POLL: Evolution vs. Creation by God

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by studentofthemarkets, Oct 24, 2021.

Evolution, Creation, God?

  1. I am an atheist and believe the theory of evolution.

    5 vote(s)
  2. I am agnostic and believe the theory of evolution.

    3 vote(s)
  3. I believe the theory of evolution but the process was guided by aliens or other powers.

    1 vote(s)
  4. I believe God created using macro evolution: bacteria became an elephant.

    1 vote(s)
  5. I believe God specially created according to families/kinds.

    5 vote(s)
  6. Other-I believe something not represented on this poll.

    6 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. "The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?" Jeremiah 5:31

    We wouldn't need courts and prisons, if people treated each other right.
    We wouldn't have relationship issues and breakdowns within families if people cared about others as much as they care about themselves.
    We wouldn't have bad people in government positions, if there were no bad people.

    God has spoken to us about the reality of our condition, but few are willing to turn from sin.

    One reason might be because it is very, very hard to go to someone and acknowledge our guilt. If it's something we didn't realize we did wrong at the time, it is much easier to say sorry, I didn't mean it. But what about the times we do mean it? It's really hard to tell someone I was a real jerk to you and I really meant it.

    To recognize that we have wronged God, even resisted His efforts to show us truth, lived our lives contrary to His character, and even blamed Him for our wrongs, can seem really scary, because it makes us vulnerable to One who judge us fairly and righteously...and we don't measure up.

    In human relationships there is a sort of indebtedness that happens if you really do wrong someone and then make it right with that person. You kind of feel obligated to be kinder, more considerate. The reason I'm thinking about this is that I recently said some pointed things to a friend who had asked my opinion about some decisions that had been bothering me already, and I spoke what was true, but didn't do it with gentleness and that caused some hurt feelings. I was out of line. I can't undo the hurt. I said I was sorry immediately, and have been extra nice since, but the memory will never be erased. I can try to be much more careful not to speak like that in the future, and that's about all I can do.

    With God, we have the assurance that our sins have been dealt with and He will remember them no more, as far as judging us goes. He does, however, discipline His own to bring them back when they stray, but that is different than punishment. Sin was punished at the cross, when Jesus fully bore the wrath of God against sin and makes forgiveness available through faith in Jesus to whoever will trust, believe, repent and receive Him.

    Do I feel vulnerable before a Holy, righteous and All-Powerful God? Yes. But rather than fearing, I have the assurance that Jesus gives--that all has been made right between us--and that leads me to feeling indebted to God with an everlasting debt of love.

    "Therefore I tell you, because her many sins have been forgiven, she has loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.” Luke 7:47 BSB

    "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. 'By His stripes you are healed.' " 1 Peter 2:24 BSB
    #191     Jun 10, 2022
  2. Good1


    I would be among the 28% who voted for:

    Other-I believe something not represented on this poll."

    The following explanation indicates the OP is not able to think outside the box, even though it is relatively available to anyone really seeking to find this kind of explanation.

    In an effort to meet on common ground somewhere, i would concede the concept of "intelligent design". But just because it is intelligent, and just because it is designed, does not mean it is benevolent, or wise.

    Yes, i would agree there is some intention to the intelligent design. But intention is vague, even amoral, and the intention is not clear.

    Better to think of the making of this world as a wish granting factory. You make a deal with the devil, and he will grant your every wish. The problem is, one must be careful what one wishes for. The current iteration of the product is a compilation of what has been wished for. The devil has delivered it, for better or worse. People don't realize just how much all their wishing creates conflicts and problems, especially if the golden rule, or karma, was the reigning law.

    What is called evolution is simply the manifestation of the concept of change, within the intelligent design. The material world is founded upon change, and depends on continual change for it's survival.

    Simply, change to survive. This is in contrast to Christ, which does not change, and needs to remain the same, always, in order to survive.

    This change functions to obscure the beginning of the manifestation (not a creation), functions to obscure who is responsible, and functions to obscure how it ends. In the end, the intelligent design will change, once more, back to it's original condition, Christ.

    Change, and death are nearly synonymous, death itself being rapid radical change. In a way, death is almost necessary for survival, in the material worlds. Can you imagine if none of the dinosaurs had experienced rapid radical death (like an asteroid), or if insects never died, or any of the predatory animals? There wouldn't be a square inch on the planet for the OP to trade the market. There might not even be a market.

    Change, or evolution, is the expression of an attempt to establish an identity, and an inability to make up one's mind as to what that identity actually is, or what it should be. Survival of the fittest is a harsh method of letting war, competition, pain and death, establish who or what that identity should be, or look like. Each expression of a species is an attempt to answer the question:

    Who am I?

    As such, all of material manifestations are an expression of an identity, each one proposing to be "reality".

    Change offers plausible deniability as to how a world of change actually starts. It starts by the denial of Christ as reality itself, as life itself. Change proposes another "life", which is actually another "self", so-to-speak. This is a self-deception on such a grand scale, it requires a lot of detail to float any kind of plausible deniability.

    Keep in mind, whenever any one is lying, they need to add details to the story to make it plausible. So for example, when Amber Heard was lying about Johnny Depp, she needed to include that her dog stepped on a bee. She also needed to talk about how she was surprised how dirty the carpet was, and other minute details.

    Likewise, when you open up a fiction novel, the author (the intelligence designer of the story) will usually start to go into incredibly minute detail in the very first paragraph of the story. For example, the first line of Harry Potter reads:

    Mr.and Mrs.Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.

    Oh really? Number four, Privet Drive? Not number three, or two? Privet. Not Private?

    The first sentence in Hebrew liturgical priestcraft says, "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth". What follows is enough detail to make it plausible. A book of numbers? Oh, there were 132,000 from the tribe of Judah? David brought how many into battle with the Philistines? Solomon had how many horses in his stable? The ark was how many cubits across? The new Jerusalem will have how many gates, twelve? It must be true!

    The more detail added, the more you are pulled into the story, probably because we find it hard to believe anyone could make up this much b.s. That's why there is this phrase, "You can't make this shit up", implying the more irony involved, the more believable it becomes.

    This would explain why, when making movies, much attention is given to the most minute of detail, in order to SELL the story, to cause moviegoers to "suspend their belief" (in reality) and volunteer to go along with the fiction.

    Similar with our dreams. We get pulled into them the more details seems to emerge to verify their apparent reality. It's only when we wake from our dreams that we could see that the detail offered was too ridiculous.

    In this way, by adding a lot of minute detail, the intelligent designer of this world intends to sell us on it's reality, establishing change (and death) as what is real.

    Darwin seems to have proven that given enough time, an ameoba becomes the elephant. There is enough detail to suggest that you can't make this shit up. But, a really intelligent designer could make this shit up, especially if the designer was also an intelligent deceiver.

    All we know is there has been enough change to establish plausible deniability about cause and effect. For those who are motivated by the concept of no cause (no god), there is enough evidence for them. For those motivated by the concept of cause (intelligent design, god), there is plenty of evidence for them too.

    If the intention were to completely obscure cause and effect, that has been accomplished by this design. And if you can obscure cause, you can obscure self-involvement. If you want to wash your hands of this, and claim you have nothing to do with competition, inequality, death, and survival of the fittest in order to establish an identity, then yes, you can do that. There is enough plausible deniability involved to take you out of the equation.

    But i maintain that all the participants within a world of change, have volunteered, and are complicit in it's genesis. You would never guess that you are the maker of the world, whether it's evolution, or whether it was six days. It was not you. And that is a successful design, if that was the intent.

    I say that was the intent, to deny one's own self, by proposing another. Each new species is another proposal at a new identity, other than the original Self, Christ.

    Confusion about cause serves to perpetuate the exploration of alternative new selves through change (and death). Arguments, or enough details to fuel arguments about the origins and genesis of this and that, serve the purpose of this design. Anything that gets us nowhere, works.

    They say that in this world, "the only thing that remains the same is change." Yes, that does seem to be one constant in a world of change; change itself. But given enough changes (enough time) there will be a limit to the number of changes that can be made to Christ, and the final change will be a change (death) back to Christ, which has remained the same, yesterday, today and will remains the same forever. Christ will always be the answer to the question: Who am I?

    Last edited: Jun 12, 2022
    #192     Jun 12, 2022
  3. First answer.png

    My answers.png

    Creation scientists have shown that creation actually does contain many cases of irreducible complexity. In microbiology there are many irreducible structures like the living cell and bacterial flagellum and there are irreducible processes like blood clotting.3 Other examples of irreducible complexity are the eye,4 human knee joint,5 and the upright stature of humans.6 Creationists have also shown how design requires information to be specified and that information must come from an intelligent source.7
    #193     Jun 12, 2022
  4. Here's more to consider:

    Consider the origin of life. Scientists are limited in their explanations for the origin of life to gradual step-by-step progress resulting from uncontrolled processes. They attempt to explain complex features like i) the appearance of information in a cell, ii) cellular metabolism, iii) cell membranes and iv) the components required for cellular replication as being the products of stepby-step improvements. Unfortunately, science can give no experimentally-observed basis to expect natural processes to be capable of providing any of these features, but gives lots of evidence that they are not. By contrast, engineers commonly design the kinds of systems featured in cells. Modern scientists feel compelled to reject the engineering model, because this approach requires an intelligent being first to design a specifically planned object and then to fabricate it. If the engineering model is applied to the origin of life, the model naturally leads to the conclusion that God created life. Acknowledging this conclusion destroys the philosophical basis of modern science.
    #194     Jun 12, 2022
  5. Your error lies in rejecting the truths of the Bible.

    13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

    Reconciled in Christ
    19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

    21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard,
    There are many reasons to believe the Bible was given by inspiration or, at times, direct revelation. I won't go into those reason here because I have given them over and over in my threads.

    One reason one can know that the Bible is true apart from the scientific and logical and prophetic reasons, is that each person knows in their heart that if they were to stand before the Ultimate Judge and every sin and every disobedience, every evil thought, were to receive a fair and justice punishment, they would be found guilty. It all depends on the standard used for judgment, and the Bible tells us that the standard is God's everlasting, infinite righteousness. We have sinned against and infinite, eternal God.

    There is a remedy, but few want to turn from their ways and turn to God. In refusing to turn, it is just more proof that they do not believe because they don't want to believe, not because of a lack of evidence.

    19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
    John 3:19,20​
    #195     Jun 12, 2022
  6. Design Engineering Shows
    1) God Created Life
    2) Genesis 1 is literal

    1. Overview The single-most important question facing mankind is, “Who determines right and wrong, man or God?” Many politicians, university professors, newscasters, and social media company owners believe man is, claiming science is on their side. But are they right? Does unbiased science have anything to say about the answer to this question? The perspectives: 1) God. The Bible opens by declaring that its God is the Creator: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Subsequently, a major theme throughout the Bible is that God is in complete control of everything that takes place everywhere in the universe. Moreover, He constantly intervenes in events on Earth as He works through a predetermined plan. His normal means of action is first to plan what He is going to do and next to carry out the plans. This pattern appears to be fundamental to His behavior. 2) Man. Most but not all scientists today are committed to naturalism, the philosophy that matter and energy are all that exist—there are no spiritual forces in the universe capable of intervening into the affairs of nature. 1 These scientists claim anything which purports to mix science with spiritual intervention is pseudoscience, fake science. To them, attempts to explain how science can reveal a personal God are false science by definition. They do not even need to consider the arguments no matter how strong they may appear, because eventually science will give them the evidence needed to support their position. Naturalism is the foundation for another philosophy, humanism. The train of thought is that if natural processes can explain everything—including the origin of life—then man’s wisdom is the highest that is available for us to solve our problems. Religion only interferes with man’s efforts and needs to be eliminated or else reduced to nothing more than psychological phenomena. Most of the curriculum of a modern university is focused on instilling the principles of humanism into its students. However, if God is true then naturalism is false. So is humanism. In this case, whatever is taught in a university and is based on humanism would also be false. Thus, the issue of naturalism’s validity has far reaching implications. The case is made here that engineering resolves the question. Science shows us many features that characterize cellular life, such as genetic information and complex chemical processes. Yet, observed science gives no basis to understand how these features appeared. Science does not give us the tools to understand how life appeared. We shall discuss these issues in detail later. Significantly, engineering shows how to design systems using both information and complex chemical reactions. When the details are worked through, they lead to the understanding that a super-intelligent, allpowerful God exists and is the Designer and Fabricator of cellular life. It appears that design engineering provides the key to lead us into understanding the reality of a Creator. The Bible says that we should expect analysis of the creation to lead us to Him. In Romans 1:20 we read, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made—even His eternal power and Godhead—so that they are without excuse….” In other words, God uses the creation itself to show everyone that He is the Creator. Moreover, God considers this testimony to be so clear that He counts a person to be without excuse who suppresses it. The Bible leads us to expect proper analysis of the creation to reveal God. Humanism and an intervening, sovereign Creator God cannot both be true. What is the problem? Many scientists today speak as though they are authorities in engineering, history, and philosophy as well as science. They aren’t. There appears to be a simple explanation and resolution of the conflict—modern science oversteps its authority in its claims. Science is properly the study of what exists in nature and how it works. Careful measurements and repeatable experiments are the basic tools of science. However, serious confusion results when scientists intrude into other fields outside their proper domain. I.e., the problems come when scientists present themselves as authorities in engineering, in history, and in philosophy. The solution: recognize only legitimate science. When this is done, the Bible and science are in complete harmony. The discrepancies: 1) Engineers first design then make what they designed. Making things is the domain of engineering, not science. Engineers typically design complex systems with many components which need to cooperate with each other to provide a product that works. These products require a number of essential components such that missing any of them results in its failure. This applies to virtually everything engineers design related to our technological age, from computers to car engines. Yet, living cells are vastly more complicated than anything man can design and make. Consider the origin of life. Scientists are limited in their explanations for the origin of life to gradual step-by-step progress resulting from uncontrolled processes. They attempt to explain complex features like i) the appearance of information in a cell, ii) cellular metabolism, iii) cell membranes and iv) the components required for cellular replication as being the products of stepby-step improvements. Unfortunately, science can give no experimentally-observed basis to expect natural processes to be capable of providing any of these features, but gives lots of evidence that they are not. By contrast, engineers commonly design the kinds of systems featured in cells. Modern scientists feel compelled to reject the engineering model, because this approach requires an intelligent being first to design a specifically planned object and then to fabricate it. If the engineering model is applied to the origin of life, the model naturally leads to the conclusion that God created life. Acknowledging this conclusion destroys the philosophical basis of modern science. 2) Darwinian evolution is about history. It claims that over a period of billions of years bacteria gradually turned into fishes, birds, and people. However, history is not science and science is not history. The approaches between the two fields are the exact opposite. Science is primarily based on repeatable measurements and experiments with every factor that can affect an outcome defined before the experiment is run. By contrast, history is a one-time event which cannot be repeated. Most of the factors resulting in any particular historical event are unknown. This is particularly the case for events occurring in the distant past. Even the tools, goals, and appropriate conclusions are completely different between true science and history. As a result, evolutionary theory is outside the scope of legitimate science. Scientists should openly acknowledge this. As a side note, if there truly is a living God who intervenes into the affairs of the Earth, then scientists have even less authority to act as historians. They have no evidence available to tell what God may or may not have done. They do not have the tools or resources to make a proper analysis. If a scientist denies that God intervened in an event when actually He did, he is guaranteed to be wrong in his conclusions. The intervention will have changed the outcome. Therefore, any explanation which does not account for it will of necessity be wrong. True science does not have the resources to measure God’s intervention. An honest scientist will not pretend to be a historian. 3) When a secular scientist makes public statements that science shows that natural processes are sufficient to explain everything that takes place in the universe, he lies. He takes an unproven philosophical statement, naturalism, and presents it as proven science. This is not science! It is not even true! Anyone who is confused about how to reconcile Genesis 1 with the claims of these people should worry more about pleasing God than them. He is eternal. They aren’t.

    The Biblical Perspective of the Creation/Evolution controversy In Isaiah 5:20, the Bible warns, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness….” It is a frequent pattern in the Bible that those who reject God will assert as truth the exact opposite of whatever God presents as truth. If He calls it white, then they will call it black and if He calls it black then they will call it white. A good illustration of this pattern concerns perspectives on the origin of life. The Bible presents one explanation. Modern Darwinian evolutionists take the exact opposite. a) God says that He intervened in nature to create the heavens, the earth, and life. Evolutionists say that everything is purely the result of natural processes. b) God says everything He made has a purpose. Evolutionists say everything is only a temporary arrangement of chemicals formed by random combinations without purpose. c) God says various kinds of life (trees, animals, fish, man etc.) were each created directly in fully completed form. Darwinian evolutionists say bacteria turned into grasses, trees, animals, birds, fish, and people. d) God says each life form was created virtually instantly. Evolutionists say that over the course of several billion years raw, non-biological chemicals gradually turned into bacteria which then gradually turned into plants, animals, and people. e) God says that the creation reveals His power. Evolutionists say that living cells reveal the creative power of mutation and natural selection working together. f) God says we should be in awe of the wisdom He displayed in the things He made. Evolutionists say we should be in awe of what natural selection has accomplished. g) God says remnants of the Genesis flood (such as dead animals found contorted in fossil grave yards, bleak deserts, and stratified rock in mountain layers throughout the world) are meant to present a message of warning for us today (2 Peter 3:3-7). They visibly show the results of God’s judgment on those who rebel against Him. Evolutionists say the fossil record is a history of how life evolved over long periods of time. It shows that the Biblical account is false and therefore a person can rightfully ignore any warnings of judgment it might imply. h) God receives the worship of those who honor Him as Creator (Revelation 4:12). Evolutionists say that such people need to be mocked as promoting pseudoscience (false science). Significance of the observations. God expects us to believe Him (Genesis 15:6). The Bible is a big book, recording the way many people have related to Him over many generations. There is not a single instance where God honored someone for not believing Him. God does not give us the option to choose what from the Bible to believe and what not to believe. You submit to believing Him or you don’t. The underlying messages of the Bible and of evolution are diametrically opposed. The world uses evolutionary theory to destroy people’s faith in God. Romans 1 indicates that those who reject God as Creator incur His wrath, not only in the Day of Judgment (Romans 2:5) but also during this lifetime (Romans 1:24-31). He expects the person who is rejecting Him and His Word to repent. A professing believer in Christ who rejects any of God’s Word needs to test himself to make sure he is truly in the faith and not an empty professor. Some people may consider literalness of Genesis to be a minor issue. In Isaiah 42:8 God says that He will not give His glory to another. How a person stands on the Biblical account of creation becomes a test of whether he actually believes God or prefers to honor the message of those who reject Him. Be careful! Give God the glory He expects and deserves! He observes what you do! Our modern technological society is the product of science and engineering working together. Science studies things found in nature. It uses precise measurements and experiments to understand what exists and how it works. Engineering takes the principles learned from science and makes new things using them. Unbiased science appears to show us clearly that natural processes are in themselves insufficient to create life. In the Detailed Analysis in Part 2, this issue will be thoroughly analyzed. Engineering gives us a model to understand that God created life in the form of living cells. We will look at a short summary now. Not a single experiment in abiogenesis has successfully converted its starting chemicals into new ones that could be used as produced in a subsequent step towards life.2 If a university student were to ask a professor to cite one, he will find the professor can’t. Yet, the appearance of life requires usable conversions to be a normal characteristic at every step needed to convert initial, raw chemicals appearing on Earth until a fully functioning cell appears. Every step would need to be successful under a broad range of natural conditions, because in nature conditions change constantly. However, even with precise control over all of the factors related to running an experiment, such as starting materials, environmental conditions such as temperature, and energy sources such as ultra-violet light or lightning sparks, scientists have never been able to get any step to advance to the next successfully. It appears to be irrational to assert that in the unstable conditions of a pre-life environment, that an emerging cell could successfully work its way through each step required to make the first living cell. Science clearly gives us strong reasons to reject a natural origin of life. Yet, few scientists are honest enough to face this or admit it. Rather than acknowledge the problems, scientists merely refer to them as paradoxes.3 They should just call them failures. However, that would destroy their credibility. Unfortunately, it seems that a paradox appears whenever a scientist runs an experiment testing any hypothetical step of abiogenesis. In every experiment performed during the past seven decades, the observed results contradict required results. Every experiment has its own paradox. Something appears to be really, really wrong here. This should make a strong case against a natural origin of life. Why do so many scientists still hold on to it so tenaciously? The answer is simple. If natural processes are demonstrably inadequate to provide for the appearance of living cells, then naturalism is demonstrably invalid. Life would require a supernatural origin. The entire philosophical approach of modern secular science would collapse. Naturalism is how atheists attempt to justify their rejection of God. To them, admission of even one instance of failure for naturalism failing is unthinkable. By contrast, a Christian finds the problems and paradoxes are exactly what he believes should be expected if God designed the creation to lead us to an understanding of His person. A Christian appreciates the paradoxes as a confirmation of God’s power and accuracy of the Bible. How design engineering shows God created life. The title of this article talks about how engineering shows that God created life. The basis for this claim is straightforward. Consider information: An information-controlled system needs to be designed by an intelligent being then built. Computers and computer driven machines such as cars and microwave ovens are controlled by a combination of hardware and software. The software is useless without the hardware. The hardware is useless without the software. There is a minimum level of completeness needed for both hardware and software before either can function properly. Engineers understand that it is impossible for unguided, gradual, step-by-step processes to provide the required minimal level of completeness to build an information processor. Living cells also have a complex body of information and special hardware to use it. Just as with computers, the information and hardware need to appear fully formed simultaneously. This requires design then fabrication. However, in a cell the complexity observed for both the information stored in its DNA and the cellular hardware to read it far exceeds anything a man can design. This suggests that cellular information and supporting hardware are the result of design by a being with intelligence that greatly exceeds that of a man. It would be even more impossible to provide cellular information by gradual, random step-by-step processes in order to provide cellular life than for a computer. Yet, a biologist will refuse to acknowledge this train of thought, because it invalidates naturalism. To the biologist, evidence is not the issue. If any evidence appears to work against naturalism, it is rejected without analysis. This attitude represents fake science. Biologists become the true pseudoscientists when they act like this. They place their personally preferred, God-denying philosophy ahead of the observations of modern technology. Man has elaborate tools available to fabricate the components of a computer. However, there are no tools available to convert a design for a living cell into actual living cells. Once living cells appear, they can make copies of themselves by replication. Tools are no longer needed. Tools for cellular fabrication would be extremely complicated. There is no basis to expect required tools to appear spontaneously in nature. This suggests that the Designer also had to have the ability to move individual atoms and molecules into precisely defined, dynamic relationships with each other in order to make the first living cells. I.e., the Designer needs to have the ability to work outside of natural law at will to make the first cells. What do you call an extremely intelligent being who has the ability to work outside of nature at will, doing so as He places atoms and molecules into predetermined arrangements in order to make something according to a design? You call Him God. The things we have learned from science and engineering working together lead us straight to the understanding that living cells are the handiwork of a living God. This is exactly what the Bible leads us to expect. Atheists who reject the possibility of such a God have spent seven decades of intense research trying to explain why God is not needed for the appearance of living cells. All they have to show for their evidence are paradoxes and failed experiments. Of all people, scientists and engineers have the training to understand these arguments. Is it any wonder when God says they have no excuse if they suppress it, being willfully ignorant of where their own fields take them? Furthermore, the Bible tells us in its opening chapter that God directly made man in His own image. Man reflects on a small scale many attributes God possesses on an unbounded scale, such as intelligence, insight, and the ability to make elaborate plans and carry them out. God created man in such a way that the creation is able to lead him into understanding God’s eternal power and divine nature. God expects man to recognize Him and respond by worshiping Him in a spirit of thanksgiving (Romans 1:21). It is intriguing that the Bible talks about how God works by planning then doing. Man is generally most effective when he first plans and then does. A totally undisciplined man rejects the advantages of this, but can end up going hungry as a result. Genesis 1 shows how God used the pattern of planning then making for His activity on each of the six days of creation. The same pattern applies as well for the entire sequence of days taken as a whole. Engineers by practice follow the pattern of first designing then fabricating. Engineering copies the approach God used in Genesis 1. The ability to design then fabricate appears to be a facet of man being created in God’s image, as also explained in Genesis 1. Cats don’t design cell phones. Neither do they build them. When man attempts to eliminate God as the Creator of life, he runs into nothing but failures and paradoxes. This is very well a general statement, but applies so broadly that it even encompasses discussions on the origin of life. If a man extrapolates from his limited capabilities for design to that required to design a living cell, he is led to the understanding that God created life. Furthermore, He is a personal God with eternal power and various personal attributes (divine nature). God says that man has no excuse if he doesn’t understand this. So, from a Biblical perspective, the train of thought presented in this article appears to be exactly what God expects a person to understand. In response, a person needs to worship God, giving Him glory and thanksgiving. He needs to seek Him and submit His will to Him. Man instinctively knows that God sets the standards of right and wrong and that He judges our adherence to them. This is why men make such an effort to suppress truth about God. They know but do not want to know. 4 Fortunately, God is also a God of grace, as discussed at the end of this article.5 There is a beautiful consistency in the picture presented here. Biblical teachings, engineering, science, God’s nature, and man’s nature all supplement each other in perfect harmony. This is satisfying to a person who knows Christ as his personal Savior and has a living relationship with God. The paradoxes and failures of abiogenesis should serve as a warning to those who rely only on naturalistic philosophy as a substitute for God. They are following the wrong path and need to change. Likewise, these same paradoxes and failures should serve as a wake-up call to those who profess faith in Christ, yet have believed the attacks on God and His Word in Genesis that are so boldly proclaimed by those who reject Him. This concludes the Overview. There were many strong statements made here. These will be developed and justified in the subsequent material.
    You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things and by Your will they exist and were created." (Revelation 4:11)
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2022
    #196     Jun 12, 2022
  7. Design Engineering Shows
    1) God Created Life
    2) Genesis 1 is literal
    2. Detailed Analysis The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17 In general, atheists do not believe what the Bible teaches. But they certainly understand the above verse. Modern science views itself as an outworking of philosophic naturalism. In secular science, only natural explanations of events in nature are allowed. Any mention of science and any kind of immaterial intervention into nature is automatically classified as fake science without even examining the evidence. Their arguments are cleverly crafted word games, not rigorous analyses of evidence. However, word games do not make the Living, Creator God disappear. When a person bases his arguments on word games instead of honest discussion, the last thing he wants is for his “neighbor to come and examine him.” So, the secular scientist does everything in his power to suppress disclosure of arguments that might expose the weakness of his position. He is the authority, he has declared “truth,” and no one has the right to challenge him. This section is important. It shows that secular scientists promote deep and widespread deception. The sad thing is that most of them zealously believe what they say. From a Biblical perspective, this appears to be an outworking of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11, “…They did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie….” These people do not love the truth because it compels them to face up to their need for salvation and they prefer living in sin away from God. In response, God sends them strong delusion to believe what is in their hearts to believe. The real battle over Genesis is a spiritual one. Unsaved man wants to be his own god, with he himself defining right and wrong. He does not want to submit to God, so he rejects any truth that should ultimately lead to God. He plays word games to justify his rejection. At a certain point God stops striving with him and in judgment sends him strong delusion. This potential risk should be a “wake-up call” for everyone. God gives us reasons to trust Him. However, if we persist in rebelling against Him and harden out hearts against truth, He in judgment may harden our hearts so that we no longer recognize truth. In the course of the next few pages, a thorough survey will be made of the evidence against a natural origin of life. I believe most people will be surprised at just how much evidence is available, how strong the case it makes is, and just how dishonest scientists are who reject it. This article is an attempt to help people understand the truth and take a stand for it. Many professing Christians have acquiesced to evolutionary theory. They believe they are being honest in their analysis when they do. They like to say, “We major in the majors and minor in the minors. How I choose to believe the creation accounts and the flood account of Genesis is minor.” I suggest these professing brothers in the Lord don’t understand how important God counts this issue. It is at the heart of the battle for men’s souls today. It is where Satan is focusing his greatest efforts. God declares in Romans 1:18 that His wrath is aroused when people do not believe that the evidence in the creation that leads one to understand Him and His power. Satan uses evolutionary theory to get people to reject the message of God that God Himself provides in the creation. I suggest that a person is playing with dangerous fire when He counts as minor something that God specifically spells out as major, particular as major as this issue. 2A. Science. Science is the analysis of what exists in nature and how it works. Its primary tool is called “the scientific method.” This is based on analysis of precise measurements and controlled experiments. As the experimental conditions are varied and retested, any changes in the outcome are analyzed. This analysis leads to deeper understanding to what is taking place. The results of an experiment must be repeatable to have meaning. This approach has proven effective in showing us what exists in nature and the principles governing its behavior. Science is the study of what exists in the universe and its normal behavior apart from when God intervenes. Notice the last sentence above. It includes an upfront acknowledgement that science is the study of natural order whenever God is not intervening. I.e., it does not apply when He is. This last sentence is not normally included in the definition of science. It should be. The entire evolutionist vs. creationist controversy would be eliminated by adding this simple phrase to the definition and properly applying it. Sadly, the modern secular scientist has no interest in adding this phrase. He is more committed to promoting philosophical naturalism than staying within the narrow field of measurements, experiments, and analyses. From the perspective of a naturalist, the above definition would be false because there is no such thing as a God to intervene, but implies there is. Besides, why would he want to limit access to tools he can use in his zeal to promote naturalism? The world already accepts him as an authority in anything he speaks about. He likes that prestige. His conscience likes it because it justifies his suppression of truth. He gladly latches on to an excuse to hide from the truth, because the truth interferes with how he wants to run his life. We can observe this behavior when we see how he responds to the results of his own experiments when he doesn’t like them. Instead of accepting them, he calls them “paradoxes” and then proceeds to ignore them. In the Overview we mention several areas where scientists present themselves as authorities in areas they aren’t. These issues will be expanded on here. Notice how important these issues are. 1. Science cannot test God’s actions experimentally. God is a sovereign being with a will and the power to work outside of natural law. As such, He is not subject to analysis by the scientific method. God’s influence on events cannot be controlled by a scientist in an experiment. God’s personal decision determines whether He does intervene in a specific instance, does not intervene, in what manner He intervenes if He does, or the extent of His intervention if He does. As a result, there is no valid experimental data about God for a scientist to analyze. Science has nothing legitimate to say about God’s existence or non-existence or about His intervention or non-intervention into the affairs of the universe. The origin of life and the origin of species are not proper subjects of scientific investigation. The scientific method is limited to what man can understand, control, and measure. It does not have the tools to determine whether or not God intervened in any particular event. Often in the early stages of learning about a subject, there will be variables that affect the outcome of an experiment that are unknown in their influence. Unknown variables can result in false conclusions. If it is known that an experiment contains unknown variables with the potential of greatly impacting results, then its data is not considered reliable and conclusions from analyzing it are not of great value. Since God’s possible intervention on the origins of life and species is potentially great and since science has no means of analyzing how much intervention actually took place, God’s influence is unknown. This prevents science from having anything relevant to say. 2. Science is not history and history is not science. In history, an event occurs one time. It is not repeatable, as is required by the scientific method. A person does not even know what all of the variables were that influenced any specific historical outcome. He has no way of knowing if God intervened in a particular event nor what He did if He did intervene. Therefore, history is as far from the scientific method as it is possible to get. It is improper for a scientist to present as science historical events that purportedly happened billions of years ago, such as the origin of life or large-scale, Darwinian evolution. This is outside his domain of authority. Obviously, a scientist cannot set up a series of experiments that last millions of years to billions of years to carry out. He does not have real time documentation of events as they occurred. He has no way of discerning whether God intervened or not. If God did intervene, he has no way of knowing what He did and to what extent the outcome was affected by His supernatural intervention. Scientists simply do not have the tools to make observations that represent valid historical statements. They may have a strong desire to be authorities in these things, but they need to recognize their actual limitations. Sadly, evolutionists present conclusions regarding large-scale, Darwinian evolution as supposedly being among the most established observations of science. Such statements are blatantly false. They represent statements of history, not the analysis of repeatable experiments. There is no such thing as a scientist running an experiment that takes millions or billions of years to perform. A side note: Many scientists say that evolution is a proven fact. This is true when they speak of microevolution. This can easily be demonstrated in the lab and is legitimate. Microevolution involves only a small modification in some particular trait of an organism. The organism is still the same basic kind it started with. We hear about mutations and microevolution in Covid-19. However, its virus is still a virus. Extrapolation of microevolution to Darwinian evolution, such as bacteria to cats, is a different issue. The Bible allows for variation within originally-created kinds. An original cat kind initially created during the events of Genesis 1 could have been given most of the genetic information needed to allow the cat to very quickly evolve into all of the known cats today. A few mutations along the way could be added to the cat’s initial information. We will discuss this, later when Biblical kinds are discussed. Proper scientific methodology traditionally uses extrapolation as a starting point for subsequent prediction and experimental confirmation. However, in everything except evolutionary theory, extrapolation into unexplored and unconfirmed areas is considered tentative until tested. Frequently, extrapolation uncovers new issues that were unexpected. For instance, Newton’s laws of motion are valid under normal conditions. When attempts were made to extrapolate them down to the molecular level, unexpected inconsistencies appeared. Further analysis led to discover of an entire new field of science, quantum mechanics, operative at that level. Newton’s laws cannot be extrapolated to systems approaching the speed of light, where relativity prevails. Yet, evolutionists assert without proof that microevolution is adequate to prove Darwinian evolution. Concerning Darwinian evolution, issues such as getting the new genetic information required to turn bacteria into cats presents a huge barrier. Scientists see the barrier and do not know how to get around it. So, until the barrier has been removed, a person should understand that science gives strong basis to reject the likelihood of bacteria becoming cats. Far from being scientifically proven, Darwinian evolution is a statement of history by a non-historian. It summarizes a series of imagined past events; it is not based on repeatable experiments. Most importantly, it ignores God’s possible intervention. A scientist greatly misrepresents truth when he claims evolution on the scale of bacteria to cats or to man has been proven. From this perspective, any discussion of Darwinian evolution or of reputed long ages does not belong in a science textbook. These are statements of historical guesswork, of hoped-for changes, of preferred philosophical perspectives, but not of experimentally tested and observed science. Perhaps people would like a scientist to be able to tell them what happened historically in things like the appearance of life and the origin of species. Those who do not want to worship and submit to God will in particular like a scientist to be able to do this. A scientist needs to be honest enough to say that he has nothing to say on the subject, that it is outside his area of expertise. In today’s environment, that might not be a popular stand among his peers. It might even ruin a career. However, this is better than alienating a living God who can create a galaxy without getting tired, who is eternal, and who takes offense to anyone denying Him the glory He should rightfully receive. This particularly relevant when He states that His wrath is aroused against those who suppress truth about how the creation testifies of His person (Romans 1:1:cool:. The historical sciences. Some branches of science focus on events that happened in the distant past. Paleontology, historical geology, and cosmology are among these. These are sometimes called the historical sciences. The problems with properly evaluating historical events have already been discussed. The influence of God is unknown. Many factors leading to the outcome of an event are unknown. Added to this is the ease that “authorities” have of censoring any analysis that challenges naturalism. These entire fields have false foundations and present conclusions that are unjustified. Remember the Biblical quote starting this Part. When only one side is presented, a case can appear much stronger than it is. Evolutionists understand this and therefore mock and slander evidence challenging their dialogue. As a result of the ingrained biases present in these fields, their assertions concerning dates and times are meaningless. For instance, creation scientists associate the fossil record with the worldwide flood of Genesis 6 and not the creation-day events of Genesis 1. Since this does not fit with naturalistic explanations, the evidence supporting this is ignored and those presenting it are mocked. The strength of any evidence supporting the Genesis 6 flood is ignored. No allowance is made for the possibility that God could have intervened in any manner whatsoever. The standard of what is printed in their journals appears to be how well it conforms to the message they are trying to proclaim. Anything in opposition is censored. One can be intellectually honest while ignoring their claims. 3. Scientists do not make things, engineers do. It is also important to understand that scientists do not study how to make things. This is the domain of engineering. Engineers are required to make things that that work. They are trained how to build structures that have many different components that need to fit together properly or none of them have any value. A living cell is full of these kinds of features. By contrast, when a scientist says that time and random changes are adequate to create life and new species, he is only making speculative statements. Worse than that, the speculation comes at the expensive of what engineers have learned. Engineers find that almost everything built requires a certain minimum number of components that need to appear in finished form and assembled before they meet their purpose. However, this contradicts the slow, gradual steps required for evolutionary processes to provide new features, so biologists simply ignore the issue. This issue should not be glossed over: Engineers have learned procedures that must be satisfied to provide new, complex structures. Ignoring them results in failure. Natural processes are not exempt from these requirements. However, the engineering approach requires the use of intelligence in first providing a design which defines all the parts that are needed, their relationships to each other, and how to fabricate them using available resources and tools. It then requires to ability to intervene in nature to do the fabrication. Naturalistic philosophy does not provide for the intelligence to design or the means fabricate a design. Therefore, in order to maintain their philosophical perspective, atheistic scientists ignore what engineers have learned about making new objects. Nevertheless, when scientists ignore the principles of engineering and try to test their ideas in the lab, they consistently get paradoxes and failures. Because of the millions and billions of years needed to observe Darwinian evolution, it is universally recognized that this is outside the capability of man to observe directly. Therefore, a scientist can assume the right to propose anything he wants, spin it how he wants, and use his prestige as a scientist to make it sound true. This does not make it true. 4. Philosophical statements do not represent science. Earlier, we mentioned that the attitude of many modern scientists is, “In the end, natural processes will explain everything.” This is clearly a nonscientific attitude. No scientist can point to an experiment which justifies this statement. It is merely an unproven philosophical statement. Yet, these scientists claim that if anyone disagrees with their philosophy, they are to be called fake scientists, pseudoscientists. They then assert that as we learn more through new experiments, these will support their position. However, no one knows what the results of future, yet undefined experiments will be. Notice, the contention here is not over interpretation of observed evidence. It is over hoped-for future observations by atheistic scientists against currently observed ones by creationists. The evidence against abiogenesis is solid. When a scientist asserts that a very long time ago natural processes made the original living cells and that these cells then evolved into various species, he is claiming to be an authority in history, engineering, and philosophy. He is not. He is outside his field in all three areas. Therefore, the scientific method has nothing legitimate to say about origins. He should either keep his mouth quiet or make it clear that he is not speaking as a scientist but as one promoting his personal philosophy against observed evidence when he does give his opinion. A critical observation. It is critically important to understand that science is limited in what it can tell us. For one example, it can tell us the what happens but not why it happens. If I drop a ball, it falls to the ground according to the laws of gravity. This represents valid science, because it can be studied by the scientific method. However, if I ask a scientist, “Why does gravity exist?” he does not have a legitimate answer. A scientist cannot tell us why energy, matter, and time exist, either. These issues are outside the scope of scientific investigation. We need to understand and accept the fact that many of the most interesting questions are outside the scope of science to give an answer. We also must be prepared to recognize that in today’s environment, many scientists like to ignore their limitations and make assertions beyond what is proper. A person needs to be prepared to reject what they say in such cases. From this perspective, if someone were to ask a scientist where life comes from, it appears that his proper response should be that he can study what would be required to make a cell, he can study the potential for natural processes to meet the requirements, and he can evaluate whether there is a match between the two. However, it is outside his field to make claims on what happened historically, particularly as there appears to be a big discrepancy between what is needed for a cell and what natural processes can provide. He can also say that engineering provides a good model to suggest that an intelligent being with the ability to work outside of natural processes presents a viable model for how it could have happened. Beyond this a scientist has nothing legitimate to say. Many evolutionists mock God. They claim that those who believe in God believe in a God of the gaps. I.e., when science has yet to learn something, people attribute it to God. As science learns more, there is less for them to believe. God is only useful for filling in the gaps until science can explain it. Sadly, modern science appears to present this as a foundational truth, not to be challenged. Yet, nothing could be further from actual truth. We shall discuss in this article that the more we learn from science, the more inadequately natural processes appear to be in explaining the origin of life. When we add engineering to the discussion, observations from science and engineering working together lead us straight to One who fits the definition of a personal God as the Creator of Life. 5. How unbiased science supports a Creator: Broad Issues. Science has uncovered a number of broad issues that lay a foundation to question the adequacy of natural processes to create a living cell. Here are four of them. They help lead to the understanding that God created life. Notice, whenever scientists attack the faith of Christians who believe God and the Bible, these things are never discussed: 1) Rudolph Virchow, a German scientist and medical doctor, reported in 1855 that “all cells come from cells.” In his honor, this observation is called “Virchow’s aphorism.” (An aphorism is a statement with profound meaning expressed in few words). 150 years ago, this aphorism helped establish modern cellular theory. Advances in technology since then have firmly confirmed it. The Wikipedia article on Cell Theory shows it as one of three components of modern cell theory. Observed science shows us a number of features that are essential for a group of chemicals to function as a cell and replicate. We understand what they are and why there are important. Until a group of chemicals are sufficiently organized to function as a complete living cell, they do not constitute a cell. They most certainly cannot make new cells capable of sustaining life. Scientists acknowledge that they currently have no way out of this problem.6 Virchow’s aphorism leads to a simple conclusion: a living cell must appear fully formed in a single step. Yet, scientists in general admit that it is irrational to believe that a functioning cell, complete with genetic information and operating metabolism, could appear in a single step. Their solution is to ignore Virchow’s aphorism when they discuss origin of life issues. It is not compatible with the message they want to promote, so they ignore it. Do you see a problem with this? Abiogenesis is a major branch of science. Yet, strong evidence teaching against the plausibility of successful abiogenesis is ignored, not addressed. Somehow, this does not appear to be the lack of bias that scientists try to instill in their public image. Would you like proof they ignore it? Do a Google search on Virchow’s aphorism all cells from cells. There are about 70,900 references returned. Most are relevant. Just glancing at some of the entries shows how established the aphorism is. Next, go to Google Scholar at https://scholar.google.com. This is a search engine that returns only results from scholarly journal articles, books, and preprints. Go to the search box and search for the same title, Virchow’s aphorism all cells from cells. This shows about 1,270 results. Because of the critical impact this has on origin of life issues, it seems that the problem this presents should be a major topic of discussion in abiogenesis literature. So, next do a search on Google Scholar for abiogenesis Virchow’s aphorism all cells from cells. Surprisingly, now there are only 26 entries. When I downloaded this on June 28, 2021, the first entry listed was one that I personally co-authored with Dr. George Matzko, retired chairman of the science department at Bob Jones University. We discuss the problem posed by the aphorism, not its solution. We do so in more depth than here. Our article most certainly did not show how to reconcile the aphorism and abiogenesis. I was surprised to find our article at the top of the list from Google Scholar on this subject. I expected it to be buried below a long list of articles by scientists discussing how to resolve this problem. It appears they simply ignored it. Several of the results returned were also from creationists who shared the same concern that we have. Some were from books discussing various issues; abiogenesis and the aphorism were treated separately. Not one of the 26 articles returned made an attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the aphorism and abiogenesis. As mentioned earlier, whenever something poses a serious threat to evolutionary theory, it will simply be ignored as long as possible while the proponents continue to claim that science conclusively supports their position. This is not what people have in mind when they think of honest, unbiased science.
    Whenever a person does an internet search, results can vary depending on its exact wording. Petra Schwille is a scientist who does experimental work trying to make synthetic cellular life. An alternative search returned an article she wrote which did discuss the aphorism, although she called it a dictum and not an aphorism. She summarized the current state of abiogenesis with the comment, “But regarding cells, we still do not have a strategy to escape the circular dictum of 19th century cell theory—attributed to Rudolf Virchow—that every cell derives from a cell (“omnis cellula e cellula”).7 For her, initiation of the operation of the dictum/aphorism is the target for her research. She is on the cutting edge of research in this field and acknowledges that science doesn’t even have a strategy showing how to overcome the problem the aphorism represents. It truly is a roadblock they do not know how to get around. Abiogenists don’t talk much about Virchow because more than one hundred fifty years after it was stated, it still presents a barrier no one knows how to cross. Honest science would acknowledge this to the public. 2) A cell needs to appear within minutes in fully functioning form, otherwise its components quickly fall apart. Many scientists propose that it took millions of years for randomly appearing chemicals on our planet to organize into living cells. Compared to millions of years, a span of minutes is an instant. If I turn my car engine off, I can restart it later at will. I do this every time I shut it off and subsequently turn it back on. By contrast, If I am denied oxygen, the cells in my body quickly undergo permanent damage. Once I have died from lack of oxygen, supplying oxygen does not bring me back to life. Cellular biologists understand the structural changes in cellular organization that make death permanent. When metabolism stops at normal temperatures, cell structure degrades very quickly. This leads to a startling conclusion—a living cell needs to have made its initial appearance virtually instantly. Otherwise, within minutes any fabrication in progress will degrade beyond recovery. This is another issue scientists should bring up in origin of life discussions. However, it is not compatible with the message they want to promote, so they ignore this one, too. Claiming science supports long ages for the first appearance of a living cell when unbiased science clearly teaches against this possibility is fake science, not legitimate science. 3) Beyond this It does not appear that nature provides the tools necessary to make the specific components needed to make a cell or to assemble them properly. Without proper tools, it is virtually impossible to build anything complex. Try to convert a tree and some iron ore for nails into a modern three-bedroom, two-bathroom house using only natural processes such as rain, wind, and sunshine. There are to be no blueprints, no specialized tools, and no tradesmen to use them. It appears that a trillion years would not be adequate. At a certain point time doesn’t really help. Man can make things natural processes can’t. This is actually a powerful observation. It provides foundation for the next item. 4) Living cells are far, far more complicated than anything man has been able to design and make. If unguided natural processes cannot be expected to make a modern house in a trillion years, how could they be expected to make something far, far more complex in a much shorter time? How can they be expected to make a living cell instantly? This logically suggests that cells might originally have been made by an intelligent being who is a lot smarter than man with powers beyond those of man—i.e., by God. At this point, the existence and action of a God would certainly answer a lot of questions that otherwise appear unanswerable. A lot of specific evidence now leads to understanding that natural processes appear inadequate to form the first cell. This implies supernatural forces are required to establish it. The evidence is readily available to see for those willing to see it. Most scientists just don’t want to see it. The above four issues provide an overview of how true science appears to be consistent with the understanding of life coming from a Creator. However, it merely presents problems with natural origins. It doesn’t give any bases for suggesting a particular solution. That will come from engineering. Engineering provides a model which will lead us to a Creator God and also gives reasons to believe the model is relevant. 6. Science that supports a Creator: Specific Issues. Origin-of-life studies in science reveal problems without solutions. Efforts to show how unguided natural processes can form the chemicals of life have failed at every level. The reasons for the failures are well-known. They can be predicted from the principles of chemistry. Here is a discussion of specific issues that demonstrate this conclusion. They are consistent with life coming from a Creator. Remember, though, that the actual model for a Creator comes from engineering and not science. Science shows natural processes cannot spontaneously form a living cell. That is all it can say. Engineering will provide a model which leads to the conclusion that life comes from God. This was actually discussed reasonably thoroughly in the Overview. Raw materials can’t get past the first step. They can’t get past any others, either. There is blatant dishonesty by scientists in origin-of-life discussions. This dishonesty starts at the very first step. The entire field of abiogenesis (origin-of-life studies) is dependent on initial conversion of raw, naturally appearing chemicals on Earth into certain specifically required biological chemicals. Amino acids, nucleotides, and fatty acids are among these. Until these chemicals are available in required purity, the journey towards the appearance of life can’t even begin. It is like a child pretending it is going to make a nice apple pie when mud with a tiny bit of apple sauce mixed in it all he has available. If I were served this in a restaurant and was told in all sincerity by a waitress while serving it that it was excellent apple pie and if she then gave me a bill and expected me to pay for it, I would feel offended and cheated. Yet, this is parallel with the behavior of secular scientists when they discuss the origin of life. Nature does not provide required chemicals in required purity to be usable towards life. Every tested hypothetical step towards life demonstrates this problem, not just the first one. Most Importantly, science has uncovered a common reason leading to all of these failures. At every step along the path towards life, natural processes are capable of making many, many more unusable products than usable ones. Organic molecules (those based on carbon atoms) are capable of appearing in multiple millions of different configurations.8 Less than fifty of the millions of possibilities represent the specific chemicals a living cell uses to build the proteins, nucleic acids, and fatty acids needed for life. Added to this is the problem of randomization. When organic molecules are subjected to UV light or sparks, they get ripped apart into randomly-formed subcomponents. These subcomponents then randomly reassemble into newly formed chemicals. Even the usable ones eventually get ripped up themselves; they don’t stay usable. As this process is repeated, the new chemicals represent an increasing larger fraction of the huge number of possibilities. They become further and further chemically away from the original starting compounds and further and further away from those needed for life. Long periods of time do not help; they only make matters worse. There is nothing to restrict them to those that are needed. As a result, they never appear in high enough purity to be useful. Long periods of time just make them even more remote from what is needed. The article I co-authored with Dr. Matzko and mentioned earlier (at www.osf.io/p5nw3 ) is primarily focused on this problem. It shows in great detail how randomization is at the heart of the failure apparent in every experiment in abiogenesis. The first step is the easiest. Yet even this one fails. It is one thing to recognize every experimentally tested step fails. It is altogether different to show that there is a common underlying problem which results in all of the failures. Once this has happened, the task facing a scientist who wants to discount the evidence has just become much more difficult. He now needs to show the root cause to be invalid. If the proposed root cause is well established, this can be a difficult task. In the case of consistent failures of abiogenesis due to randomization, the problem is about as serious as it can be. The problem of randomization represents one of the most established principles of science. It is the fundamental behavior which underlies entropy. Entropy is merely a mathematical expression of randomization. In effect, one of the most basic, fundamental principles of observed science has resulted in the failure of every experiment in abiogenesis. Realistically, there is no basis for expectation of a means for natural, unguided processes to overcome this problem. Nonetheless, atheistic scientists refuse even to consider this issue while they wait decade after decade for someone to figure out how to get past it. Romans 1:22 describes the situation perfectly, “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” 2 Peter 3:5 in the KJV says of them, “they willingly are ignorant.” No amount of evidence will convince these people. Before a Christian lets an atheistic, willingly ignorant scientist pervert his understanding of Genesis 1, he would do well to keep these things in mind. You may wonder if this is the case, then why is it not made well known to the public? If it were a normal field of science, it would have been closed as fruitless many decades ago. However, the origin of life is a major issue. Admitting to the impossibility of natural processes being able provide living cells would falsify the primary thrust of modern science. It ultimately shows that true science leads to an understanding of God. Atheistic scientists will not acknowledge this, no matter how strong the evidence might be. I would like to mention that a relevant YouTube clip I have made about this.9 Carl Sagan was a scientist who presented a television series on PBS, Cosmos. This series is one of the most highly viewed in the history of public television. Sagan dedicated an entire episode of the series to reperforming Stanley Miller’s origin-of-life experiment. His was a 1953 experiment that kicked off modern origin-of-life studies. Like most scientists of today, in this video meant for public consumption Sagan talks like his experiment was a success. By contrast, in a science journal article normally read only by scientists, he acknowledges that this same experiment demonstrated how it actually failed to produce chemicals that could be used in a succeeding step, as would be required for true success. He made inert tar, or tholin as he called it. This product is inert. It is completely useless for an advance towards life. Furthermore, he points out that all experiments testing various alternatives to Miller’s choice of variables used in the experiment have similar results. My video discusses the inconsistency between what he says in the video and in the journal article. To the public he announces it is a success. In the journal article, the same experiment produces only a useless, inert, tar-like substance hi calls tholin. If you think I am overstating things, check out the video! Science is one of the world’s most prestigious science journals. In 2017 it published an article titled “Researchers may have solved origin of life conundrum”.10 The article exposes the continuing seriousness of the problems regarding successful abiogenesis that science has uncovered. Six and a half decades after Stanley Miller did his experiment one of the world’s most prestigious science journals openly admits that the origin of life still presents a conundrum, i.e., it presents a dilemma. This is presented in the title of the article. Subsequently, the opening sentence reads, “The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes.” The article then proceeds to point out continuing contention over three problems —information first, metabolism first, or containment membranes first. He gives a lengthy discussion of the conflicts facing a natural origin of life and the difficulties in figuring out how natural processes could overcome them. He then proposes that a new approach by John Sutherland might provide the answer. John Sutherland and his team announced in 2009 that he found a new approach which potentially solved a key problem in getting nucleotides, which are used for information. In “one pot” he would be able to make all kinds of chemicals. Initially, it appeared that Sutherland was going to solve certain problems that have plagued abiogenesis. Nine years later, he summarized a decade of “progress” with the words, However, it is not the authors [he and his co-authors] wish or intent to persuade the reader that all roads must lead to Rome. In fact, we caution the exact opposite. While there are many small, and large, variances of sequence that could have still permitted a route to life, there are far, far more that would not… It follows that the sequence of events that led to life must have been highly contingent and the origin of life as we know it could have been a low probability event.”11 Earlier, I discussed how every tested experiment for the origin of life fails because of a common underlying problem: natural processes have many possible outcomes with only a limited number usable. The principles of randomization teach against the limited number of usable chemicals appearing in pure enough form to be usable. This is particularly the case for something requiring continuous supply and not a momentary, fleeting appearance, such as the origin of life would require. Sutherland has just acknowledged that his approach results in the very behavior that we should expect. Sutherland’s work is thwarted by the same problem causing the failures of all of those who have gone before him. Despite all of the hope Sutherland’s work generated, in the end it has met the same fate as the others. Yet, Sutherland continues to this day to remain optimistic, as do abiogenists in general.

    https://www.trbap.org/OOL.pdf page 13​
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2022
    #197     Jun 12, 2022
  8. Design Engineering Shows
    1) God Created Life
    2) Genesis 1 is literal

    2B. Engineering. Engineers make things. They use a two-step process to do this. First, an engineer uses his intelligence and creativity to design what he wants using available materials and tools. Second, he fabricates what he wants according to the design. This has already been discussed in the Overview. Engineering allows man to make things that could never appear in nature by natural processes alone. If you are wandering in a remote location and come across a ringing cell phone or a running gasoline engine, you know that they are the result of human engineering and fabrication, not natural process. Why?

    A lifetime of experience leads us to understand that wind, rain, and sunlight and other naturally available “tools” are not capable of competing with an intelligent being in designing and building complex objects like cell phones and gasoline engines. Even a small child can understand this. Recognition that an intelligent being can design objects which are beyond natural processes alone to form is critical. If is the foundation for much of our message. The implications of this are profound. Everywhere we look in our society today, we see things that man has used his intelligence in order to design and make. Unguided natural processes cannot compete with him in making computers, chemical processing plants, modern housing, and gasoline engines. It appears that natural processes cannot compete with God in making living cells. Engineering leads to understanding God designed life. An engineer can look at a cell’s genome and recognize that it is an information-driven machine. There are many parallels between computer information with its associated hardware and cellular information with its associated hardware. However, the cellular hardware and informational content is far, far more complex than anything man could ever design. The natural reaction of a computer engineer should be that a cell’s genome and associated hardware was designed by a being with a super-intellect. However, in both living cells and computers, the design phase is only part of the story. The design still needs to be fabricated. There is nothing in nature to convert an intellectual design for a living cell into a physical reality. A man can design then make tools to manufacture a computer according to his design. However, there are no naturally available tools to use in making living cells from a design. Already living cells are also provided with a unique feature: Once they have been made, they have the ability to make copies of themselves. This does not help in fabricating the original cell. The simplest explanation is that the Designer also had to have the ability to directly create the first cells by moving individual atoms and molecules into proper locations with each other and to establish from the beginning the internal dynamic relationships necessary to maintain cellular life. It is not just computer engineering that is relevant to the origin of life. At the beginning of the article, we stated that scientists “attempt to explain complex processes like i) the appearance of information in a cell, ii) cellular metabolism, iii) cell membranes and iv) components required for cellular replication as being the products of step-by-step improvements.” Engineering shows this to be impossible for all of them. Cellular metabolism requires extremely complex chemical activity by numerous chemical reactions dependent on each other. Elaborate feedback control is required at each point. Failure of proper functioning of any one aspect of the complete process prevents metabolism from occurring. Engineers can design and build refineries, pharmaceutical manufacturing plants, and computer chip manufacturing. An engineer can explain how elaborate design goes into successful performance of any of these tasks. Overlooking the slightest detail can prevent the desired product from appearing. Step-by-step processes starting from scratch are not adequate to make any of these. Yet, biologists propose that metabolism, which is based on far more complex chemistry than anything man has designed, could appear through gradual improvements of step-by-step processes. As of this were not enough a problem, the information to provide for these has to appear in a cell’s genes in final form before any of it works. These problems are severe. They go against everything we know about chemistry. Man understands the design of chemical process flow well enough to understand that it would take a Creator God to provide metabolism. Provision of cellular membranes that can replicate under specific conditions is another cellular task that goes far beyond what man can design and build. Again, it would take a Creator God for this. What do you call a being who uses super intelligence to design a living cell according to his purposes and will and then makes it according to the design, working outside of the laws of nature to do so? You call Him God. In fact, the description we just provided makes a good definition of a personal God: One with a will, is super-intelligent, and can work outside of natural law at will. This is extremely significant: Observations from science and engineering working together lead to the definition of a personal God as the Creator of living cells. Engineering is particularly relevant in coming to this understanding. God is an engineer. Man can engineer because he is made in God’s image. Cats and chickens are not made in His image. Neither cats nor chickens can design then build computers.
    Scientific observation implies God is needed, not science is adequate. We have talked about how modern science assumes that natural processes can explain everything and God is not needed. Yet, the things we have just looked at imply the opposite. In place after place, observation after observation, we find evidence that natural processes cannot account for many characteristics of a cell. The issues are not trivial or incidental, they are major and fundamental. This is not based on a single observation. It appears that wherever we look we find natural processes are inadequate. Then, when we add engineering to the equation, we find a model which gives us a solution to life. A Being who meets the definition of a Creator God first designed living cells and then fabricated them. It appears that there is no true scientifically observed basis for scientists to persist in denying God’s role in abiogenesis. It comes from their personal philosophical bias. They are the ones who reject observed evidence in order to support their personal philosophies. If a person uses the definition of science we suggested at the beginning, “Science is the study of what exists in nature and how it works apart from when God intervenes,” the entire perspective changes. We are then free to consider all of the evidence available and see where it leads. It turns out that instead of persistent, pervasive paradoxes to be ignored, we have a beautiful, consistent scheme with everything fitting together smoothly. The problems come when scientists go outside their field and pretend that they are also historians, engineers, and philosophers as they try to take the Creator God out of the picture. The role of faith. God gives us reasons to believe. Even so, it is still a matter of the heart whether or not a person believes. Judas saw Jesus do most of His miracles, apparently performed some himself, continually heard preaching that directly addressed his need to get right with God, and saw in Jesus a preacher whose manner of life was consistent with His words. Yet, all Judas was concerned about was how much money he could get from being associated with Jesus. Judas turned a deaf ear to his responsibility to submit to and to worship God. This should be a warning to all of us. God gives us evidence. He then expects us to respond to this evidence with gratitude and thanksgiving as we worship Him. Our motive is to worship and glorify Him from a pure heart, not to get Him to serve us. Faith is still required. However, it can be a faith with a solid conviction that it is founded on well-established truth.
    https://www.trbap.org/OOL.pdf page 15
    #198     Jun 12, 2022
  9. Design Engineering Shows
    1) God Created Life
    2) Genesis 1 is literal

    3. Thomas Huxley, the X Club, and the hijacking of modern science During the 1860s and 1870s, Thomas Huxley and an informal group of friends who identified themselves as the “X Club” led the way to convert science into a vehicle to promote naturalism, which is the philosophy that the behavior of physical objects is governed exclusively by natural processes. Supernatural processes are assumed not to exist. Therefore, there is no place for any god’s supernatural intervention into the events of history now or at any other time. Huxley and friends rejected the Biblical account of creation. They would openly call those who believed it “stupid.” Darwin’s Origin of Species was an eye-opener for Huxley. Huxley did not believe that Darwin succeeded in making his case. However, he was fascinated by Darwin approach to use naturalistic explanations to interpret historical events. To Huxley, Darwin showed how to cross the mountain, even if he didn’t manage to cross it himself. The new goal of science became to find the right path. In the course of less than twenty years, the entire philosophic atmosphere was changed from theism to naturalism, mostly because of the efforts of this group. However, even though they were its leaders, the bulk of those who followed them wanted to go the direction they were taking and were glad to follow. Huxley’s approach may be summarized as follows: 1) Assume that natural processes are sufficient in themselves to explain everything that exists. 2) Never engage directly with a creationist in a format which gives him any kind of credence. 3) Assert that it is a waste of time to talk with a creationist or allow his position to be discussed openly—the discussion never goes anywhere. (This was actually because Huxley wouldn’t listen.) 4) Use slander to mock the training of and intellectual capabilities of a creationist. Claim it is a waste of time to talk to him because he never understands the arguments. 5) Only positions which support unguided evolution and stand against miraculous intervention of God are given credence. Everything else is to be mocked then ignored. 6) Use behind-the-scenes power plays to give professional advantage to those who take this position while also attempting to block the advancement of those who do not. This applies in particular to professors who teach at the university level and to editors of science journals. Today, it has become extended to those who control research grants. A scientist who takes a stand against naturalism finds that he gets cut off from grant money. This can be fatal; a scientist’s career is largely determined by his ability to fund his research projects through grants. The above approach continues to this day. Modern science assumes materialism is sufficient to explain everything that takes place and has taken place. This tradition started with Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and members of the British “X Club” in the 1860s and 1870s. It has dominated scientific discussion since then. However, science historians acknowledge that materialism was not actually proven in open scientific dialogue at this time, but was only claimed to be true by its proponents. Huxley and those in his camp then used behind-the-scenes power plays to establish the materialist position while stifling discussion of any contrary evidence. A detailed 18-page discussion of how materialists hijacked science in the 1860s and 1870s is found in the fourth of the five articles I authored and available free online at www.trbap.org/5articles-long.pdf.

    https://www.trbap.org/OOL.pdf page 16
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2022
    #199     Jun 12, 2022
  10. Design Engineering Shows
    1) God Created Life
    2) Genesis 1 is literal

    4. The Compatibility of Observations of a Literal Genesis and Science/Engineering Observed science appears to agree better with a literal understanding of Genesis 1, the opening chapter of the Bible, than it does with evolutionary theory: 1) The engineering model of specification followed by implementation. In the creation account presented in the Bible, God is represented as creating various specific items as a two-step process. For instance, in verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 26 of Genesis 1, we read phrases similar to “Let there be…and there was.” This shows preplanning. Something was first defined and then subsequently fabricated. For all practical purposes, this is the engineering method. When an engineer designs a computer or a refinery, or an automobile engine, he basically follows the same methodology the Bible presents as how God brought about the appearance of life on the earth. Furthermore, the days of creation themselves appear to be part of a preplanned sequence which was implemented according to plan within a short time period. By contrast, the materialistic/evolutionary model attributes the appearance of cells to unguided, random associations over long periods of time. We discussed at the beginning how this model appears to be ineffective in accounting for major cellular features. It seems clear that the observations of science and engineering taken together are more compatible with the Biblical model of preplanned design than the evolutionary model of untargeted, random, step-by-step progress. In fact, whenever an engineer designs anything, it appears that he is putting into practice the process attributed to God as His approach to creating life on the earth. This leads to the second observation: 2) The allowed time span. Science shows original cells needed to be formed within minutes, before degradation destroyed progress. Materialists claim cellular formation was a slow, gradual process over extended periods of time, typically at least millions of years. The Bible implies life was created extremely quickly. Genesis 1 attributes significant events of creation as taking place within part of a single 24-hour day. Science appears to be more consistent with the Bible than it is with evolutionary theory. 3) The chicken first or the egg first? A common riddle is, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Abiogenists teach that reproduction of self-replicating molecules came first (the egg). In time these molecules evolved into fully functioning, living cells. Yet, this appears to be directly contradicted by Virchow’s aphorism. Scientists have no explanation of how to bridge the gap between a hypothetical selfreplicating molecule and an autonomous living cell with a genome and metabolism. By contrast, Genesis 1 provides a solution to this paradox. In several places this chapter discusses how God created organisms with their seed (means of reproduction) in themselves. Thus, the Bible teaches that its God created the first instances of the various kinds of organisms fully formed from the beginning and which also had an inherent capability to reproduce and multiply. Thus, chickens were created instantly and were fully formed, including their initial capacity to form eggs. God made the first instances of a kind. He made them so that after they had been formed, they were able to reproduce and to multiply on their own. The Bible incidentally, without fanfare, answers a basic question that people have pondered for years. Scientific observation is more compatible with Genesis 1 in the Bible than it is with current understanding of abiogenesis. 4) The problem of failed steps due to randomization. This has already been extensively discussed. Randomization is one of the most basic principles of physics and chemistry. It has led to the failure of every experiment in abiogenesis. As more energy is applied to pre-life chemicals in a natural setting, they become randomer and randomer in structure. They do not naturally become the very specific chemicals required for life with high enough purity to be used. There is no known basis to expect anything different and lots of extensive experience in chemistry in general to expect it to continue. The Biblical model of an extremely intelligent, living God who can create a universe out of nothing, placing atoms where and how He wants in proper dynamic relationship with each other at will, is more consistent with explaining our presence than is materialistic/evolutionary theory, which has failed in every experimental step in the effort to explain our origin. 5) Debug Issues. Engineering design typically involves extensive debug. Engineering debug requires a design specification, specialized test equipment to isolate problems during tests, and an engineer with sufficient intelligence to isolate problems using these resources. The engineer must also have sufficient creativity to figure out how to fix the problems once identified. The materialistic approach provides none of the resources required for debug. The limited time span of mere minutes before degradation begins in a nonfunctioning cell would not allow opportunity for debug even if required resources were available. Natural processes offer no known means to work around these issues. The Bible presents a God whose understanding is without limit and would have the inherent capability to get a design correct the first time; His designs would plausibly not require debug. After each of the six days in Genesis 1, God evaluated what He had accomplished and pronounced it “good.” As a retired design engineer, I can testify that a good design is one which meets its target specification without defects. This is the significance of the evaluation, “Good.” By contrast, the materialistic/evolutionary approach is based on partially working features generated randomly and then debugging them through randomizing processes. However, no naturally existing, reasonable means of debug is known. Observed science offers no mechanism to debug non-living chemicals in order to convert them into living cells. The Biblical model of creation by a God of sufficient intelligence to fabricate a “good” design—i.e., one correct without requiring debug—is more compatible with the requirements of scientific observation than is the materialistic/evolutionary model. 6) Biblical kinds: closer to a taxonomic family than to species. Much confusion has come about from misunderstanding the meaning of Biblical “kinds” talked about in Genesis 1. A good summary of the issues can be found at https://creationwiki.org/Created_kind. From the Biblical perspective, God created kinds. When one works through the issues, it appears they were most typically at the taxonomic family level. The original kinds would have had sufficient genomic information for rapid specialization in succeeding generations. The specialists rapidly came to represent genera and species. They did this at the cost of losing original information. There is no conflict between the Bible and specialization. Sometimes specialization is called microevolution, although this definition can have other meanings and so can be ambiguous. There is much evidence for evolution at this level. By contrast, most people think of evolution as being at the level to convert bacteria into men. This requires huge blocks of new information. Creationists reject this because: 1) It is against how the Bible presents the creation of kinds. 2) Plausibly, many of the issues that prevent abiogenesis would apply here, meaning there would be no chemical method to implement macroevolution. 3) Most of the evidence given to support macroevolution is consistent with specialization and hence proves nothing. The remaining evidence for macroevolution is not only sketchy but lopsided in its presentation—all kinds of assumptions are presented as fact and any contrary evidence is ignored. It is beyond the scope of this paper to say much more about this in the paragraph or so available. 7) Top-down design. There are two basic approaches engineers use in designing a complex project, called top down and bottom up. Let’s illustrate the approaches by considering the steps to build a house. In top-down design, the first step is to decide what kind of house is desired. The design starts with its basic purpose. A single person who keeps to himself and is economically deprived will want a different house than a wealthy person who entertains a lot. Starting from there, general details need to be defined, such as the basic size, how many stories, how many and what kind of rooms, whether there is a basement, and the proper foundation needed to support the weight of the house. Once the general layout is determined, more and more details get designed. In bottom-up design, one starts with small details and tries to join them. Using this approach, a person designs a room before he knows what the rest of the house looks like and how it fits in. As he keeps adding more and more, he needs to go back and redesign what he started with in order to get things to fit. The process is time consuming and the end result is chaotic. An experienced engineer can immediately identify the work of a not-so-well trained novice because it is chaotic and inefficient compared to that of a well-trained and experienced engineer. Even more chaotic than bottom-up design is the approach of a biologist to the origin of life. In this case, there is not even a design or a purpose. It would be like a monkey being given some saws, hammers, wood, nails, window glass, roofing material, and door hinges. He is to use the tools on the raw materials without any purpose or guidance. He has no clue that it is even possible to build anything with them. What is the likelihood that he could build a small shack with a roof to keep the rain out as well as a window and door in it? Yet, this is more than a natural setting offers for the origin of life. When an engineer person looks at the extremely high level of organization in a living cell, it gives every indication of preplanned top-down design by a super-intelligent being. The unguided, random processes proposed by biologists might have made sense in Darwin’s day. That was before we understood how involved the internal structures of a cell are. Beyond this, when one looks at the organization inherent in our own bodies, it becomes irrational to assert that we are the product of unplanned, unguided, random activity. 8) Beauty. I once talked to an artist who explained her concept of beauty. “Beauty is a combination of organization and variation. The pattern of a window screen is boring because it is too monotonous—too much organization. It is the same everywhere. There is nothing to communicate. By contrast, if something has lots of variation but no organization, it is boring. Pure noise is boring because it doesn’t communicate anything.” She asked me to look at a large picture she had just finished. At the center was an important person. He was the focal part of the painting and was bigger than the others. His face provided a theme. There were about a dozen other people in the picture. All of the faces were different. Each represented a different personality. There was organization: A dozen or so people with the face of the larger center one establishing a theme. There was meaningful variation: The other faces were variations of the main theme. The variations between them made the picture interesting as an observer compared similarities and differences between them and the central figure. I was able to understand what she was talking about and did appreciate what she as a professional had done to make the painting interesting and beautiful. A good artist demonstrates his creativity by how he manages organization and variation to produce beauty. I was a Christian at the time. Even as she was speaking, I understood how this explained what makes nature so beautiful. Wherever we look in nature, we will find organization mixed with variation. It is in observing the interplay between these two features that distinguishes beautiful from monotonous. All oak trees are immediately recognized as oak trees. They follow a common basic structure. But no two oak trees are alike. There is variation between them. Each has its own unique identity and character. The variations within a common theme draws our interest. A forest is beautiful because of the way God naturally places organization and structure. As a retired industrial design engineer, I am very familiar with manufacturing facilities. When man designs a product, he tries to make every one that comes off an assembly line come as close to the design specification as possible. Ideally, every unit will look exactly alike. There is no variation and watching products come off the line quickly gets boring. The difference between what man makes and God makes is overwhelming. God wants us to praise Him for the beauty He places in His design. No two things are alike, even as the Bible teaches. 12 This is a testimony of God’s creativity. All of a sudden, my perspective of a branch of science called comparative anatomy was completely transformed. Evolutionists claim one of the strongest proofs of evolution are what they call homologous structures, which are studied in comparative anatomy. One can supposedly follow evolutionary development by how common structures such as forelimbs change between reptiles, birds, and mammals. A Googol Images search on “homologous structures forelimbs” reputedly shows evolutionary development between different species of their forelimb bone structure patterns. Closest to the body is one bone. It extends and is connected to a combination of two bones. Ultimately, at the end are typically five bones, although sometimes a few of these are removed. These patterns do not represent evolution! They represent God’s demonstration of His creativity! He takes a common structure, such as forelimbs, and has wide ranging variations within it. However, these variations are not continuous, as evolutionary theory would lead us to expect. They are separate, distinct variations based on a common theme. For instance, an anatomist can normally immediately identify which family a particular bone came from and sometimes its genus and species. This would be difficult to do if the changes between fish and men were gradual and continual. A creationist finds beauty in the way God mixes order—the common bone structural plan—with variation—how it varies between the needs of different kinds of animals. True comparative anatomy is more consistent with the Biblical kinds in 6) above than is evolution. The changes in patterns occur in discrete jumps, not continuous modifications. This is why an anatomist can immediately recognize where a particular bone belongs. Incidentally, Darwin observed these discrete jumps in Origin of Species. He was so bothered by them that he devoted a complete chapter to the problem they presented. He concluded that they represented an argument that could reasonably be used against his theory. He was right! The variations show God’s creativity, not evolutionary changes! Darwin should have listened to his concerns instead of struggling how to explain them away. Praise God for His beautiful works! If life cannot appear spontaneously, naturalism is dead. This would demonstrate that natural, materialistic processes are in themselves incapable of generating life. In this case, science would demonstrate that materialism is not sufficient to explain everything. If there are no living cells to evolve, then general evolution (macroevolution) cannot take place. This changes all of the “rules of the game.” Furthermore, the testimony of science and engineering taken together lead straight to the understanding the a personal, living God is the Creator of life as well as the universe it lives within. True science glorifies God, it does not provide ammunition to attack Him.
    https://www.trbap.org/OOL.pdf page 19
    #200     Jun 12, 2022
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.