Probably one of the best arguments against evolution is information. And by information I am really talking about the genetic makeup of living organisms, DNA. Evolutionists have several problems with this issue.
First, this initial piece of information had to come from somewhere since it does not naturally occur in matter. So where did it come from? They also have to explain where the mechanism to read this initial piece of genetic information came from. Without this mechanism it could not reproduce exact replicas of itself with no errors. It could not read what was there. It would basically be like having millions of letters, but no language to read them.
Second, they have to explain how such complex groups of information randomly came together to create all types of plants and animals. To put this into perspective, the simplest cells have around 1 trillion bits, or about 100 million pages of an encyclopedia. So basically an evolutionist is telling you that over billions of years (which is untrue itself) these pieces of information have by chance randomly come together to create all forms of plants and animals. In my short lifetime, that is probably one of the most absurd things I have ever heard, but people actually believe it. Mainly because they refuse to believe in God and in the Bible and mis-interpret data based upon these presumptions.
But the problem with information does not stop with the random configuration theory of evolution. The problem also exists with the fact that the genetic code for one structure is completely different than the genetic code for another structure. For example our skin and a reptiles scales. The mechanisms in us reproduces exact replicas of skin cells and do not have the information required to make a scale. Even taking a look at natural selection, genetics show that it is not new genetic data but instead is just a slight re-arrangement of the same data.
So in the end, the Bible once again explains something that evolutionists can simply throw random theories at.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Probably one of the worst arguments creationist ever made-up.
First, evolutionary explains the “diversity” of life not the “origin”. Saying its a problem for evolution is like saying the theory of gravity has a problem because it doesn’t explain the origin of the universe.
Since you brought it up though in fact self-replicating structures do exist in nature. Just like DNA the mechanism for replication is nothing more then chemistry. Anything that replicates with variation will evolve. The answer to where did life come from is counter intuitive because the answer is it didn’t come from anywhere. Life is defined by our arbitrary concepts, but in the end there is just matter and what it is doing. So our best explanation right now is that we are complex replicating structures that originated from simple replicating structures. How simple? Molecule simple.
Now back to the information argument. I’d always relish in the fact that anytime this argument which is old as sin is brought up the person making it neglects to mention what “information” actually is in genetic terms. Often they will make reference to how different our “information” is from something else, but in reality all that is difference is the sequencing. There is a reason why its called the genetic “code” because it is a code or a language, which ALL life shares. A, C, G, and T. These form the base pairs for our and everything’s DNA.
So let’s take TCAGCATG as a simple sequence. Now lets take TCAGCATGA. What just happen? Could it be? BEHOLD!!!… the miracle of new information.
The fact is its a simple as addition or subtraction. These are observed to occur all the time now that we have the ability to map the genome.
Finally, we call it random mutation because so little is understood as to how or why each can occur, but the process of selection those mutations is anything, but random. Natural selection is the opposite of random. Saying genetics randomly piece together to form diversity of life is like saying a guy randomly died while continuously playing Russian roulette. It was only a matter of time.
Once again your presumtion that the Bible is not true is the only way to justify the science supporting evolution. In all sencerity I hope you realize this mistake before it is too late.
Macro evolution is one attempt by humans to explain the diversity of life and not necessarily the very origin, but then you have to try to explain the big bang theory which is also taught as fact in some places despite no scientific evidence to prove it.
So all life evolved rom this one organism (from the big bang). So you are saying the big bang also created the mechanism within this first organism to read the genetic code and recreate itself. (remember how much information this is)
I am a little confused by your self-replicating issue. I did not say that living organisms do not self-replicate. I said that they did. This goes back to the mechanism to read this code and replicate itself perfectly. Variations does not prove evolution, only microevolution and mutations. You cannot give me a proven example of a mutation that increased the complexity of an organism. Geneticists created over 3,000 mutations for the fruit fly, but none of them made the fruit fly more successful or created something different. Your argument shows that these mutations would happen by chance and create more evolved creatures over billions of years. (which you also cannot prove)
Your recombination or shuffling of genes is deceptive. Recombination is a discovery of Gregor Mendel, Darwin’s comtemporary. Recombination allows for small variation within a species, but is limited to these variations because it is just that. Recombination of the same genes.
Natural selection is not marco evolution, but rather micro within a species. It does not create anything, but simply is the concept of survival of the fitest.
Like I said in the very beginning, your presumptions that the Bible is not true will keep your from interpreting the same facts the same way.
You said “…people actually believe it. Mainly because they refuse to believe in God and in the Bible and mis-interpret data based upon these presumptions.”
So let’s say there was no evidence at all for evolution. Let’s say it was just a personal choice to believe in it, and it was just some wild thing people chose to believe in order to make themselves feel better. How exactly would that be any more ridiculous than believing in an invisible, omnipotent being in the sky, or the story of a jewish rabbi walking on water and raising people from the dead two thousand years ago? What a joke. Don’t call yourself a conservative. It’s embarrassing to people who can think.
WhatArgument?
Interesting comment considering that you say I cannot think, but you are the one who did not understand the very simple point I was making. My point is that people will interpret the same data (scientific in this case) in different ways based upon their presumptions. It is just a little common sense. That is why people such as yourself will never believe in creation and I will not believe in evolution. Your conservative comment also did not make much sense. The conservative perspective is one that thinks God should be in government (this is a politcal blog). If you are conservative leaning and do not believe this then more than likely you are a libertarian.
Although not ridiculous, being a Christian is all about faith. (And I would agree so is belief in evolution, but with much less historical support…the Bible is at least historically accurate) It is really pointless for someone to try to understand the concept of God using logic. You may see yourself as intelligent because you cannot figure it out with logic and reason, but that does not make it any less true or you any more intelligent. I would say that a belief in evolution vs a belief in God is like comparing apples to oranges. A belief in God is much more than how we were created. And I would also add this…the consequence of not believing in evolution is nothing while the consequence of not believing in God is quite severe. So why take the chance? The Christian faith promotes things that only help the world become a better place. Why not be apart of that?
a common question often asked by both intelligent designers and evolutionists, is one of eternal consequences. the question is; does God exist? the entire center of mankind is determined by whether we think of ourselves as god or whether we obey a super-being as Lord.
does God exist? there is a philosophy that teaches that all things are designed for a purpose. some very simple arguments for purposeful intelligent design come from creation. some might view this not as creation but as random existence of matter. in whichever camp you fall, consider the following; take for instance the earth’s distance from the sun. if the earth were any closer to the sun we would literally burn up. if any further from the sun we would freeze to death. perhaps we look at the tilt of the earth on its axis. the reason for this tilt is to ensure that all areas of the earth receive their proper amounts of sunlight. or look at the atmosphere. the chemistry consists of exactly the proper amounts of oxygen and nitrogen to sustain life. which, by the way, is the only atmosphere detected in the universe that can support human life. these are wonderful proofs of creation and intelligent design, but i save the most phenomenal evidence for last. the human being, the person. the human eye when exposed to darkness increases its perceptive abilities by 100,000 times. the human brain weighing only 3.3 lbs. , performs at the equivalent of what 500 tons of electrical technology can perform. because of these simple, even scientific facts that i have stated, “anyone who flat out rejects intelligent design rejects God. and does so not because science allowed them to do so, but simply because they choose to reject God.” exert from my book, “Why I Believe”
Very well said greg