|DNA is proof of creation. Evolutionists are in illogical denial of this obvious fact.|
If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.
DNA is Evidence for Creation
The scientific observations regarding DNA have not helped the case of the evolutionists except to create a new area where they can get away with telling half truths because the public is not aware of the details of DNA research. Sometimes, evolutionists even claim that DNA evidence supports evolution, but it does not. Similarities between the DNA of two animals do not prove a common designer any more or less than those similarities would be able to prove evolution, though both arguments are presented.
Evolutionism is merely a story. An expensive tax-supported story, but a story none the less. It is simply a story designed to compete with the historical record that we observe in the Bible. Increasingly, it is an story (actually, an entire matrix of inter-woven stories) fabricated to try to explain away what can be easily observed (though not very effectively any more). (Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.
As evolutionist become aware of the complexity of the cell, they are forced to explain how all this complexity came into existence by random chance. So they try to give magical abilities to Natural Selection and mutation, neither of which has any ability to add information to anything. For molecules-to-man evolution to have taken place, libraries of information would have had to have been added to cells--but they can't even think of a story that could possibly explain this let alone prove that it has happened.
There is constant work being done, on the part of Evolutionists, to provide some method by which complexity and order could have possibly developed by naturalistic means--as if telling an uncheckable lie makes the lie true. But they can't even come up with an uncheckable lie. They try in vain to make up a story that would show a way that information could be added to these cells by random Chance. So far they have come up with wild tales like the following: "Whence life complexity? Give evolutionists all the carbon-based molecules they want - will they get life to form and evolve? Will the amino acids form proteins (see online book) that can evolve into complex life? Michael Lynch and Ariel Fernandez, scientists at the University of Chicago, reported PhysOrg began with proteins, and then speculated that "Errors in protein structure sparked evolution of biological complexity." That's right: complex life is the result of mistakes. This idea was published in Nature.1 "... "This new idea is actually un-Darwinian. In a nutshell, PhysOrg said, "random introduction of errors into proteins, rather than traditional natural selection, may have boosted the evolution of biological complexity." How can that be? Is there any complex system that gets better with the introduction of random errors?"... "Help your local pre-creationist friend at the university become a full-fledged one. Give him or her the following books:
So what do they teach in the Universities and High Schools and Grade Schools? They have nothing that makes sense or that could stand up to scrutiny. These poor students learn lies and misrepresentations. There is ample information available for the students to discount the lies, but most students don't want to think that hard. And many of them get into sins that make them actually hope God isn't there. They are hiding out in the woods like Adam and Eve did after they sinned. Then, here is a convenient lie, and the path of least resistance is to believe it. So they let their life be a life based on lies and fabrications.
I was talking to an evolutionist who wanted to debate me. There was no point in arguing with the man. His mind was made up. I just kept asking him why he believed what he believed. When he would tell me, I would ask him why he believed that to be true. He would give me an answer and I asked him why he thought that was true. After about a half hour of this, he got a kind of glassy-eyed look and his answer was, "I guess I'm making the whole thing up." Do you think that he dropped Evolutionism? Not a chance.
The particulars of this conversation, though, have nothing to do with the dilemma and whether or not it is truly a dilemma. In fact, the event that is recorded here doesn't prove the dilemma. It is only an example to make it easier to understand how unreliable human thinking is. You can verify this dilemma yourself. Just keep asking yourself how you know what you think you know and you will come either to an axiom that you believe simply because you believe it or a supernatural revelation. There are two other ways that can go: infinite regression or circular reasoning. This is true if you are an evolutionist, a creationist, or a theologian.
Someone did ask, "What about empirical observation?"
There is not one root premise. There are many. They reside in worldviews, also known as paradigms. A worldview is the real basis/foundation for thought, unless revelation is. Worldviews even affect empirical observation. Worldviews are founded on presuppositions. Presuppositions, as the term is used here, are assumptions that we no longer recognize as assumptions. They appear to us as reality, though they are mere arbitrary assumptions. So, worldviews are not reality but a representation of a fake reality within our minds. The assumptions become part of a worldview, a paradigm, a false reality. Call it the world in our minds if you will. (read about revelational apologetics versus presuppositional apologetics)
Everyone has a false reality. No one is exempt. This worldview tends to have all kinds of conflicts in it--things that are mutually exclusive. Most Bible-believing Christians, for instance, have some measure of a naturalistic worldview mixed with a belief in the Almighty God Who answers prayer, leads us in our daily lives, and enforces all the laws of nature. This conflict results in unbelief and can be the cause of unanswered prayer. A lot of our stress proceeds from these kinds of conflicts. Atheists actually do know that God exists, since it's plain in the creation, but they develop complex rationalizations to try to keep their worldview atheistic. No one has a totally consistent worldview. However, we live our lives based on our worldviews/pseudo-realities . . . or else we live our lives based on the leading and revelation that comes from the throne of God.
What we observe is prior to any logic. But how do we know the meaning of what we observe. Without revelation, you can't even know for certain that you or the world around you actually exists. However, God reveals that you and the world around you actually exists and that He created it for His pleasure. We can make no deductions about anything that we observe without either revelation or some combination of made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, irrational thoughts, or outright lies. But these thoughts are generally buried in presuppositions within our worldviews, and we are not conscious of them most of the time.
"When evolution is seen as a storytelling game rather than a serious attempt at scientific explanation, it suddenly makes sense."
Later, this same person challenged me, "You have to convince me that God exists." I just looked away to Jesus, and then I answered, "I can't do that." He said, "Why not? You have to try to convince me." I said, "How would I be able to change your mind when God has been speaking to you all along and you have ignored Him?" You see, Evolutionism is metaphysical. It does not respond to scientific evidence. It does not respond to logic. For instance, information and organization are never added to anything by random chance. That is a scientific fact. The story of Evolution is a story about magic. Evolution has a troubling information problem. The paradigms of Naturalism and Materialism are magical paradigms where things happen without any cause. The paradigm known as Uniformitarianism (denial of The Catastrophic Worldwide Flood) is a paradigm in denial of the evidence.
How does order come from chaos? How can something come from nothing? How can randomness create intelligence? If the universe always existed as some hypothesis, then why isn't it in heat death. If the universe popped into existence from nothing, then what is the mechanism by which it popped. If plants and animals evolved, there would need to be thousands of transitional forms between known kinds of animals and plants; where are they? You can line up plants and animals according to similarity and claim that proves evolution; I can do the same with things I find in my garage; does that mean they evolved too? If the first complex (they are all amazingly complex) reproducing life popped into existence, by what mechanism did it pop? If it came into existence slowly, what are the steps? No one who looks at evolution with an open mind can accept it as a viable hypothesis.
"What makes the question complex is that in place of the countless thousands of transitional forms expected (as Darwin logically indicated should be found were molecules-to-man evolution to have ever happened, and anticipated would be found in future), there exists at any point in time a handful of candidates, i.e. fossils put forward as transitional forms by evolutionary proponents. [Note: By 'transitional forms' is meant here fossils showing intermediate stages between major evolutionary transitions, i.e. from one kind of creature to a wholly different kind. For example, stages in the supposed transition of a walking reptile to a flying bird, nothing which creationists could regard as variation/speciation within a kind. Some evolutionists argue that we have countless thousands of transitional fossils, but they empty the term 'transitional fossil' of any content really meaningful for the creation-evolution debate. They define a fossil as 'transitional' in the same sense that a car is 'transitional' between a unicycle and a truck. That is not in view here.] Creationists by definition would argue that there are none, so to evolutionists this is seen as 'proof'. From a creation perspective, though, consider the following:" Go to http://creation.com/missing-links-parade for the rest of this article.
Interestingly, the similarities in the genetic code are often contradictory to the evolutionistic interpretations of the fossil record. Some evolutionists deal with this by presenting arguments for one part of their hypothesis that conflicts with the arguments for another part of their hypothesis. They try to do this in a way that avoids detection of the inconsistencies. When these inconsistencies are pointed out, the evolutionists use deception to try to rationalize the problem away. You can read the latest from the scientific journals and see what I mean right here: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200812.htm ~ Current News: http://crev.info
While Evolutionists look only at the data that seems to be consistent with Evolutionism, looking at all the data shows that it is consistent with Genesis 1 rather than Evolutionism. http://creationrevolution.com/2011/02/molecular-equidistance-the-echo-of-discontinuity/
The Atheists, and those who believe Atheistic dogmas, claim that all they need to do is to prove that science could explain everything we needed to know without reference to God. If science is equivalent to story-telling this might have been true, except that we now know that scientific-sounding-story-telling cannot explain everything without violating several basic laws of science.
Here are some resources for conversations with unbelievers:
Last updated: Oct, 2013
Toons & Vids
What is the positive proof of evolution?
The Proof Of Evolutionism That Isn't There . . . Proves Evolutionism?
DNA is proof of creation. Evolutionists are in illogical denial of this obvious fact.
Has The HIV Virus Demonstrated Evolution In Any Way?
Are Super-Germs an Example of Evolution in Action?
Is Sickle-cell Anemia An Example Of Evolution In The Present Day?
Did E-Coli Evolve?
Is The Adaptation Of Bacteria To Feeding On Nylon Waste An Example Of Evolution?
Salt Crystals Are Not Strands Of DNA. A Strand Of DNA Is Not A Cell.
Evolutionists Claim That There Is Another Law That Works Exactly Opposite The Law Of Entropy
Evolution Is Impossible, But The Impossible Must Happen Over Huge Amounts Of Time
Because Of The Second Law Of Thermodynamics, Time Doesn't Make Complexity More Likely.
Claiming that Evolution is an Undeniable Fact of Science is Equivocation
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures