Is there any absolute proof that God exist? (Part four of five)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

For more reading about God, click here

Answers to Bible Questions

Scriptures are from the KJV of the Bible

(Q)  Is there any absolute proof that God exist?




(A)–> What about the presence of all life on earth today? Where did it come from? How did it get here? The Bible states that God created all life during the first six days of the creation week of Genesis 1. Is this true, or did life come into existence by itself?

As with Uranium 238, and its provable moment of beginning, the great pattern of all life is that it can only come from other pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. All first-year biology students know it.

When examining tiny organisms, such as protozoa and bacteria, it can be demonstrated that life only comes from life. There are many kinds of life, but each continues to reproduce the same kind over and over. This is indisputable.

Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects. Evolutionists theorize that inanimate objects, under certain unknown circumstances in the misty past, somehow spontaneously gave birth to very primitive life forms. This presents enormous problems for anyone familiar with the nature and complexity of simple cells.

Biologists understand that all cells can only come from pre-existing cells. Here is why. Cells, even in their simplest and most rudimentary form, are extremely complex. Consider: “The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech” (Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson, p. 102). The next source is equally powerful in explaining both the complexity of the cell and its origin: “The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G., p. 15).

Will skeptics ignore the truth that it is impossible to have life without a lifegiver? Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in Himself. But is this God merely some kind of blind power, some kind of dumb “first force?” Let’s reason together.


Stop and think! Consider all of the works of nature around you—both on earth and in the heavens.

First, consider the many different kinds of planets, stars and galaxies. Each is its own marvel. Second, consider all the species of plants on earth today. There are millions, diverse in color, shape, size, beauty, length of life, etc. I have spent much of my life studying and planting many kinds of plants. The brilliance of their various designs and purposes never ceases to amaze me! I am more fascinated with these living plants, than with stars and other objects throughout the heavens.

A side note should be considered at this point. All of the food that exists on earth today is perfectly designed for either human or animal consumption. It is constructed so that it contains just the right amounts of different elements necessary to sustain various life forms. Every time man tries to alter or improve food, he seems to pollute, ruin, devitalize, inject with poison, genetically re-engineer, or in some manner reduce its perfection into something inferior to what he started with. If mankind could just leave food alone, and eat it as God created it, sickness, disease and every form of nutrition-related human infirmity would disappear.

The germination, growth, development and maturation of plants into the many kinds of food, available just to human beings, represents its own series of miracles far too complex to recount here. It could command its own book just to explore it beyond even the most superficial overview.

But think! Who is more intelligent? God—who made perfect food, or men—who find every possible way to alter and degrade it before consuming it? Take the time to ponder this question.

Third, consider the nearly one million different kinds of creatures (plus the estimated several million additional kinds of insects). Because these creatures are animate, they are even more marvelous and fascinating than is the world of plants. Their diversity in color, shape, size, beauty, length of life, etc., is comparable to plants.

What is the point? As fascinating, marvelous, beautiful and amazing as are all the things described here, surely nothing is as amazing as the human mind. It is the absolute pinnacle of all living organisms. None can doubt this.


Now think about what mankind has been able to produce. He can build houses, telephones, trains, automobiles, planes, rockets, computers, fax machines and other sophisticated devices that are practically limitless in complexity and usefulness.

However, all this creative genius has a simple limit. No man, or group of men, you and I included, can create anything as marvelous as the human mind. Everything that man creates is inferior to his own mind. Try to think of a single thing that has ever been created by men that is superior to the minds who created it. You will not think of anything.

Here is the question: Who or what created your mind—and you? King David said, “…for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” Psa. 139:14. Surely this is most true of the human brain. Be honest with yourself. Can you possibly believe that some kind of blind, dumb power or force—of less intelligence than yourself, or of no intelligence—created your mind? Remember, you can create nothing superior to your mind. So, only a greater mind could create your mind.

Do not insult yourself by suggesting that your extraordinary creative powers of intelligence, reason, logic, thought, volition and ingenuity are a product of mere dumb luck!


Consider what we have discussed about the universe and its contents—including stars, planets, galaxies, plants, animals, humans and the human mind!

Assume for a moment that you have all power to create whatever you wish. Do you think that you could have created this much beauty, majesty, design, size, precision of engineering and magnificence on your own, with no help from one single additional person? Remember, you would have no pattern to copy. You would be “on your own.”

Would you be able to design approximately one trillion galaxies, each containing an average of 100 billion stars—with no pattern to copy as you did this? Would you think to create light and cause it to travel at 186,000 miles per second? Could you think to make sound move at 660 miles per hour? Could you create every kind of atom known to science and include every sub-atomic particle within them? Would you then think you possess the ability to merge various atoms into complex molecules able to serve a myriad of indescribably complicated purposes?

Would you think yourself able to design millions of plants—many of which are utterly interdependent upon one another? Would you then be up to the task of designing, without a single pattern to follow, several million animals and insects, which are not only perfectly interdependent with one another but also interdependent with, and dependent upon, the entire plant world? Could you then put all of the food, for both plants and animals, in place, so that they would be perfectly sustained throughout whatever time you had allotted for their existence? I could go on and on, but you see the point.

Now be careful! Just as you do not want to insult yourself by believing that your mind is a product of dumb luck, be sure that you do not insult God by suggesting that all of the universe and its contents could just happen into existence—entirely by itself! If there are ignorant, foolish atheists willing to believe that this could all occur on its own, then honest, intelligent people would never believe such folly, simply because ignorant men assert it!

Through reason and sheer plainness of logic, we now have absolute proof that only a Great Being of Superior Intelligence could stand as the Designer and Architect of the entire universe and all complex life within it—including the pinnacle of His creation, your human mind!


Evolutionists once referred more often to evidence from the “fossil record.” Does such evidence exist? Do bones and artifacts from millions of years ago tell a story—offer convincing proof—that man evolved from simple organisms? What is the truth of the scientific record? Remember, we want facts—proof—not theories requiring faith to believe them!

This quote, from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, in a letter to L. Sunderland, summarized the “fossil problem”: “…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water tight argument.”


In the 1920s, a single tooth was found in Western Nebraska at the Snake Creek quarry. Scientists came forward offering this tooth as proof that evolution had occurred and purported it to be a “missing link.” Because of where it was discovered, the human-like sketch drawn around it was called “Nebraska Man.”

Much “to do” was made of this discovery. It was big news. Evolutionists rejoiced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the theory of evolution. Five years later, someone decided to ask a farmer his opinion of the tooth. His answer was to identify it as a “pig’s tooth!” More excavation at the site of the “find” proved that the rest of the skeleton did, indeed, represent some kind of peccary (pig).

It is often bones, or even bone fragments (and some of these have been determined to be hoaxes) that cause evolutionists to assert that important “links” from the fossil record have been discovered. Merely because someone found a piece of bone, sophisticated artist renderings are then presented, assigned names and offered as convincing visual proof that evolution occurred.

“Orce Man” was based on what turned out to be the skullcap of a donkey. “Ramapithecus Man” was simply a baboon skull. “Piltdown Man” was a hoax and “Neanderthal Man” was determined to be severely bow-legged simply because he had rickets. He was assuredly not proof from the fossil record of a half-ape, half-man transitional creature.

There is a desperation in the thinking and actions of many evolutionary scientists. The following quotes demonstrate their approach:

“A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid [human] that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone” (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, Univ. of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199). “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (H.S. Lipson, FRS, Prof. Of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, ‘A Physicist Looks at Evolution,’ Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980, p. 138).

Here are the facts. Absolutely no transitional forms exist anywhere in the fossil record. While evolutionists will suggest that it took “50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian,” the simple truth is that there are no transitional fossil forms to prove this. There are no creatures found that evidence partial fins, partial feet or partially evolved brains, legs, eyes, organs or other body parts.

The following comes from the “father” of evolutionary thinking: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, ch. 6.)

Consider a statement regarding how bone fragments are supposed to represent entire human skeletons within various stages of the fossil record. Dr. Leakey, considered the most famous fossil anthropologist in the world, said that the skull of his famous discovery, “Lucy” (known as Australopithecus afarensis), is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris.” He admitted that no firm conclusions could be made about what species she was, even though she was assigned the age of 3.5 to 4 million years old. I have personally seen a photograph of her “skeleton,” and it is meaningless.

The front cover of a well-known national news magazine showed a picture of an ape’s head accompanying an article entitled “How Apes Became Human.” The article was a pitiful attempt to first connect a toe bone to other bones found ten miles away from it, and then to depict them as proof of evolution. It speaks of evolution as a foregone conclusion.

The article was filled with uncertain phrases like “close to answering,” “what appears to be,” “people have speculated,” “we are suggesting,” “still something of a mystery,” “probably,” “about,” “presumably,” “maybe,” etc. These phrases are endless. Yet the artwork and diagrams make the flimsy, speculative “evidence” look like absolute proof.

The reader is even left with the impression that the writers were themselves uncertain and uncomfortable. Mixed with baseless assumptions, the artwork lends credibility through sensationalism, giving it “sale ability.”

Consider! There are no links from plants to animals, reptiles to birds and mammals, etc. The fossil record shows that animals appear suddenly. When this was recognized, the whole theory of “micro-evolution” collapsed, and evolutionists admitted as much. They then decided that possibly the fossil record could best be described as indicating “macro-evolution,” sometimes referred to as “punctuated equilibrium” or “the hopeful monster theory.” This ludicrous idea suggests a reptile could suddenly lay an egg, which would hatch a bird.

So many people seem willing to fall for ridiculous ideas because they have been told throughout their lives that evolution is a fact and assume that it cannot be wrong if “everyone believes it.” One source admitted, “That living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G.).

After all is said and done, the fossil record has never revealed what evolutionists have hoped for. The record gives distinct evidence of one fact—sudden, special creation of all life in a fully-formed condition! To believe anything else is to be dishonest with the evidence. END OF PART FOUR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.