Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Starting Points Revisited!

Bugaboo, I’m assuming you’re a wonderful person and I’d like to thank you for your comments.  You've made some incorrect assumptions about me, and other things, which would lead me to believe that your assumptions about the starting points of life are also incorrect.  Please allow me to explain.
First, since I’m not one to toot my own horn, I’m not going to list the degrees, training, and education that I have earned but rest assured my education is extensive and I have read a biology and chemistry book or two (thousand).
Secondly, if evolution were true, the goo (discussed in Starting Points) would've given rise to the bacteria responsible for decomposition first; before it gave rise to other higher life-forms.  You've made the assumption that higher life forms leaped past the point of being consumed by this bacteria that would cause the goo to decompose, yet you haven't explained how.  Don't feel bad; the scientific community cannot explain this dilemma either.
In your third assumption, you assume that RNA just “came together.”   But you need to explain how the strands of RNA were created without the ribosomal process that it needs.  Thankfully, the scientific community discovered, and has clearly proven, that the ribosomal process within a cell is absolutely required in order to produce RNA and, eventually, DNA.  You’re familiar with that, I hope, otherwise, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation. 
Before we can even have the conversation about RNA “just coming together,” we need to discuss how RNA was created without the ribosomal process, which requires a cell.  At the point you described (RNA coming together) we don’t even have a cell yet.  So neither you, nor the scientific community, have explained how that process came about without a cell. 
However, before we can even have that conversation, we need to determine, based on your assumption, how the amino acids “adenine, thiamine, guanine, and cytosine” (ATGC) came into existence.   Once ATGC “existed” how did these compounds know what they were supposed “to do?”  You are familiar with ATGC, the four basic amino acids required for the production of RNA and, eventually, DNA are you not?
I hate to do this to you, but before we can even discuss those items, we need to address the assumption that ATGC “just formed.”  Breaking ATGC down further, we need to discuss how the protein molecules that make up the amino acids, which in turn, make up ATGC were created.  Did these just randomly create themselves? 
So we’re at the point where we need a valid explanation of how several levels of building blocks “came together,” in proper sequence, without the scientifically-proven essential process that is required to create these very building blocks.  Therefore, your assumption that RNA “came together” is really an assumption that assumes many other things at many levels. 
For the sake of brevity, I’d like to ask you to show me anywhere in scientific literature where mutations have added to the genetic information.  It’s been proven that mutations do not add to genetic information but rather, modify or delete already existing information.  Mutations have never been shown to add new information. 
So your assumptions above can be summarized as follows:
1.   The building blocks needed to make other building blocks just “came together” without the scientifically proven processes needed to build those same building blocks.
2.   Change was created via mutations.
However, the very science in which you’ve placed your faith in has only shown mutations to change what already exists, or delete information entirely.  Science has never shown that mutations create something new from nothing.  The Creation of new information would absolutely be required for evolution to work.
Wow, that sounds very similar to God’s process of creation, where He created things from absolutely nothing, albeit, not through the fallacy of evolution but through the literal creation process the Bible teaches in the book of Genesis. 
Since science cannot prove your assumptions, and furthermore, it cannot disprove God’s story of creation, nor the Bible for that matter, what stands in the way for you to believe the real story of creation rather than the man-made fiction you choose to believe?  After all, I think it takes a lot less faith to believe in God the Creator than the process of evolution and all of its unexplained “science.” 
Now I’m not one to deny science, but I am one who cannot blindly follow man’s explanation for many things without thoroughly investigating.  I’d encourage you to do the same.  You don’t believe everything you hear or read do you?  It should be the same with this as well especially since your eternal destiny depends on it.
In closing, it’s my turn to make an assumption.  My assumption as to why you do not believe God’s edition of Starting Points is because of “accountability.”
So, remember when all else fails, there’s a God that loves you very, very much and He sent His Son Jesus for your forgiveness and salvation.  (John 3:16)  If you can believe the God that loves you and has your best interest in mind by believing in His son Jesus Christ, accountability becomes easily acceptable.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Starting Points!

These are my thoughts on Stephen Hawking's latest proclamation that there's no afterlife.  "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." [iii]
There's no doubt that Mr. Hawking is an intelligent man; but is he really as intelligent as he and the media want you to believe?
The Bible’s first verse says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth …”[i] Hawking states that matter always existed and at one time, it was all in a container smaller than the size of a pin head. What? All the matter in the universe was confined in something smaller than the head of a pin? If this were true of matter, shouldn't you be able to stuff an unlimited number of garments in a suitcase? We'd need only one garbage bag for a lifetime!
So when it supposedly exploded, (the so-called big bang) it all came out and organized into solar systems, galaxies, planets, moons, stars, etc. with the incredible order that it now possesses? How does Hawking know it exploded? Was he there? Now that takes faith to believe!
Mr. Hawking, and the scientific community for that matter, would really be on to something if he could explain the following: 
  1. How matter generated from nothing. The big bang theory doesn't explain that. In the beginning there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no space, no vacuum, no heavens, no earth. Absolutely nothing existed. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that. 
  2. If you take a frog, place it in a blender and turn it on for a minute and then turn it off. Pour out that “goo” somewhere in an atmosphere that would support life. Since all the things needed to create life, both atmospheric and chemical are present, how long would it take before all of these things "evolve" into a frog? It wouldn't! It would either dry up or become infected with bacteria due to decomposition long before anything else happened. Bacterial infection is not evolution! For this reason alone, evolution is impossible because the “goo” Hawking claims we came from couldn't survive since it would either dry up or decompose long before any of this happened. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
  3. How do you get around the decomposition dilemma? Since microbes like bacteria are further down the evolutionary chain than human beings, the microbes would prevent further evolution from ever happening. Since these microbes are responsible for the decomposition of organic material, like the "goo" that Hawking claims we have come from, the evolutionary process would've ended at this point. If the primordial soup would have everything available for life to form, it would have been infected by the bacteria responsible for decomposition, which already formed earlier in the evolutionary sequence, and would cause the primordial soup to decompose. This would be an endless cycle at this point, the goo would form once again and once again, decomposition would run its course. So how did life make the leap past this dilemma? Hawking, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
  4. How DNA would've formed from nothing. How DNA could progress from a simpler form to a more complex form; i.e., how information was added to DNA to make it more complex. Yet when cells split, we see that a small piece of information is only lost. Throughout history, there is not one single example of information being added to DNA. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
  5. How our ability to reason works or was developed. It's what sets us apart from animals. Some incorrectly believe that animals can reason in that they do tricks, fetch food, etc. However, these are the result of instincts and training, not reasoning. Reasoning includes planning, logical thought, and anticipating reactions, etc. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
  6. When he says that we should live the best life we can: Who, or what mechanism, would set the standard for good? “Society” is not a correct answer. If society suddenly deemed that murder, pedophilia, or rape are acceptable, does that make it good or right? He, nor the scientific community, can explain that. 
Since Mr. Hawking, nor the scientific community, cannot explain these things it is merely opinion. The bible says that the “wisdom of man is but foolishness to God.”[ii] I like my chances of putting my faith in Jesus Christ a whole lot better than putting my faith in the statements of a man with a high level of so-called "intelligence."
If I'm wrong, I'm no better off than Hawking but if I'm right; oh man, if I'm right, I can't even come close to imagining what God has prepared for me as His word says. It’s my hope Hawking seea this logical conclusion before he dies as well. "
Note: Your comments are welcome as long as you provide your name and email address to allow for reply. 

[i] Gen 1:1, KJV[ii] 1 Cor 3:19, NIV[iii] Psalm 14:1, NIV

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Arizona Speech: Made for TV

Although President Obama did a nice job with his speech last night, I see it for what it was.  A "Wellstone funeral-like" moment designed to score political points for the President.  He's rarely, if ever, been to Arizona and when he filed a lawsuit against the state has shown that he doesn't really care about it.  It's evident that he followed Rahm Emanuel's philosophy:  "Don't let a good crisis go to waste." 

Since when does the President show up for the funeral of a commoner?  Dare I say, if this didn't involve a US Representative, this would've been another mad man story; just another one that went over the edge, and after his15 minutes of notoriety, he would've warranted no further comments from the media.  Nonetheless, mass hysteria has ensued because the liberal media has fanned the flames of hyper-partisan dialog.

However, have you noticed how the liberal media is trying to build this up to be an event equivalent of another 9/11 and that we need the national healing that only Obama can provide?  Admittedly, it was a serious tragedy, but nothing on a scale that caused the serious mourning and introspection of 9/11, yet the media has hyped this event to be as large (or larger) than that.

The radical left is trying to use this as an opportunity to push the Fairness Doctrine, squash free speech of dissenters and, more importantly, renew a strong call for gun control.  The left knows it's much easier to control sheep rather than people. 

I'm not ready to cede to the notion that President Obama did a great job on this speech.  After all, his liberal media friends painted a picture in which the President would arrive on the scene, in the nick of time, so that he may appear as a national savior.  Obviously he is not.  Many people coached him on what and what not to say last night.  I'm sure his speech writers have been working on this as soon as word was received that Rep. Giffords was involved.  There's no doubt he's a good orator; perhaps a great orator.  Wonderful speaking skills do not make a good President.  Need I say more?