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.