I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: -
'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’
There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at any time BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT)
NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend.
From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it? Would you believe it?
I must admit that I am not clear on what the question is that you would my response to as you have posed a few but I am guessing that the main question that you are seeking an answer from me is -
A.) “why do I abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?”
and then written a second time in a recent post as: -
B.) “so I must repeat myself by asking you once more; why is it you believe something that has no facts to back it, rather than that which does?”
I am puzzled as it is question A.) that I have already answered in detail with corroborating evidence. Please let me know if you would like the references to the sources of the information that I have provided in my answer as I would be happy to provide them to you. But to again answer the same question, all I can do is repeat it for you below: -
Question: - “why do I abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?”
Well to answer that I must first point out that I emphatically reject the premise embedded in your question. The truth of the matter is that rigorous scientific endeavour adequately demonstrates that evolution in the big picture sense, (i.e. evolution over eons of time from primordial soup to humans) is impossible because sound scientific research such as that performed by world leading geneticist Professor John Sanford clearly shows that DEVOLUTION is actually what we observe, i.e. the process is traveling in precisely the opposite direction to that which is claimed by the masses who accept evolution as fact.
Complex specified genetic information is constantly and inexorably being lost from genomes and in addition to this scientific FACT, ALL genomes across our amazingly diverse biological planet are accumulating a genetic burden of mutational information errors that will eventually result in species extinction.
So, contrary to the assertion that is implicit in your loaded question it is in fact those that have put their faith in the religion of evolution that are abiding on the side that has no facts; for example, where are all the supposed billions of transitional forms in all the fossils now unearthed across the planet?
It is worth also considering the amazing fact that the description of the Creation and the great flood in the Bible precisely fits much of what we know today in the fields of astrophysics, geology and palaeontology when we study the universe and the rocks and fossils in this present time.
The one thing that always amazes me is that whenever I watch a nature documentary, or a travel advertorial or an action movie made in some far flung part of our world I see pencil sharp geologic strata on regional and continental scales. When I travel to other parts of the world, I see everywhere sharply straight and clean laminations of geologic sedimentary strata on exposed cliffs, cuttings, mines, mountain ranges, coastlines etc. where the sedimentary strata are evident for ALL to see.
Yet what is taught in schools and universities is that these geologic features were formed over millenia from slow and gradual processes, yet it is intuitively obvious and scientifically demonstrable through rigorous and repeatable flume tank experiments that these strata were rapidly laid down by a global catastrophic event in a very short period of time that has led to fantastically well preserved fossils and soft tissues such as unmineralized dinosaur soft tissues.
H'mmm sounds a lot like the great flood described by the historical narrative in the Bible to me. The evidence is everywhere. It is the framework within which you interpret the data that will determine what you believe. If you were taught, (dare I say brainwashed into believing) that life evolved over billions of years from slow and gradual naturalistic processes, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework. If you read the Bible and look at the world around you within a Biblical historical framework, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework.
The evidence is the same for both, it is the worldview you have, the biases, axioms that you believe that underpin how you will interpret the data.
From my own personal journey, I was once in your camp, and believed evolution, but over decades of research, I have come to see that it is in fact evolution that is in error.
As the authors P. Price & R. Carter ended the article in my previous post rightly summed up: -
“Ultimately, it is not science that determines what people believe about the past; it is their heart. Will they accept the testimony of both reason and Scripture, or will they grasp at straws to deny these by claiming that life needed no Designer?”
That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence supporting the Bible, the Bible is self-consistent and the historical narrative in Genesis is precisely consistent with what we observe in the world today. The enormous deposits of coal and oil on every continent including Antarctica in sedimentary basins across each continent on a truly enormous scale are a testament to the global flood. I have photographed open cut coal mines and never cease to be amazed at the sharp start and stop of each coal seam. I know of examples of inverted coalified polystrate tree trunks in coal basins that make it obvious to anyone that the strata were laid down rapidly by an event that in some areas deposited thousands of feet of sedimentary layers on top of them, all the layers of which are sharply delineated from each other, i.e. they were obviously laid down rapidly in a short space of time. The Bible informs us that it all happened within one calendar year, i.e. within 365 days.
I could go on, with much more evidence but I hope that you will see that there is in fact good reason for those of us to believe that the Bible means what it says in the historical narratives such as we see in Genesis.
Faith is not blind; it is based on good science, sound reasoning and logic.
Presently, there are many (hundreds, maybe thousands), of professional scientists doing rigorous scientific research who publish peer reviewed papers in secular journals that believe that this world is young, (about 6,000 years old) and life was created by a supernatural act of God who spoke it all into being, who holds the universe in existence right now through the might of His knowledge and power.
---------
The above reproduction of my response to your original question (A.) has thoroughly answered your question and must reassert that global scale volumes of evidence exist in the geology of our planet. As stated before, all parties have the same evidence, it is the worldview glasses through which you view the evidence that will determine what you see and what you believe.
The earths crustal rocks and the billions of fossils unearthed that now reside in museums and collections around the world strongly support the Biblical historical narrative that a rapid catastrophic event involving flood inundation and tectonic movement and volcanic eruption on a global scale.
I must also admit that contrary to you claims that you have provided empirical evidence, I do not see it.
Also, you have not in any way answered my two questions. I’m sorry but your vague claims about evolution and energy don’t really explain anything.
Could you please answer specifically the two questions, pasted below again: -
1.) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find billions of transitional forms of creatures in the sediments across this planet?
Should you not answer these two questions specifically, I suggest that there is little point in continuing this debate because of necessity the evidence supporting either side of the debate must be based on sound scientific method, empirically measurable data where possible and referenced peer reviewed published papers supporting the proofs or evidence for your position.
You also incorrectly state in your last post, “When you instigate sedimentary strata as proof of God's existence,”
This is another misrepresentation of what I said, the sedimentary strata are clear evidence for a watery catastrophe on a massive scale that we do not observe happening today, that is remarkably consistent with the global flood, i.e. covering the entire planet as described in Genesis in the Bible.
You keep on talking about “this energy” without ever once referencing any research or clarifying precisely what you mean. The statements that you are making are akin to eastern mysticism and in truth have very little if anything to do with real scientific endeavour.
It has been an interesting exercise, but I do not see anything useful at all coming from continuing this dialogue, however, I would still be interested in hearing your answers to the two questions 1.) & 2.) above should you become more specific and scientific in your answers rather than only providing vague, glossed over assertions about "this energy".
Hello burrawang, you're right , the debate has been engaging. First of all let me give you a short example of what energy is, but I think you already know.
The total energy of a system includes the sum of kinetic energies alowing the potential energy function, corresponding to the situation - the Hamiltonian.
The number of photons is proportional to the frequency of light. The energy of each proton is proportional to its frequency value for all possible locations. It is also used in wave function as a tool for computing probabilities - mostly associated with plant life. 'Does Stanford ever mention this?' (Quantum entanglement.)
There is a binary condition with evolution - the energy and its end product, life. I question Stanford's conclusion without knowing which part he was referring to, but my guess is life, because like you he didn't consider the other half when making his decisions. It's akin to the way you just consider sedimentary strata and it's association with the wrath of a God, when knowing the real evidence shows a very different picture.
I am disappointed with your refusal to accept the presence of energy in your debating process, but I guess it is your way of avoiding my question. Your religion is not letting you be honest.
You are right, this debate has nowhere to go, but all the best for the future.
are you able to supply any empirical evidence that you could share on this site to support your claims?
It is unfortunate the straightforward two questions I have sincerely put to you have not really been answered in any way, shape or form.
I would still very much appreciate your provision of specific answers with supporting evidence to the specific two questions, that are again below: -
1.) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information on all the genomes was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find any of the necessary billions upon billions of transitional forms of the allegedly evolving diversity of plant and animal creatures in the sediments across this planet?
You ask for empirical evidence; energy and its function is empirical evidence. My deductions are based on this empirical evidence and yours are not. This is the reason for my question which has not been answered.
When you instigate sedimentary strata as proof of God's existence, you are twisting the truth to suit what you believe and not what is true. Knowing this universal energy with its abilities and containment, I can predict with almost 100% certainty that not only Earth and Mars have the same strata, but so do many planets throughout the universe. I am not being derogatory when I suggest that you must stop making things fit with what you believe or you will go on digging deeper and deeper until there is no way back. Religion has done this down the ages, causing the most horrible atrocities in its wake and still is functioning in this way in many parts of the world. I am not targeting any individual religion, I mean all religion.
The genome and its genetic material are like everything else in the universe subjected to this energy and this energy has to conform to its level of sustainment or otherwise it would have to mutate, but of course this could never happen - energy cannot be eradicated, which is the reason that the diversity in nature is held in constant motion.
When you answer my question could you also confirm your answer with empirical evidence?
thank you for reply, I wish you well but I must expose the untruthful misrepresentations of my posts.
You state, “You ask about fine tuning”, however, I never asked you about “fine tuning”, but fine tuning was mentioned by Dr John Sanford in the text I quoted by him. John Sanford was making the point that, on very rare occasions a beneficial mutation may occur that has enough selectable effect, i.e. the effect of the mutation is of sufficient enough magnitude that it is able to be selected for that as a consequence results in an adaptive variation to an individual in a population that if passed on to successive generations can be described as some degree of fine-tuning within that populations fitness in its environment. John makes the point also that these very rare beneficial mutations also help to slow degeneration of the genomes of the part of the population with these mutations.
For you to state in your last post: -
“You ask about fine tuning, again without an explanation this suggests a belief in something supernatural - this is doing what I mentioned before about the jewel beetle; you are doing the same thing because you have no other answer. (The God of the gaps serves no other purpose than to tell everyone you have no evidence to the contrary.)”
the above quoted section from your post clearly indicates a complete lack of comprehension of what I actually wrote and a lack of understanding of basic genetics. I most definitely do not subscribe to any “God of the gaps” theory, nor have I ever mentioned anything of the sort, that is merely your incorrect interpretation of demonstrably repeatable scientific fact, i.e. that selection can bring about fine tuning within genomes on rare occasions; nothing more and nothing less than that straightforward demonstrably repeatable scientific fact.
Contrary to the charge that you make against my posts, what is clearly evident in your posts is a complete lack of cogent explanation and absolutely zero supportive evidence.
I see that you have made absolutely no attempt at answering the two straightforward questions that I put to you in my previous post. As you appear to be so sure of yourself to the point of being derogatory toward God who made everything including you and me, I would be most interested to hear your explanation of those same two questions, repeated below: -
1.) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information on all the genomes was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find any of the necessary billions upon billions of transitional forms of the allegedly evolving diversity of plant and animal creatures in the sediments across this planet?
I'm sorry if I mislead you, but I was not being derogatory, it's the subject of the debate that sometimes needs bluntness to get across a point.
I will answer your questions, and I know you will respond the same, perhaps in your reply.
I apologise if I misunderstood your term 'deep time.' it conveyed to me the time that evolving took to hide the transitions of which you wrote. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The reason I used 'fine tuning' is because 'deep time' if i guessed right was just another extension of life's evolving. I have gone over the attributes of energy and its universal pattern and it is this pattern that governs all energy, even individual pockets. Your TV, radio, lightning and even a torch has to obey this pattern, which is dictated by the laws of the universe, Evolution is one of these pockets of energy and has to adhere to this pattern, otherwise intelligent life cannot exist. Forget evolution has different species, they are one energy. If you see a watch you don't start to engage with its innards, you just accept it as a watch. It's only when you start to question the way it works do you try to find out its secrets. It's the same with evolution, but by subjecting it to the God of the gaps is where religion fails us in our attempt to progress and has done for centuries - how much more advanced we could have been without religion. The fine tuning that governs our universe is the same energy that drives evolution and that is why the universe and evolution are 'fine tuned.'
I think that answers both your questions -the genome and it chemical mixes are all slaves to this energy. The pattern is self-serving in its ability to function and all energy is bound by these rules, even evolution. The diversity comes from self serving; it has nothing to do with a God.
Sorry about the misunderstanding, I hope you can now answer my question- how can you believe in something that is not demonstrable, to something that is?
You say that you agree with my summation of natural selection, therefore it would appear that you agree with what Professor John Sanford (a leading scientist in this field) says, [repeated here to make the point]: -“Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration. Additionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation arises that has enough effect to be selected for—resulting in some adaptive variation, or some degree of fine-tuning. This also helps to slow degeneration. But selection only eliminates a very small fraction of the bad mutations. The overwhelming majority of bad mutations accumulate relentlessly, being much too subtle—of too small an effect—to significantly affect their persistence. On the flip side, almost all beneficials (to the extent they occur) are immune to the selection process—because they invariably cause only tiny increases in biological functionality. So most beneficials drift out of the population and are lost—even in the presence of intense selection. This raises the question—since most information-bearing nucleotides [DNA ‘letters’] make an infinitesimally small contribution to the genome—how did they get there, and how do they stay there through “deep time”?”
I have two questions for you.
1) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information on all the genomes was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find any of the necessary billions upon billions of transitional forms of the allegedly evolving diversity of plant and animal creatures in the sediments across this planet?
We humans are beings with free will. We have been created that way. The once very good creation was marred by sin when Adam disobeyed God. That is how sin happened and the corruption of a once very good world began, and it continues to this very day throughout all of creation.
I may be wrong but I believe that is the only way it could have been created if we are to have true free choice/freewill as we do. For God to truly make us autonomous as He has done, the almost inevitable consequence of that is that we all will fall short of being righteous and holy.
It is only through real repentance and acceptance of Jesus sacrifice for our own sins on the cross that we can be saved. It is through His grace that we are offered salvation, it is not through anything we can do except believe and accept the free gift of salvation provided for us by our creator and redeemer Jesus Christ.
With respect Burrawang you did not equate with my question - what you are demonstrating is the incompetence of your God. If he had made everything perfect, there would be no need for free will afterwards, it would have been granted in the first place. His incompetence if true, is beyond description for an omnipotent being. To deny this is to deny logic - as your religion eaten into your demonstrative state to an extent where you are confusing reality to an illusion?
Another question about free will - does free will exist in Heaven? If it does then nothing changes after death and if it doesn't, then we won't be the people we are now, because without purpose intelligent life cannot exist. Your Heaven would be Hell.
You ask about fine tuning, again without an explanation this suggests a belief in something supernatural - this is doing what I mentioned before about the jewel beetle; you are doing the same thing because you have no other answer. (The God of the gaps serves no other purpose than to tell everyone you have no evidence to the contrary.) Evolution is driven as a one energy system, just like anything else in the universe and the fine tuning is a result of the laws that govern that energy. I have gone over this in many of my letters, which for some reason is never addressed in logical references. (The God of the gaps is not an answer, it is an assumption.)
I am stating facts, but you are relying on something that cannot be proved (Supernatural.) and so I must repeat myself by asking you once more; why is it you believe something that has no facts to back it, rather than that which does?
The relevant part of that article by Dr Jonathan Sarfati from Chapter 8 his book Refuting Evolution states: -
“Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars that carved out canyons although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.”
You may also not be aware that Jesus Himself endorsed the Flood as a real event, the Ark as a real ship, and Noah as a real person—See the New Testament in Luke 17:26-27 at this hyperlink Luke 17:26–27
Some other interesting and relevant articles on Mars can be found at: -
I find myself in complete agreement with you in your summing up of natural selection, but I am more concerned with your denial of evolution.
I won't dwell on the inevitable, that has been discussed over many generations. This is concerning the validity of the bible, with it's 'indisputable' claims of subjugation and no demonstrative evidence to substantiate it. I will however bring forth your Adam myth and try to make you see beyond the hypocrisy of your belief.
I think this one subject will suffice.
If things were perfect before sin, how could sin ever happen? With respect, the logic behind this is not worthy of the most naive mind, let alone that of a God and most certainly not that of a human being. It is obvious the myth was established to explain what was mistaken for the 'fragility' of mankind, but 'not seeing accurately' it was mistaken for the very thing that gives intelligent life its purpose, its strength; the food on which intelligence feeds. Without the quest for perfection, there can be no you or me and your God should know this.
My second worry is your excuse when referring to sedimentary strata. Most of this is caused by weather erosion and deposition processes. Our exploration of space has only just begun and already your flood theory that's confined to a God's retribution is showing signs of being found wanting. How many more planets have we got to find before religion accepts the facts and not the myth? With each discovery will come the whittling of your religion until you will have to concede. It will save a lot of future embarrassment if religion admitted it now.
Though you look on the loss of religion as a travesty; time will heal and you will learn to accept the real treasures that life can offer.
Without trying to sound religious myself, we are part of the energy which drives evolution and that energy is indestructible, which in a very loose term, means our energy does not die either, only we die.
You are absolutely correct with your statement “When mutations occur in our DNA, it is mostly the reason for some impediment”. Thank you for acknowledging that scientifically demonstrable fact.
It must be pointed out that natural selection has a conservative role in culling heavily defective organisms, but natural selection is NOT a creative force because the overwhelming majority of mutations are too small to be affected by natural selection.
As Professor John Sanford (a leading scientist in this field) says, “Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration. Additionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation arises that has enough effect to be selected for—resulting in some adaptive variation, or some degree of fine-tuning. This also helps to slow degeneration. But selection only eliminates a very small fraction of the bad mutations. The overwhelming majority of bad mutations accumulate relentlessly, being much too subtle—of too small an effect—to significantly affect their persistence. On the flip side, almost all beneficials (to the extent they occur) are immune to the selection process—because they invariably cause only tiny increases in biological functionality. So most beneficials drift out of the population and are lost—even in the presence of intense selection. This raises the question—since most information-bearing nucleotides [DNA ‘letters’] make an infinitesimally small contribution to the genome—how did they get there, and how do they stay there through “deep time”?”
You have made an incorrect assumption about me in your statement, “I know that you think these changes come from some divine power”, as I actually believe that the changes we observe in the genomes of organisms in the biosphere come about from environmental impacts and random point mutations (typographical errors in the DNA letters ATCG) that are incessantly occurring every generation and are demonstrably accumulating in a compounding manner.
To answer your wonderment “why an omnipotent being could not have got it right in the first place and made everything perfect,“ the historical record given to us by God in the form of the Bible informs us that God did get it right in the first place, it was all very good, and as the Bible tells us, it was only the disobedience of our ancestor Adam that brought imperfection into the universe that necessitated through incomprehensible Love towards us by the Creator Himself, Jesus Christ, (the Second Adam) who came to earth as a man to pay the price of Adams (and our inherited) sins by allowing Himself who was holy, blameless and sinless to be put to death by ungodly men as a propitiation for all of mankinds sins. Wonderfully, He rose again from the dead as death could not hold Him, and He is reaching out to every one of us at this very moment to come to Him.
There are many that claim we are not seeing things clearly and to some degree they are correct, when we look at an object such as a dam wall or a skyscraper or hammer or a coffee cup, it appears to be made of continuously solid matter, but we know from rigorous studies in physics that all matter is made up of atoms and atoms themselves are 99.9999999999999 percent empty space.
So things are not always as they seem, but to extrapolate from that or head down the path that some Eastern religions go that claim everything is an illusion or a thought, or variations on that theme such as expressed by some modern day cognitive science theorists that evolution has effectively removed our perceptions from being an accurate understanding of reality is most definitely not for me! For one the latter assumes evolution as fact which it demonstrably is not, in fact it is a thoroughly disproven theory at any level, Darwinian or otherwise.
Evolution belief only persists in academia and the general public through continual and repetitive bombardment in schools, universities and multi-media, but it most definitely does not remain in our culture from testable hypotheses that rigorously follow the scientific method.
Evolution theory is really nothing more than religious dogma, it is in the realm of metaphysics, not physics and most definitely not biology; in fact studies in biology or more specifically, genetics absolutely disprove evolution. Therefore, any theory that has at its core evolutionary theory is demonstrably falsified.
Thanks Jonathan, it's good to have a little time to join in the discussion! I have recently returned from visiting a number of South Pacific Island nations and could not help but notice evidence for the great flood of Noah even on these relatively small patches of land in the middle of that vast ocean.
Upon reading your post, it appears that you may have missed the point, that the information present in all life forms could not have originated via an evolutionary naturalistic mechanism, because information does not consist of matter, i.e. it has no mass, it is real but it is independent of the medium and mode of its transmission.
You have requested that I answer your question, “why do I abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?”
Well to answer that I must first point out that I emphatically reject the premise embedded in your question. The truth of the matter is that rigorous scientific endeavour adequately demonstrates that evolution in the big picture sense, (i.e. evolution over eons of time from primordial soup to human) is impossible because sound scientific research such as that performed by world leading geneticist Professor John Sanford clearly shows that DEVOLUTION is actually what we observe, i.e. the process is traveling in precisely the opposite direction to that which is claimed by the masses who accept evolution as fact.
Complex specified genetic information is constantly and inexorably being lost from genomes and in addition to this scientific FACT, ALL genomes across our amazingly diverse biological planet are accumulating a genetic burden of mutational information errors that will eventually result in species extinction.
So, contrary to the assertion that is implicit in your loaded question it is in fact those that have put their faith in the religion of evolution that are abiding on the side that has no facts; for example, where are all the supposed billions of transitional forms in all the fossils now unearthed across the planet?
It is worth also considering the amazing fact that the description of the Creation and the great flood in the Bible precisely fits much of what we know today in the fields of astrophysics, geology and palaeontology when we study the universe and the rocks and fossils in this present time.
The one thing that always amazes me is that whenever I watch a nature documentary, or a travel advertorial or an action movie made in some far flung part of our world I see pencil sharp geologic strata on regional and continental scales. When I travel to other parts of the world, I see everywhere sharply straight laminations of geologic sedimentary strata on exposed cliffs, cuttings, mines, mountain ranges, coastlines etc. where the sedimentary strata are evident for ALL to see.
Yet what is taught in schools and universities is that these geologic features were formed over millenia from slow and gradual processes, yet it is intuitively obvious and scientifically demonstrable through rigorous and repeatable flume tank experiments that these strata were rapidly laid down by a global catastrophic event in a very short period of time that has led to fantastically well preserved fossils and soft tissues such as unmineralized dinosaur soft tissues.
H'mmm sounds a lot like the great flood described by the historical narrative in the Bible to me. The evidence is everywhere. It is the framework within which you interpret the data that will determine what you believe. If you were taught, (dare I say indoctrinatedinto believing) that life evolved over billions of years from slow and gradual naturalistic processes, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework. If you read the Bible and look at the world around you within a Biblical historical framework, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework.
The evidence is the same for both, it is the worldview you have, the biases, axioms that you believe that underpin how you will interpret the data.
From my own personal journey, I was once in your camp, and believed evolution, but over decades of research, I have come to see that it is in fact evolution that is in error.
As the authors P. Price & R. Carter ended the article in my previous post rightly summed up: -
“Ultimately, it is not science that determines what people believe about the past; it is their heart. Will they accept the testimony of both reason and Scripture, or will they grasp at straws to deny these by claiming that life needed no Designer?”
That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence supporting the Bible, the Bible is self-consistent and the historical narrative in Genesis is precisely consistent with what we observe in the world today. The enormous deposits of coal and oil on every continent including Antarctica in sedimentary basins across each continent on a truly enormous scale are a testament to the global flood. I have photographed open cut coal mines and never cease to be amazed at the sharp start and stop of each coal seam. I know of examples of inverted coalified polystrate tree trunks in coal basins that make it obvious to anyone that the strata were laid down rapidly by an event that in some areas deposited thousands of feet of sedimentary layers on top of them, all the layers of which are sharply delineated from each other, i.e. they were obviously laid down rapidly in a short space of time. The Bible informs us that it all happened within one calendar year, i.e. within 365 days.
I could go on, with much more evidence but I hope that you will see that there is in fact good reason for those of us to believe that the Bible means what it says in the historical narratives such as we see in Genesis.
Faith is not blind; it is based on good science, sound reasoning and logic.
Presently, there are many (hundreds, maybe thousands), of professional scientists doing rigorous scientific research who publish peer reviewed papers in secular journals that believe that this world is young, (about 6,000 years old) and life was created by a supernatural act of God who spoke it all into being, who holds the universe in existence right now through the might of His knowledge and power.
@Jonathan Schulz When researching 'Dreams of the future' and comparing them, I realized that the only way to explain the illusion they portray was by connecting life as one energy. Evolution is driven in the same way that we conduct ourselves. We are an individual pocket of energy serving in a complete energy system which is evolution and this entire system acts the same as ourselves, like one individual. This explains the diversity of life, because life is one energy and not the diversity that we see; it is another example of not seeing accurately. This kinetic energy system (Evolution.) that is a part of the absolute energy system that is the universe, adheres to the laws of the universe. The pattern that all energy has to obey is the clue to life's diversity, there is no diversity. (Depends on if you are seeing accurately.)
What we see is one life with all its levels that allow that energy to survive, because without these different levels, life's energy would implode just like a star.
You ask about the subconscious; the subconscious is the source of these 'Dreams of the future.' and nature never does anything without a purpose. It may seem so at times and this is when we turn to the supernatural. (Religion) which stops us from searching for the truth and can only be overcome by missing out on religion. I've described the experience that my wife and I had and that too implies that 'Ghosts also come from the subconscious. What I find exciting about this is, because nature only acts on our behalf, then there must be an answer to all this if only we can escape the chains of illusion for the freedom of reality. There has to be an answer to any problem, because the one justifies the other.
@Jonathan Schulz The subconscious will have to take the centre stage because the 'dreams of the future' and 'ghosts' come from that source. I have written about the experience that my wife and I had with 'ghosts.' All the evidence proves this to be true. What I find exciting about these new discoveries is that I know that anything nature does is for our benefit. I realize now that 'dreams of the future' are pointing to life's connection as one, but 'ghosts' are still a mystery. The mind boggles at the thought of what 'ghosts' are telling us and I can't wait to find out.
With respect Jonathan, life's too exciting to let religion get in my way.
An excellent, cogent and very well expressed article published 26 November 2019 (GMT+10) is titled "What would count as ‘new information’ in genetics?" by Paul Price and Robert Carter (RC) logically shows the absurd shortfalls in the belief that genetic information in the diverse range of genomes wrote itself over time from random genetic mutations and natural selection as claimed by adherents to Darwinian evolution. The article can be found at https://creation.com/new-information-genetics with references to the text
This article is also below, (without references): -
As biblical creationists, we often like to point out that ‘information’ is a notoriously hard-to-define term. Several authors have tried to grapple with this. As far back as 1993, Walter ReMine wrote a book called The Biotic Message that explained what type of information we would expect to see if a Designer had created life. Since then, Werner Gitt has given us the Scientific Laws of Information, and Royal Truman has written extensively on Information Theory. Hence, creationists talk about information, a lot.
This will often start an argument. Darwinists rarely, if ever, talk about ‘information’. They are quick to point out that DNA can change. Thus, they claim, there is either no ‘information’ in DNA or the information can be seen to change in a Darwinian fashion. Some creationists like to say, “Mutations cannot create information. They only destroy information.” But this is a very weak argument. All the evolutionist has to do is point out an example of a DNA duplication and, suddenly, there is an “increase” in information content.
It is true that the information content of the cell can change, and it is true that mutations may add ‘information’ to the genome. However, as I (RC) wrote, the changes we see are not “the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” There are several known examples of mutations that allegedly cause a gain of function, but these arose from corrupted genetic information. For example, recent work done at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, published earlier this year, claimed to show the evolution of a brand-new gene that conferred the ability to digest a new type of sugar upon yeast. However, Cserhati’s and my (RC) analysis concluded that the study “only demonstrated that existing genetic information can be reshuffled.” There are many similar examples in the scientific literature, but they do not represent anything genuinely new. Yet, clearly, all our genetic information had to come from somewhere, originally.
Information is impossible to quantify!
Skeptics often challenge creationists, “If information is decreasing, what is the rate of its decrease?” Another similar objection is, “Can you quantify the changes in the information content of the cell?”
This line of questioning successfully cuts to the heart of the matter. They claim our inability to define information robustly means information does not exist. We claim the information content of living things disproves random mutations as the source of that information. Who’s right? The most difficult area in the debate over information comes down to our ability (or lack of ability) to definitively define or quantify biological information.
As I (RC) wrote: -
"When dealing with this subject, in most cases evolutionists use a statistical measure called Shannon Information. This was a concept invented by the brilliant electronic engineer C.E. Shannon in the middle of the 20th century, who was trying to answer questions about how much data one could stuff into a radio wave or push through a wire. Despite common usage, Shannon’s ideas of information have little to do with biological information."
Why would we say Shannon’s ideas have little to do with biological information? Because Shannon’s measure was not truly a measure of information (in the sense of immaterial ideas), but rather a quantification of things that lend themselves to simple metrics (e.g. binary computer code).
For example, the English word “squirrel” and the German word “Eichhörnchen” both ‘code for’ the same information content (they refer to the same animal), yet if we use a Shannon measure we will get different results for each word because they use different numbers of letters. In this way we can see that any way of quantifying information that depends upon counting up letters is going to miss the mark. There is something intangible, immeasurable even, in the concept of ‘squirrel’. We humans have the habit of arriving at a conclusion (i.e. “That is a squirrel”) without bothering with the details (i.e. “What is the information content of that small gray rodent?”). We intuitively understand abstract levels of information, yet we struggle to define what it means at the most basic level.
So, on the one hand, the answer is no. When considering the decay of biological information over time, we cannot quantify the rate of decrease, because information, at its base, is an immaterial concept which does not lend itself to that kind of mathematical treatment.
On the other hand, the answer is yes, we can sometimes quantify information when we have something simple to measure. Biologists have long struggled with quantifying what they are studying. They can measure the size or shape of a wing, or the lifespan of an animal in the wild. That is not hard to put a number on. But they cannot say how much ‘information’ is in the genomes of living things. We can create summary statistics of things in the genome, and use that as a proxy for the information content, but this is only scratching the surface.
Let’s illustrate that information can increase and decrease
What quantity is the color red? Or the feeling of sadness? These are concepts, and information is conceptual. Yet, paradoxically, it obviously can both increase and decrease in both quality and quantity!
How do you quantify ideas? How many ideas have you had in your mind so far today? This is the quandary: it’s self-evidently true that ideas are quantifiable in the sense that they can increase or decrease in number and clarity. Perhaps a couple of clear examples of information increase will suffice to make the point:
Example 1:
A man in a coma, existing in a dreamless unconscious state, compared to a man who is conscious
During a 24-hour period, which of these two men will have had more information, or ideas, go through their minds? The answer is clearly the second man. The first man will not have had any information in his mind during that period of time.
Example 2:
A 30-page children’s book compared to a 1000-page encyclopedia
Which of these two books contains more information? Clearly the second. Yet how do you quantify this difference in information without resorting to quantifying the medium (like counting pages or counting words or counting letters)? It is entirely possible to convey more information in fewer words, so how can one know the children’s book has less information? Word count cannot tell you, but in this case you intuitively know it at a glance.
Information is carried in so many complex ways (syntax, grammar, contextual clues, etc.) that it staggers the mind to contemplate actually trying to quantify it in an objective way. Yet this is what the skeptic asks us to do. This is an attempt at obfuscation to avoid grappling with the obvious fact that life is built upon the foundation of information. In fact, life is information.
Is our DNA code really ‘information’?
Some skeptics will resort to simply denying that the DNA truly carries any information, claiming this is just a creationist mental construct. The fact that DNA data storage technology is now being implemented on a massive scale is sufficient to prove that DNA stores data (information). In fact, information can be stored more densely in a drop of DNA-containing water than it can on any computer hard drive. To allow that humans may use DNA to store our own digital information, yet to disallow that our genomes contain ‘information’, would be a blatant instance of special pleading.
What would a real, genuine increase look like?
To get back to the skeptics’ main question: what would real increases in information look like? I submit that to answer this, just sit at a computer and watch yourself type out a paragraph in a word processor.
Mutations are incremental; they are small changes that happen in a stepwise fashion as cells divide and generations multiply. The genetic code consists of letters (A,T,C,G), just like our own English language has an alphabet. But here is the central problem—it takes hindsight to recognize whether function or meaning is really present. Watch this transformation:
--Begin--
1 H
2 HO
3 HOU
4 HOUS
5 HOUSE
--End--
At what point in that series did you understand the meaning? Perhaps you guessed it at step 4, but you would have been lucky, for you did not know if a word like housing or household was about to appear. It didn’t become totally clear until step 5, when a full word was spelled and the program ended. There’s no real way to say, before you’ve already reached step 5, that ‘genuine information’ is being added.
Mutations suffer from this same problem. But there’s an even bigger problem: in order to achieve a meaningful word in a stepwise fashion (let alone sentences or paragraphs), it requires foresight. I have to already know I want to say “house” before I begin typing the word. But in Neo-Darwinism, that is disallowed. Mutations must be random and unguided. Due to the sheer number of possible nonsense words, you cannot expect to achieve any meaningful results from a series of random mutations.
What if you were told that each letter in the above example were being added at random? Would you believe it? Probably not, for this is, statistically and by all appearances, an entirely non random set of letters. This illustrates yet another issue: any series of mutations that produced a meaningful and functional outcome would then be rightly suspected, due to the issue of foresight, of not being random.
Any instance of such a series of mutations producing something that is both genetically coherent as well as functional in the context of already existing code, would count as evidence of design, and against the idea that mutations are random.
Natural selection is not random, but neither can it create information
Darwinism requires that random mutations over long periods of time create decidedly non-random sets of information. The skeptic may retort here, “Yes, but evolution is not random because natural selection is not random.” Yet, natural selection cannot come to the rescue here, because it is a mindless process with no foresight or agency. It is just a term referring to the differential reproduction that happens naturally in the world. “Differential reproduction” is not a mind with foresight that can implement meaningful concepts over time. In fact, as Sanford points out in his book Genetic Entropy, natural selection cannot “see” most mutations, since their effect is so small as to have no appreciable impact on the overall phenotype of the organism. He referred to this as the ‘Princess and the Nucleotide Paradox’. So even if natural selection is not ‘random’, so what? It is powerless to stop the slow degradation of genetic information in the first place.
Gene duplications do not change the overall picture
Another escape for the evolutionist is to appeal to gene duplication, which we know happens from time to time. But duplicated genes are ripe for deletion (because one copy is not needed), and deletion mutations are quite common. Point mutations are also common, much more common, in fact, than duplications. And most point mutations do not have a profound enough effect to be acted upon by natural selection:
“In terms of evolutionary dynamics, however, mutations whose effects are very small … are expected to be dominated by drift rather than selection.”
Thus, the duplicated gene still cannot escape the problem of genetic entropy. Also, since gene copy number has a dramatic effect on cellular control, most gene duplications are probably harmful. Down Syndrome is a classic case of a nearly fatal duplication that has a drastic effect on phenotype. Individuals with Down Syndrome have an extra copy of one of the smallest chromosomes, 21, which carries maybe 300 genes.
The “information” argument cannot be answered by the evolutionist, yet neither is it easy to define for the creationist; but it is self-evident that information exists (in general), is present as the foundation of our genetics, and can both increase and decrease in quantity (regardless of our ability to define a precise rate for it).
As Gerrish et al. wrote,
“Even the simplest of living organisms are highly complex. Mutations—indiscriminate alterations of such complexity—are much more likely to be harmful than beneficial.”
This underscores the fact that evolutionists have an insurmountable hurdle in attempting to explain the origin of the vast quantities of complex functional information in the genome.
Ultimately, it is not science that determines what people believe about the past; it is their heart. Will they accept the testimony of both reason and Scripture, or will they grasp at straws to deny these by claiming that life needed no Designer?
The above article adequately demonstrates the absolute necessity for a Designer, Author, Creator when considering the question, "How did life originate!"
Hello burrawang. Thank you for your reply which I have read and digested.
It would be monumental if it was discovered 'How did life originate.' and I totally agree with you, I don't know, but neither does religion. Faith is not a reliable pathway to the truth and once you have made a decision based with no evidence to back it up,; you are stuck with it forever. This is my main objection to religion. It is the myopic stance that is responsible for most of the harm in the world and that harm is still happening.
I shall try to demonstrate using facts, to tell how evolution can work; of which I am convinced is the answer and takes president over all the undemonstrative 'evidences' put forward by religion.
You make the same mistake that most others do, when subjugated to indoctrination. It may be of some interest to know that I do not go along with all that Darwin writes; I tend to question everything before making a decision. This resolving of life's equation brings forth many falsifications and fabrications in our quest for clarity. After much research I find religion is in both these categories.
To put it simply, energy is the absolute of the universe and within that universe are pockets of kinetic energy. Evolution is one of these pockets and all energy has to obey the same laws; this means evolution also has to obey.
An example of this is a star - when a star exceeds its volume, gravity causes it to implode and become a Black Hole. This Black Hole will have to eventually decline into the rhythm from where it came, allowing the universe to relax into its stable existence once more. All energy is connected and all will remain, because energy can change its form, but it can never be eradicated. (Look up quantum entanglement for the connection.)
You mention that someone who is conscious gathers more information than someone in a coma, which appears to be correct until you start to see evolution as a one energy system, just like the star. Roughly, half of this energy system is conscious all the time, but all of the subconscious is active all the time, which points to the subconscious being the most important in the greater scheme of things and indeed the most important part of life's energy system. Though you are right when saying the conscious is collecting more information, you are misguided thinking that consciousness is the most important.
If all life reached the same level of intelligence, then intelligent life would cease to exist. Life does not see accurately and it's the struggle against this that gives us purpose and feeds our intelligence, without purpose we would have nowhere to go.
If all life could see accurately it would destroy purpose and like the star, intelligent life would implode. (I mean, become extinct.) All energy has to obey these laws, even evolution and that explains the diversity of life - it is being restricted to the same laws of all energy. Life's energy is governed biologically, but still the same rules apply, this is why I have asked you to look up quantum entanglement. Physicist Richard Feynman was the first to think about all life being connected with his one electron theory, but there was a mismatch between the electrons and positrons which put an end to this theory, however with the advent of quantum entanglement his idea has some bearing on the connection of all life.
Do you see how easy it is to mistake one thing for another, which is what religion is doing? You may find this hard to accept because of your reluctance to give up the faith, but the world is much safer, much more peaceful and much more exciting, going where no man has gone before and going without religion.
Your questions about DNA and the genome start to clear when you start gathering the facts and not leaving it to the God of the gaps - he will lead you to destruction, because he is going against everything that nature is telling us and not even God a can fight the laws of nature. It will also go a long way in explaining most of the supernatural.
I have used facts to substantiate my conclusions - I have a question for you; why do you abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?
Hello oliatokunova! What are your reasons to believe Darwin's theory? I believe that God created every form of life, because science always observes life coming from other life, never emerging from non-life (abiogenesis). God is infinitely alive. DNA is also evidence for life being caused by God. A code (like DNA) is only meaningful if it has a sender who gives it meaning and an intended recipient who can read it. God is the sender and living organisms (who's bodies read the DNA) are the recipients. Most of all my reason is the Bible. An account of God creating life is found in Genesis 1-2.
Hello and welcome oliatokunova, I've been feelings so lonely trying to defend my position which is similar to yours. Most of the C-E debates are weighted in favour of religion.
Would like to hear more of your reasons why you believe in evolution?
The sheer odds of life starting without intelligent agency are so great that we can safely say with confidence that it is impossible. Life is programmed by complex specified information that does NOT arise spontaneously by itself without supremely intelligent authorship; that is basic information theory and is governed by the scientific laws of information. For even the simplest organism there is a massive requirement for encyclopaedic quantities of complex specified information to not only be present in the organism but also a means of encoding, storing and reading that information also needs to be present right from the start. The organism requires the cellular machinery to process the information and have the ability and physical structures to reproduce itself accurately. After looking at the options abounding across cultures on this small but amazing planet that we call our home, I can say that the only satisfactory cogent explanation is that the God of the Bible or more specifically Jesus Christ is the Creator of all life, indeed of everything including time. According to His eyewitness account that He has provided to us in Genesis, this Creation event all happened in what we understand to be six literal Earth days as we know them to be. The creation was a supernatural event!
All the other attempts that have been made to prove abiogenesis have failed miserably and really only prove that the Bibles account is the true history of creation of the universe and life. It’s as simple as that. This view is supported in the new testament by Jesus Himself in the New Testament! He should know as He was the One who did the Creating!!!
An excellent article that describes the mind boggling complexity required for life to begin can be found at: - https://creation.com/origin-of-life that was authored by Dr Don Batten and published on 26th November 2013 (GMT + 10)
I'm not a fan of this argument. It could easily be extended to any natural process that is replicated in the lab, which I think argues more than these YEC publications want to argue. Or to make an analogy, I could set a pair of dice down so that a double-six is face up. Similar logic could be used to argue that "great intelligence is required to produce the double-six", whereas the point of the demonstration is to show that the double-six is, in principle, possible. It could theoretically be the result of rolling the dice 1000 times until it came up "naturally".
The problem I see with abiogenesis research is that there's no true endpoint. If abiogenesis is achieved in the lab, that just proves that it can happen in the lab and can occur in principle. It doesn't really prove anything whatsoever about the origin of life on Earth. Other methods to achieve abiogenesis could also be developed, but there's really no way to conclusively show which, if any, actually occurred with any certainty. There's a phrase in the field that I think is apt: "The origin of life won't be discovered, it will be invented."
Very good points. It consistently appears to me that the that the practice of proving principles really doesn't establish historical fact (for instance, sailing an Egyptian reed boat across the Atlantic ocean does not prove that America was settled by ancient Egyptians, even if it could show that such an event was, in principle, possible).
In some YEC publications, I have encountered the argument that if abiogenesis was effected in the lab, it would only prove that "great intelligence is required to bring life from non-life." I am curious to hear what you think of that argument!
Hi All! My apologies for disappearing. I hope and pray for the Lord's blessings on you all. JES sent me an email reminder that the site is still up and running and has a good question recently posted.
Those of you that know my position on the science of evolution may be a little surprised by my position on abiogenesis. Personally, I believe that the origins of the first cells were entirely a product of God's direct action. Abiogenesis is not a topic I've done a tremendous amount of research on, but to my knowledge
Hi Jonathan and All,
I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: -
'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’
There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at any time BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT)
NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend.
A short Film Trailer is at: https://creation.com/dismantled-movie
From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it? Would you believe it?
The documentary can only be viewed for free at the same link this weekend only. https://creation.com/dismantled-movie
Regards,
Burrawang
Totally agree windar12q,
All the very best!!!
Burrawang
Hi windar12q,
I must admit that I am not clear on what the question is that you would my response to as you have posed a few but I am guessing that the main question that you are seeking an answer from me is -
A.) “why do I abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?”
and then written a second time in a recent post as: -
B.) “so I must repeat myself by asking you once more; why is it you believe something that has no facts to back it, rather than that which does?”
I am puzzled as it is question A.) that I have already answered in detail with corroborating evidence. Please let me know if you would like the references to the sources of the information that I have provided in my answer as I would be happy to provide them to you. But to again answer the same question, all I can do is repeat it for you below: -
Question: - “why do I abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?”
Well to answer that I must first point out that I emphatically reject the premise embedded in your question. The truth of the matter is that rigorous scientific endeavour adequately demonstrates that evolution in the big picture sense, (i.e. evolution over eons of time from primordial soup to humans) is impossible because sound scientific research such as that performed by world leading geneticist Professor John Sanford clearly shows that DEVOLUTION is actually what we observe, i.e. the process is traveling in precisely the opposite direction to that which is claimed by the masses who accept evolution as fact.
Complex specified genetic information is constantly and inexorably being lost from genomes and in addition to this scientific FACT, ALL genomes across our amazingly diverse biological planet are accumulating a genetic burden of mutational information errors that will eventually result in species extinction.
So, contrary to the assertion that is implicit in your loaded question it is in fact those that have put their faith in the religion of evolution that are abiding on the side that has no facts; for example, where are all the supposed billions of transitional forms in all the fossils now unearthed across the planet?
It is worth also considering the amazing fact that the description of the Creation and the great flood in the Bible precisely fits much of what we know today in the fields of astrophysics, geology and palaeontology when we study the universe and the rocks and fossils in this present time.
The one thing that always amazes me is that whenever I watch a nature documentary, or a travel advertorial or an action movie made in some far flung part of our world I see pencil sharp geologic strata on regional and continental scales. When I travel to other parts of the world, I see everywhere sharply straight and clean laminations of geologic sedimentary strata on exposed cliffs, cuttings, mines, mountain ranges, coastlines etc. where the sedimentary strata are evident for ALL to see.
Yet what is taught in schools and universities is that these geologic features were formed over millenia from slow and gradual processes, yet it is intuitively obvious and scientifically demonstrable through rigorous and repeatable flume tank experiments that these strata were rapidly laid down by a global catastrophic event in a very short period of time that has led to fantastically well preserved fossils and soft tissues such as unmineralized dinosaur soft tissues.
H'mmm sounds a lot like the great flood described by the historical narrative in the Bible to me. The evidence is everywhere. It is the framework within which you interpret the data that will determine what you believe. If you were taught, (dare I say brainwashed into believing) that life evolved over billions of years from slow and gradual naturalistic processes, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework. If you read the Bible and look at the world around you within a Biblical historical framework, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework.
The evidence is the same for both, it is the worldview you have, the biases, axioms that you believe that underpin how you will interpret the data.
From my own personal journey, I was once in your camp, and believed evolution, but over decades of research, I have come to see that it is in fact evolution that is in error.
As the authors P. Price & R. Carter ended the article in my previous post rightly summed up: -
“Ultimately, it is not science that determines what people believe about the past; it is their heart. Will they accept the testimony of both reason and Scripture, or will they grasp at straws to deny these by claiming that life needed no Designer?”
That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence supporting the Bible, the Bible is self-consistent and the historical narrative in Genesis is precisely consistent with what we observe in the world today. The enormous deposits of coal and oil on every continent including Antarctica in sedimentary basins across each continent on a truly enormous scale are a testament to the global flood. I have photographed open cut coal mines and never cease to be amazed at the sharp start and stop of each coal seam. I know of examples of inverted coalified polystrate tree trunks in coal basins that make it obvious to anyone that the strata were laid down rapidly by an event that in some areas deposited thousands of feet of sedimentary layers on top of them, all the layers of which are sharply delineated from each other, i.e. they were obviously laid down rapidly in a short space of time. The Bible informs us that it all happened within one calendar year, i.e. within 365 days.
I could go on, with much more evidence but I hope that you will see that there is in fact good reason for those of us to believe that the Bible means what it says in the historical narratives such as we see in Genesis.
Faith is not blind; it is based on good science, sound reasoning and logic.
Presently, there are many (hundreds, maybe thousands), of professional scientists doing rigorous scientific research who publish peer reviewed papers in secular journals that believe that this world is young, (about 6,000 years old) and life was created by a supernatural act of God who spoke it all into being, who holds the universe in existence right now through the might of His knowledge and power.
---------
The above reproduction of my response to your original question (A.) has thoroughly answered your question and must reassert that global scale volumes of evidence exist in the geology of our planet. As stated before, all parties have the same evidence, it is the worldview glasses through which you view the evidence that will determine what you see and what you believe.
The earths crustal rocks and the billions of fossils unearthed that now reside in museums and collections around the world strongly support the Biblical historical narrative that a rapid catastrophic event involving flood inundation and tectonic movement and volcanic eruption on a global scale.
I must also admit that contrary to you claims that you have provided empirical evidence, I do not see it.
Also, you have not in any way answered my two questions. I’m sorry but your vague claims about evolution and energy don’t really explain anything.
Could you please answer specifically the two questions, pasted below again: -
1.) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find billions of transitional forms of creatures in the sediments across this planet?
Should you not answer these two questions specifically, I suggest that there is little point in continuing this debate because of necessity the evidence supporting either side of the debate must be based on sound scientific method, empirically measurable data where possible and referenced peer reviewed published papers supporting the proofs or evidence for your position.
You also incorrectly state in your last post, “When you instigate sedimentary strata as proof of God's existence,”
This is another misrepresentation of what I said, the sedimentary strata are clear evidence for a watery catastrophe on a massive scale that we do not observe happening today, that is remarkably consistent with the global flood, i.e. covering the entire planet as described in Genesis in the Bible.
You keep on talking about “this energy” without ever once referencing any research or clarifying precisely what you mean. The statements that you are making are akin to eastern mysticism and in truth have very little if anything to do with real scientific endeavour.
It has been an interesting exercise, but I do not see anything useful at all coming from continuing this dialogue, however, I would still be interested in hearing your answers to the two questions 1.) & 2.) above should you become more specific and scientific in your answers rather than only providing vague, glossed over assertions about "this energy".
All the best,
Burrawang
Hi windar12q,
are you able to supply any empirical evidence that you could share on this site to support your claims?
It is unfortunate the straightforward two questions I have sincerely put to you have not really been answered in any way, shape or form.
I would still very much appreciate your provision of specific answers with supporting evidence to the specific two questions, that are again below: -
1.) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information on all the genomes was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find any of the necessary billions upon billions of transitional forms of the allegedly evolving diversity of plant and animal creatures in the sediments across this planet?
All the best,
Burrawang
Hi windar12q,
thank you for reply, I wish you well but I must expose the untruthful misrepresentations of my posts.
You state, “You ask about fine tuning”, however, I never asked you about “fine tuning”, but fine tuning was mentioned by Dr John Sanford in the text I quoted by him. John Sanford was making the point that, on very rare occasions a beneficial mutation may occur that has enough selectable effect, i.e. the effect of the mutation is of sufficient enough magnitude that it is able to be selected for that as a consequence results in an adaptive variation to an individual in a population that if passed on to successive generations can be described as some degree of fine-tuning within that populations fitness in its environment. John makes the point also that these very rare beneficial mutations also help to slow degeneration of the genomes of the part of the population with these mutations.
For you to state in your last post: -
“You ask about fine tuning, again without an explanation this suggests a belief in something supernatural - this is doing what I mentioned before about the jewel beetle; you are doing the same thing because you have no other answer. (The God of the gaps serves no other purpose than to tell everyone you have no evidence to the contrary.)”
the above quoted section from your post clearly indicates a complete lack of comprehension of what I actually wrote and a lack of understanding of basic genetics. I most definitely do not subscribe to any “God of the gaps” theory, nor have I ever mentioned anything of the sort, that is merely your incorrect interpretation of demonstrably repeatable scientific fact, i.e. that selection can bring about fine tuning within genomes on rare occasions; nothing more and nothing less than that straightforward demonstrably repeatable scientific fact.
Contrary to the charge that you make against my posts, what is clearly evident in your posts is a complete lack of cogent explanation and absolutely zero supportive evidence.
I see that you have made absolutely no attempt at answering the two straightforward questions that I put to you in my previous post. As you appear to be so sure of yourself to the point of being derogatory toward God who made everything including you and me, I would be most interested to hear your explanation of those same two questions, repeated below: -
1.) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information on all the genomes was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find any of the necessary billions upon billions of transitional forms of the allegedly evolving diversity of plant and animal creatures in the sediments across this planet?
Hi windar12q, thanks again for your response.
You say that you agree with my summation of natural selection, therefore it would appear that you agree with what Professor John Sanford (a leading scientist in this field) says, [repeated here to make the point]: -“Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration. Additionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation arises that has enough effect to be selected for—resulting in some adaptive variation, or some degree of fine-tuning. This also helps to slow degeneration. But selection only eliminates a very small fraction of the bad mutations. The overwhelming majority of bad mutations accumulate relentlessly, being much too subtle—of too small an effect—to significantly affect their persistence. On the flip side, almost all beneficials (to the extent they occur) are immune to the selection process—because they invariably cause only tiny increases in biological functionality. So most beneficials drift out of the population and are lost—even in the presence of intense selection. This raises the question—since most information-bearing nucleotides [DNA ‘letters’] make an infinitesimally small contribution to the genome—how did they get there, and how do they stay there through “deep time”?”
I have two questions for you.
1) I would be interested to hear your view on how all the unimaginably brilliant complex specified information on all the genomes was written and how it has remained over the imagined periods of “deep time”?
2.) As you believe in evolution, perhaps you have a cogent explanation as to why we do not find any of the necessary billions upon billions of transitional forms of the allegedly evolving diversity of plant and animal creatures in the sediments across this planet?
We humans are beings with free will. We have been created that way. The once very good creation was marred by sin when Adam disobeyed God. That is how sin happened and the corruption of a once very good world began, and it continues to this very day throughout all of creation.
I may be wrong but I believe that is the only way it could have been created if we are to have true free choice/freewill as we do. For God to truly make us autonomous as He has done, the almost inevitable consequence of that is that we all will fall short of being righteous and holy.
It is only through real repentance and acceptance of Jesus sacrifice for our own sins on the cross that we can be saved. It is through His grace that we are offered salvation, it is not through anything we can do except believe and accept the free gift of salvation provided for us by our creator and redeemer Jesus Christ.
Hi windar12q,
regarding your question “sedimentary strata also exists on Mars; why?”, you may find it informative to read an article titled: -
How old is the earth? at this link: - https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
The relevant part of that article by Dr Jonathan Sarfati from Chapter 8 his book Refuting Evolution states: -
“Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars that carved out canyons although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.”
You may also not be aware that Jesus Himself endorsed the Flood as a real event, the Ark as a real ship, and Noah as a real person—See the New Testament in Luke 17:26-27 at this hyperlink Luke 17:26–27
Some other interesting and relevant articles on Mars can be found at: -
* Mission to Mars The search for meaning by Russell Grigg https://creation.com/mission-to-mars
* The planets are young: 2 Earth and Mars by Russell Grigg https://creation.com/planets-earth-and-mars
Thank you Windar12q for your response.
You are absolutely correct with your statement “When mutations occur in our DNA, it is mostly the reason for some impediment”. Thank you for acknowledging that scientifically demonstrable fact.
It must be pointed out that natural selection has a conservative role in culling heavily defective organisms, but natural selection is NOT a creative force because the overwhelming majority of mutations are too small to be affected by natural selection.
As Professor John Sanford (a leading scientist in this field) says, “Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration. Additionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation arises that has enough effect to be selected for—resulting in some adaptive variation, or some degree of fine-tuning. This also helps to slow degeneration. But selection only eliminates a very small fraction of the bad mutations. The overwhelming majority of bad mutations accumulate relentlessly, being much too subtle—of too small an effect—to significantly affect their persistence. On the flip side, almost all beneficials (to the extent they occur) are immune to the selection process—because they invariably cause only tiny increases in biological functionality. So most beneficials drift out of the population and are lost—even in the presence of intense selection. This raises the question—since most information-bearing nucleotides [DNA ‘letters’] make an infinitesimally small contribution to the genome—how did they get there, and how do they stay there through “deep time”?”
You have made an incorrect assumption about me in your statement, “I know that you think these changes come from some divine power”, as I actually believe that the changes we observe in the genomes of organisms in the biosphere come about from environmental impacts and random point mutations (typographical errors in the DNA letters ATCG) that are incessantly occurring every generation and are demonstrably accumulating in a compounding manner.
To answer your wonderment “why an omnipotent being could not have got it right in the first place and made everything perfect,“ the historical record given to us by God in the form of the Bible informs us that God did get it right in the first place, it was all very good, and as the Bible tells us, it was only the disobedience of our ancestor Adam that brought imperfection into the universe that necessitated through incomprehensible Love towards us by the Creator Himself, Jesus Christ, (the Second Adam) who came to earth as a man to pay the price of Adams (and our inherited) sins by allowing Himself who was holy, blameless and sinless to be put to death by ungodly men as a propitiation for all of mankinds sins. Wonderfully, He rose again from the dead as death could not hold Him, and He is reaching out to every one of us at this very moment to come to Him.
There are many that claim we are not seeing things clearly and to some degree they are correct, when we look at an object such as a dam wall or a skyscraper or hammer or a coffee cup, it appears to be made of continuously solid matter, but we know from rigorous studies in physics that all matter is made up of atoms and atoms themselves are 99.9999999999999 percent empty space.
So things are not always as they seem, but to extrapolate from that or head down the path that some Eastern religions go that claim everything is an illusion or a thought, or variations on that theme such as expressed by some modern day cognitive science theorists that evolution has effectively removed our perceptions from being an accurate understanding of reality is most definitely not for me! For one the latter assumes evolution as fact which it demonstrably is not, in fact it is a thoroughly disproven theory at any level, Darwinian or otherwise.
Evolution belief only persists in academia and the general public through continual and repetitive bombardment in schools, universities and multi-media, but it most definitely does not remain in our culture from testable hypotheses that rigorously follow the scientific method.
Evolution theory is really nothing more than religious dogma, it is in the realm of metaphysics, not physics and most definitely not biology; in fact studies in biology or more specifically, genetics absolutely disprove evolution. Therefore, any theory that has at its core evolutionary theory is demonstrably falsified.
Thanks Jonathan, it's good to have a little time to join in the discussion! I have recently returned from visiting a number of South Pacific Island nations and could not help but notice evidence for the great flood of Noah even on these relatively small patches of land in the middle of that vast ocean.
All the best, Burrawang
Hi Windar12q, thank you for your input.
Upon reading your post, it appears that you may have missed the point, that the information present in all life forms could not have originated via an evolutionary naturalistic mechanism, because information does not consist of matter, i.e. it has no mass, it is real but it is independent of the medium and mode of its transmission.
You have requested that I answer your question, “why do I abide on the side that has no facts to the one that does?”
Well to answer that I must first point out that I emphatically reject the premise embedded in your question. The truth of the matter is that rigorous scientific endeavour adequately demonstrates that evolution in the big picture sense, (i.e. evolution over eons of time from primordial soup to human) is impossible because sound scientific research such as that performed by world leading geneticist Professor John Sanford clearly shows that DEVOLUTION is actually what we observe, i.e. the process is traveling in precisely the opposite direction to that which is claimed by the masses who accept evolution as fact.
Complex specified genetic information is constantly and inexorably being lost from genomes and in addition to this scientific FACT, ALL genomes across our amazingly diverse biological planet are accumulating a genetic burden of mutational information errors that will eventually result in species extinction.
So, contrary to the assertion that is implicit in your loaded question it is in fact those that have put their faith in the religion of evolution that are abiding on the side that has no facts; for example, where are all the supposed billions of transitional forms in all the fossils now unearthed across the planet?
It is worth also considering the amazing fact that the description of the Creation and the great flood in the Bible precisely fits much of what we know today in the fields of astrophysics, geology and palaeontology when we study the universe and the rocks and fossils in this present time.
The one thing that always amazes me is that whenever I watch a nature documentary, or a travel advertorial or an action movie made in some far flung part of our world I see pencil sharp geologic strata on regional and continental scales. When I travel to other parts of the world, I see everywhere sharply straight laminations of geologic sedimentary strata on exposed cliffs, cuttings, mines, mountain ranges, coastlines etc. where the sedimentary strata are evident for ALL to see.
Yet what is taught in schools and universities is that these geologic features were formed over millenia from slow and gradual processes, yet it is intuitively obvious and scientifically demonstrable through rigorous and repeatable flume tank experiments that these strata were rapidly laid down by a global catastrophic event in a very short period of time that has led to fantastically well preserved fossils and soft tissues such as unmineralized dinosaur soft tissues.
H'mmm sounds a lot like the great flood described by the historical narrative in the Bible to me. The evidence is everywhere. It is the framework within which you interpret the data that will determine what you believe. If you were taught, (dare I say indoctrinated into believing) that life evolved over billions of years from slow and gradual naturalistic processes, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework. If you read the Bible and look at the world around you within a Biblical historical framework, then you will understand and interpret the available data within that framework.
The evidence is the same for both, it is the worldview you have, the biases, axioms that you believe that underpin how you will interpret the data.
From my own personal journey, I was once in your camp, and believed evolution, but over decades of research, I have come to see that it is in fact evolution that is in error.
As the authors P. Price & R. Carter ended the article in my previous post rightly summed up: -
“Ultimately, it is not science that determines what people believe about the past; it is their heart. Will they accept the testimony of both reason and Scripture, or will they grasp at straws to deny these by claiming that life needed no Designer?”
That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence supporting the Bible, the Bible is self-consistent and the historical narrative in Genesis is precisely consistent with what we observe in the world today. The enormous deposits of coal and oil on every continent including Antarctica in sedimentary basins across each continent on a truly enormous scale are a testament to the global flood. I have photographed open cut coal mines and never cease to be amazed at the sharp start and stop of each coal seam. I know of examples of inverted coalified polystrate tree trunks in coal basins that make it obvious to anyone that the strata were laid down rapidly by an event that in some areas deposited thousands of feet of sedimentary layers on top of them, all the layers of which are sharply delineated from each other, i.e. they were obviously laid down rapidly in a short space of time. The Bible informs us that it all happened within one calendar year, i.e. within 365 days.
I could go on, with much more evidence but I hope that you will see that there is in fact good reason for those of us to believe that the Bible means what it says in the historical narratives such as we see in Genesis.
Faith is not blind; it is based on good science, sound reasoning and logic.
Presently, there are many (hundreds, maybe thousands), of professional scientists doing rigorous scientific research who publish peer reviewed papers in secular journals that believe that this world is young, (about 6,000 years old) and life was created by a supernatural act of God who spoke it all into being, who holds the universe in existence right now through the might of His knowledge and power.
An excellent, cogent and very well expressed article published 26 November 2019 (GMT+10) is titled "What would count as ‘new information’ in genetics?" by Paul Price and Robert Carter (RC) logically shows the absurd shortfalls in the belief that genetic information in the diverse range of genomes wrote itself over time from random genetic mutations and natural selection as claimed by adherents to Darwinian evolution. The article can be found at https://creation.com/new-information-genetics with references to the text
This article is also below, (without references): -
As biblical creationists, we often like to point out that ‘information’ is a notoriously hard-to-define term. Several authors have tried to grapple with this. As far back as 1993, Walter ReMine wrote a book called The Biotic Message that explained what type of information we would expect to see if a Designer had created life. Since then, Werner Gitt has given us the Scientific Laws of Information, and Royal Truman has written extensively on Information Theory. Hence, creationists talk about information, a lot.
This will often start an argument. Darwinists rarely, if ever, talk about ‘information’. They are quick to point out that DNA can change. Thus, they claim, there is either no ‘information’ in DNA or the information can be seen to change in a Darwinian fashion. Some creationists like to say, “Mutations cannot create information. They only destroy information.” But this is a very weak argument. All the evolutionist has to do is point out an example of a DNA duplication and, suddenly, there is an “increase” in information content.
It is true that the information content of the cell can change, and it is true that mutations may add ‘information’ to the genome. However, as I (RC) wrote, the changes we see are not “the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” There are several known examples of mutations that allegedly cause a gain of function, but these arose from corrupted genetic information. For example, recent work done at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, published earlier this year, claimed to show the evolution of a brand-new gene that conferred the ability to digest a new type of sugar upon yeast. However, Cserhati’s and my (RC) analysis concluded that the study “only demonstrated that existing genetic information can be reshuffled.” There are many similar examples in the scientific literature, but they do not represent anything genuinely new. Yet, clearly, all our genetic information had to come from somewhere, originally.
Information is impossible to quantify!
Skeptics often challenge creationists, “If information is decreasing, what is the rate of its decrease?” Another similar objection is, “Can you quantify the changes in the information content of the cell?”
This line of questioning successfully cuts to the heart of the matter. They claim our inability to define information robustly means information does not exist. We claim the information content of living things disproves random mutations as the source of that information. Who’s right? The most difficult area in the debate over information comes down to our ability (or lack of ability) to definitively define or quantify biological information.
As I (RC) wrote: -
"When dealing with this subject, in most cases evolutionists use a statistical measure called Shannon Information. This was a concept invented by the brilliant electronic engineer C.E. Shannon in the middle of the 20th century, who was trying to answer questions about how much data one could stuff into a radio wave or push through a wire. Despite common usage, Shannon’s ideas of information have little to do with biological information."
Why would we say Shannon’s ideas have little to do with biological information? Because Shannon’s measure was not truly a measure of information (in the sense of immaterial ideas), but rather a quantification of things that lend themselves to simple metrics (e.g. binary computer code).
For example, the English word “squirrel” and the German word “Eichhörnchen” both ‘code for’ the same information content (they refer to the same animal), yet if we use a Shannon measure we will get different results for each word because they use different numbers of letters. In this way we can see that any way of quantifying information that depends upon counting up letters is going to miss the mark. There is something intangible, immeasurable even, in the concept of ‘squirrel’. We humans have the habit of arriving at a conclusion (i.e. “That is a squirrel”) without bothering with the details (i.e. “What is the information content of that small gray rodent?”). We intuitively understand abstract levels of information, yet we struggle to define what it means at the most basic level.
So, on the one hand, the answer is no. When considering the decay of biological information over time, we cannot quantify the rate of decrease, because information, at its base, is an immaterial concept which does not lend itself to that kind of mathematical treatment.
On the other hand, the answer is yes, we can sometimes quantify information when we have something simple to measure. Biologists have long struggled with quantifying what they are studying. They can measure the size or shape of a wing, or the lifespan of an animal in the wild. That is not hard to put a number on. But they cannot say how much ‘information’ is in the genomes of living things. We can create summary statistics of things in the genome, and use that as a proxy for the information content, but this is only scratching the surface.
Let’s illustrate that information can increase and decrease
What quantity is the color red? Or the feeling of sadness? These are concepts, and information is conceptual. Yet, paradoxically, it obviously can both increase and decrease in both quality and quantity!
How do you quantify ideas? How many ideas have you had in your mind so far today? This is the quandary: it’s self-evidently true that ideas are quantifiable in the sense that they can increase or decrease in number and clarity. Perhaps a couple of clear examples of information increase will suffice to make the point:
Example 1:
A man in a coma, existing in a dreamless unconscious state, compared to a man who is conscious
During a 24-hour period, which of these two men will have had more information, or ideas, go through their minds? The answer is clearly the second man. The first man will not have had any information in his mind during that period of time.
Example 2:
A 30-page children’s book compared to a 1000-page encyclopedia
Which of these two books contains more information? Clearly the second. Yet how do you quantify this difference in information without resorting to quantifying the medium (like counting pages or counting words or counting letters)? It is entirely possible to convey more information in fewer words, so how can one know the children’s book has less information? Word count cannot tell you, but in this case you intuitively know it at a glance.
Information is carried in so many complex ways (syntax, grammar, contextual clues, etc.) that it staggers the mind to contemplate actually trying to quantify it in an objective way. Yet this is what the skeptic asks us to do. This is an attempt at obfuscation to avoid grappling with the obvious fact that life is built upon the foundation of information. In fact, life is information.
Is our DNA code really ‘information’?
Some skeptics will resort to simply denying that the DNA truly carries any information, claiming this is just a creationist mental construct. The fact that DNA data storage technology is now being implemented on a massive scale is sufficient to prove that DNA stores data (information). In fact, information can be stored more densely in a drop of DNA-containing water than it can on any computer hard drive. To allow that humans may use DNA to store our own digital information, yet to disallow that our genomes contain ‘information’, would be a blatant instance of special pleading.
What would a real, genuine increase look like?
To get back to the skeptics’ main question: what would real increases in information look like? I submit that to answer this, just sit at a computer and watch yourself type out a paragraph in a word processor.
Mutations are incremental; they are small changes that happen in a stepwise fashion as cells divide and generations multiply. The genetic code consists of letters (A,T,C,G), just like our own English language has an alphabet. But here is the central problem—it takes hindsight to recognize whether function or meaning is really present. Watch this transformation:
--Begin--
1 H
2 HO
3 HOU
4 HOUS
5 HOUSE
--End--
At what point in that series did you understand the meaning? Perhaps you guessed it at step 4, but you would have been lucky, for you did not know if a word like housing or household was about to appear. It didn’t become totally clear until step 5, when a full word was spelled and the program ended. There’s no real way to say, before you’ve already reached step 5, that ‘genuine information’ is being added.
Mutations suffer from this same problem. But there’s an even bigger problem: in order to achieve a meaningful word in a stepwise fashion (let alone sentences or paragraphs), it requires foresight. I have to already know I want to say “house” before I begin typing the word. But in Neo-Darwinism, that is disallowed. Mutations must be random and unguided. Due to the sheer number of possible nonsense words, you cannot expect to achieve any meaningful results from a series of random mutations.
What if you were told that each letter in the above example were being added at random? Would you believe it? Probably not, for this is, statistically and by all appearances, an entirely non random set of letters. This illustrates yet another issue: any series of mutations that produced a meaningful and functional outcome would then be rightly suspected, due to the issue of foresight, of not being random.
Any instance of such a series of mutations producing something that is both genetically coherent as well as functional in the context of already existing code, would count as evidence of design, and against the idea that mutations are random.
Natural selection is not random, but neither can it create information
Darwinism requires that random mutations over long periods of time create decidedly non-random sets of information. The skeptic may retort here, “Yes, but evolution is not random because natural selection is not random.” Yet, natural selection cannot come to the rescue here, because it is a mindless process with no foresight or agency. It is just a term referring to the differential reproduction that happens naturally in the world. “Differential reproduction” is not a mind with foresight that can implement meaningful concepts over time. In fact, as Sanford points out in his book Genetic Entropy, natural selection cannot “see” most mutations, since their effect is so small as to have no appreciable impact on the overall phenotype of the organism. He referred to this as the ‘Princess and the Nucleotide Paradox’. So even if natural selection is not ‘random’, so what? It is powerless to stop the slow degradation of genetic information in the first place.
Gene duplications do not change the overall picture
Another escape for the evolutionist is to appeal to gene duplication, which we know happens from time to time. But duplicated genes are ripe for deletion (because one copy is not needed), and deletion mutations are quite common. Point mutations are also common, much more common, in fact, than duplications. And most point mutations do not have a profound enough effect to be acted upon by natural selection:
“In terms of evolutionary dynamics, however, mutations whose effects are very small … are expected to be dominated by drift rather than selection.”
Thus, the duplicated gene still cannot escape the problem of genetic entropy. Also, since gene copy number has a dramatic effect on cellular control, most gene duplications are probably harmful. Down Syndrome is a classic case of a nearly fatal duplication that has a drastic effect on phenotype. Individuals with Down Syndrome have an extra copy of one of the smallest chromosomes, 21, which carries maybe 300 genes.
The “information” argument cannot be answered by the evolutionist, yet neither is it easy to define for the creationist; but it is self-evident that information exists (in general), is present as the foundation of our genetics, and can both increase and decrease in quantity (regardless of our ability to define a precise rate for it).
As Gerrish et al. wrote,
“Even the simplest of living organisms are highly complex. Mutations—indiscriminate alterations of such complexity—are much more likely to be harmful than beneficial.”
This underscores the fact that evolutionists have an insurmountable hurdle in attempting to explain the origin of the vast quantities of complex functional information in the genome.
Ultimately, it is not science that determines what people believe about the past; it is their heart. Will they accept the testimony of both reason and Scripture, or will they grasp at straws to deny these by claiming that life needed no Designer?
The above article adequately demonstrates the absolute necessity for a Designer, Author, Creator when considering the question, "How did life originate!"
In my opinion, life is the end result of natural processes. I believe in Charles Darwin theory.
write a dissertation hypothesis
The sheer odds of life starting without intelligent agency are so great that we can safely say with confidence that it is impossible. Life is programmed by complex specified information that does NOT arise spontaneously by itself without supremely intelligent authorship; that is basic information theory and is governed by the scientific laws of information. For even the simplest organism there is a massive requirement for encyclopaedic quantities of complex specified information to not only be present in the organism but also a means of encoding, storing and reading that information also needs to be present right from the start. The organism requires the cellular machinery to process the information and have the ability and physical structures to reproduce itself accurately. After looking at the options abounding across cultures on this small but amazing planet that we call our home, I can say that the only satisfactory cogent explanation is that the God of the Bible or more specifically Jesus Christ is the Creator of all life, indeed of everything including time. According to His eyewitness account that He has provided to us in Genesis, this Creation event all happened in what we understand to be six literal Earth days as we know them to be. The creation was a supernatural event!
All the other attempts that have been made to prove abiogenesis have failed miserably and really only prove that the Bibles account is the true history of creation of the universe and life. It’s as simple as that. This view is supported in the new testament by Jesus Himself in the New Testament! He should know as He was the One who did the Creating!!!
An excellent article that describes the mind boggling complexity required for life to begin can be found at: - https://creation.com/origin-of-life that was authored by Dr Don Batten and published on 26th November 2013 (GMT + 10)
I'm not a fan of this argument. It could easily be extended to any natural process that is replicated in the lab, which I think argues more than these YEC publications want to argue. Or to make an analogy, I could set a pair of dice down so that a double-six is face up. Similar logic could be used to argue that "great intelligence is required to produce the double-six", whereas the point of the demonstration is to show that the double-six is, in principle, possible. It could theoretically be the result of rolling the dice 1000 times until it came up "naturally".
The problem I see with abiogenesis research is that there's no true endpoint. If abiogenesis is achieved in the lab, that just proves that it can happen in the lab and can occur in principle. It doesn't really prove anything whatsoever about the origin of life on Earth. Other methods to achieve abiogenesis could also be developed, but there's really no way to conclusively show which, if any, actually occurred with any certainty. There's a phrase in the field that I think is apt: "The origin of life won't be discovered, it will be invented."
Welcome back, @cwh! :)
In some YEC publications, I have encountered the argument that if abiogenesis was effected in the lab, it would only prove that "great intelligence is required to bring life from non-life." I am curious to hear what you think of that argument!
Hi All! My apologies for disappearing. I hope and pray for the Lord's blessings on you all. JES sent me an email reminder that the site is still up and running and has a good question recently posted.
Those of you that know my position on the science of evolution may be a little surprised by my position on abiogenesis. Personally, I believe that the origins of the first cells were entirely a product of God's direct action. Abiogenesis is not a topic I've done a tremendous amount of research on, but to my knowledge