Three Proofs for a Creator


Proof Number One 

Did Somebody Make me???

Let's Suppose that a team of engineers and programmers invested millions of hours and many billions of dollars designing and building a robot that can see because 'it' has video cameras in its head. 

Let's suppose that this robot can also walk upright -- because it has legs and feet -- with joints and electric circuitry that were Designed for walking.  

Let's also suppose that this robot can hear and speak in 30 languages: because, and only because, it was Designed and Programmed to do so: with specifically designed, audio amplifiers, software programs for speaking, air pumps, vocal chords, etc.  

And if we were to take a survey of people with a 3rd grade education or more, it is very likely that almost everyone (including scientists) would agree that the robot was Designed and Created  by intelligent people, as opposed to nature, energy and chance, acting on matter ... for millions or billions of years.

Yet as complicated as this robot is, it still can't "mate" with another robot, become "pregnant," and give birth to little baby robots.  This is because it isn't Designed  to do so: because scientists, engineers and programmers are not smart enough to do so.  

In other words, we humans are more complicated -- if not a lot more so -- than such a man-made machine that could only come about by Lots and Lots of Design, Creativity, programming and manual / micro-manipulation of many different substances.

So if such a robot could only come about by Design and Creation of many thousands of parts -- made of many different substances -- how much more so for us.

PS: For those who don't know, scientists have yet to observe even one life-based protein form by itself -- apart from being constructed by a pre-existing organism: including very "simple" ones that are only 8-9 amino acids long.

See also:
Open Letter to an Atheist
  Is Evolution based on Science?
Bio-Gears and Evidence of Design 



 

Proof Number Two

Evidence of Design  or  Quick Adaptation?     

One of the most fascinating creatures is the butterfly.  It had never occurred to me how this small creature provides strong evidence of a creator until I heard a micro-biologist named Dr. Duane Gish, elaborate on how the rapid transformation that takes place during metamorphosis is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary beliefs: which propose that living organisms change little by little, over long periods of Time.

The transformation from caterpillar to butterfly poses a Major Problem for evolutionary beliefs. This is because caterpillars come from butterflies. But evolutionary theory says that life changes from one form to another  over many millions of years -- as a result of multitudes of tiny mistakes in the DNA.  So if evolution were true, then how did the first two caterpillars transform themselves into fully mature butterflies in such a short time-frame (of about 14 days)?  I say “they” because both the male and the female are needed to make butterfly eggs. What makes this more amazing is that during “metamorphosis” the caterpillar’s internal organs dissolve into a liquid before they “morph” into a butterfly.   

What the first two “protopillars” (or pre-caterpillars) did is the equivalent of a man and  woman placing themselves in a  deep sleep and  within a matter of months Transforming themselves into flying  angels with wings, and henceforth giving birth to "people" that also undergo the same transformation.  

For, without both male and female butterflies (with fully developed reproductive organs) you don’t have butterfly eggs, and without butterfly eggs, you don’t have caterpillars, and without caterpillars, you don’t have cocoons.  All of these things had to come about at the same time, and because of this, it appears that Someone (pre) programmed the DNA of these beautiful creatures from the beginning of their existence.

Note also that it wasn’t just the reproductive organs that formed in days as opposed to millions of years, but also wings, and wing veins -- with fluid that's pumped both into their wings, to make them unfold, and then back out, to make them light.  Butterflies also have new jointed legs, with muscles and nerves connected in just the right places so that the newly transformed creature can stand up and walk.  Their wings are also jointed and have muscles attached in just the right place so that they can rapidly flap them back and forth to fly.  They also have much more complex eyes and antennae that somehow spontaneously organized itself from a liquid mixture.  Note also that this transformation didn’t just happen once, but tens of thousands of times with each species of butterfly, moth, and flying beetle. 

In this regard, Frank Sherwin quotes Richard Milton (a non-creationist) as follows with regard to this mystery: 

"... no stage or aspect of this physical process can be accounted for or even guessed at with our current knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology, extensive though they are.  It is completely beyond us.  We know practically nothing about the plan or program governing the metamorphosis, or the organizing agency (behind) ... this plan." 14

In other words, in spite of the pronouncements of people who call themselves "scientists," the fact is that such evidence very strongly suggests -- if not proves -- that such complex creatures were programmed to transform by an intelligence far superior to ours, and that the evidence of design is overwhelming: which leads to the logical conclusion that there must be a  Creator.   But in spite of these facts, and major problems for the theory of evolution -- or slow creation -- the Mass Media, popular "science" publications, and many University Professors appear to be Hell-Bent on ignoring any and all evidence that is staring them in the face -- along with the even more astounding "odds" against a first (hypothetical) self-replicating organism coming to life via purely natural processes. 

In other words, they believe what they believe, in spite of the odds and evidence against it, and have chosen to believe something that is not supported by the facts -- as opposed to something that is.  And in spite of these things, many of our Institutions of higher learning are dominated by ignorant and willful atheists who cling to any and every scrap of purported evidence that agrees with their agenda of brainwashing their students to believe in a Fairy Tale. 

More Butterfly Links:
 
Butterfly Metamorphosis 
Video of Butterfly Metamorphosis 
Butterflies - The Miracle of Metamorphosis 
Mission Impossible: The Monarch Butterfly 

 


 

Proof Number Three

The Facts of Life

Those who hail evolution as a “fact” are either ignorant of the facts, making them up, and/or lying about them.  The fact is that scientists have not even been able to create the amino acid alphabet (of 20 amino acids) that make up proteins.  And in this regard, the concoctions that origin of life researchers have come up with almost always consist of 50/50 mixtures of L-type (left-handed) and D-type (right-handed) amino acids.  This is about as far from making a living organism as a piece of silver is from a computer (with monitor, printer, cables, connectors and electricity) running on a well-designed program like Windows XP or 7...  For even the most "simple," self-replicating, bacterium contains thousands of proteins, of many different types, that consist of  left-handed  amino acids -- each of which is connected in the right order ( like words that make up sentences), while the most basic protein (only 8 amino acids) has never been observed to form by itself -- apart from being made by the machinery in a living cell: i.e. DNA, RNA, ribosomes, signaling proteins, polymerase (micro-copy machines), etc.

For example, Mycoplasma is perhaps the most basic self-replicating bacteria ever discovered.  It consists of about 40,000 proteins of 600 different types, has 482 genes, and can only survive and replicate if it has a (more complicated) host organism to help it survive: since it is a parasite.

To suppose that such a creature as a simple bacteria came into being by itself over millions or billions of years is an example of man's willingness to invent or speculate about things which he cannot explain.  Such beliefs are not based on facts, nor empirical (observed) science, but rather on a blind faith in the power of unintelligent matter to organize itself by time and chance, avoid toxic substances and overcome nature's destructive forces:  such as heat, cold, oxidation, and water breakdown by hydrolysis.

In this regard, one origin of life researcher spoke of a molecule called 2-aminooxizole with regard to one of the most complex molecules that have been observed to form naturally.   In other words, scientists have observed two amino acids coming together to form a peptide, but they have not observed even the most basic protein come together in this way.  In this regard, Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses the difficulty of getting even a modest size protein -- of 150 amino acids -- to form naturally in a book on the complexity of the cell.  In fact, he and other researchers have calculated that it will not happen in 4.5 billion years: even if the whole entire earth were a primordial slime pool with only the right type of ingredients. 

Is there any reason to expect that a Creative bolt of Lightning, or Bubble could produce a half-way-formed "pre-mycoplasmic" organic blob of cells that would -- over millions and millions of  years -- make itself more and more complex to the point where it could maintain and  Reproduce itself ?  Or would such a hypothetical blob of matter simply decay and degrade via natural processes?   

Keep in mind that for such a hypothetical blob to "select" a benefit, it would first need to be able to reproduce itself -- which it can't -- and that the thing "selected" for would need to convey some sort of immediate benefit.  Keep in mind also that without a "Selector," pre-programmed target, or overriding Intelligence to oversee what random mistakes are taking place, such a blob of cells would have no ability to 'select' for anything because it isn't alive, has no brain, and is blind to everything around it.  

Like it or not, the facts of science declare that such an imaginary "pre-creature" would not complete this process on its own, but would instead simply decay back into the matter from which it came.  In other words, a belief in evolution is based on faith, as opposed to scientifically observed and/or demonstrated facts.  However this is NOT what children and students are being taught in public schools and colleges, but instead they are being brainwashed to believe something that logic alone tells us is not true: much less a so-called "fact" of science. 

But, for the sake of those interested, lets look more closely at the inner workings of the cell.  For example, living organisms possess a molecule called  Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (or DNA) that contains all of the information needed to make a specific life-form, and that enables it to maintain and repair itself.  The DNA molecule is itself also divided into sections called chromosomes, which are further broken down into genes.  One DNA molecule may have thousands of different genes: each of which may be used to create hundreds of different proteins.  For example, human DNA is estimated to have about 23,000 genes, yet our bodies contain about 2 million different proteins.  In other words, each one of our genes has the information needed to create about 900 different proteins. 

Genes are relatively small portions of chemically coded information, like letters that make up a sentence, and that are used by the cell machinery to make proteins.  The  DNA cannot decode itself, but requires the aid of numerous proteins that don't form naturally to do so.  For example, DNA polymerase, helicase, mRNA, ribosomes, etc.   If a DNA molecule were compared to a book, then its genes would be the equivalent to individual (long) words or sentences of that book, and the DNA equivalent to the Book itself, but a living organism is more complex than  a book since it can actually maintain and reproduce itself.

The DNA in living organisms makes molecular machinery (as in complex molecules called polymerase and helicase) that enable it to copy its information. For example, when a DNA molecule copies one of its genes, the copy is called RNA. This RNA molecule then leaves the DNA and travels to the golgi body, where it is spliced and edited and then sent on to a ribosome, where its information is re-read and translated from a 4-letter (DNA/RNA) coded language (that's like a binary code), to a 20-letter amino-acid / protein code (that is more like the English alphabet). This pre-protein then must be folded into a specific shape before it becomes a mature / useful protein that can perform a specific function.  Proteins are not known to form naturally in slime-pools, oceans, or laboratories, but rather are only made by living organisms.
    

Living cells are also quite fragile and require a protective membrane to enclose them and to keep harmful substances out.  If they get too hot or cold they will die.  If there isn't enough oxygen, or if there is too little or too much of certain substances they will also cease to function.  Even
water itself  is not allowed to come inside the cell membrane without being strictly regulated: the same goes for all other elements.  The cell also maintains a proper PH (of about 7.35 -- 7.45) for DNA, RNA and protein synthesis to take place.

In other words, life is like a highly ordered and complex program (or book) that is hundreds to  thousands of pages long and so far nature, on its own, can't even write a single line of that book.  The popular theory of evolution proposes that the book of life -- with all of its twists and turns and complexity -- wrote itself, without the aid of an intelligence; however, this has not been verified by science, nor by any laboratory or scientist.

Some bacteria and cells also have microscopic motors that are used to propel themselves forward or backward and spin at 10,000 rpms in either direction.  Did they also "evolve" by themselves? 

See also:
Is there a God? 
The Facts of Life 
Applicable Scriptures 
Is Water the Solution

Life, DNA and Proteins  
Which is more Scientific?
 
Did Life arise by Accident? 
Response to comments above 
Is Evolution based on Science
How Life Began  by Thomas F. Heinze 
The Odds of Evolution by Chance -- excerpts from 
What do the Scriptures say About How we got Here?
A Closer Look at the Evidence
by Richard and Tina Kleiss 
Your Tax Dollars at Work:
against Logic, Science, and God 
The Origin of Information by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler
 How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution  
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible  by Dr. Jerry Bergman 
DNA Demands Creation By Design, by Carl Cantrell 
Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of years Old?
Could Life "Just Happen"?  by Ron Lyttle
The Origin of Life by Eric Blievernicht
 
----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
See also: EvolutionisImpossible.com 
Where we discover that Evolution is:
 
Chemically,  Biologically & Mathematically Impossible

Home