Evidence for God from Science

Clarification

DNA Structure: I thought that maybe I would make some clarifications on the structure of the DNA. It is comprised of sugar phosphate groups and the nitrogen bases and the chains of DNA are anti parallel running from 3' to 5'. I thought this part necessary for a review. This way it will be fresh in your mind.

Gabrielman wrote:Why would these structures come together? And better yet, why would they then be the instructions for all of the cells in our bodies on how they should operate? Why would they be alive? What would prompt this? I have included the picture and what I have to show you the basic, very basic complexity of our base building blocks of life. Without DNA and RNA, life isn't possible. Period.

In this I asked why the structure (DNA) would come together. By that I meant to come together and form chromosomes. We have 23 pairs of chromosomes in every cell in our bodies. All they are is DNA. But the DNA comes together to form this structure. Now does anyone know why it would do just that? Why would it come together and make a structure like so? Yes it helps with mitosis, but what told it to do so? Why is DNA programed to do this? (not to mention what tells the DNA what to tell the cell?) The cell reads the DNA within the Chromosomes to know how to do specific things, such as how to form, and perform it's day to day functions properly.



Above is an image of a Chromosome. Note the X shape it seems to take, all on it's own to ready itself for cell division. X shape they take helps with cell division, and then, when the cell has to remake everything that it has. Now cell division is called mitosis. Now before I go on, I want to let you know why I am getting into cell division before explaining the rest of the cell. This is because of how complex the division is, cells need to reproduce, they need that ability to pass on genes. Mitosis is how cells do this. Without some form of reproduction, well there is no evolution, there is not passing on genes, there are not mutations to speak of. Even if the simplest organism when life began started only with RNA, it would still have to have some form of reproduction in order to pass on it's genes and create more life of earth. But how did that happen? How did the first life arise, and further more, how did it already have genes put together in such a manner as RNA and DNA, and how did it pass on those genes. The aim of this thread is to show you how complex and complicated things really are, and my hope is that by the time this all sinks in, you will have grasped how there could be no life without someone intelligent guiding it. Kristoffer, this is for you.

Now before I go on with mitosis fully, let me first explain how the DNA prepares itself for cell division and replication. DNA must replicate in order for a new cell to have the same stuff as the old cell. How it does this is using enzymes called DNA Polymerase, DNA Ligase, and DNA Helicase. These help to "unzip", duplicate, and "re-zip" the DNA. Now for each new strand of DNA we can say they are Semi-conservative Replications because they are made of one old half and one new half of DNA. Helicase binds to a specific site on the DNA called the origin replication complex. (this makes one wonder that if all living things started with at the very least RNA, how would it reproduce when now a days it requires such a complex process.) Then it "unwinds" the DNA by breaking down the hydrogen bonds between the DNA strands. Are you following me so far? Now at this point the DNA is split open in a replication fork, with the 3' end and the 5' end, the leading strand and the lagging strand.

Taking a quick pause, I am not sure if I explained what the 3' and 5' ends were before, so I will do so now. The 5' is the phosphate end of the DNA and the 3' is the Hydroxyl group. This may be needed info for you later, but it is also important to know because it pertains to the structure of the backbone of our DNA.

Anyway, on to mitosis. The DNA Polymerase adds dNTP's (deoxyribonucleotide-triphosphates) to the 3' end of the DNA, that is the leading strand and is continuous. This is how one copy of DNA is made from the 3' end, but the 5' end is a bit more complex, as it is a lagging end with starts and stops. But first take a look at the image below:


(the source of this picture was obscure so if there is anything wrong with it let me know, i.e. like it needs removed)

The other strand of DNA is the lagging strand that stops and start, it is therefore discontinuous. Every time it starts again it gets a new primer. As you can see these are called Okazaki Fragments and they were discovered by Reiji Okazaki.

That being said, that is how the DNA prepares for mitosis. This happens so that there can be the same DNA in each new cell. However the lagging strand is where more errors are likely to occur, this is where genetic mutation can take place (as well as other places, but for now we are talking about this). These become permanent and can be passed on from generation to generation, but not always, as we will see when I cover reproductive mutations, new ones can snuff out the old ones. It would be good to make note of the fact that, with as often as mutations occur, and with the percent of how many would be detrimental and not helpful, that one would think that we would have been wiped out to begin with. However it is also good to note that the mutations are more than likely nothing more than just a slight change in how you look. As you do not look like your parents. So small changes within a species, but not enough to be evolution in the sense of what you are talking about. It is also worth taking note that the DNA polymerase scans and proofreads the new DNA while it is being made and fixes mistakes that it finds. However it only reduces the number of mistakes by a very small amount, so it is not accurate enough. This comes into play later on in reproduction, as these will be passed on.

Now on to the rest of mitosis. Now that the DNA has been replicated, you have enough to create a whole new cell. There are four stages to mitosis and they are Prophase, Metaphase, Anaphase, and Telophase. Now that we have the replicated DNA they have to come together to form the chromosomes as we have seen above, as at this point they are still just loose coiled DNA in a chromatin state, which is simply the state they are in before becoming chromosomes, and I can explain that more if need be. Now the nuclear membrane and the nucleolus break down and expose the chromosomes. In this stage something called the spindle apparatus comes into play. It attaches spindle fibers to the chromosomes after it has migrated to two opposite sides of the cell, and aligns the chromosomes in the middle of the cell. At this point the spindle fibers begin to retract and pull apart the chromosomes. During this stage the worst kind of mistake as far as mutation can occur. The spindle fibers may break taking only part of the chromosomes with them, or it may loose it all together and the whole of the chromosome goes to the other cell. In a case like this the one cell has too many to function properly and the other has too few. Imagine it like you and a friend both need the same books for an upcoming collage exam. You both order them from the same place, and at the same time. Now imagine that they pack the books up in bags for you both, but one of them gets mislabeled. Your friend get all the books he needs, and a bag of books that you would need as well. When you pick up your order, you are missing your set, and therefore are missing vital information to pass the exam, while your friend has more than he needs. He can just toss out the extras and not think anything of it. Giving you the books he has as extra is also something he could do, but for a cell that is not an option. Now one cells has what it needs and then some and the other does not have what it needs to succeed.

In this we can see how mutations can be very detrimental, more often than helpful. We can also see the complex properties of how things first begin to reproduce. With that in mind, it makes one think. How could the most basic life forms survive to evolve? To begin with the chances of them getting a good mutation are slim, and the chances that they would have all of the ability to reproduce are even less so. What's more is that the DNA or RNA they may have already has all of that encoded in on it, but how did that encoding get there? And why is it made in such a way? I want to add more but this is long enough as it is. So let me say why I am getting at the basics right now. I think it is vital for you to know just how complex and complicated life is at a very basic level. And how unlikely that is for it form on it's own. The very point of this thread is to discuss that complexity, and show how it must have been designed by an intelligent source, that being God. We will get more complex as we go, and I have not given all the information yet as I think that it is vital you have the basics down in your mind first. We will go on from here Kristoffer, and explore the amazing world that God has created for us and how complex it really is.

God Bless, and more to come.

EDIT: Main Site Articles On Biological Design

Gabrielman - may I ask what the threshold of complexity is that you would take to mean that something could only have been created by God?

Personally I don't like using these kinds of arguments when I witness because I can't convince myself with them...

Peace

tidalforce wrote:Gabrielman - may I ask what the threshold of complexity is that you would take to mean that something could only have been created by God?

Personally I don't like using these kinds of arguments when I witness because I can't convince myself with them...

Peace

To put it bluntly I believe that DNA itself is complex enough to imply a creator. Think about this one long and hard. As I stated in my op the only thing that DNA is, is a combination of atoms, to be specific it is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Nothing more, and yet these atoms, seemingly on their own in Darwinian thought, came together and formed the complex structure we call DNA and RNA. This structure has all the information for life in four nitrogen bases. Why is that coding correct? Why is that even a code to begin with? Why not something else? It simply amazes me what is required for life. I pose this question as well as the ones above: How would the first living organisms have all they needed to reproduce RNA for reproduction, and how would they reproduce, and have all of the necessary encoding and enzymes there for them at their disposal to accomplish all of this? Even the most basic life needs a way to reproduce, and copy RNA and DNA to make more of itself, not to mention to allow for mutations, and it need to have the proper enzymes to do so as well.

So far as personal witnessing, we are all the different. But it seems that Kristoffer needs a bit of a nudge to see how complex and complicated life is, to see that the likely hood of it evolving is slim to none. While these arguments may not work for some, they work for others. I myself have some things apologists tend to use to try and prove God that don't convince me. To each his own I say. But I am more than happy to dialogue with you about this. Mind you that all I am doing right now is laying down some basic information before I continue on with this, so that things can be put in perspective for everyone. I think a covering of the basics should be on the board, so we can build a cumulative case off of that. I am, of course, open to any corrections and constructive criticism any one may have, and I have asked one of the scientific minded mods to look at my thread so that it may be checked for errors.

Like I said above I am just laying down the basics first. I am going through some books and notes, and I linked to the main site too, so more in depth info is on the way, and hopefully that will help you understand my point better. However so far as witnessing goes, some people need a different form of witnessing than others, as has been my experience in my years as a believer. Stick to what is best for you, and if that works that is great. But I will be happy to answer any other questions you may have.

God Bless!

This is from Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell (2010, pp 9-15 - my copy here does not include the bibliography). It has some great information in it, and shows what silly stuff researchers outside of mainstream Neo-Darwinism are up against. The books has far more examples than this, of course.


On Not Reading Signature in the Cell: A Response to Francisco Ayala Stephen C. Meyer

Dr. Francisco Ayala, professor of biological sciences, ecology and evolutionary biology, as well as of logic and the philosophy of science, at the University of California, Irvine, reviewed Signature in the Cell for the BioLogos Foundation’s website. (http://biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the ... signature/) Below is Dr. Meyer’s response. —Editor

No doubt it happens all the time. There must be many book reviews written by reviewers who have scarcely cracked the pages of the books they purport to review. But those who decide to write such blind reviews typically make at least some effort to acquire information about the book in question so they can describe its content accurately—if for no other reason than to avoid embarrassing themselves. Unfortunately,in his review of my book Signature in the Cell (titled ironically, “On Reading the Cell’s Signature”), eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala does not appear to have even made a search for the crib notes online. Indeed, from reading his review on the BioLogos website it appears that he did little more than glance at the title page and table of contents—if that. As a result, his review misrepresents the thesis and topic of the book and even misstates its title.

The title of my book is not Signature of the Cell as Ayala repeatedly refers to it, but Signature in the Cell.

The thesis of the book is not that “chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms” as he claims, but instead that intelligent design can explain, and does provide the best explanation for (among many contenders, not just chance) the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell.

Further, the topic that the book addresses is not the origin of the genomes of organisms or the human genome as the balance of Professor Ayala’s critique seems to imply, but instead the origin of the first life and the mystery surrounding the origin of the information necessary to produce it.

Ayala begins his review by attempting to trivialize the argument of Signature in the Cell. But he does so by misrepresenting its thesis. According to Ayala, “The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell [sic] is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms.” He notes—as I do in the book—that all evolutionary biologists already accept that conclusion. He asks: “Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point?” But, of course, the book does not spend hundreds of pages arguing that point. In fact, it spends only 55 pages out of 613 pages explaining why origin-of-life researchers have—since the 1960s—almost universally come to reject the chance hypothesis. It does so, not because the central purpose of the book is to refute the chance hypothesis per se, but for several other reasons intrinsic to the actual thesis of the book.

Signature in the Cell makes a case for the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the first living organism. In so doing, it deliberately employs a standard method of historical scientific reasoning, one that Darwin himself affirmed and partly pioneered in the Origin of Species. The method, variously described as the method of multiple competing hypotheses or the method of inferring to the best explanation, necessarily requires an examination of the main competing hypotheses that scientists have proposed to explain a given event in the remote past. Following Darwin and his scientific mentor Lyell, historical scientists have understood that best explanations typically cite causes that are known from present experience to be capable, indeed uniquely capable, of producing the effect in question.

In the process of using the method of multiple competing hypotheses to develop my case for intelligent design in Signature in the Cell, I do examine the chance hypothesis for the origin of life, because it is one of the many competing hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the origin of the first life and the origin of biological information. Naturally, since chance was one of the first hypotheses proposed to explain the origin of life in the wake of the discovery of the information-bearing properties of DNA, I critique it first. Nevertheless, I go on to examine many more recent models for the origin of biological information including those that rely on physical-chemical necessity (such as current self-organizational models), and those that rely on the interplay between chance and necessity (such as the popular RNA world scenario). My discussion of these models takes over ninety pages and four chapters. Did Ayala just miss these chapters?

I should add that my critique of the chance hypothesis provides a foundation for assessing some of these more recent chemical evolutionary theories—theories that Ayala would presumably recognize as contenders among contemporary evolutionary biologists and which rely on chance in combination with other processes. For example, in the currently popular RNA world scenario, self-replicating RNA catalysts are posited to have first arisen as the result of random interactions between the chemical building blocks or subunits of RNA. According to advocates of this view, once such self replicating RNA molecules had come into existence, then natural selection would have become a factor in the subsequent process of molecular evolution necessary to produce the first cell. In Signature in the Cell, however, I show that the amount of sequence-specific information necessary to produce even a supposedly simple self-replicating RNA molecule far exceeds what can be reasonably assumed to have arisen by chance alone. Indeed, my analysis of the probabilities of producing various information-rich bio-molecules is not only relevant to showing that “chance, by itself, cannot account for” the origin of genetic information, but also to showing why theories that invoke chance in combination with pre-biotic natural selection likewise fail.

In any case, Signature in the Cell does not just make a case against materialistic theories for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life, it also makes a positive case for intelligent design by showing that the activity of conscious and rational agents is the only known cause by which large amounts of new functional information arise, at least when starting from purely physical and chemical antecedents.

The closest that Ayala comes in his review to recognizing the central affirmative argument in the book is his rather clumsy attempt to refute the idea of intelligent design by insisting that the existence of “nonsensical” or junk sequences in the human genome demonstrates that it did not arise by intelligent design. As he claims explicitly, “according to Meyer, ID provides a more satisfactory explanation of the human genome than evolution does.”

Again, I have to wonder whether Professor Ayala even cracked the pages of the book. My book is not about the origin of the human genome, nor about human evolution nor even biological evolution generally. It’s about chemical evolution, the origin of the first life and the genetic information necessary to produce it. In fact, I explicitly acknowledge in the epilogue that someone could in principle accept my argument for the intelligent design of the first life and also accept the standard neo-Darwinian account of how subsequent forms of life evolved. I don’t hold this “front-end loaded” view of design, but my book makes no attempt to refute it or standard accounts of biological evolution. For this reason, it’s hard to see how Ayala’s attempt to defend biological evolution and refute the particular hypothesis that intelligent design played a discernable role in the origin of the human genome in any way challenges the argument of Signature in the Cell.

Even so, it is worth noting that the argument that Ayala makes against intelligent design of the human genome based upon on the presence of “nonsensical” or so-called junk DNA is predicated upon two factually flawed and out-of-date premises. Ayala suggests that no designer worthy of the modifier “intelligent” would have allowed the human genome to be liberally sprinkled with a preponderance of nonsense DNA sequences and that the presence and apparently random distribution of such sequences is more adequately explained as a by-product of the trial and error process of undirected mutation and selection. According to Ayala, the distribution of a particular sequence (the Alu sequence), which he asserts contains genetic nonsense, suggests a sloppy, unintelligent editor, not an intelligent designer. As he argues:

"It is as if the editor of Signature of the Cell would have inserted between every two pages of Meyer’s book, forty additional pages, each containing the same three hundred letters. Likely, Meyer would not think of his editor as being “intelligent.” Would a function ever be found for these one million nearly identical Alu sequences? It seems most unlikely."

Thus, in essence, Ayala claims that (1) a preponderance of nonsense DNA sequences and (2) the random distribution of these sequences shows that the human genome could not have been intelligently designed. But both of the factual claims upon which Ayala bases this argument are wrong.

First, neither the human genome nor the genomes of other organisms are predominantly populated with junk DNA. As I document in Signature in the Cell, the non-protein-coding regions of the genomes (of various organisms) that were long thought to be “ junk” or “nonsense” are now known to perform numerous mission-critical functions. Non-protein-coding DNA is neither nonsense nor junk. On page 407 of Signature in the Cell, I enumerate ten separate functions that non-protein-coding regions of the genome are now known to play. (References to peer-reviewed scientific publications documenting my claims are provided there). Overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like the operating system in a computer in that they direct and regulate the timing and expression of the other protein coding genetic modules.

Further, the Alu sequences that Ayala specifically cites as prime examples of widely and randomly distributed nonsense sequences in the human genome are not non-functional or “nonsense.” Short Interspersed Nuclear Element (SINE) sequences, of which Alu is one member, perform numerous formatting and regulatory functions in the genomes of all organisms in which they have been found. It is simply factually incorrect for Ayala to claim otherwise.

In general, SINEs (and thus Alus) allow genetic information to be retrieved in multiple different ways from the same DNA data files depending on the specific needs of different cell types or tissues (in different species specific contexts). In particular, Alu sequences perform many taxon-specific lower-level genomic formatting functions such as: (1) providing alternative start sites for promoter modules in gene expression—somewhat like sectoring on a hard drive (Faulkner et al., 2009; Faulkner and Carninci, 2009); (2) suppressing or “silencing” RNA transcription (Trujillo et al., 2006); (3) dynamically partitioning one gene file from another on the chromosome (Lunyak et al., 2007); (4) providing DNA nodes for signal transduction pathways or binding sites for hormone receptors (Jacobsen et al., 2009; Laperriere et al., 2004); (5) encoding RNAs that modulate transcription (Allen et al., 2004; Espinoza et al., 2004; Walters et al., 2009); and (6) encoding or regulating micro RNAs (Gu et al., 2009; Lehnert et al., 2009).

In addition to these lower-level genomic formatting functions, SINEs (including Alus) also perform species-specific higher-level genomic formatting functions such as: (1) modulating the chromatin of classes of GC-rich housekeeping and signal transduction genes (Grover et al., 2003, 2004; Oei et al., 2004; see also Eller et al., 2007); (2) “bar coding” particular segments for chromatin looping between promoter and enhancer elements (Ford and Thanos, 2010); (3) augmenting recombination in sequences where Alus occur (Witherspoon et al., 2009); and (4) assisting in the formation of three dimensional chromosome territories or “compartments” in the nucleus (Kaplan et al., 1993; see also Pai and Engelke, 2010).

Moreover, Alu sequences also specify many species-specific RNA codes. In particular, they provide: (1) signals for alternative RNA splicing (i.e., they generate multiple messenger RNAs from the same type of precursor transcript) (Gal-Mark et al., 2008; Lei and Vorechovsky, 2005; Lev-Maor et al., 2008) and (2) alternative open-reading frames (exons) (Lev-Maor et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2009). Alu sequences also (3) specify the retention of select RNAs in the nucleus to silence expression (Chen et al., 2008; Walters et al., 2009); (4) regulate the RNA polymerase II machinery during transcription (Mariner et al., 2008; Yakovchuk et al., 2009; Walters et al., 2009); and (5) provide sites for Adenine-to-Inosine RNA editing, a function that is essential for both human development and species-specific brain development (Walters et al., 2009).

Contrary to Ayala’s claim, Alu sequences (and other mammalian SINEs) are not distributed randomly but instead manifest a similar “bar code” distribution pattern along their chromosomes (Chen and Manuelidis, 1989; Gibbs et al., 2004; Korenberg and Rykowski, 1988). Rather like the distribution of the backslashes, semi-colons and spaces involved in the formatting of software code, the “bar code” distribution of Alu sequences (and other SINEs) reflects a clear functional logic, not sloppy editing or random mutational insertions. For example, Alu sequences are preferentially located in and around protein-coding genes as befits their role in regulating gene expression (Tsirigos and Rigoutsos, 2009). They occur mainly in promoter regions—the start sites for RNA production—and in introns, the segments that break up the protein-coding stretches. Outside of these areas, the numbers of Alu sequences sharply decline. Further, we now know that Alu sequences are directed to (or spliced into) certain preferential hotspots in the genome by the protein complexes or the “integrative machinery” of the cell’s information processing system (Levy et al., 2010). This directed distribution of Alu sequences enhances the semantic and syntactical organization of human DNA. It appears to have little to do with the occurrence of random insertional mutations, contrary to the implication of Ayala’s “sloppy editor” illustration and argument.

Critics repeatedly claim that the theory of intelligent design is based on religion, not science. But in his response to my book, it is Ayala who relies on a theological argument and who repeatedly misrepresents the scientific literature in a vain attempt to support it. The human genome manifests nonsense sequences and sloppy editing ill-befitting of a deity or any truly intelligent designer, he argues. He also sees other aspects of the natural world that he thinks are inconsistent with the existence of a Deity. I’ll leave it to theologians to grapple with Ayala’s arguments about whether backaches in old age and other forms of generalized human suffering make the existence of God logically untenable. But on the specific scientific question of the organization of the human genome, I think the evidence is clear. It is Ayala who has been sloppy, and not only in his assessment of the human genome, but also, I must add, in his critique of my book.

I just balk at pinning my faith on something such as this. DNA appears impossibly complex to me, but many things that you and I take for granted would have seemed so to the contemporaries of Jesus, and even to people at the start of last century.

We are young in our knowledge. Please be extremely careful when talking about 'complexity' proving God's existence, and certainly don't make it a cornerstone of your faith. I'm just worried that your faith or credibility as a witness make take a blow if what we consider now to be complex is shown to not be.

tidalforce wrote:I just balk at pinning my faith on something such as this. DNA appears impossibly complex to me, but many things that you and I take for granted would have seemed so to the contemporaries of Jesus, and even to people at the start of last century.

We are young in our knowledge. Please be extremely careful when talking about 'complexity' proving God's existence, and certainly don't make it a cornerstone of your faith. I'm just worried that your faith or credibility as a witness make take a blow if what we consider now to be complex is shown to not be.

Tidalforce, he's speaking to a certain seeker's views on the subject, as posted at various times and places on the board. It's just one subject out of many that we have been talking with Kristoffer about. Besides this, what is being discussed here is a part of God's general revelation (nature--it's awesomeness, mystery, complexity), which is indeed important in persons coming to faith.

How do you witness to others? What do you say is the basis for your faith? If you see other posts by Kris where you feel you could witness to him, in an area where you feel it would be reasonable and effective, that would be great.

cslewislover wrote:How do you witness to others? What do you say is the basis for your faith?

Scripture and personal experience mainly. My faith and witnessing seems so much more complete based on a personal/spiritual level, rather than a rational one...if that makes sense?

tidalforce wrote:

cslewislover wrote:How do you witness to others? What do you say is the basis for your faith?

Scripture and personal experience mainly. My faith and witnessing seems so much more complete based on a personal/spiritual level, rather than a rational one...if that makes sense?

It makes absolute since, because that is what my faith is based on. However I learned the facts that I have to help those who need something else to see God. Kristoffer has not had a personal experience with God that he has told us, and if you read in the op he says he wishes he had information that would prove God to him. Once he puts his faith in Christ, then he may have a personal experience with God that bases his faith on that instead of science and proof of God. So for some people this could be helpful, sometimes they just need that nudge

I would tend to agree with tidalforce, if only with the language we use.

To me it strikes close to the "God of the Gaps" argument....and the problem there is that if we ever did find out a way for DNa to form chromosomes or evidence for the development of mitosis, we have spiked our own guns. We have set and rested our faith on the fact that this complexity is the key. Therefore, if ever there is more concrete evidence we have essentially declared our own case for God to be null and void. We have drawn the line in the sand ourselves and have provided atheists with the litmus test.

I agree that the processes of DNA replication, mitosis, and chromosomal packaging, not to mention the entire paradox between DNA and proteins outlines the major gaps in chemical evolution at the current state of our knowledge. I would not, however, rest the existence or proof of God on that mystery.

A clarification: There are two different issues as I am reading this. One, that the complexity reveals a design and Two, that these complexities somehow imply a method (they are too complex to have...). I have no problem with the first and I am only hesitant to assert the latter. To state, "they couldn't have done this", especially when it rests on unknown knowledge, suddenly creates a God in the Gaps. We can say "right now, the evidence doesn't show this" but I think we have to be careful with "it can't do this" especially when that then becomes the foundation for the proof of God.

Why does it have to be complex?

Here's a challenge. Make for me the simplest element in existence. Just start with nothing.

Like Zoe, I wouldn't rest the case on it. But i don't think that is what Gabe is doing. It is simply one area to examine. Complex or not, does it show design? You essentially have a microsopic biological microchip with all the info you need for life.

This in itself is not witnessing. It is simply showing an atagonistic atheist who mocks a creationist world view that we are looking at the exact same scientific evidence. In witnessing, you are dealing with a worldview. Part of Kris's issue is that he has constucted a worldview that is excludes God. You can see this by the dogmatic claims he makes regarding evolution and Christianity.

zoegirl wrote:
To me it strikes close to the "God of the Gaps" argument....and the problem there is that if we ever did find out a way for DNa to form chromosomes or evidence for the development of mitosis, we have spiked our own guns. We have set and rested our faith on the fact that this complexity is the key. Therefore, if ever there is more concrete evidence we have essentially declared our own case for God to be null and void. We have drawn the line in the sand ourselves and have provided atheists with the litmus test.

As I said to tidalforce as well, that is not the resting foundation of my faith. Hints why I put proof of God with a ? because what I am doing here isn't trying to prove to Kristoffer that God exists, but rather that a natural explanation is by far less likely than an intelligent designer creating the universe, or even perhaps guiding the evolution process. The aim here is also to show him, if he gives his life to Christ, the handy work of our God, and how He creates. So you are correct, I would not rest the foundation of my faith on science, but rather my experiences I have had with God. I am trying to sway him if you will.

zoegirl wrote: I agree that the processes of DNA replication, mitosis, and chromosomal packaging, not to mention the entire paradox between DNA and proteins outlines the major gaps in chemical evolution at the current state of our knowledge. I would not, however, rest the existence or proof of God on that mystery.

Agreed completely.

zoegirl wrote: A clarification: There are two different issues as I am reading this. One, that the complexity reveals a design and Two, that these complexities somehow imply a method (they are too complex to have...). I have no problem with the first and I am only hesitant to assert the latter. To state, "they couldn't have done this", especially when it rests on unknown knowledge, suddenly creates a God in the Gaps. We can say "right now, the evidence doesn't show this" but I think we have to be careful with "it can't do this" especially when that then becomes the foundation for the proof of God.

However like I said above I am not necessarily aiming to prove the existence of God via science, as that would not be possible, because if it were there would be no room for faith. The entire point of this thread is to try and help Kristoffer, and anyone like him, along with seeing things the way we see them, and seeing how Darwinian evolution, at least at this point, cannot explain some things and there fore requires more faith to believe in it, and assumptions to bolster it. I would challenge scientists to prove that dinosaurs looked the way they do in paintings, as we never saw them. Or that single celled organisms that lived at the dawn of time had certain less complex methods of mitosis and RNA replication that could have developed at the same time the RNA developed and the organism developed, in full functioning fashion. But in order for them to do that, they would, at least at this current time and to the best of my knowledge, have to make many assumptions about that as they were not around back then and they did not witness it. I like what CS Lewis said about scientific assumptions, and Vicki posted that in her Saving CS Lewis thread.

jlay wrote: Like Zoe, I wouldn't rest the case on it. But i don't think that is what Gabe is doing. It is simply one area to examine. Complex or not, does it show design? You essentially have a microsopic biological microchip with all the info you need for life.

Well said, and I like thinking of it like that. And yet for all of its complexity it is very simple, because it is nothing more than a composition of 5 different types of atoms, that came together to form all of the building blocks for life as we know it.

jlay wrote: This in itself is not witnessing. It is simply showing an atagonistic atheist who mocks a creationist world view that we are looking at the exact same scientific evidence. In witnessing, you are dealing with a worldview. Part of Kris's issue is that he has constucted a worldview that is excludes God. You can see this by the dogmatic claims he makes regarding evolution and Christianity

This is true, and I shouldn't really call it that (not sure if I did) but it is as you said above showing him that we are looking at the exact same scientific evidence. I am hoping that this will sway him to be more open to Christ, and in a way I am trying to show him hand of God. It is true though that he needs witnesing too. I am trying to take him to task, but in a loving way, to build a cumulative case for a creator, but not an absolute proof of a God. And in the end the decision on if any of what is said here helps him find God easier rest with him and him alone.

I think for reference we need to note that Kristoffer has seemed very open to Christ, and even put up a picture of Jesus as his avatar at one point. He needs coaxing, and he needs love. We need to treat him Christ like kindness and love, and lead him in the direction of Christ. I am trying to show him the hands of God as seen through an ID stand point. It is written that we are without excuse because God has made Himself known through the world. So while I may not be preaching salvation in a form of witness, I am showing him a world that is a product, not of natural processes, but rather of a God.

Gabrielman wrote:

tidalforce wrote:

cslewislover wrote:How do you witness to others? What do you say is the basis for your faith?

Scripture and personal experience mainly. My faith and witnessing seems so much more complete based on a personal/spiritual level, rather than a rational one...if that makes sense?

It makes absolute since, because that is what my faith is based on. However I learned the facts that I have to help those who need something else to see God. Kristoffer has not had a personal experience with God that he has told us, and if you read in the op he says he wishes he had information that would prove God to him. Once he puts his faith in Christ, then he may have a personal experience with God that bases his faith on that instead of science and proof of God. So for some people this could be helpful, sometimes they just need that nudge

@ Tidalforce. Sure, we are drawn to God by God, and that's a spiritual thing. The board is about God and science though, so we end up talking about it a lot. That'll be great if you can keep participating and help people understand faith as you know it. There are many people that come here, really wondering about God, who actually WANT to believe in Him because rationally they think it's realistic to have faith; they've already come to that point. Yet, they want more - they need a nudge or someone to walk up beside them to finally open their hearts to God. Perhaps our witness as faithful people, our experiences, and our encouragement can help them.

As for the science here, I see it mostly as description of God's workmanship. Science began as a way to understand God's creation, and it seems like that's what we're doing. If God created all, then ultimately we're just describing what we have found so far. Whether there ends up being some mechanism that somehow created "life" that we can detect (Meyers shows that so far there isn't), or no, God still did it.

(Hi Nathaniel! )

cslewislover wrote:As for the science here, I see it mostly as description of God's workmanship. Science began as a way to understand God's creation, and it seems like that's what we're doing. If God created all, then ultimately we're just describing what we have found so far. Whether there ends up being some mechanism that somehow created "life" that we can detect (Meyers shows that so far there isn't), or no, God still did it.

Yes It is the testament to God from God, it's His signature for us all to see! What I fail to understand is why people think that they can disprove God via Science, when, from what I have seen, all science has done is show how amazing He is and has proved the Bible. I want to do another post soon about things outside the nucleus, and get more detailed about what all is in almost ever cell just in us. It simply amazes me though that our bodies are a bunch of tiny, smoothly working factories. Each almost like their own organism, working together to be one big organism! Lots of fun doing this though!!!!!!

cslewislover wrote:
(Hi Nathaniel! )

HI VICKI!

tidalforce wrote:I just balk at pinning my faith on something such as this. DNA appears impossibly complex to me, but many things that you and I take for granted would have seemed so to the contemporaries of Jesus, and even to people at the start of last century.

We are young in our knowledge. Please be extremely careful when talking about 'complexity' proving God's existence, and certainly don't make it a cornerstone of your faith. I'm just worried that your faith or credibility as a witness make take a blow if what we consider now to be complex is shown to not be.

Frankly, I don't see any problem with associating complexity with God. While some things may not seem as complex when we study them thoroughly, I believe that man as a habit cannot help but inject their philosophical bias into their scientific research. It's practically a given...

Gman wrote:

tidalforce wrote:I just balk at pinning my faith on something such as this. DNA appears impossibly complex to me, but many things that you and I take for granted would have seemed so to the contemporaries of Jesus, and even to people at the start of last century.

We are young in our knowledge. Please be extremely careful when talking about 'complexity' proving God's existence, and certainly don't make it a cornerstone of your faith. I'm just worried that your faith or credibility as a witness make take a blow if what we consider now to be complex is shown to not be.

Frankly, I don't see any problem with associating complexity with God. While some things may not seem as complex when we study them thoroughly, I believe that man as a habit cannot help but inject their philosophical bias into their scientific research. It's practically a given...

Not only that, but for atheists it becomes a religion that they cling too. Then they start to deny the facts and try to hide from the truth and God, and the truth of God. Like they have anything to lose. Aside from seemingly having the answers, which they do not. Yet they think they have the answers for life's problems, and that if we were all like them that the world would be a better place. Heh, they wish. They think science is a god, but what they don't get is that their god is a powerless one, and a hopeless one.

Kristoffer, in our God is hope, and our faith, and a love that covers all sins and can make you new. You will find a new life in Him. You will find strength in Him, you will find what you seek, in God.