Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason are not at odds with one another. Science and reason support the fact that our world is no accident. The more you know about science the more evident it is that the natural world is a direct product of the hand of God. You don't have to be a scientist to come to this conclusion but the more you know about science the more you will come to appreciate it. This is not to say that we won't encounter puzzling questions at times. But the prepondorus of the evidence leans towards a created world. 

The evidence for creation is very compelling. However, that doesn't mean our search for truth will always be easy. It won't come over night. However,  Jesus said "seek and you will find". If we are patient and persistent, God will give us the answers we are looking for. God made us intelectual beings. He knows we need answers and he doesn't let us down. 

Attitude

Before we go any further we need to say a word about attitude. As you know I have devoted a whole section of this site to attitude. In the realm of faith and reason attitude is more important than ever. The Bible says, 

"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. 

Who can understand it?" - Jeremiah 17:9 NIV

In other words, if you want to reject God, your mind will find a way to do that. We usually end up getting what we want whether it's good for us or not. On the other hand, if you really want to know what the truth is, through patience and persistence, you will find it. Remember, God guarantees that. People who want to believe in God have biases too. But at least our biases are leaning toward something that is hopeful and promising. To choose atheism is to choose a world that offers no hope, no peace of mind, and no real joy. It puts you in a world of darkness and emptiness. This may sound crazy, but I'de rather go through life believing in a lie that makes me feel good and hopeful than believing something else that gives me no hope or joy. Yes, I know that being a nonbeliever has its perks. You get to make up your own world view. You get to create a moral universe that lets you do anything you want. And you can pretend that you are in charge of your own life. But as we all know, in this life, we're in charge of nothing, even if we think we are. 

But fortunately, God has given us an abundance of evidence that allows us to know with certainty that God is. The evidence that God gives us is so overwhelming that if I come across something that I can't explain or seems contradictory to my faith I will not be shaken. I know that in time God will either give me the answer or he will show me that I don't have to have all the answers to believe in him. We don't stop believing in people we love just because they may do something we don't understand. Faith and trust will always play a part.

It is the Bible that gives us insight about the nature and character of God but it is creation that proves his existence.  On this page we are going to take a look at some of the reasonable evidence that God has given us that supports faith in God. God has not asked us to have a blind faith. God created us as intelligent beings capable of looking at evidence and making sound judgements. In the first chapter of Romans the apostle Paus writes:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people

are without excuse. 

Romans 1:20

Before I present some of my own information it is only fitting that I give you a list of great video's made by scientists who are Christians. These are very informative and put together by very qualified men of science who believe in God. In fact, their study of the natural world has greatly reinforced their faith in God.

Cosmology, or the study of the beginning of the universe, presents significant problems to those who try to explain the universe without God. There are only two possibilities when it comes to the question "where did the universe come from?" 

1) The universe came from nothing.  

2) the universe has existed forever.

Both of these are unpalatable to the scientist who rejects God. The idea of something from nothing seems to fly in the face of both reason and age old scientific laws.

"The most we can say with confidence at this stage is that physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing." - Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Birmingham

And the idea that matter is eternal is equally problematic. The concept of "eternal" has always been regarded as something in the realm of religion. Science is all about cause and effect. About determining where things came from and how they began. The idea that something had no beginning seems unscientific.

So the "big bang" theory was attractive to some scientists because it seemed to give an answer to "where did the universe come from?" They could respond, "It came from a tiny ball of mass that exploded billions of years ago." Seems satisfying at first until you ask the question, "Where did the tiny ball of mass come from?" This tiny ball of infinitely dense and infinitely small matter is called a "singularity". And those who study this "singularity" tell us that before the singularity there was no time, space, matter or energy. So the universe of time, space, matter and energy had to have been the result of something else. Something that transcends all of these physical things. 

All of this may sound too fanciful for most of us to comprehend so let's put it in simple common sense terms. You don't get something from nothing. "Nothing" is not good at creating "something". The material world owes its existence to something greater than the material. 

Forget about billions of years ago for a moment. Come back to the present. Consider this: Life is unique in the universe. Even if we had easy answers for where matter came from, we still have to grapple with where life came from. Think about the nature of life. Think about the nature of human life. Human life is more than say, the life of an ameba. It is more than just movement and the ability to metabolize food. Human life is consciousness and introspection. Think about what  you are doing right now. You are contemplating the origins or the universe! No ameba has done that. We often use the phrase "mind over matter". We realized that there is something about thought on the human level that is both unique and powerful. 

Now, ask yourself this simple question: "Which makes more sense. That matter created mind. Or that mind created matter." You may not believe that there is a supreme God that created matter. But then you are left with the idea that matter created mind. For me, this is much harder to imagine. It's one thing to say that matter created life. But the idea that matter created mind seems much more unlikely. Mind, thought, love, introspection and beauty, all the product of inanimate matter? 

Now consider the possibility that mind created matter. Mind has the ability to envision, to plan, to invent and  to appreciate the fruit of its labor. In terms of the universe it would have to be a very great mind indeed would it not. 

Now consider this: even though our minds would be far inferior to that of a "universe creating mind". Yet we seem to be in tune with this universe, able to investigate it and appreciate it. Could it be that we have a connection with this supreme mind. Einstein once said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.” In other words, the fact that we can understand so much about the universe is amazing. It's as if someone wanted us to be able to explore and discover the secrets of the Universe. Did you know that without the unlikely event of a total eclipse Einstein's theory of relativity could not have been proved. How unlikely? The moon and sun had to be in just the right orbital possision. They both had to be just the right size. They both had to be just the right distance from each other and from the earth. No wonder Einstein marveled with the conditions of the universe that allowed him to prove his theory?  

Our Unlikely World

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.  -  Stephen Hawking -  “A Brief History of Time”

Scientists use the term "fine tuned for life" to convey the fact that our world, and in fact our universe, contains a multitude of paramaters that are all absolutely necessary for life to exist on our planet. Here are some of them: 

The right ingredients: A planet needs liquid water, an energy source and chemical building blocks like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen for the life forms we're familiar with to thrive.

Earth's position in the "habitable zone":  The earth's position in the solar system is perfect for life. It exists near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone (which allows a planet to maintain the right amount of liquid water on the surface). If the Earth were just 5% closer to the Sun, it would be subject to the 288 same fate as Venus, a runaway greenhouse effect, with temperatures rising to nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit. Conversely, if the Earth were about 20% farther from the Sun, it would experience runaway glaciations of the kind that has left Mars sterile.

The right crust: Gas giants and molten worlds need not apply. Luckily, Earth possesses the suitable distribution of elements to ensure a hot metallic core and a rocky mantle.

The right temperature: The necessity for liquid water also means that planetary temperatures must permit the substance to retain its liquid form in some regions.

The right moon: Our large moon ensures climate stability by minimizing changes in planetary tilt. If our planet didn't have a tilt, it wouldn't have seasons. Likewise, a severe tilt would result in extreme seasons. The moon helps the earth to have the only climate in the solar system mild enough to sustain complex living organisms. The moon also has just the right planetary rotation period (which stabilizes a planet’s tilt and contributes to tides). 

The right star: The sun provides Earth with the energy for life and is thankfully rather stable. Imagine baking a pot roast with an oven that might suddenly surge in temperature, die or explode. It wouldn't work for your pot roast, and it certainly wouldn't work for life.

The right core: Earth's solid inner core and liquid outer core play crucial roles in protecting life from deadly solar radiation. Differences in temperature and composition in the two core regions drive this powerful dynamo, emitting Earth's protective electromagnetic field.

Right amount of water in crust:  Earth has just the right amount of water in its crust. Water is the universal solvent for life. The polarity of the water molecule makes it uniquely fit for life. If it were greater or smaller, its heat of diffusion and vaporization would make it unfit for life.

Proper concentration of sulfur: The proper concentration of sulfur is necessary for important biological processes.

The right neighbors: Jupiter shields Earth from constant stellar bombardment. Without the gas giant in the neighborhood, scientists predict that Earth would endure 10,000 times as many asteroid and comet strikes.

The earth's planetary mass:  The planetary mass of the earth allows it to retain the right type and right thickness of atmosphere. If the Earth were smaller, its magnetic field would be weaker, allowing the solar wind to strip away our atmosphere, slowly transforming our planet into a dead, barren world much like Mars.

In short, Earth contains all the ingredients and environmental necessities for life to emerge... 

Finely Tuned Cosmological Constants

Now let's move on to the precision of our universe in the world of physics and atomic structure. The point is this: The odds of all of these factors just happening to fall in place on their own without an intelligent and purposeful hand to guide them is
astronomically unlikely.

JAY W. RICHARDS, is co-author of "Privileged Planet".  The following is a summary of some of the information contained in an article he wrote entitled "LIST OF FINE-TUNING PARAMETERS". The first four of these are called the four “fundamental forces.”

1) Gravitational force constant.

Gravitational force constant (large scale attractive force, holds people on planets, and holds planets, stars, and galaxies together)—too weak, and planets and stars cannot form; too strong, and stars burn up too quickly. Also, carbon which is made in the nuclear reactions of the stars, can only be made if the strength of gravity is just right. Too strong or too weak will prevent it from being made. Without carbon, life can not exist.

2) Electromagnetic force constant.

 Electromagnetic force constant (small scale attractive and repulsive force, holds atoms electrons and atomic nuclei together)—If it were much stronger or weaker, we wouldn’t have stable chemical bonds. 

3) Strong nuclear force constant.

Strong nuclear force constant (small-scale attractive force, holds nuclei of atoms together, which otherwise repulse each other because of the electromagnetic force)—if it were weaker, the universe would have far fewer stable chemical elements, eliminating several that are essential to life.

4) Weak nuclear force constant.

Weak nuclear force constant (governs radioactive decay)—if it were much stronger or weaker, life-essential stars could not form.

5) The balance of forces that control the expansion speed of the universe must be precise in the extreme. 

There must be an almost perfect balance between the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space. These two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.  If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 1034 of the range of force strengths, the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets.

(6 Initial conditions.

Dr. Richards says. "Besides physical constants, there are initial or boundary conditions, which describe the conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Initial conditions are independent of the physical constants. One way of summarizing the initial conditions is to speak of the extremely low entropy (that is, a highly ordered) initial state of the universe. This refers to the initial distribution of mass energy. In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123)" Other factors which must be in balance are the initial distribution of mass energy and the ratio of masses for protons and electrons. Dr. Richards says that if the ratio of masses for protons and electrons were even slightly different, building blocks for life such as DNA could not be formed. 

Stephen Hawkings wrote: "The initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time." - Stephen Hawkings - "A Brief History of Time".

Below are quotes from some of the greatest scientific mind of our day regarding the fact that our universe has been "fine tuned" for life:

 Ethan Siegel - Ph.D. astrophysicist and senior contributor for forbes.com:

"The fact that our Universe has such a perfect balance between the expansion rate and the energy density — today, yesterday, and billions of years ago — is a clue that our Universe really is finely tuned."   

Fred Hoyle, the English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis said, 

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars". - Sir Fred Hoyle

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job".

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

"If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Nobel laureate in physics Charles Townes -

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here." 

What is Evolution?

There are two kinds of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution tries to use evolution to explain changes above the species level. How one kind of species became another species. 

Microevolution on the other hand refers to developmental changes within species. This simply refers to the changes we see in already existing animal characteristics such as size or color. These can occur due to environment or human selective breeding.  Adaptation can explain how an already existing feature of an animal could be slightly modified. It cannot explain how completly new features could come into existence. For example, adaptation might explain how animals which happen to be born with longer coats might survive and reproduce in colder habitats. In the long run this might result in long haired varities that thrive in colder regions. 

Macroevolution on the other hand, is used to try to explain how entirely new featrues come into being. For example, a creature that lives in the sea needs a set of lungs to move onto the land and become a land creature. You can't transform gills to lungs in slow increments. If this were to happen the creature would quickly die off. If gills aren't fully functioning the animal can't survive at sea. If they aren't fully lungs the creature can't survive on land. The slow and gradual transformation theory just doesn't work. 

Evolution depends on beneficial mutations. That is, mutations that are helpful to the animal. The problem is that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Some would argue that they never happen at all. Think about it, how many times in your live does a purely random accident turn out to be helpful to you? Any process that claims to drive and direct the entire upward emergence of all life on earth would need to be both common and positive in its effect. Mutations are neither common nor positive. It should be noted that today in the observable natural world, mutations are part of the natural selective process that elaminates the weak. They do not elevate the creature or increase it's ability to surveve. 

Click below to see an amazing video compiled by a group of scientists who can to realize the inadaquecies of evolution to explain the existense of complex life.

Where did life come from?

Let's start with origins. Where did life come from?  Evolution is used to try to explain the development of life but it cannot explain how life came into existence. Everyone agrees that there was no life on this planet in the beginning. Everything on the planet was non living. Then suddenly there was life. I say "suddenly" because it had to happen suddenly. There is no such thing as something that is half dead and half alive. If something is not alive it cannot "evolve". Regardless of its physical makeup or  how  much time is involved, it's either dead or alive. And if it's not alive there can be no evolution taking place.

 So something that was not alive suddenly came to life in a quick and spontaneous way. There are vast problems with this idea. Let me put it simply. Every living organism on this planet, even what we consider the most simple life forms, requires many internal organic parts to live. Every organism is a complex organic machine.  It needs a way to breathe, to eat, to reproduce, just to name a few. The organism cannot live unless all of its parts are up and running. So I ask you, how can a living organism survive for millions of years while it is waiting for the evolutionary development of those body parts it so desperately needs to survive. It's a simple catch 22 problem. An organism can not come to life in the first place until it is functionally complete. Yet the organic components that it needs to have life cannot evolve their way into existence until the creature is alive. The evolutionist likes to say, "Life finds a way." Does lifelessness also find a way?

Another thing to keep in mind is that just having all the parts of a living creature does not explain the phenomena of life. Life has no physical explanation. This is why early evolutionists tried to turn to a bolt of lightning or something like that to explain how something came to life. They realized that no matter how perfect the primordial soup might have been, going from nonliving to living was still impossible to explain.

Bisexual creatures like ourselves is one example of how virtually impossible it would be for something as complex as bisexual creatures to come about in nature with no more that blind mutations to guide them. 

There are many things in the natural world which simply can not be explained by evolution. We've already mentioned the fact that evolution can not "invent" what a creature needs to survive. And even if it could, how would the creature survive while it is waiting for millions of  years to "evolve" these systems and body parts? 

The evolutionary community likes to talk about the evolution of an animal as a whole. But what really helps us see the problems in the evolutionary model is when we realize that whole creatures don't evolve unless all the individual organs and systems within them go through an evolutionary transformation. This is very revealing because if we say the creature as a whole evolved, we think of an animal with a brain that can think and do things. Perhapse it's doing things to help it evolve. But the fact is an animal can't evolve unless it's anatomy evolves. An organ has no brain and the only intelligence at work is the DNA that is already built into it telling it to stay exactly what it is. And an animal can not tell it's organs to make changes.

One of the of the most difficult, in fact impossible things for an evolutionist to explain is bisexual reproduction. Think about it. How complex are the reproductive systems of bisexual animals including people? Over the top complexity. So with nothing more to work with than random mutations, how long would it take for these animals to develop this apparatus? This of course is true for all attributes of living things. But with bisexual reproduction  a couple of new problems arise: 

1) In order for a species to evolve it's reproductive organs and systems both male and female of the species would have to evolve their reproductive anatomy independently. Since the genders are interdependent for sexual reproduction, each gender would have to "know" how to evolve a certain way to be complimentary to the other. The male has to evolve an anatomy that is specifically designed for sexual relations with the female and visa versa. Where does this "knowledge" come from? Remember, evolution has no "brain". Random mutations don't analyze data and make intelligent decisions.

2) If the reproductive systems and organs have not "evolved" to the point of being functional, how are these creatures surviving? How are they reproducing while they are in transition to becoming bisexual creatures? Are we to believe that they are reproducing in some other way while these attributes are under evolutionary construction? If the previous reproduction system deteriorates or ceases to work before the new reproduction system is functional then the species would quickly die out. Are we to believe that there are two different reproductive systems working just fine at some point? Further more, what alternative reproductive system could sustain the species while it's bisexual parts are in the wings? Is the species simply splitting apart like an amoeba? 

Is it reasonable to conclude that a highly complex functioning entity could arise in nature through random mutations? We have already mentioned several reasons why this could not happen. But there's a little bug out there that takes this to a whole new level. Meet the Bombardier Beetle.

The bombardier beetle’s tail end is equipped with twin “spray nozzles” (or gland openings) to shoot its gaseous ammunition. The gas comes from two reactant chemicals—hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. When the beetle contracts its sphincter muscle, these two chemicals mix with catalytic enzymes. The ensuing chemical reaction brings the temperature up to water’s boiling point. While the one-way valve closes to protect the beetle’s organs, out fires the mixture of gas and steam at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100°C). Some types of bombardier beetles can swivel their gland openings and shoot in nearly all directions using deflection plates. The bombardier beetle hits their target with a marksman’s precision. 

I was once watching an episode of "Ancient Aliens'. The series and people on the show are not Christians. It is a humanistic show that seeks to explain all kinds of phenomena around the world by proposing alien visitations. In this particular episode the narrator featured our friend the bombardier beetle. In a nutshell, he suggested that the beetle could not have evolved here on earth because of complexity of the beetle's anatomy and functionality. I was shocked to hear this coming out of his mouth. Someone that doesn't even believe in God was saying this creature could not have just evolved on its own. Its complexity defied evolution. Of course his answer was that it was somehow designed by aliens and brought here to earth long ago. Well, I don't think that's how it happened but I certainly commend him for having the wisdom to see that the beetle could not have been the result of random mutations. The beetle's design demands an "intelligent designer" of a much greater being.

All life is information based.
Evolution can not explain the origins of the information.

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this....  A code system is always the result of a mental process." - Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning was Information" 

Whenever we find coded information we always know that it can be traced back to a mind. Coded information is not a result of matter or energy, it is a result of mind. For example, scientists have spent millions of dollars and put in long hours scanning the universe for intelligent life under the SETI program. The notion is that if we detect a signal pattern in the radio waves that we can pick up from  the universe, then there must be intelligent life out there. Only intelligent life can produce a coded signal pattern. Only intelligent life can produce a signal pattern that is like a language. 

The signal pattern they are so desperately looking for has already been found. It is screaming at us in the DNA molecule. DNA contains information in a code that is in fact very similar to our own human languages.

The following material is taken in part from an article in Creation.com entitled "The Origin of Life"

"At the time when Darwin set forth his proposal of evolution it was not understood that life depended on information. Living things don't just have to have all the right components. They have to be pre-programed to form and do what they are supposed to do. Life is not based just on polymers but polymers with specific arrangements of the subunits; specific arrangements of amino acids to make functional proteins/enzymes and specific arrangements of nucleic acid bases to make functional DNA and RNA.

As astrobiologist Paul Davies, now director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University, said,

“To explain how life began we need to understand how its unique management of information came about.

“The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life’s origin, any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can execute a program.”

Davies is quoted as saying "It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.” And: “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …”.

Any attempt to explain the origin of life without explaining the origin of the information processing system and the information recorded on the DNA of a livingcell is avoiding the issue. We just have to look at the simplest free-living cell possible to see how the origin of the information is an insoluble problem for scenarios that rely on physics and chemistry and rule our intelligent design.

Sir Karl Popper, one of the most prominent philosophers of science of the 20th century, realized that,

“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated... (and) the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.

“Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science."

Origin of the DNA code

The coded DNA information storage system... cannot arise from chemistry, but demands an intelligent cause. If we think of other coding systems, such as the Morse code or a written alphabetical language, where symbols were invented to represent the sounds of speech, such coded systems only arise from intelligence. It is an arbitrary convention that ‘a’ is usually pronounced as in ‘cat’ in English; nothing about the shape of the letter indicates how it should be pronounced. Likewise, there is just no conceivable possibility of explaining the DNA coding system from the laws of physics and chemistry because there is no physical or chemical relationship between the code and what is coded.

Furthermore, if the origin of any DNA code were not a big enough problem, the DNA code turns out to be, of the many millions possible, ... the best of all.“

• Don Batten - Creation Ministries 

How did the first cell form?

The formation of the first cell is a big problem for scientists who reject a creator. If you read about "how life began" in a biology text book, you will wade through a long section dealing with how "organic molicules" came into existence. "Organic" as used here, does not mean anything was alive. I just means that the molecules found in living things can be formed in nature. These are the raw materials of living things. This concept is in perfect harmony with the story of creation found in Genesis. "From the dust of the earth..."

The raw materials we use to make a car or a computer are also formed naturally in the earth. But there's a big gap between the raw material and the functioning end product. That step requires inteligent design.

The gap that exists between the raw materials of life and life itself include the following:

1) The cell is alive. Life is vastly different from a chemical reaction.

2) The cell is made up of many complex parts which all work together. This requires a since of purpose and direction. Raw materials do not have a purpose or a direction.

3) The cell is information driven. (DNA and RNA). 

Consider these problems that have to be faced when considering where the first cell came from.

The following is an enlightening article by David Drayer:

"For the first cell to appear it had to have both proteins to protect it from the environment and a means of replication to reproduce the necessary proteins and enzymes.

The idea of a simple cells occurring easily by chance has long since be abandoned as the complexity and level of information found in the cell has been discovered.

One proposal is that life started from RNA. RNA first advocates propose that RNA performed both the enzymatic functions of modern proteins and the information storage function of modern DNA. Making RNA nucleotide bases has proven either extremely difficulty or impossible under realistic prebiotic conditions. 

Also the ability of RNA to function as proteins is extremely limited.

The DNA first model was proposed by Henry Quastler, in 1964. The problem is the incredible odds of getting information on the DNA and corresponding proteins at the same time and same place." ... 

"The coacervate protocell theory of Aleksandr Oparin dates from the 1920's proposed that proteins came first. The idea that soap bubble like circles of proteins formed the first cells. Then the proteins formed a system of self replication. As the complexity of DNA and proteins became apparent Oparin proposed that natural selection was able to work on prebiotic structures..."

 "Oparin's theory was attacked because proteins are not known to code for DNA or information. 

None of the theories Protein first, DNA first or RNA first are able to explain the origin of complex information required for life. The first cells had to have both complex proteins and complex information needed to replicate both the proteins and the information.

The information required for life seems to require intelligence. There is no scientific mechanism for the idea of intelligence first either." - David Drayer

Explosions of Life

The "Cambrian Explosion"

If you read the account of creation as revealed in Genesis chapter one, you read of an explosion of life. On day three God creates the plants and on day five he creates the animals. It is not a slow and gradual process over millions of years. It is an explosion of life that comes into being at the creator's word. The geologic record has been greatly modified since creation week because of the catastrophic upheaval of the flood. However, if evolution were true the fossil record should reflect a slow and gradual ascendance of life. That picture is not found in the geological record. Instead we find what scientists call, "the Cambrian Explosion". If you "google" this term this is what you will find,

"The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on Earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion," because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears." 

An explosion of life in a short period of time does not match the evolutionary model. It does match the model of creation and possibly the short period of time it would take for life to make a come back after the flood. No millions of years required. 

The Flood of Noah

The flood of Noah stands a one of the biggest evidences of the hand of God in this world that there is. A global flood that would cover the highest mountains would certainly leave it's mark on this world and it did. We will list some of the main evidences that we see today in the geographical and fossile record that can only be explained through a catastrophic flood as we read about in Genesis chapter six. Here are some of the most significant physical proofs that the flood of the Bible truly did happen.