Skip to main content

Evidence for Creation Part 2




In Tom DeRosa’s informative little book he takes evolution head on. He shows how the fossil record continually disproves Darwin’s theories, and how evolutionists are so desperate for proof that they continually make fraudulent findings. But I want to concentrate on just two parts from his book: cells and DNA.

Cells, as we know, are microscopic. Thanks to advances in our equipment we are now better able to study cells under microscopes, whereas Darwin and his early cohorts were not able to. Darwin theorized that cells evolved early, and that over time they built upon themselves to eventually give us the human race. One-celled organisms had to have been the first living things to evolve.

But now we know that cells are far too complicated to have simply evolved or to be the product of random chance. Consider the flagellum, which is the tail-like structure that propels bacterial cells. The flagellum is comprised of hundreds of types of proteins, and it works like a rotary propeller, moving at 100,000 RPMs. This flagellum has two gears, allowing the cell to move in both forward and reverse, and in all, it has over 40 working parts.

According to evolution this was the first living thing to have evolved. So the universe went from no life to suddenly having the equivalent of a propeller-driven airplane all at once.

What is now known as irreducible complexity, we have learned that organisms like the bacterial flagellum cannot operate unless all of their working parts are functioning together. The amount of cooperation needed to pull this off is staggering, and there is no way that randomness can be credited with this success.

Also consider DNA. DNA is known as the blueprint for life, using only four bases to map out all living things. The base pairs are named G,C,A, and T (standing for Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Thymine respectively). DNA exists as a double helix, meaning it is shaped like a spiral staircase. Each person has his own unique DNA, which is actually all accounted for at the second of conception, thus proving that each conception is a unique human life.

“The DNA molecule is a very long, microscopically thin string that is tightly bound together. When it unravels, it unzips the double helix, and the two segments open up, exposing a sequence of the four base pairs listed above (p.50).”

As this process takes place, all the information for every structure in life is emitted from the nucleus of a cell to build specific proteins. In humans, height, hair and eye color, and everything else is determined by the information contained in these four base pairs.

With this information in mind, consider that DNA measures only 0.000000002 meters thick in diameter. The amount of DNA needed to make 5 billion people would have a weight of 1/15 of the weight of a postage stamp. If an adult’s DNA were unwound, it would stretch out for 184 billion kilometers, long enough to go to the sun and back 596 times.

If a person were to gather all of the information in every book from every library across the world, that would still not match the amount of information stored in 1 cubic centimeter of DNA.

And yet when Christians talk about God being the Creator of the world, evolutionists are quick to snicker with condescension and say that we don’t understand science. But if all we understand is limited to cells and DNA, then there is no way we could possibly reject the idea of an Intelligent Creator over random chance.   

(Read Part 1)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the