Archive for the ‘Creationism vs Evolution’ Category

Hugh Ross vs Ken Ham – TBN Debate

Great debate concerning the origins issue.

Posted on June 18th, 2013 by admin  |  No Comments »

Creation vs Evolution

MICRO-EVOLUTION VS MACRO-EVOLTION

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE ARTICLERE HERE:

Creation vs Evolution.pdf

THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

This article presents key information generally overseen or ignored by evolutionists. It supports intelligent design creationism which is the religious doctrine holding that the various types of life were instantly created by an outside intelligent designer, as in the way described in Genesis.

Although many scientists today accept evolution as somehow a proven fact or as an acceptable theory, as our understanding of the complexity of the living cell grows, this presumption becomes less reliable, less probable and less scientific. Many important scientists of the past and many still today, in all fields of science, adhere to the theory that life had to have been created instantly due to its irrefutable evidence of design, its irreducible complexity, and the impossibility of the contrary.

It is an important fundamental question in search of Man’s origins and should not be overlooked so haphazardly. Many Historians believe the philosophy of evolution has important routes to tyrannical empires and ideals such as Nazism, Communism, Uniformitarianism and Humanism. This illustrates its potential influence in our way of thinking as individuals and as a governing society.

The scientific aspect of this debate between creationism and evolution seems to stem around two major questions:

  • Can life arise from non life through naturalistic processes or was the living cell and its digital blue print pre-designed into existence ?
  • Can the underlying mechanisms of micro-evolution (variations within a genotype) be extrapolated to explain the scientific hypothesis of macro-evolution (major changes into different life forms)?

Scientifically you have two choices, either all the life forms on earth derived by Chance, or by Design. The scientific findings should not be swayed based by personal theological beliefs, but by logic, experience and probability models.

Atheistic evolutionists remove any outside Godly intervention and believe the first living cell was created purely by naturalistic processes, and over time evolved into all of the diverse plants and animals we see today. Theistic evolutionists believe a god created the first few distinctive life forms, most probably unicellular, which then followed the same pattern of evolution. Both these theologies lack any evidence in support of any possible naturalistic process to account for an increase in genetic complexity.

The Christian creationism point of view argues that the traditional God of the KJV bible did not require such subtle and slow processes, as He was more than capable of creating all the life on this planet instantly.

Micro evolution (variation within a type) is indeed scientific. It reveals that an offspring will have a mixed selection of its parents’ genetic material. The creationism point of view argues that the designer had the foresighted knowledge to create a gene pool which would allow for a wide variety of adaptations so that each ‘type’, if required, may speciate and adopt to different conditions, giving it a better chance of survival. This incredible design feature is one of the most powerful argument which demonstrates irrefutable evidence of design, and thus special creation. Although this in built design demonstrates God’s  merciful nature, the gene pool of ‘end of the line’ variants are always more limited and less able to adapt to future changes.

It seems life on this planet is actually suffering from a devolutionary process, i.e. a loss of genetic information over time. This clashes with evolutionary doctrine, which has been trying to convince the world our DNA is becoming more complex and intelligent. The second law of thermodynamics supports this destructive observation, as it explains that all things will always tend to disorder, thus information can only be lost not gained.

Macro evolution (Darwinian) suggests that a life form, over a long duration of time, can change into a relatively different type, through a process of genetic mutation and natural selection. It allows for a fish to turn into a reptile, or cow into a whale. If one extrapolates back far enough it reveals that the plant and animal kingdom shared a common ancestor.

Macro-Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions:

  • Genetic mutations make something new and better
  • Natural selection makes it survive and take over the population

DNA is a complex and precise sequencing of the four nucleotide bases (A, T, G, and C) existing in groups of three which stores and transmits the information necessary to build proteins. A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Mutations range in size from a single DNA building block (DNA base) to a large segment of a chromosome. There are several processes than can develop mutations; Mis-sense mutation,  Non-sense mutation, Insertions, Deletions, Duplications, Frame shifts and Repeat expansions.  This will always result in a frame of highly intelligent language becoming totally useless. Mutations are largely negative destructive influence which do not possess any creative power to account for all the marvels of the living world. Mutations are only trivial changes. They are merely the result of slightly altered genes, where as creative evolution demands the genesis of an entirely new complexity of genes.

Natural selection is a process in which the immediate natural surroundings favours or disadvantages living organisms based on specific phenotype characteristics, carefully noting that it has the mysterious ability to activate or deactivate favourable phenotype requirements (even within few generations). Natural selection is not a creative force, and does not grant organisms what they need outside of their genetic capacity. To a creationist, natural selection seems to be a very important mechanism to allow the continuation of a healthy population. This is indifferent to evolutionary teachings which proclaim that deviant speciation and death was the constructive mechanism which has enabled Man to exist from millions of years of micro evolutionary chances.

Unfortunately we have all become victims to the traditional “tree of life” diagrams, and the “geologic column” illustrations. These scientific attempts to reveal the origins of life is only a product of Man’s imagination. It is an oversimplified fraudulent misrepresentation of the complexity of living organisms.

Creationists believe that most of the worlds geological layering was formed due to a catastrophic hydro sorting process. Keeping in mind that fossilisation occurs under instant burial and pressure (requiring moisture, such as mud flows), the fossil record reflects nothing more than an entire ecology of trillions of organisms that were instantly buried in a world wide flood  catastrophe, the flood of Noah seems to fit this theory. So the fossil record as far as I can tell does not show any evidence of any evolution.

The arrangement of plant leafs also seems to support creation. Leafs are arranged on plant stems in two main ways. They may alternate as you go along the stem: left, right, left, right and so on. Or they may be opposite each other in pairs. You cannot have a ‘half opposite’, ‘half alternate’ arrangement. The fossil record of the plant world is also in favour of special creation.

Photosynthesis is an amazing design feature in the plant kingdom. Chlorophyll is the vital chemical for photosynthesis, which allows plants to obtain energy from light. Chlorophyll is a chlorin (green) pigment, which is structurally similar to porphyrin pigments such as heme. At the centre of the chlorin ring is an magnesium ion. This has various side chains, usually including a long phytyl chain. There are a few different forms that occur naturally

A problematic obstacle to evolutionary theory is the interdependent relationships between living things, called symbiosis, in which different forms of life depend on each other for survival. Symbiotic relationships is evident as we can observe animals and plants of different types cooperating for the benefit of both. Evolutionists call this co-adaptation presuming such relationships were established over time, but they have yet to come up with a plausible explanation of how such relationships could have evolved in stages.

The Bible reveals that the plants and animals were all made within a few days of each other, so symbiotic relationships is not a scientific problem for creationists. Such sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures shows an underlying intelligent design and forethought at work. Symbiotic relationships are clearly a great challenge to Darwinism, providing solid evidence of a Designer and Creator.

If life evolved from mineral deposits, then it must have occurred in a reducing atmosphere (without O2), because oxygen has had a higher driving force to oxidise any products in preparation for life. Evolutionists suggest that the primitive earth at the time of the birth of the first cell was very different from today’s atmosphere. Experiment have illustrated that the building blocks of a living organism simply could not be produced in any natural environment by random chance. If we assume a primitive atmosphere existed without oxygen, then you have no ozone layer and then the radiation from the sun would destroy any possible protein products anyhow. It seems clear that you cannot get life to evolve with or without oxygen.

There are simply too many independent conditions required to form the various basic living cell. Because of this reason, many scientists teach today that these chemical seeds of life existed already all over the Universe, and that life either found its way to Earth, or the chemistry for life did. This is known as the Panspermia theory. This would require an even bigger miracle when we consider the vast space domain and their respective probabilities of meeting in the right place at the right time.

The essential distinction one needs to be aware of is that a pattern is not a language unless it has intent. Since the digitally blue print (DNA) has very specific intention, then it must be treated as a language, which is evidence of a designer. Matter and energy can’t produce information alone, only patterns in accordance to the physical laws of the universe. DNA is without doubt the densest information storage mechanism in the universe.

During the process of DNA information transfer into useful proteins, introns are removed from RNA and only exons are transcribed into the mRNA. Many scientific critics jump at this opportunity to made the claim that this so called introns are junk DNA, thus vestiges of a past evolutionary cycle. It was assumed these introns were removed because they are apparently have no function purpose in producing proteins. In more recent times they have discovered that this so called junk DNA has a very important architectural role in the process of protein building.

An interesting question is, can a protein work its way backwards and some how effect the original DNA information. The answer is Yes. Retro viruses and diseases that can actually work their way back and alter your DNA. This is always harmful and known as genetically transmittable diseases. The destructive nature of this influence is a far cry from any possible positive intelligent evolutionary change.

Another  problem for evolutionists is the advancement from unicellular to multicellular life. Evolutionists would propose that a cluster of single cell organisms transformed into a complex organism unit over time, and some how individual cells became intelligent and specialised to perform unique functions. Just because we observe individual cells within a multicellular organism seemingly operating independently of each other, we can not presume the ancestor of these cells could exist outside of this closed system. The complexity of physiological systems denies evolutionary explanation.

Irreducible complexity has always being a biochemical challenge to evolutionists. Before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. When we find irreducibly complexity at the molecular level, it infers biological design. Here are some examples; The living cell, Flagellum, ATP Mechanisms, The Eyes of the Lobster, Bones and Feathers.

Very specialised proteins are required to create DNA while specialised DNA genes are required to create these same proteins. There is no incremental way the cycle or protein production  can jump to its working function. Both systems required to be fully operational at the same time or else the system would fail instantly. The formation of proteins from DNA is a marvel of intelligent design in itself.

Evolutionists believe there is evidence to suggest cavemen can quality as scientific missing links to fit evolutionary theory. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmented and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether” Return to the Planet of the Apes, Henry Gee. All the evidence has either being a fraudulent misrepresentation or normal Human Beings. There simple is no evidence that Man use to be a inferior caveman.

Evolutionists suggest that Man and Ape share common attributes and almost identical structural DNA due to common ancestry paths approximately 8 million years ago. Dr. Barney Maddox, the leading generic genome researcher, said, concerning these genetic differences: “Now the genetic difference between Human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides…; there is no possibility of change.” Newest research reveals there is at least a 7.7% difference according to Nature Magazine, May 27, 2004. It is the view point of the creationist that these very similar structures and designs in many animals provides evidence of a common designer. Comparing DNA similarities simply does not support ancestral linkage. Comparing attributes on any level seems to support special creation.

These mathematical probabilities models clearly indicate we are dealing with more than natural intervention.
1)The probability Haemoglobin forming by chance Pr = 1 / 1×10^650

2)Harold Morowits estimated that a requirement of 1×10^100,000,000,000 interactions of baryons is required for the first cell to form. There simply is not enough time and matter for that many interactions to occur in our natural universe.

3)Sir Fred Hoyle, an evolutionists and an agnostic, calculated the chance of life from a chemistry aspect. He estimated the chances that over 2000 enzymes formed by change was  Pr = 1/1×10^40,000

BRIEF CONCLUSION

Although the understanding of the natural world can be explained by looking in the natural world, this principle does not apply nor have the capacity to deal with origin questions. Many scientists will always believe that creationism is a theological argument and has no place in the science world, but it is not a religious statement to say that there must have being a creator. The fact that life on this planet exhibit an amazing inbuilt blue print information storage mechanism, and that the living cells reveals an unexplainable irreducible complexity defies evolutionary modelling.

If science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable then the theory of macro evolution fails. Man’s experience on this planet is witness to the simple understanding that dogs will always produce dogs, and apples will always seed apples. All kinds bring forth after their kind, as Genesis reveals. There is no logical reason to believe otherwise..

In conclusion; Genetic mutations are either harmful or at best neutral, natural selection is a very necessary quality control mechanism to allow the forwarding of healthy generations, the fossil record shows evidences of an instantaneous existence of an even larger variety of livings kinds, micro evolution is indeed scientific, the plant kingdom reveals incredible photosynthesis design, the whale does not show any evidence of evolution, symbiotic relationships deny evolutionary thinking, there is no evidence of a primitive earth, there are simply too many independent conditions required to form the various basic living cell, DNA reveals a complex language of information as opposed to a collection of random natural patterns, livings cells reveal an unexplainable irreducible complexity, junk DNA is not vestigial and reveals important architectural structure, multicellular organisms exhibit crucial dependant physiological requirements for homoeostasis, protein building factories are extremely complex and specialised, there is no convincing evidence that any cavemen could be considered a scientific missing links, and mammals such as Man and ape have many structural DNA similarities but that is as far as it goes.

Clearly life on this unique beautiful blue planet is a product of incredible intelligent design. He had a purpose, and we have an accountability.

Posted on March 20th, 2011 by admin  |  1 Comment »

Thermodynamics and Creation

Fantastic explanation why the laws of thermodynamics “freezes” the theory of macro-evolution from its roots.
Watch Episode 1/8 here.

Posted on March 16th, 2009 by admin  |  No Comments »

Great short Creation-Evolution debate

Posted on March 8th, 2009 by admin  |  No Comments »

Crazy Hit Counters