DNA Proves there is a Creator

[Micaiah]

Have a look a this web site by AIG that explains how the DNA works. I find it fascinating. The more I learn about it, the more I marvel at the Creator.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp

The DNA has a special mechanism that checks copied DNA for errors.

The ‘letters’ of DNA have another vital property due to their structure, which allows information to be transmitted: A pairs only with T, and C only with G, due to the chemical structures of the bases—the pair is like a rung or step on a spiral staircase. This means that the two strands of the double helix can be separated, and new strands can be formed that copy the information exactly. The new strand carries the same information as the old one, but instead of being like a photocopy, it is in a sense like a photographic negative. The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage—only about 1 mistake in 10 billion copyings, because there is editing (proof-reading and error-checking) machinery, again encoded in the DNA. But how would the information for editing machinery be transmitted accurately before the machinery was in place? Lest it be argued that the accuracy could be achieved stepwise through selection, note that a high degree of accuracy is needed to prevent ‘error catastrophe’—the accumulation of ‘noise’ in the form of junk proteins. Again there is a vicious circle (more irreducible complexity).

The accuracy and precision of copying is amazing. That is why the probability of evolution occuring is so low it is impossible.

 

[Tachocline]

I'm a Christian too but I would hardly label this as proof.

 

[Micaiah]

Sorry that you are unable to see recognise and appreciate the hand of the Creator in nature. The complexity and harmony that exists speaks powerfully to those willing to accept the message.

Creation is in perfect unison with the plain truth taught in Genesis 1, that God is our Creator. He created everything good. Unlike man, God did it right the first time. He spoke the word, and things came into existence.

 

[Tachocline]

I'm sorry your criteria for proof is so undemanding. Each to his own I guess.

 

[Beowulf]

I see it as testimony to the very power of God, the mind of our Creator we just can not understand or fathom. I stand in awe of His glory and the home he has given us through a pure motivation of love. His awesome creation is seen from the most miniscule to most emmense. He is everlasting to everlasting. From the small to the great.

 

[GodSaves]

Amen.

 

[Ceris]

MOD HAT ON

Remember, there is no debating of Creationism or Theistic Evolution in their respective subforums. I'd rather not have to hand out warnings.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Being a computer tech. and novice programmer I see how DNA coding can be compared with computer programming. It's extremly evident that natural processes didn't create the DNA code we see today and that something intelligent was behind that. Even several nonchristian scientists admit this!

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

yeah how often do u see programming code come by random chance? never.

 

[Tachocline]

yeah how often do u see programming code come by random chance? never.

Why do you say the words "random chance"?

And for your sensibilities this is not a debate. I just want to ascertain why you said this.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Why do you say the words "random chance"?

And for your sensibilities this is not a debate. I just want to ascertain why you said this.

I'm guessing he said this because several evolutionists still are saying that many things evolved by random chance.

 

[gluadys]

I'm guessing he said this because several evolutionists still are saying that many things evolved by random chance.

I hesitated about intervening in this topic, as I don't want to engage in debate about creationism except in the debate forum. But I got clearance from one of the moderators to make one small but important comment.

This statement is not about creationism or evolution. It is about people, namely evolutionists.

And I know that the bolded part of this statement: "Evolutionists ...are saying that many things evolved by random chance." is not true.

When people come to ask about evolution, this viewpoint, that evolution happens by random chance, is one of the first mis-conceptions that evolutionists feel they need to correct.

It is a creationist view of evolution, not an evolutionist view of evolution.

So, if you want to believe that evolution happens by random chance, I won't debate that issue here, but leave it to the debate forum.

But I really felt it would be wrong to leave the attribution of this idea to evolutionists uncorrected. Evolutionists consistently say the opposite, that evolution is not a random process.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I hesitated about intervening in this topic, as I don't want to engage in debate about creationism except in the debate forum. But I got clearance from one of the moderators to make one small but important comment.

This statement is not about creationism or evolution. It is about people, namely evolutionists.

And I know that the bolded part of this statement: "Evolutionists ...are saying that many things evolved by random chance." is not true.

When people come to ask about evolution, this viewpoint, that evolution happens by random chance, is one of the first mis-conceptions that evolutionists feel they need to correct.

It is a creationist view of evolution, not an evolutionist view of evolution.

So, if you want to believe that evolution happens by random chance, I won't debate that issue here, but leave it to the debate forum.

But I really felt it would be wrong to leave the attribution of this idea to evolutionists uncorrected. Evolutionists consistently say the opposite, that evolution is not a random process.

Most evolution believing scientists wouldn't say God did it. If God didn't do it then random chance did play a big part of it all. Sure, you can say natural selection was also a part but you still require random chances in mutations and the etc. This is admitted by evolutionists all the time. It's dishonest to claim that it's only creationists saying that evolutionists rely on random chance. Evolutionists have spent much time making computer programs and coming up with math equations to show that random chance could produce goo to man evolution.

 

[Lonnie]

"novice programmer I see how DNA coding can be compared with computer programming. It's extremly evident that natural processes didn't create the DNA code we see today and that something intelligent was behind that. Even several nonchristian scientists admit this!" ~ ...(cant remember who... sorry)
I am a novice programmer, and I totaly agree.

"And I know that the bolded part of this statement: "Evolutionists ...are saying that many things evolved by random chance." is not true." ~ gluadys

Project 86 is right, (many evolutionist have spoken otherwise, and have showed us many examples of how they would think evolution would happen by chance). I agree with Project 86

 

[Beowulf]

I dunno. If one can compare DNA to programs, well, a program won't work unless the whole thing is without error to begin with. If any part of it is flawed it won't work. So to get even the most simple of programs to work just by random mix and match ... well, the probabilities of that happening are astronomical. Then suppose it does work but needs to evolve to do something better. Modifying just one part wrong and it crashes.

So I'm curious:
If one thing goes wrong in DNA will it work just a little less or not at all?

 

[Micaiah]

Having done my share of programming from time to time including spending many hours debugging lecturers programs back in the days of Fortran 77, and GW Basic, I have some experience in the pain taken to get things going just right. The final program didn't just happen. It resulted from, dare I say it, intelligent design.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

by the way, it was dawkins who said if the statue of mary got up and walked around that is possible based on probability. yeah, that's what i would call a miracle, but okay.

 

[Micaiah]

I have a DVD of an interview with Dawkins by a Creationist. He was asked why there was no evidence of mutations that add information to the DNA. The question obviously had him rattled. He took a considerable amont of time to respond, and the response was unsatisfactory.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

yeah i saw that. i couldn't stop laughing, one of the leading evolutionists can't seem to name one. evolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have the Dawkins DVD also. There is also one I have, maybe on a different DVD, where an evolutionist is carving up a skull he found to make it fit the way he wanted. Talk about being blind to the truth.