Evidence for a Special Creation

[Crusadar]

Since my posts were removed from the other thread I thought I would start a thread which examines scientific and scriptural evidence for a special creation. Realize of course that to begin we will need to acknowledge that evolution of any kind can only occur where there is already life to begin with - but where did that life arise from - a natural process set by God which to this day does not occur or through a special creation as revealed to us in scripture.

To begin I will repost what I had on the other thread but in further detail - this time with references.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20 KJV

The verse seems very dogmatic, in that we are without excuse if we believe in processes that reflects not the eternal power and Godhead of our creator - as evolution clearly does not. What Paul says about the evidence of God in his creation resides not simply at the macroscopic level of His creation, but very much at the microscopic level – for the further we dig into the mysteries of life we find that it is infinite much like God is infinite. To make my point I will take you now to the microscopic world of amino acids and enzymes. Amino acids and enzymes are the building blocks of life and yet we fail to realize that they are more than just that – for they show the handiwork of our great Creator.

One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 1 in 10^67 against even a small protein forming – by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (many times longer than the assumed age of the earth). What do mathematicians generally agree about such odds? That, statistically speaking, any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a zero probability of ever happening. Imagine that!

- Erbrich, Paul "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80

Dr. Sidney Fox and Dr. Stanley Miller (evolutionists of course) were among the first scientists who attempted to prove abiogenesis. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen and passed through the mixture electricity to simulate lightning strikes. What did they managed to create? No life, but the process did combine the mixture to form several of the 20 amino acids which are the building blocks of life.

The exact contents of which is as follow:


85% of the product was a brown, insoluble tar or "polymer" made of hydrocarbons and other atoms interconnected in an irregular mass, with no known biological relevance to the origin of life. A chemist in a laboratory might be able to set up the right conditions to convert the "tarry sludge" into biogenic compounds such as amino acids, nucleotides and lipids, but there is as yet no indication that such conditions may have existed anywhere in nature.

4% of the product was the simplest and smallest of the carboxylic acids, formic acid (comprised of just five atoms) which is found in good concentrations in ants, but has no known role in the origin of life.

2.7% was equal parts (0.9% each) of three more caboxylic acids(not amino acids), which are different arrangements of 13 atoms (3 carbons, 7 hydrogens, 1 nitrogen, and 2 oxygens), and have no known or conjectured relevance to the origin of life.

2.1% was glycine, which is possibly significant, because it is one of the 20 amino acids, which are used in biology to construct the proteins of living organisms, glycine is the simplest.

0.85% was the Left-handed form of the amino acid alanine. Alanine is also one of biology's 20 amino acids, the second simplest, which is produced in both of it's mirror-image forms (of stereo-chemistry), where only the left-handed form is used by living things, 0.85% of the product was the right-handed form which is also produced, but is destructive to the proper construction of life.

0.5% was acetic acid, another carboxylic acid, which gives vinegar its pungency, but which is (so far as anyone knows) irrelevant to origin of life processes,

0.026% was another simple amino acid (in its useful L-form), which is only 260 parts per million of the product.

Several more of life's 20 amino acids were produced in ever smaller trace amounts, and only half of each of those trace amounts is the useful L-form.

Recently, trace amounts of the five bases of DNA and RNA have been detected ...but only about 2 parts per million. On the other hand, even though the chemicals were present for the production of a "nucleoside" (which is the combination of a DNA base plus a sugar), no nucleosides have ever formed in any amount. Furthermore (of course), a nucleotide has never formed, which would require the addition of a phosphate onto the nucleoside and the nucleotide is actually the basic building block of DNA and RNA.

- Ref. ORIGINS: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life, by Robert Shapiro,
N.Y., Summit, '86, p.104,108.

But does this prove that life could eventually have arisen in some soup struck by lightning? No! The results actually weakened the case for life emerging by this method. The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals produced was not sufficient for producing life. Why? Because all life that we know today consists of amino acids that are exclusively of the "left-handed" form and the gunk that was synthesized was racemized or of both right and left handedness.

From here on is what lucaspa (bold) responded to my post, the italics are mine:

Throughout the living world proteins are the building blocks of life and yet there is no known life that can use a combination of both "right-handed" and "left-handed" amino acids.

That is untrue. Nearly all bacteria have some right handed (D-) amino acids in their cell walls.

Of course it isn’t entirely true, one that I know of is Gramicidin A. It is a membrane protein with 15 amino acids that are alternating l- and d- forms (or a glycine). The sequence(excluding terminations) is Val(l)- Gly-Ala(l)-Leu(d)-Ala(l)-Val(d)-Val(l)-Val(d)-Trp(l)-Leu(d)-Trp(l)-Leu(d)-Trp(l)- Leu(d)-Trp(l).

The alternating l and d form amino acids exists as part of the bacteria’s cell membrane and hardly resembles true cytoplasmic or endoplasmic proteins which are essential for the function of that organism – which I might add are several hundred amino acids in length not a mere - 15.

It is interesting to note that gramicidin harvested from the bacillus brevis bacteria is used primarily as an external antibiotic and antiseptic drug as it is highly toxic and cannot be taken internally. This leads to the obvious conclusion that it serves only as a defensive barrier and would be lethal or useless elsewhere except as part of what it was originally designed for.

Directed protein synthesis currently uses all L-amino acids but it doesn't have to. You can make protocells (living cells made from proteins formed by chemical reactions) from mixtures a DL- amino acids.

Currently lucas? Any solid evidence that it has not always been the case? Or are you now merely speculating - again? Can you lucas, make protocells? For if you have somewhere in your kitchen cooked up some living cells from basic substances - then a Nobel Prize awaits you! I may be a simple science teacher lucas, but I’m not that gullible!

“Many proteinoids have been made from mixtures of DL amino acids. When some of the reactant amino acids are of the L configuration, much racemization occurs. This racemization, though substantial, is, however, incomplete under conditions used for the production of proteinoids. A typical proteinoid made from eighteen amino acids had [an optical activity of -5.6 degrees]. Under the usual conditions for pyrocondensation, L-aspartic acid is entirely racemized, while L-glutamic acid, L-leucine, and L-isoleucine are only partly racemized (Fox and Harada, 1960; Fox et al., 196; Rohlfing, 1967a).” (Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1972, p163-164)

Of course it is also known that proteinoids create by such methods as that of Fox and Miller are of the wrong bonding.

“K studies using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) have shown that thermal proteinoids have scarce resemblance to natural peptidic material because [beta], [gamma], and [epsilon] bonds largely predominate over [alpha]-peptide bonds" (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156).

Adding even one "right-handed" amino acid to a chain of "left-handed" amino acids can and will destroy the entire chain of protein.

This is one of the problems with "evidence for" creationism. So much of it simply consists of incorrect assertions. The "evidence" evaporates under scrutiny.

Of course we can pretty much trust your scrutiny any day, right lucas? And yet cell metabolism requires a lock and key fit to such an extent that a single d form amino acid existing in a chain of l form amino acids prevents the hand and glove fit that is required for metabolism to occur. Since cell metabolism requires that long chains of l form amino acids fit into its respective l form gloves - to the exact fit - any adventitious d form will bring metabolism to a complete halt. It is no surprise that life cannot use d forms as it will never produce the glove like fit required for metabolism.

"D-amino acid-containing peptides with biological activities have been isolated from invertebrates and amphibians, and partial racemization of amino acid residues in mammalian peptides associated with aging and diseases have been discussed. Here, we review the amino acid configuration determination methods in these peptides and recent progress of simultaneous determination method for sequence and configuration of amino acid residues. The applicability of C-terminus sequence analysis and mass spectrometry to configuration determination of amino acids is also discussed.

Again I do admire your bankrupt attempts at quoting that which is neither proved nor supported by what is actually observed – as it is quite amusing.

Only through highly advanced, intelligently controlled processes can these two forms be separated - no where has this taken any place anywhere without intelligent intervention.

A non-intelligent process to get only one of the enantiomers (one of the forms of amino acids). Basically, the "evidence" presented is basically the Argument from Ignorance.

I would say theistic evolutionists are the ignorant ones, as they simply refuse to accept what the data tells them – and most importantly what the word of God tells them.

Nature 2001 Feb 15;409(6822):797-801
Comment in:

Nature. 2001 Feb 15;409(6822):777-8.

A chiroselective peptide replicator.

Saghatelian A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR.

Department of Chemistry, and Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California92037, USA.

Yes of course, Nature, a very unbiased naturalistic periodical indeed! And yet the proof is in the pudding. So don’t just give titles and authors – and a brief quote, explain to all of us lucas - better yet explain to us what the articles say to support your stand. Or are you simply pasting your references as most evolutionists I come across do instead of dealing with the issue?

"The origin of homochirality in living systems is often attributed to the generation of enantiomeric differences in a pool of chiral prebiotic molecules, but none of the possible physiochemical processes considered [a lot of nonsense in between here taken out] support the idea that self-replicating polypeptides could have played a key role in the origin of homochirality on Earth"

Now doesn’t that sound much better? I just love your cut and paste jobs lucas. There is no proof that such even occurred.

Now, their "designed" is actually simply natural selection and not intelligent intervention.

Natural selection of what? What is there to select from where there is nothing to select. Wishful thinking at its most imaginative!

Even if this overwhelming obstacle did not exist or can be overcome, far greater problems remain for the chance synthesis of life. There are many reasons why the amino acids would disintegrate or never form in the first place, but life requires much more than just simple amino acids, it also requires proteins and DNA coding or instruction to assemble all the amino acids that reside within a living organism.

Life did not come about by chance. That's the fallacy. Life originated by chemistry.

According to evolution it is by chance. The fallacy is your assertions that it did when scripture tells us otherwise. And no, life was an act of God, not the result of a process – which produces nothing - even to this day.

 

[Crusadar]

Continued:

And there are chemical reactions to give you proteins and DNA/RNA.

Sure there are, - observable, experimentable, repeatable proof. Please.

Initial life does not have to have coding. Coding can come later. In fact, protocells, which are alive, don't have coding. But the proteins in them do have the initial steps to get coding.

Initial life? What proof is there that such have ever existed? Have you seen such an animal lucas? Very much unsupported but mere speculation. And since when does coding - intelligent coding derive from unguided chemistry? Protocells are not life, they only live in your imagination.

We can go into this in more detail if anyone wants.

Into evolutionary nonsense, lucas? I will pass – however we can discuss the merits of your claims that protocells are life as you claim they are.

The reason for the long ages of the earth is that "macro" or upward evolution requires long ages - it has nothing to do with the age of the earth being true or not.

Revisionist history. The earth was recognized to be old by 1800 and hundreds of millions of years old by 1831. That's 28 years before Darwin published Origin. And the guys who worked out the age of the earth were creationists, not evolutionists.

And yet evolution is not a concoction of Darwin is it, it is obvious he merely re hashed what was believed by materialists of the day. Of course they were creationists – as they did create their own version of their truth apart from that of the word of God.

But we know that long ages plus randomness produces no new genetic information of anykind (only existing genetic information is reshuffled, suppressed or lost

If the mechanism were what you said, that would be true. But since information is always generated by selection among possibilities, and since natural selection is exactly that, information is generated by a combination of chemistry and natural selection.

And yet this is what is observed to occur to this day. Any source of information only comes from a source of intellect or existing information - none whatsoever from any naturally occurring process known today.

but alas many are not willing to face the truth that God did create as He has told us in scripture, for that would mean that man can not determine his own rules and will have to answer to His Creator in all that he does.

How does having God create by evolution get us out of God's rules? How does that affect the 10 Commandements, any of the Laws, or the Golden Rule?

The god of evolution who is incompetent at designing anything brings no indisgestion as much as a God who has total control over what He has created - who made absolute laws that we are judged by. There is a difference between believing in the god of evolution and the God of the Bible. The difference is that if God created us as He has revealed to us in scripture then that would mean that He sole proprietary rights to us, and therefore we are subject to His laws and judgment. But if we came by chance or any other way then who really owns us? If we were the result of a process why even worry about going to heaven or hell since death is the end of this reality?

Please be specific and detailed.

Scripture

Except the only distinction between laevoratory and dextroratory amino acids are that one is a mirror reflection of each other, there are no chemical distintions between the two, only the placements of carbon atoms within its tetrahedron like structure. The only way to seperate the two is done optically or by adding a third substance that is already optically active - and not by chance.

It does turn out that there are chemical differences.

Of course there are, since now it wasn’t in deep ocean currents the first protcells formed itself. How convenient, when data doesn’t fit the theory then the theory must, since data cannot.

So, the D-amino acids are selectively destroyed by polarized light, leaving the L amino acids. In the early earth, comets could soft land on the forming planet, contributing their amino acids. This gives an edge to L - amino acids, which is then amplified by orther chemical processes.

An early earth, how imaginative. There is no proof that such a creature ever existed. And comets as a contributor to the origin of life? I thought that it was the god of evolution.

What this whole argument is, Crusadar, is god-of-the-gaps theology. Find a "gap" that supposedly has no "natural" explanation and then insist that this means God did it by "miracle". It is not appropriate Christian theology.

There is no gap as God is entirely responsible for all that we do see, as scripture plainly tells us. And what is Christian theology lucas, since you seem to be such an expert on what being a Christian means please explain to us bible literalists. By the way you never did tell us what being a Christian means to you anyway, have you?

Also such crystals would attract molecules, giving them a gathering point for creating longer chains.

Your wishful thinking never ceases to be a source of entertainment.

Is this a theory? Your theory, or is this from observation? Could it be in the line of biochemical predestination, in that given enough time non life will eventually assemble itself into life?

And what sort of attraction would that be?

Charged attraction. The plus charge on the amino group of the amino acid and the negative charge of the carboxyl group. You need opposite charges for each of those. That determines the orientation of the next molecule in the crystal, which in turn selects for the enantiomer that can fit the orientation.

Sounds like a concoction of your own making lucas or some one elses, the only charged attraction is this boloney that you have been attracted to. It does not exist between l and d amino acids of the same type as they are exact in chemical composition! From what is observed in the living world the order of amino acids in proteins are determined entirely by genetic coding and none whatsoever by its chemical composition or assumed attractions.

The exact contents of classical experiments set out to prove the spontaneous assemblage of life is as follow:

Misrepresentation. Crusadar, it would be a lot easier to take you seriously if you didn't mangle the 9th Commandment so often. The Miller-Urey experiments were not "out to prove the spontaneous assemblage of life" but only to demonstrate that amino acids, sugars, and bases could arise from simpler chemicals by reactions available on the primitive earth.

Yes of course, make references to scripture only when convenient. Of course And of course you should be aware that it was Fox and his contemporaries who made the most outlandish conclusions about their research into the origin of life. The progress since Fox’s time (as expected) have been nothing more than promising in this particular field – as most do deny that life from no life is not relevant to the origin of life, when in fact it is dependant on it.

They did that very well.

What they did do well was duped many of the scientific community into thinking their methods proved that life would have eventually arose on its own.

85% of the product was a brown, insoluble tar or "polymer" made of hydrocarbons and other atoms interconnected in an irregular mass, with no known biological relevance to the origin of life.

Irrelevant to the hypothesis of the experiment. Even as inefficient a process as the Miller-Urey experiments when conducted on a planety scale produces a LOT of amino acids even at 15% efficiency.

And where is proof that such an experiment was carried out by God? 15% efficiency of anything is very much a failure.


2.7% was equal parts (0.9% each) of three more caboxylic acids(not amino acids), which are different arrangements of 13 atoms (3 carbons, 7 hydrogens, 1 nitrogen, and 2 oxygens), and have no known or conjectured relevance to the origin of life.

What were the compounds? And then look at the intermediary metabolism of amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acid bases. Want to bet a large sum of money they are in those processes?


Sorry but I don’t gamble.

0.85% was the Left-handed form of the amino acid alanine. Alanine is also one of biology's 20 amino acids, the second simplest, which is produced in both of it's mirror-image forms (of stereo-chemistry), where only the left-handed form is used by living things, 0.85% of the product was the right-handed form which is also produced, but is destructive to the proper construction of life.

That last sentence is simply wrong, as we have already demonstrated.


You have demonstrated nothing.

Several more of life's 20 amino acids were produced in ever smaller trace amounts, and only half of each of those trace amounts is the useful L-form.

Thank you for showing that amino acids can be made from the simple atmosphere postulaged by Miller-Urey. You completely destroyed your own argument.

Yes racemized amino acids, not the exclusive l form amino acids essential for the building blocks of life.

BTW, this is not the only way to make amino acids or bases. Lots of ways to do so.

I am sure there are – and I suppose you made some right? It wasn’t by natural unguided processes I suppose - as evolution tell us was it?

It represents the system proposed by biochemical scientists of the past and today – in that in deep ocean currents is where life assembled itself – disregarding that the law of mass action prevents this. When water molecules that are formed or released during peptide bonding of methane + water (or steam) + energy (lightning, uv ligh etc.) and there is a large amount of water present then no peptide or very few will be formed as equilibrium always remains on the side of the initial reagents or amino acids.

Wrong. The bond is so stable that once it is formed there is no amount of water that will break it up again. If it did, you realize that all your proteins in your body should spontaneously fall apart because there is a huge excess of water over the proteins in your cells. The equilibria is so far toward the side of peptide that there is basically no excess of water capable of pushing the reaction back the other way. You have been misled.


How wonderful! lucas invents for himself his own version of biochemistry. And duh, the information to create such a wonderous system as our body already exists as protein synthesis is directed entirely by genetic information! And documented repeatable experiments lucas, not speculations!

Also consider data. This is amino acid and peptide formation at hydrothermal vents today.

Yes of course, peptides – and how many amino acids in length are these peptides? What evidence for the chemical path of genetic information can be observed in these so called peptides that “supposedly” are precursors to proteins?


Disregarding testable, observable experiments of course and relying on speculations I see. And yet without a working transferable genetic system there is no passing on of anything to the next generation is there?

Of course there is. If a protocell splits in two then each daughter cell gets half the contents. That is still heredity.

Speculating of course that there is such a creature as a protocell, when there isn’t. considering that even the simplest self reproducing organism Mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest known genome of any free living organism, contains still 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.

But this organism’s genes are only functional with preexisting translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. and yet it can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture itself – now to consider a creature with lesser parts than which is known to require seems more bankrupt than accepting what logic and reality tells us.

Not dependent on DNA, but heredity.

Heredity of what? Without DNA there is no heredity of anything.

 

[TheBear]

I agree. Life, and the universe for that matter, came about by God creating it. There is no question in my mind about that.

The process and mechanisms of His creation, are where there are disagreements among many Christians.

As far as the 'odds game', I would not venture that far. There are plenty of things, random or not, where the odds are just as astronomical, yet they occur nonetheless.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Well the probability arguments are bogus.

It reminds me of the stupid probability arguments that people use for the odds of our universe being able to have life exist and survive.

They take the known fundamental constants and calculate some odds that this would happen randomly and assert that the odds against our Universe being like this are some ungodly number to 1 against.

Actually the probability is 1. The odds are universe is the way it is is unity.

Your aminoacid argument above assumes complete randomness. Chemical reactions are not random. They are processes with some pathways preferred over others. This is especially true with enzymatic and other catalysed reactions.

Just a bogus argument.

 

[Vance]

Crusader is referred to the detailed rebuttal to his argument I posted which was also removed. I did not write it, and it was for Crusader's benefit only, on the assumption that if he was interested enough in the subject to post the article, he would be interested enough to hear a rebuttal. It is not my own rebuttal, though, since I know very little about amino acids.

But, if I recall, Lucaspa gave a thorough walk-through of why the entire article was off-base, and Crusader said he would "consider" responding to those points. I would hope that Lucaspa will resubmit his response for your review. Much more difficult for him, of course, since he wrote if from his own personal knowledge of the subject and will have to write it all over again.

 

[Crusadar]

Vance said: Crusader is referred to the detailed rebuttal to his argument I posted which was also removed. I did not write it, and it was for Crusader's benefit only, on the assumption that if he was interested enough in the subject to post the article, he would be interested enough to hear a rebuttal.

You call that a rebuttal vance? Pretty pathetic if you ask me, a pasting of this and that and nothing more. It amazes me how evolutionists when unable to defend their own nonsense simply refer to someone else's nonsense. It seems that is all you seem to do in this forum. I however made no claims that I am an authority on the topic but simply give an account of what is observed to occur – the responses you obviously pasted are very much worn out evolutionist arguments which object to the idea that God was their creator – as logic does tell us that that which is designed reflects most of all the capabilities of the designer.

It is easy to claim that another is wrong nor does not understand life’s processes when it disagrees with their underlying assumptions vance. However there is a difference about my conclusions than what evolutionists would like us to believe, in that I see reality and include the possibility of what I do not know and what scripture tells us – where logic tells me that it is more reasonable to think the way I do so therefore it must have been – but you on the other hand have already ruled out that part of the equation and therefore are simply searching for any and every conclusions that neither fit the data or what logic tells you.

You forget however my original post was simply an appetizer to the main course. Was it not evident that further investigation would confirm that which I have posted? And unless the one who responded to my post is a Christian there is no point in discussion with him anything as it always ends in spiritual fruitlessness - as scripture does tell us:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians

6:14

So far you’ve shown me nothing of real science other than what you can regurgitate from yours and others objections of observable evidence with no support and then make bold claims that I am ignorant of science – simply because what I say is not the accepted belief of the majority of the "intellectually elite"? Or could it be that the evidence forces you to logically consider the inevitability of the conclusions drawn which point to a Creator and this is not what the mainstream believe - so you adamantly object no matter how absurd your version of science becomes and still consider it science?

I know very little about amino acids.

Not to mention other things, but that is for another day. Of course that may be one of the reasons you believe in evolution over what the word of God tells you. I don't claim to be an expert in the subject but I do know enough to know that life from no life without God is an impossibility.

But, if I recall, Lucaspa gave a thorough walk-through of why the entire article was off-base, and Crusader said he would "consider" responding to those points. I would hope that Lucaspa will resubmit his response for your review. Much more difficult for him, of course, since he wrote if from his own personal knowledge of the subject and will have to write it all over again.

I hope lucaspa does repost as he does have knowledge (although wrongly applied) of the topic, as I will be more than happy to discuss with him the topic. However looking at his reponses I wonder how much of it is really his own as it shows nothing more than poorly done cut and paste jobs and quotes from everyone else but himself.

 

[Risen Tree]

This could get interesting....

/me gets some popcorn

 

[Crusadar]

Just a bogus argument.

Perhaps I am not telling you what you want to hear. Listening to the truth often hurt those who have been lead into believing in a lie all their life you know. Could it be that your only objection I suspect is that it contradicts your fairy tale version of science? Real science is usable, repeatable, and testable - not fairy tales supported by nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[Vance]

Yes, Lucaspa will respond, I am sure. In the meantime, it really is true that all the probability arguments are simply nonsensical when you really look at it. Whenever you stand at one end of an evolutionary process and take the end product, you can say "wow, what are the odds of THAT developing?!" And, of course, this is true, the odds of that developing are astronomical. But, if you start at the beginning of the process and just let it go, the odds that there will *BE* an end product are not astronomical at all, but just the opposite, it is assured! Dawkins covered this in detail in his book The Blind Watchmaker" showing the falsity of these red herring arguments. Highly improbable things happen every day in hindsight. The odds are dramatically against any particular person winning the lottery. Yet someone always wins. That win was, for that person, highly improbable, but it was assured that there would, indeed, be a winner.

Also, a couple of points. Your arguments are really for a God-initiated origin of life, not for special creation, so your title is entirely wrong.

Second, as a Christian, I definitely believe that there was an intelligent designer. And I believe that He was the originator of life. This has nothing to do with evolution.