To the atheist, the skeptic, the seeker, and those who have wanted the question answered about whether or not God is real, I present to you, three proofs of Godís existence. The first one will show that scientifically, what has come to be accepted by the masses as Evolution and the Big Bang is actually impossible just by looking at the simple cell professed to be the author of life in the ocean of pre-historic goo. The second will show from a moral concept the fact that there has to be a God, and the third, will appeal to oneís common sense or to be logical. You donít need any scientific degree. Some will not that exampleís similarity to Ray Comfortís example. Thatís ok; he is doing good work as well.
1. Evolution, the Big Bang, and the Simple Cell
For this section, rather than cut and paste my previous article on this, I would ask that you take a moment and read, ďEvolution & the Simple CellĒ. It is proof, that no matter how simplistic you try to make the cell, it first of all would have no desire to WANT to increase to something else. Thatís the first thing atheists cannot get past. The second is that it would have been much easier for this cell to come up with a plan to create something less complex than life such as more clay or even a plane. Yet there is no evidence of anything like this ever taking place, because it has not. True, scientists have created amino acids and bacteria that reproduces under controlled laboratory situations, but cannot, nor will they ever, be able to do such in an open environment which was supposedly in the primordial soup at this time. Lab creation, that still has not produced life forms does not impress me, nor should it anyone with a lick of sense! And they like to use terms that sound technical to explain how one form of things goes to another by saying it mutated. While that sounds like an impressive term, mutations ALWAYS take away from something and do not add to it. They are destructive in nature, so while they sound impressive, itís actually a fallacy. Since science must be dependent on both the Big Bang and Evolution to be in harmony with each other to explain where we came from thus denouncing the existence of God, ruling out one, disproves the other as well. That is the case here.
Itís understandable how people get caught up in the Evolution and Big Bang lie. Some of what science tells us is true; however, when they get to dating the earth and space, it's all fairy tales. Using one of their forms of sating, a live mollusk was tested and showed it was 10,000 years old. What amazes me is that these scientists can't tell you what the weather will be tomorrow, accurately and consistently, yet people believe they can tell us about things that happened long ago! That is crazy.
2. Of Morals and Such
We now shift our focus to the inner thought process of mankind. I think all, or nearly all people would agree murder is wrong. I am talking of cold blooded murder, we would view as callous. Objections would be made that serial killers, mentally retarded, and so forth would not care and donít view it that way. For that I say this, most case studies show differently. Even with a serial killer who thinks what he is doing is okay and/or fun, if you were to take someone, or something that they loved and killed it, they would be infuriated and want vengeance because it was wrong. This is true of the third world tribes and so forth that to people that live as we, appear to have no code, yet, when they are looked at in depth, they actually do. My point is, worldwide, in all of humanity, all come to the agreement, that murder is wrong. Not defending oneself and the like, I speak of something that is cold-blooded killing. There comes a point, we are all on the same page. Understand, we are only talking about the moral of murder and not touching on others such as lying, stealing, etc.
So now the question begs to be asked, is this subjective or objective? Let me explain. To say subjective, you would hold that each individual makes up their own mind on what would be right or wrong. This is the stance Secular Humanists have; everyone comes up with their own moral compass. Atheists have to jump in that boat as well. If you say objective, then you would hold that someone or something defines these things that all follow. So letís look at each.
If you answered subjective, then if I donít like the way you look at me one day, I could murder you as long as I justify it in my mind, and my own moral compass that it is ok. You offended me, and society might even view you as a person with no real value anyway, so subjectively, I can justify it in my mind, whether you agree with it or not. But wait, that does not fit the universal moral outlook on murder we have already talked about. So, subjectivism fails here and is not a possible answer. The Humanist and atheist are left to wallow in their happy-go-lucky theory that is circular and without base, yet makes them feel good in light of evidence contrary.
So now the only answer left is objective, someone, or something has to instill this. One might say our parents did, or governments over time. But where did they get it from? I know, their parents, but, eventually you get back to the first male and female humans to populate the earth, and you have to ask yourself, from where would they get it? One canít answer that it genetically came through evolution, because morals are not a genetic trait. The atheist would be left to believe the fish in the ocean that grew legs and came on land and formed all animals as well as man, had this moral position. If all life formed from a cell in the ocean, all life would then have this moral compass within them. Just a few shows on a nature channel will quickly put that theory to shame. So again, one must still ask, where this moral compass comes from, and the onlyÖONLY position left, is that one who existed before it all, a Designer, a Creator, would have had to instill this from the beginning, so that all were born with this same moral code inside them. Yet, another fail for the atheists!
Can you name all five of the senses? Taste, sight, smell, hearing, & touch. But there is one that we all have, the atheist and evolutionist fail to use that this section will plead the case. Common sense. You don't have to be a scientist though to know evolution and the big bang can't possibly be true.
I want to take this from evolutionís point of view of the fish that grew legs that eventually came on land and created land animals and finally man. Let me say, yes, I realize that there are fish that come up on land presently and breathe air, but this will show, they had to be made that way. In the ocean, a fish has gills to use for the water environment it is in. Since evolution contends all came from the ocean, the air we breathe would have no matter, nor effect on these early fish, because they would be unexposed to it. The desire to breathe air would have to come later, and one would certainly have to wonder, why it would have wanted to go up there anyway. It couldnít be for food like bugs and such, remember, the fish had not gone on land to create all air breathing things yet!
Now, imagine if you will the first fish that came up on land. If, and just if, over millions of years, it grew legs to walk, can you imagine how it decided it wanted to breathe air? How did it know it could go out and create itself some lungs? I think the prospect is quite funny to imagine. He'd walk out onto shore, start convulsing because there was no water for the GILLS he has, almost die because he couldn't breathe air, and run back in the water. Now, he would have to keep doing this, and evolutionists would have you believe that over time, this process caused him to grow lungs to ďadaptĒ to the environment and breathe air. Evolution would have you believe that it happened over millions of years too, but it's impossible. See, that would mean millions of fish too, but the problem is, there is no trait to pass down, and that fishís particular wants (to breath air) would not pass to its offspring. In fact, if he had time to mate and his little fish kids saw him, theyíd probably laugh at how sick he was making himself on land!
So, the evolutionist is left to say, this fish kept doing this over and over until it grew lungs. What? How crazy is that? Man has wanted to have wings and fly for a very long time. We even have the technology to attach wings to us, but we still can't muster up a set of wings on us. Certainly wings, that are non-essential to life, should be much easier to grow than a pair of lungs to sustain life to an animal that used gills and water. And should not a human being be able to spend their life going into the ocean trying to breath and somewhere amongst the almost drowning get a set of gills? Do you see how utterly ridiculous this line of thought is? But wait!! IF this fish were to be successful and over its life of (being generous) 20 years, grew lungs, how would it be a make itself into a genetic trait to pass on? Hey, hold on atheist, it gets worse from here. IF it were able to become some genetic trait, he'd have to hope there were a female that decided to do the same thing, at the exact same time, in the exact same place in the thousands of miles of sea out there, so that it could reproduce before dying. If it didnít, you'd have to wait a million more years to find a fish dumb enough to try and walk on land again!!!!!
So along with our same line of logic, since evolution logically and with common sense cannot possibly be true, letís look at the Big Bang, sciences explanation of where everything came from anyway. (Please remember these are the same people who canít tell you what tomorrow will bring, but can tell you what happened billions of years ago!) Where did it all come from? Even in the Big Bang theory, the chemicals that made up this pin-head size mass that they say eventually started expanding to create the universe...those chemicals are consumable, they die and fade away. They have a beginning and end. The hydrogen, helium, lithium, and all the other elements, if you look at any of them, there is not one that does not perish. How can something that perishes ever have been a constant to start creating a universe? It is impossible and defies the 2nd Law of thermodynamics which basically says that everything within the universe fades away over time. Using common sense, it is impossible to say they created everything, something outside of time that always lived with no beginning would have to have done it.
When you keep drilling an atheist about where these chemicals and so forth come from, they lose their ability to argue that universe was always here, because it is made up of things that die. They are left dumbfounded. Now, the poster-child for atheism, Richard Dawkins, would then say that some other life form in another galaxy or universe started what we see today. Even then, you have to drill down to the where did they come from? The sad thing is, and no atheist likes to admit, when you get to that last thing and ask them, what was here before all those things that die, they are left to have to say....nothing. Nothing was here. What? Nothing created everything. Nothing? Are you serious? Surely you jest. How can nothing create anything? What would make a nothing WANT to create anything? To create, there must be some substance AND desire along with capability. Where would nothing get that desire? Where is this nothing now? Why is nothing not still creating stuff? I mean, if nothing is responsible for creating all we have, certainly we should happen across some buildings, cars, planes, and even space stations that nothing is creating too since they are so much less complex than human life of the universe itself. That is not too much to ask. Hey! Nothing! Show yourself!!! You made a small area of gases that expanded and crated all we know, we should be able to take some nothing right here and now and have it make my daughter a doll house. Do you not see how utterly ludicrous atheism has to be???
To be an atheist and/or evolutionist, and believe there is no God, and believe the Big Bang and Evolution, you have to lack any common sense what-so-ever. Clearly, to create all that has been created; the ONLY way for it to occur is for there to be a Creator that is constant, with no beginning or end. One outside of time and the concept of His feeble minded creationís capabilities to understand Him even when they attempt to try, and even when they attempt to disprove Him. Yes, the Psalmist wrote about those people who would say there is no God, some 3000 years ago. God was the first one to coin the ďloserĒ phrase, and He did it to those who say He does not exist.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
In His Grace,
Mike Harris Jr.
Click Here to go Back to Main Page