answer 1

When evolution comes to the point of the original creation they come upon a stumbling block. They cannot prove a first cause for everything. In order for evolution to be true there would of necessity have to be a first cause to explain where the original came from that other things evolve from, and they cannot explain where the first cause came from to begin with other than to say it came from nothing - Which requires even greater "faith" than believing the first cause was an intelligent being or "creator."

So either all the complex dna, etc. discovered by science will either have to have appeared out of nothing, there was a creator, or there is no explanation including evolution.

Intelligence would dictate that there has to be a "first cause"
therefore evolution will either have to come up with an explanation of how things started from nothing or recognize a creator. It cannot be both ways.

EDIT: THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THIS! GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BEGINNING WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING. From somewhere the first dna appeared, but what was that somewhere. From something the first dna appeared, but what was that something. From someone the first dna appeared, but who was the someone.
Rational thinking would insist that there is a first cause. Even a died in the wool evolutionist has to face this reality whether they want to or not. Without a first cause of some kind nothing
would exist. Evolution has never produced an answer for this.

Answer 2

It is not just the fossils, but their stratification. Their are too many strata for a single flood event. Calling the assessment of the strata a belief system does not make it such. The strata were initially analyzed in the context of a global flood which thoroughly failed to explain observations

Coining terms like "micro-mutation" does not change two critical facts. Life evolves by mutation, which has been observed. Anatomic based phylogenetic trees are corroborated by not structural genetic alterations such as order of genes that all indicate common descent.

The only defense to assertions not supported by facts is to plead that there should be no ad hominem attacks. If you are going to play fast and loose with the facts, you will be shown as a liar. Anticipating it does nothing to change the facts.

Answer 3

Hello friend,

To prove the exsistance of God is hard by man's view. The Bible speaks of faith. If we had all the answers there would be no need for faith. It is faith that moves mountains. Also the hidden mysteries of God are open to those that seek him. That is why the word says seek and you will find. He wants you to reach out and really want to know. It wont just be handed over to just anyone, just his people, and his true people will seek.
You notice there is a verb ( of action) before each phrase such as : seek and you will find, give and you shall recieve.
I hope this helps alittle
Pastor richard Allen Kent
www.angelsharbor.org

Answer 4

what are the chances that you,man evolved so far above everything else on this planet that he can do a heart bypass,or build a computer or land on the moon while everything else lives in the water or woods.If you took a watch completely apart and placed all the parts in a bag and started shaking the bag how many billions of yrs would you have to shake the bag before the watch reassembled itself?and worked?There is no missing link?where is it? Something supreme had a hand in our making of that theres no doubt and yes we are flawed thats why he was here.Good luck with this.

Answer 5

Agree, but you know them they will ignore your last paragraph and flame away, you touched one of their "cannons" they will immediately claim you know nothing of science.

Unfortunately Christians think atheists cannot understand the Bible, and atheists believe Christians cannot understand science, the two are necessary puzzle pieces to life, however.

Also some people here do not seem to know the difference between microevolution (staying the same species, but with adaptations to help survival) and macroevolution. Psst. viruses are not living, why should we put a non-living thing in a debate which relies on living things.

Answer 6

The part you still are not understanding is this:

Evolution has evidence. It may not be right. It may in fact be entirely wrong and some other guy comes along and shows some other way we came about.

Your god still does not have ANY credible evidence. I can explain how a plant functions and how they grow in terms that are irrefutable, with your religion you can't. The plants were created BEFORE the sun, in your book. Doesn't make much sense does it?

Answer 7

Instead of proposing an Inteligent Designer, why not a Creative Designer. Creative, as in; Artist. Art was banned from the early church. Science was unborn. Dogma ruled. Today most of the bickering is between pragmatists, and dogmatists. Give art a chance. Art is strong evidence that man has been lifted above the biology. Where does art come from? Science? Not likely. Religion? No way! Religion is the first born child of Art. Science is a step-child. You can't understand profecy, without an eye for art. Period.

Art is for art's sake, and is self-evident. God's white robe, is art. He left art in the sky, the rainbow is evidence of inspiration.

Answer 8

Poodles don't exist in the wild. If we can generate an animal that looks nothing like it's ancestor with 10,000 years of selective breeding, I daresay it's not so hard to believe that natural selection could pull off the variety we see on Earth over the course of 4 billion years.

You do know that there's 200,000+ species of beetles, right? If your god really exists, I'd say he's got a bit of an obsession.

Answer 9

Wait, first let me address the argument from design. Because you misrepresent our position.

The claim:
1. Every design has a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. It is argued that this is non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as "orderly" or "ordered", which implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.

The design claim is often attacked as an argument from ignorance, since it is often unexplained or unsupported, or explained by unscientific conjecture, such as irreducible complexity. Supporters of intelligent design assume that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only intelligent design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. As most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection, they reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. Thus biologists commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.

See also: Argument from poor design

Answer 10

Me thinky you don't understand the definition of evolution. It does not JUST mean what you want it to mean. Proof of evolution is everywhere. Viruses, sickle cell anemia, darwin finches. Now if you know for a fact that these things evolve isn't it logical to believe that things have been evolving..... well..... forever?? It's not like things JUST started evolving- it's been happening and will continue to happen.