Just the Facts from Godproven.com

An extended Web-based sermon for your Sunday: Godproven.com: The scientific proof for the existence of God. You might be inclined to think that 84 pages is a bit much, but remember: this is scientific proof.

7 Responses to “Just the Facts from Godproven.com”

  1. Jenny Says:

    Okay, I read 13 pages of this and the author doesn’t have a complete and thorough knowledge of the scientific concepts he discusses and refutes (quantum mechanics). He talks about how gravity couldn’t have possibly placed the planets in orbit around the sun but neglects to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of projectile motion and doesn’t even mention evidence of the birth of our solar system. The red shift phenomenon and all other very sound evidence for theories like the Big Bang and evolution (carbon 14 dating) are not even discussed at all. Instead the author uses a basic eighth grade knowledge of current scientific theories regarding the atomic organization of matter and various biblical references taken out of context in order to argue his viewpoints. He uses the science that supports his arguments and simply ignores or distorts scientific theories that would directly oppose his ideological ideas of how the universe if put together.
    Another sad attempt to “scientifically prove” the existence of God.

  2. Tom Buckner Says:

    It’s worse than Jenny says, even. If you jump to the middle you find whole pages taken up with diagrams for perpetual-motion machines or some such thing, and bits about American democracy being destroyed by Clinton lying under oath and elections being negated (by Senator “Jeff Jeffers” (sic) switching parties). You can’t cut-and-paste from this because all 84 pages is in images, not text. That’s a good way to keep the formatting correct, if it were worth keeping (it’s not. It’s ugly). Oh, and the author never bathes. I have documentary proof, but I cannot show you for reasons of national security.

  3. Alex Says:

    You read 13 pages of this crap?? Hell, I barely made it through 4, and that was with considerable skimming.

  4. Jenny Says:

    I read fast and skimmed.

  5. David Callender Says:

    I only made it thru the first 3 and last 2 pages. I agree with the first comment. The author has a very limited knowledge of science.

    And to add insult to injury, the King James version of the bible was not translated from the original documents.

  6. Ray Lawrence Says:

    All I can tell any of you that have read godproven.com

    Remember ME.

    He may err in both Science and explanation of scripture. Which is not to be explained. But he is not that far from the truth. I don’t need to know who you are or where you are. God will show me. In his time.

    Just, as I said earlier REMEMBER ME.

  7. drwynlyc Says:

    Recently I happened upon this godproven site and read some of it, even though it kept disappearing. I have to concur with Ray Lawrence. Despite the author’s evident lack of higher education in the sciences, he proves a valid point. It would take an impossibly gigantic leap of faith to believe that an intricately constructed universe full of galaxies consisting of suns that have planetary systems delicately balanced in orbits, like our own, would have accidently “happened” that way, without having been created by a higher consciousness (a.k.a. God). Or, as the author spoke of in his post, no one would presume that a bunch of billiard balls would rack THEMSELVES up on the table in a neat triangular pattern.
    I’m not well educated in the sciences, either. But I grew up around people who were. Back in the 1950s & ’60s it would take a team of astronomers and mathematicians months to calculate the trajectory path needed to launch a satellite into orbit. Any minor miscalculation would result in the satellite falling into the earth, or drifting aimlessly through space instead of locking into orbit. Back then these scientists had great respect for God, as they knew that they were only making a humble imitation of His work. Atheism in our centers of higher education is a more recent fad, and a very illogical one at that.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.