Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Elcyc

Evolution May Be Wrong, But Even Then How Do You Know That Creationism Is True?

Recommended Posts

I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

 

Topology ??? Not exactly your everyday math ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

 

 

Well one popular argument goes as follows...

 

1. According to all data mankind has ever produced information only ever arises as the result of intelligence or an intelligently designed process.

2. DNA contains information

3. Therefore DNA is the product of intelligence

 

 

Now this could refer to aliens and the like, however if so then one is assuming the existence as well as the origin of the aliens. Simply put the God hypothesis requires less assumptions and thus is favoured by Occam's Razor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well one popular argument goes as follows...

 

1. According to all data mankind has ever produced information only ever arises as the result of intelligence or an intelligently designed process.

2. DNA contains information

3. Therefore DNA is the product of intelligence

 

 

Now this could refer to aliens and the like, however if so then one is assuming the existence as well as the origin of the aliens. Simply put the God hypothesis requires less assumptions and thus is favoured by Occam's Razor.

This sounds reasonable, but can you clarify that what kind of information do you mean ? Things like layers of ice can contain information about history so do you mean information as in the sense of code? Not that this detail was very relevant for the argument. However, I'm not sure about point 3. If all we can conclude is that there is intelligence behind this information, then shouldn't all extra assumptions on the said intelligence be dropped because of the very Razor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds reasonable, but can you clarify that what kind of information do you mean ? Things like layers of ice can contain information about history so do you mean information as in the sense of code?

 

Yes code is exactly what I mean.. However layers of icecream only contains "information" due to our ability to gather information from the layers of icecream, hence it isn't really a function of the icecream rather our intuition. DNA contains not only the information / code being read but also the mechanism by which that information is interpreted.

 

 

However, I'm not sure about point 3.

 

Why?

 

It follows necessarily. If the only cause of information is intelligence then when we find information in DNA then intelligence would also be the cause for DNA.

 

 

If all we can conclude is that there is intelligence behind this information, then shouldn't all extra assumptions on the said intelligence be dropped because of the very Razor?

 

That is what the Razor implicates, when you have two or more explanations which are just as likely then the one with the fewest assumptions wins out.

 

 

Creationists assume:

1- God exists

 

 

Evolutionist Alien Conspiracy assumes:

1- Aliens exist

2- Aliens "evolved" via a natural process without intelligence

3- Aliens are capable of creating life / DNA

 

Etc.. etc.. etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationists assume:

1- God exists

 

 

Evolutionist Alien Conspiracy assumes:

1- Aliens exist

2- Aliens "evolved" via a natural process without intelligence

3- Aliens are capable of creating life / DNA

 

Etc.. etc.. etc

Why is "X is capable of creating life" an extra assumption for aliens but not for God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is "X is capable of creating life" an extra assumption for aliens but not for God?

 

Are you really going to ask that question?

 

 

Perhaps contemplate by what is defined as the personage of God?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really going to ask that question?

 

Perhaps contemplate by what is defined as the personage of God?...

I'm not interested in the theology of it. My point is that if we're counting the assumed properties of a thing separately (I think this is a misguided application of Occam's Razor, but that's beside this point) we need to do it consistently for both things. If by "God exists" you mean "the God that Christians believe in exists and is all the things they think he is", there's a host of additional assumptions there, including an actual host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in the theology of it. My point is that if we're counting the assumed properties of a thing separately (I think this is a misguided application of Occam's Razor, but that's beside this point) we need to do it consistently for both things. If by "God exists" you mean "the God that Christians believe in exists and is all the things they think he is", there's a host of additional assumptions there, including an actual host.

 

Wrong once again... You've just ignored my counter argument and then simply declare your claim is correct...

 

Again, if you consider who God is then there is no need for additional assumptions...

 

Whereas with aliens, there could be a whole variety of them hence the need for more assumptions as their attributes and capabilities are not known and thus must be defined within those assumptions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong once again... You've just ignored my counter argument and then simply declare your claim is correct...

 

Again, if you consider who God is then there is no need for additional assumptions...

 

Whereas with aliens, there could be a whole variety of them hence the need for more assumptions as their attributes and capabilities are not known and thus must be defined within those assumptions...

There could be a whole variety of gods as well. Believing in one in particular doesn't make that belief any more justified or parsimonious than someone who believes in one particular variety of alien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this could refer to aliens and the like, however if so then one is assuming the existence as well as the origin of the aliens. Simply put the God hypothesis requires less assumptions and thus is favoured by Occam's Razor.

 

That is what the Razor implicates, when you have two or more explanations which are just as likely then the one with the fewest assumptions wins out.

 

Why does that not apply when we consider the light travel time problem of YEC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

I would say that the creator, Jesus of Nazerith, who is God, Himself is the strongest evidence for creation[ism]. How do we 'know' that anything is true?

It might help to define what you mean by creationism for this discussion.

For create I mean: to bring into existance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:57 PM

 

I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

 

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

 

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

I think the answer to your question is blataantly obvious. If you want anything to exist, you are going to have to use your inate intelligence to bring it into existence (create it). Even the thngs you "observe" require conciousness and intelligence to detect.

 

To communicate with others you have to use your inate intelligence to organize the symbols on your computer keyboard to communicate with us (other beings similar to you). That itself demonstrates that intelligence and other beings of smilar intelligent existence is possible.

 

 

Furthermore, we don't seem able to take intelligence and observation out of the equasion? Think no further than to think about your thining to realize that you can not use evolution to do "anything!" By definitin you are a creator. Any involvement of intelligence in the formation of anything you or others do or say is motivated by intelligence--not evolution.

 

Scientists often mis-use words like "selection" because humans use them so often in reference to intelligent manipulation of matter in our envvvironment. So a word like "selection" has meaning we normally associate to it but then is modified by the word "natural" which lends a degree of credibility to the idea that "natire" can make decisions (a subtle form of personification). After all the claim of evolution is that no "thinking" is rquired.

 

As a therapist, the premise I work on is that "cognition serves as a mediating function between stimulus (cause) and effect" in he human realm but, in the physical realm there i no cognition.

 

So in a simple answe to your question what makes me believe in creationism? The fact that we are both creators. Do you know of any other way "you" or "I" can bring anything into existence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes code is exactly what I mean.. However layers of icecream only contains "information" due to our ability to gather information from the layers of icecream, hence it isn't really a function of the icecream rather our intuition. DNA contains not only the information / code being read but also the mechanism by which that information is interpreted.

 

Yes this is what I thought as well.

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

It follows necessarily. If the only cause of information is intelligence then when we find information in DNA then intelligence would also be the cause for DNA.

 

 

 

That is what the Razor implicates, when you have two or more explanations which are just as likely then the one with the fewest assumptions wins out.

 

 

Creationists assume:

1- God exists

 

 

Evolutionist Alien Conspiracy assumes:

1- Aliens exist

2- Aliens "evolved" via a natural process without intelligence

3- Aliens are capable of creating life / DNA

 

Etc.. etc.. etc

Yes the alien hypothesis is too much. But the god hypothesis has many unnecessary assumptions as well. These include the omnipotency of god, that the same god also created everything else and that the god still exists. Shouldn't occam's razor shave off these attributes as well? The argument in my opinion, is more plausable if you replace "god" with "designer", and assign no extra attributes to this entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be a whole variety of gods as well. Believing in one in particular doesn't make that belief any more justified or parsimonious than someone who believes in one particular variety of alien.

 

Popoi this has nothing to do with what we are discussing...

 

Creationists only need to make one assumption, that God exists... That is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the alien hypothesis is too much. But the god hypothesis has many unnecessary assumptions as well. These include the omnipotency of god, that the same god also created everything else and that the god still exists. Shouldn't occam's razor shave off these attributes as well? The argument in my opinion, is more plausable if you replace "god" with "designer", and assign no extra attributes to this entity.

 

Actually you have it backwards...

 

When one assumes God then the other attributes a given due to God being... well... God. That is who He is.

 

If we were to claim a "designer" THEN you'd need to make all these additional assumptions in terms of omnipotency etc since a "designer" doesn't necessarily have that attribute...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually you have it backwards...

 

When one assumes God then the other attributes a given due to God being... well... God. That is who He is.

 

If we were to claim a "designer" THEN you'd need to make all these additional assumptions in terms of omnipotency etc since a "designer" doesn't necessarily have that attribute...

Note that the actual properties of the entity are relevant, not how you label them schemantically. God is really just a word for an entity with certain properties. Or that's how I see it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the actual properties of the entity are relevant, not how you label them schemantically. God is really just a word for an entity with certain properties. Or that's how I see it anyway.

 

Yes God has certain properties which therefore wouldn't need to be assumed since that is what God is. Ergo my argument stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds reasonable, but can you clarify that what kind of information do you mean ? Things like layers of ice can contain information about history so do you mean information as in the sense of code? Not that this detail was very relevant for the argument. However, I'm not sure about point 3. If all we can conclude is that there is intelligence behind this information, then shouldn't all extra assumptions on the said intelligence be dropped because of the very Razor?

 

Elcyc

 

There's always a huge contention when it comes to 'information' and what it means when talking to creationists and evolutionists. When a creationist talks about 'information' they're not talking about Shannon information. They're talking about SPECIFIED information. It's very important that you understand the difference. If I said the following "Elcyc, make me the following"

 

HqzPm

 

Obviously you wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about. But why not? The above contains information right? You could even argue it contains 'complex' information. The above example is Shannon information. It doesn't actually relay a message of any sort even though it's still 'information'. Now, what if I said this "Elcyc, make me the following"

 

Toast

 

Make sense now? This is SPECIFIED information. Huge difference. This is what DNA is made up of. The information in DNA tells things specifically what to do, when to do it, how to do it, so on and so forth.

 

There are no known natural mechanisms that can create specified information. Specified information ONLY comes from an intelligent mind. We know this empirically. Now you could argue that we may find a natural mechanism down the road but that's a faith statement and until such mechanism is found we have to go on what we actually KNOW creates specified information. Intelligence. This all points to an intelligent designer. That intelligent designer is God if you're a Christian.

 

Hope that helps.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Equestion: I like your post. It helps me understand how creationists see the world.

 

 

 

Yes God has certain properties which therefore wouldn't need to be assumed since that is what God is. Ergo my argument stands.

I mean, aren't you just labeling the extra assumptions behind the word "god". If you don't see what I mean, consider the following:

"Gaia has certain properties which therefore wouldn't need to be assumed since that is what Gaia is."

See now that there is a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Equestion: I like your post. It helps me understand how creationists see the world.

 

 

I mean, aren't you just labeling the extra assumptions behind the word "god". If you don't see what I mean, consider the following:

"Gaia has certain properties which therefore wouldn't need to be assumed since that is what Gaia is."

See now that there is a problem?

 

God by definition is the uncaused first cause, by definion is omni-powerful, timeless, immaterial etc...

 

Its the same with the definition of gilbo12345 is linked to having red hair and an Australian accent... We don't need to assume that gilbo12345 has red hair or has an Australian accent since this are a part of the definition of gilbo12345, they are inherent with who he is... The same can be said with God and His properties, its who He is, so there only needs to be one assumption on the part of Creationists, that God exists, that is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

 

The evidence for the Creator is the creation itself. If you woke up from a coma with all memory erased, then looked at the computer in front of you, you would know with complete certainty that it was designed by some intelligence. You would be considered insane if you said it was the result of random mistakes and a blind selection process over time. So why is it so hard to look at life in nature that is far more complex and more brilliantly and efficiently designed, yet not be able to put two and two together and realize there is intelligence behind it? It's why so many companies now use biomimicry in trying to improve the design of their own products. I work for a company that designs among other things the memory stick you put in your computer. If you were to take a microscope and look at contents of our ASIC, the closer you look inside the simpler it becomes. The opposite is true of a cell. The deeper in we look, the more complex it gets. The DNA is also proven to be a much more efficient and robust storage system.

 

Consider the following picture, which is far more complex than the computer you are viewing it with. Discounting the following as evidence of a Creator would itself become a religious, not scientific belief.

 

TrochleaKGOVchallenge.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

God by definition is the uncaused first cause, by definion is omni-powerful, timeless, immaterial etc...

 

Its the same with the definition of gilbo12345 is linked to having red hair and an Australian accent... We don't need to assume that gilbo12345 has red hair or has an Australian accent since this are a part of the definition of gilbo12345, they are inherent with who he is... The same can be said with God and His properties, its who He is, so there only needs to be one assumption on the part of Creationists, that God exists, that is it.

But doesn't this make occam's razor useless? We could "simplify" any list of assumptions this way by throwing them behind a definition.

 

So why is it so hard to look at life in nature that is far more complex and more brilliantly and efficiently designed, yet not be able to put two ad two together and realize there is intelligence behind it? It's why so many companies now use biomimicry in trying to improve the design of their own products.

Yes but note that many companies use the techniques inspired by evolution to design products as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation.

 

The evidence for the Creator is the creation itself.

I see, but how can we deduce the other properties of this creator or are they a matter of faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?

 

Hello, I'm a Creationist based on the clear testimony of Genesis 1 and the New Testament witness. I have studied comparative genomics and the comparisons of the Chimpanzee and Human Genomes. I have a special interest in the effects of mutations on highly conserved genes involved in the human brain as it relates to the Darwinian premise of common ancestry.

 

For example anyone can see patterns in nature. But why do you think there has to be a creator, let alone an allmighty God behind them? The argument I often hear is "well can you think of any other reason for these patterns?", but I don't find it very convincing. Like what if the patterns were created by some ancient demi god that has since left this world? Or what if the patterns are just result of some complex but still undiscovered natural process? Not being able to think such process doesn't really mean that it can't be there.

That's a bit general but I would say that mutations plus natural selection will not get you a human brain evolved from that of an ape. The protein coding genes are also crucial to consider and the differences between the ones in the human and chimpanzee genomes are considerable to say the least.

"Not being able to think of homemorphism isn't enough to show that two spaces aren't homeomorphic", to quote my math teacher.

All due respect to your math teacher, in the evolution vs. creation debate, the most important statistic is the mutation rate and molecular mechanisms for chimpanzee/human common ancestry to be remotely possible, let alone demonstrative.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE<<I am interested in what makes creationists believe in what they believe. What do you think is the strongest support for your world view? I quess many of you would say that the Bible is. This makes sense for someone who already believes that the Bible is true. But what about people like me, who don't really know what to think of the Bible. What do you think is the strongest support for creationism that anyone should be able to see?>>

 

Hi Elcyc,
Sorry this is so long. I think we should first start with Intelligent Design, and then work our way from there into Biblical Creationism. Regardless of what the courts have ruled they are not one in the same. For example one can believe in an Intelligent designer and yet completely reject the Bible, but one cannot accept the Bible but reject Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design simply stated is the observation that things in nature and the universe appear to have required an intelligent source -->period<--. ID makes no attempt to say who or what that source was. Biblical Creationism on the other hand is a theory derived from the Bible, that the universe and all life was formed just as depicted in Genesis Chapter 1 of the Bible. So it makes sense that we should first just start by identifying that the universe and life is the product of an intelligent source, and then look and see if what we observe agrees with the Biblical model.

So the first question to ask is..."what test can we use to determine if something is the product of an intelligent source?" To answer this we can just take a look at how other scientists have been doing this for years now. For example how does an archaeologist decide at a dig site if something is just a naturally occurring object or an actual human artifact? Well he looks for specific features which he recognizes from previous experiences (completely independent of the site), that are indications of intelligence. He looks for design features. Things which imply something was formed with a specified purpose. Someone at this point might be inclined to baulk, "But your talking about human intelligently designed things!" Okay...that's fair. So let's see how scientists search for intelligence that is not -human. Marine biologists study the clicks and whistles made by dolphins and look for specified patterns. Or in other words, a combination of sounds in a certain order that are equated with certain behaviors. They tell us that a specified pattern like this would indicate an intelligent language. Or consider how SETI Institute Astronomers look for intelligence in the night sky. They look for a very specified signal in the form of a narrow band width or extremely short flashes of light. These types of "signal bursts" (we are told) would indicate they were manufactured from an intelligent source. So there's two sciences that also look for specificity from non-humans to determine intelligence.

This shows us that the key to detecting intelligence is specificity. This is NOT to be confused with Ross' Complex Specified Information. I think he was on the right track but he really muddied the water by throwing complexity into the mix. We can look at a snow flake and see something very complex created by natural laws of physics. The odds of that exact same pattern forming a second time are astronomically high. But what we never see formed naturally are things with a particular use or purpose. We see a tree grow out twigs in a kind of a pattern but that pattern doesn't do anything. However when a chimp takes that twig and rams it down an ant hole to fish out ants, now we are seeing something formed naturally and turned into something specified... by an intelligent source. So the key to detecting if something is intelligently designed or not is for an observer to see an object we will call the transmitter, functioning to perform a particular task with an independent object we will call the receiver. (That part did come from Ross). Note how three things are required to detect specificity. There must be a transmitter, a receiver, and an observer. Now an observer is not necessary for specificity to exist, it is only necessary to detect it. The observer has to see the transmitter, and receiver and then be able to make the correlation that the two are independent, but the receiver requires the transmitter to function. Again we have never observed specificity form naturally and in all other science it is equated with intelligence, therefore when we observe something specified we can conclude it was the result of an intelligent source.

When we look at the universe we observe individual things that at first appear extremely coincidental, until we start to stack them all together. We see that our solar system happens to be located between the spiral arms of the milky way galaxy. Had we been in the arms life could not exist here. We look at the size and temperature of the sun we orbit, compared to other stars we observe it is actually kind of small. However it happens to be the perfect size and temperature needed to support life. We look at our distance from the sun. Scientists tell us that just a little closer and we would become a baron dry rock. Just slightly further and we would become a giant ball of ice. Yet we are perfectly positioned to allow for life. We look at the arrangement of our solar system which again seems to be coincidentally perfect. How lucky we are to have the gas giants on the outer rim of our solar system to act like huge vacuum cleaners sucking up rogue comets and meteors that would otherwise swing into the inner solar system and threaten life here. Scientists tell us that if we didn't have Jupiter the impact rate on earth would be a thousand times greater than we observe today. How did we get so lucky as to have the perfect size and distance moon, to stabilize the earth's 23 degree axis? This allows equal global distribution of the sun's rays creating the four seasons needed for there to even be a food chain. How did we get so lucky to end up on a planet still circulating its liquid iron core so that it can generate a magnetic field needed to protect us from being completely sterilized by solar radiation. How did we manage to get the perfect mixture of oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere? How did we end up with the perfect land to water surface mass ratio? How did we end up with a planet that has the perfect thickness of crust to allow for plate tectonic activity? All of these are required for life to exist here. Or consider our universe’s very laws of physics and how they turned out to be at just the right "settings" to allow for life. Things like electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, speed of light, all perfect to allow for life.

I just named a few but there are literally hundreds of conditions like these that all have to come together at one place and time in the universe just for life to exist. When we stack all of these conditions together and examine them as a group, it's as though we are a second hand under a glass bubble, looking back at the intricate workings and innards of our massive watch, all required to be working together in unison just to keep us ticking along. Even when we look at the code found in the DNA of all living things, we see a code that is so specified that it warps our most sophisticated and advanced computer programs by comparison. How did all this happen? I believe the answer is found in God's word -the Bible- Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are clearly seen and understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that men are without excuse. We see the sun, moon, and stars pass over daily, like silent evangelists proclaiming that there is a God.

This of course brings us to Biblical Creationism. Does what we observe in science agree with the Bible or not? The Bible claims that God created all of the major kinds or forms of life individually and created them to only reproduce after their own kind. In nature we never observe something of one major form become something of a completely different form. In the fossil record we observed all the forms appear suddenly, fully formed, and leave looking much like they did when they first appeared. We have been searching for over a hundred and fifty years since Darwin first published his famous book "The Origin of Species," and have yet to ever find even one example of a finely graduated chain leading from one major form to another. Not a single example. In the biology lab we have yet to even observe a process that would show that the theory was at least plausible. Not one single reported case of an observed addition of new and beneficial information being added to the genome of a multicelled organism, has ever been documented. This of course all completely agrees with the theory of special creation as depicted in the Bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms