Why I believe God Created Life.

[Sir Doom]

Complexity is merely perception and does not imply intelligent design at all. It only implies an intelligent observer.

 

[idav]

That is just the beginning of the complexity encountered in so-called simple cells.

The way I see it, God is life and existence which would explain how all this complexity came about and how life was able to evolve to what we see today.

 

[rusra02]

Complexity is merely perception and does not imply intelligent design at all. It only implies an intelligent observer.

Obviously, I don't agree that complexity is merely perception. And intelligent design is not simply complexity. It is information content in living cells, the encoded intelligence that science is just beginning to understand, just beginning...
I never saw a program, however simple, without an intelligent programmer. How much less the amazing programming in DNA argues for a Programmer of surpassing wisdom. One more reason why I believe God created life, as the Bible says he did.(Revelation 4:11)

 

[rusra02]

If you want to believe that, that's one thing. If you want to call it science, then you need some way to test it and potentially falsify it. If you can't do that, then it isn't science.

I think an arbitrary definition of what constitutes science should not be used to hide the obvious truth.

 

[Sir Doom]

Obviously, I don't agree that complexity is merely perception.

Obviously. But you should, because its the truth. Allow me to explain.

All complex objects are simple and all simple objects are complex. This is universal. These concepts are polar opposites, though and should not be able to simultaneously exist within the same object, let alone every object. The reason that they can, is because neither is an intrinsic quality of the object, but rather is a quality being added by the observation itself. What we are describing when we say, "complex" is our ability to understand the object, not the object itself. As this differs widely from one person to the next, it must be a matter of perception.

And intelligent design is not simply complexity.

I feel duty-bound to point out the irony of this statement. This is a very good demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about.

It is information content in living cells, the encoded intelligence that science is just beginning to understand, just beginning...

You can slip God into that gap if you so desire. I won't bother disputing you. My disagreement is with your assertion that the complexity of the cell implies intelligent design. That's all.

I never saw a program, however simple, without an intelligent programmer. How much less the amazing programming in DNA argues for a Programmer of surpassing wisdom. One more reason why I believe God created life, as the Bible says he did.(Revelation 4:11)

To call DNA a 'program' is to stack the deck. A program is a planned series of events. If there is no planner, then its just a series of events. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

 

[idav]

Obviously, I don't agree that complexity is merely perception. And intelligent design is not simply complexity. It is information content in living cells, the encoded intelligence that science is just beginning to understand, just beginning...
I never saw a program, however simple, without an intelligent programmer. How much less the amazing programming in DNA argues for a Programmer of surpassing wisdom. One more reason why I believe God created life, as the Bible says he did.(Revelation 4:11)

I've never met a programmer not born as offspring from parents. Therefore god has parents. Can you see why that argument doesn't work?

 

[Parsimony]

I think an arbitrary definition of what constitutes science should not be used to hide the obvious truth.

Testability is the essence of what science is. No testing = no science. This is the case whether intelligent design is true or not.

 

[rusra02]

I've never met a programmer not born as offspring from parents. Therefore god has parents. Can you see why that argument doesn't work?

Since God is the Source of life, your comparing God to humans is wrong, IMO. (Psalm 36:9) To claim God needs parent is to claim those parents need parents, and on and on. The Bible says of Jehovah, "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." I believe the one true God had no beginning and will exist forever.
In any case, that wrong view does not invalidate the proof for God evident in the informational content in DNA.

 

[rusra02]

Testability is the essence of what science is. No testing = no science. This is the case whether intelligent design is true or not.

How does one test macroevolution?

 

[Parsimony]

How does one test macroevolution?

By looking at the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that certain types of fossils should be found to occur in a specific range of ages. The oldest fish fossils should always predate the oldest amphibian fossils which should always predate the oldest reptile fossils which should always predate the oldest mammal fossils. So far, there are no confirmed fossil finds that violate these predictions.

Fossils should also only be found in locations that the ancestor of that species could have conceivably reached. We should never find Australopithecus fossils on Easter Island, for example.

Another prediction is that modern organisms should have broken genes which were functional in their ancestors. Genes for smell in dolphins and genes for enamel-coated teeth in baleen whales have been found but they are non-functional.

Yet another one would be that we would expect ERV-insertion patterns in species with a common ancestor to be similar (the more recent the split in lineage, the more similar the patterns should be). Humans and chimpanzees have ERV-insertion pattern similarities in excess of 99.9%, which agrees with evolutionary predictions. This also predicts that humans should have less similar ERVs with baboons than chimps, and less similar ERVs with mice than baboons. I don't know what the numbers are for baboons and mice, but if evolution is true, the pattern should be consistent with what I've said.

 

[Ouroboros]

...macroevolution...

Also, macroevolution would be reflected on the radiation of species around the planet. Which was basically the reason to why Darwin realized what he did. The finches are different based on how they spread, and so are other animal, species, genus, etc. Like old world monkeys vs new world monkeys, or all species of genus Homo and how they spread through the world and the fossils left behind. Macroevolution explains radiation of species. Creationism doesn't.

(* note: "radiation" here does not mean radioactive radiation, but the circular spread of something, i.e. "radial distribution")

 

[rusra02]

By looking at the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that certain types of fossils should be found to occur in a specific range of ages. The oldest fish fossils should always predate the oldest amphibian fossils which should always predate the oldest reptile fossils which should always predate the oldest mammal fossils. So far, there are no confirmed fossil finds that violate these predictions.

Fossils should also only be found in locations that the ancestor of that species could have conceivably reached. We should never find Australopithecus fossils on Easter Island, for example.

Another prediction is that modern organisms should have broken genes which were functional in their ancestors. Genes for smell in dolphins and genes for enamel-coated teeth in baleen whales have been found but they are non-functional.

Yet another one would be that we would expect ERV-insertion patterns in species with a common ancestor to be similar (the more recent the split in lineage, the more similar the patterns should be). Humans and chimpanzees have ERV-insertion pattern similarities in excess of 99.9%, which agrees with evolutionary predictions. This also predicts that humans should have less similar ERVs with baboons than chimps, and less similar ERVs with mice than baboons. I don't know what the numbers are for baboons and mice, but if evolution is true, the pattern should be consistent with what I've said.

The fossil record can be tested for evidence of sudden creation versus slow evolution. What does the fossil evidence actually show? This quote from Was Life Created is pertinent, I think: "Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.”

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!

Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

What you claim is evidence is, IMO, an interpretation of a small subset of the evidence based on a preconceived worldview.

 

[rusra02]

Also, macroevolution would be reflected on the radiation of species around the planet. Which was basically the reason to why Darwin realized what he did. The finches are different based on how they spread, and so are other animal, species, genus, etc. Like old world monkeys vs new world monkeys, or all species of genus Homo and how they spread through the world and the fossils left behind. Macroevolution explains radiation of species. Creationism doesn't.

(* note: "radiation" here does not mean radioactive radiation, but the circular spread of something, i.e. "radial distribution")

So if something is created, they cannot spread abroad? Really? Animals and people in a specific area tend to be similar, but it doesn't prove macroevolution.

 

[Ouroboros]

The "Cambrian Explosion" was about 70-80 million years! The human species has only existed for barely a 10th of that time. Also, the Cambrian explosion was over 500 million years ago.

Creationists have to assume the dating to be true and an old Earth to use that as an argument against evolution. Evolution has no issue with a speedier rate of change. There's no law in evolution that declares the exact speed the changes must happen, so there's no issue with a Cambrian explosion. We don't know all the factors to why it happened, but that doesn't make the records of them happening false. The issue with the Cambrian explosion for the Creationists is that it is a record of evolution. It shows a high-speed evolution for 50 million years.

 

[Ouroboros]

So if something is created, they cannot spread abroad? Really? Animals and people in a specific area tend to be similar, but it doesn't prove macroevolution.

When changes of the similarities, diverges more and more the farther away from a point in a semi-radial fashion, and it is explained by evolution. Evolution explains that very well. Creationism can't explain old world v new world monkeys or their relationship with apes for instance, but evolution does. The same goes for basically all other species too.

 

[rusra02]

The "Cambrian Explosion" was about 70-80 million years! The human species has only existed for barely a 10th of that time. Also, the Cambrian explosion was over 500 million years ago.

Creationists have to assume the dating to be true and an old Earth to use that as an argument against evolution. Evolution has no issue with a speedier rate of change. There's no law in evolution that declares the exact speed the changes must happen, so there's no issue with a Cambrian explosion. We don't know all the factors to why it happened, but that doesn't make the records of them happening false. The issue with the Cambrian explosion for the Creationists is that it is a record of evolution. It shows a high-speed evolution for 50 million years.

That is the point. It is not a record of evolution. The sudden appearance of fully formed creatures is evidence that they were created. That is what the fossil record shows.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is the point. It is not a record of evolution. The sudden appearance of fully formed creatures is evidence that they were created. That is what the fossil record shows.

Every individual, even you, is a fully formed creature.

The fossil record doesn't store one single individuals birth and growth until death. What's fossilized is the individual at the time they're dead. So of course you will have fully formed creatures.

When you study the fossils you can see small changes between the individuals over time. You can see similarities and differences between the monkeys in the new and old world. And you can see that the differences diverged from a time when they were connected through the landmasses. And the chances/differences are very strong in some of the features, which shows that mutations and selection drives the physiological changes as well as internal changes. And we can see these differences in the DNA. We can trace these lineages through the genes. And we can extrapolate that principle for all other animals and humans as well and see that macroevolution is true. It all ties together in a perfectly knitted mesh of life. Look at the whole picture. Don't get stuck in details that are explained when you understand the whole. One puzzle piece that confuses you will not be a problem if you can see the whole picture. Evolution paints a large painting where all pieces fit. The pieces that are troubling you aren't problems at all. They're only problems when you can't see how it all works together.

So you're saying that Creationism can explain the radiation of species and polymorphism? Can you please provide that explanation. Can you also explain, based on Creationism, why we share a higher level of genetic code with chimps, lesser with apes in general, even lesser with each and every species farther away on the evolutionary scale? Why do we share 22 ERVs with the chimpanzees and some hundred transposons?

 

[Parsimony]

The fossil record can be tested for evidence of sudden creation versus slow evolution. What does the fossil evidence actually show? This quote from Was Life Created is pertinent, I think: "Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.”

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!

Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

What you claim is evidence is, IMO, an interpretation of a small subset of the evidence based on a preconceived worldview.

As Ouroboros has already pointed out, the Cambrian Explosion took place over millions of years. Hardly "sudden". Forms can be stable for long periods of time if they are very-well adapted to their environments. If an animal is well-adapted, there will be little selection pressure acting on it to make it change. It is also rather strange that the fossils line up chronologically and geographically in exactly the way you'd expect them to if macroevolution actually happened. Quite a funny coincidence. The only model of creationism that could account for that is progressive creationism. However, even progressive creationism can't explain certain vestigial genes and ERV patterns (as every new generation of creation should be "fresh" and not contaminated by the nonfunctional genes and ERVs possessed by similar, extinct forms).

 

[Ouroboros]

I would also like a Creationist explanation to genetic variation and especially the copy number variation in the DNA. About 0.4% of humanity has a different number of genetic material. Not just a different DNA because we all have unique mutations (about 50 per person I think it is), but some have even a different number of genes (deleted and duplicated=increase in "information"). This can't exist if "kinds" is a stable category. The variation is not part of detrimental or negative mutations, but are just variations, and not just allele variation but number variation. So why did God do that? And this is happening in all biological life.

 

[Bunyip]

But of course, some biologists do claim exactly that; intelligent design is apparent in nature. So do millions of other intelligent persons with eyes to see. What the Bible says is true: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20)

Can you substantiate your claim that RNA has been observed to form naturally?

Yes google 'RNA World hypothesis' it will have links to the appropriate articles.

Sure there are a tiny few biologists who argue for ID, but they have no data to present, no hypothesis to test and no actual evidence.
Saying 'it is apparent' is meaningless, it sure isn't apparent to 99% of biologists, and has not been demonstrated experimentally.