Just a note: Though one should try and give people the benefit of the doubt, I find that quite hard to do in light of the tone of the original post. I'll start this by exposing what I believe is the real intent here. The sarcastic comments of "mountainous evidence" or "clear testable evidence" etc, when I have no recall of anybody having made such claims, is simply an attempt to set creationists up for a "big fall", should their responses here (in his eyes) fail to stand up to such exaggerated claims. I will remind anybody here that creation is not being taught in science classrooms and that the burden of proof does not lie with us! This is something Pwcca needs to seriously consider before using such tactics in future. Therefore, nobody is "obliged" to prove anything on this thread, unless they are indoctrinating students with their theory in a science classroom. Though I thank Pwcca for the opportunity to express the reasons that I believe in intelligent design, I do not thank him for setting up and starting a thread with a veiled sting attached that eventually undoes or lessens any genuine intent of what "could" have been an open invitation without the usual hidden jabs . What a pity! (but no surprise).

However, Im going to simply share why I believe in intelligent design is the only way to explain our origins, this is not so much for Pwcca, but for anybody else. One can make of it what they will. My post below may have already been mentioned by me or others in one way or another through different posts when have been debating evolution. Sorry for any repitition, but I' and other creationists have been accused of not providing anything in support of intelligent design by Pwcca. You (the reader) can make up your own mind about that, just read the threads on here, view the videos, and see whether we've provided little to nothing in support of intelligent design. I consider evolution and creation polar opposites and if things did not arise spontaneously, the only alternative is that they arose purposely! in debating evolution, design is automatically the next consideration. So disproving one, is in effect stating the obvious - letting one consider the alternative and what may point instead to design. I will however, try here to keep focus on my reasons for believing in creation.

Our origins:

The British professor of the theoretical physics, Paul Davies, clearly outlined the problematical questions concerning the origins of the universe:

"if the universe had no origin in time - if it has alwyas existed - then it is of infinite age. The concept of infinity leaves many people reeling. If there has been an infinite number of events already, why do we find ourselves living now? Did the universe remain quiescent for all of eternity only to spring into action relatively recently, or has there been some activity going on forever and ever? On the other hand, if the universe began, that means accepting it appeared suddenly out of nothing. This seems to imply that there was a first event. if so, what caused it?".

The earth possesses a large number of astronomical and physical peculiarities which make life on earth possible. In additon, the exact values of very many properties must fall inside very restricted bounds, all at the same time. The following pre- requirements are exceedingly improbable without intention/intelligence/exactness.

*the correct distance between earth and sun
*the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun with its small eccentricity
*the constant energy output of the sun
*the correct rate of rotation of the earth
*the optimum tilt angle between the axis of the earth
and the ecliptic
*the correct size and mass of the earth
*the correct quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth
*the correct quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere of the earth
*the correct distance of the moon from the earth.

What are the chances of this all occuring outside of intelligent intent/design? The physical law of the conservation of energy states that our universe energy cannot be created out of nothing, neither can it be destroyed. Now what was the origin of the energy in the universe, and every aspect of precise balance/function, if not an act of creation? Any of these things that do not perform in exactly the right way, at the right times, is a recipe not only for disaster, but non occurance/sustainance.

During a conversation with Job (in the bible), God clearly explained to him the foundation of all astronomical and physical data and the geometrical dimensions of the establishment of the earth. "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? (or: drew up constructional plans) Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" (Job 38.4). The book of Job is very interesting in regards to the origins of the foundations of the earth and the creatures God created to inhabit it.

Do living things show evidence of design?

The late Issac Asimov (an ardent anti-creationist) decleared that "in man, is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. It is much more complex that the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?"

Life is built on information. This information is contained in the incredibly complex DNA. To argue that natural selection and mutations are the basic mechanisms of the evolutionary process, one must show that these processes produce the information responsible for the design that is evident in living things. What machine, already been designed (by man) can match the complexity of DNA? There is a clear difference between living organisms and non-living matter. Matter and energy are necessary fundamental qualities of life, but they do not distinguish living systems from non-living systems. One of the central characteristics of all living creatures is teh inherent information required for alll life processes and the genetic information required for procreation. Information is an essential aspect of all life forms. In the extreme case, submiscroscopic viroids are no more than bearers of information. One the other hand, even very complex organic compounds like proteins are not alive, because tehy do not contain encoded information. It should be obvious that information distinguishes between living and inanimate substances. Pasteur's statement that life can only come from life (omne vivum ex vivo), can thus be expressed as follows: Information must have a source.

Natural selection is a logical process that one can observed. However, natural selection only operates on the information that is ALREADY CONTAINED in the genes - it does NOT produce new information. It is true that one can observe great variation in a "kind", and see the results of natural selection/breeding. For instance, wolves, coyotes and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection/breeding operating on the information found in the genes of the wolf/dog "kind". But the point here is that NO new information was produced - these varieties of dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One "kind" has never been observed to change into a totally different "kind" with information that previously did not exist. Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Therefore, what then is the alternative?

The construction of a 747 airplane is apparently made up of six million parts. Try and imagine that not one part by itself flies! But you know that as a complete machine, it flies! So, to understand the basic mechanisms of the biochemistry of cells that enables organisms to function, consider what scientists have found within the cell. There are thousands of what can be called "biochemical machines". For example, one could cite the cell's ability to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses. But what scientists once thought was a simple process within a cell, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, is in fact a highly complicated event. For just this one example alone to even work, there have to be numerous compounds in all the right places and the right time in the right concentration for it to work - or it just cannot happen. In other words, just as all the parts of the 747 need to be assembled before it can fly, so all the parts of these "biochemical machines" in cells need to be in place or they cannot function (let alone replicate). And there are literally thousands of such "machines" in a single cell that are vital for it to operate.

Life is built on these "machines". The simplicity that was once expected to be the fountain of life has proven Instead, to be a system of horrendous, irreducible complexity that inhabit the cell itself. At a cellular level, there are literally thousands of "machines" that need to exist before life ever becomes possible. The more one looks into the workings of life, the more complicated it becomes and the more we see that life could not have arisen by itself. Not only does life require a source of information, but the complex "machines" of the chemistry of life must be in existence, right from the start.

In just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes has been estimated to fill at least 1000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. And this itself maybe underestimated (to say the least).

Where did this information come from? And in the right order? Seeing as the alphabet itself is so simple compared to the information and order of DNA, how then can we admit one is the product of design/language information and the other not? The order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful! In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful! DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without DNA wouldn't work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those "machines" that must already be in existence and fully formed or life will not work. DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative/intelligent force. So far, life has not been created in a lab. The only thing scientists can do is "clone" (already available complete information).

Here is an interview with a molecular biologist:

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.
G: What elephant?
J: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Taken from - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html


Can information arise from non-information?

Dr. Werner Gitt (In the beginning was information), makes it clear that one of the things we know for sure from science is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information and ultimately information is the result of intelligence.

"A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires intelligent origin or inventor)...It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being volunarily exercising his own free will, cognition and creativity, is required".

"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this"..

"....there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter".

What then is the source of the information?

The huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours. But then some might say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence. However, if they reason this way, one could ask, where even this greater information/intelligence came from? One could continue doing this to infinity...unless... there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding.

Dr Gary Parker (creationist - ex evolutionist) argues that natural selection does occur, but operates as a "preservative", and has nothing to do with one organism changing into another!

"Natural selection is just one of the processes that operates in our present corrupted world to insure that the created kinds can indeed spread throughout the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety (often, nowadays, in spite of human pollution)".

"It seems to me that natural selection works only because each kind was created with sufficient variety to multiply and fill the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety".

We are no doubt similar in many respects to animals, especially the apes, but did we arise from a common ancestor? The bible states that man was created in His image, not in the image of the other animals. This could be argued that all living things come from a common designer. Just as material things that are created come from designers. Whether the similarity is shape/form or biochemical is of no consequence. We see the same this throughout our lives from any author/designer/programmer.

What about origin and formation of speech?

The formations for speech do not rely on the existance of a single organ, but depend on the simultaneous availability of a voice-producing mechanicism, a suitable throat cavity (together with the tongue), and a highly complex control system (the brain). how is it possible that such a diverse and exactly matching set of components could have developed together? It is totally unreasonable to believe that such a marvellous structure could have originated without purpose.

When a child is born, it has no command of language, but it is able to learn the language of its parents. The language "supply" is available, and must be "installed" in the baby's brain. But the "so-called" primitive people, as put forth by evolution, did not have a language source. The situation can be compared to a computer with no software - it can accomplish nothing; no speech could have developed.

You cannot compare the specifics of human speech with the communication systems of animals. It can be stated emphatically that the essence of human speech is not communication. Communication exists everywhere in the animal kingdom. But human language is in the first place a knowledge medium; this encompasses an intellectual/spiritual access to the observable world. The essence of speech lies in the possibility of assigning specific meanings to articulated sounds, thereby making them mentally accessible.

Even the most diligent training of apes (experiments) never resulted in anything possessing the essential characteristics of human speech. Certain concepts could only be developed in cases where the primary survival instincts of the animals were involved.

Everything in space displays circular motion. How or what/who put these in motion and in just the right way and speed? "Man cannot alter the motions of the heavens" (Job 38:31 - 33).

Rotation the turning of an object on its axis. The rotation of our earth provides the obvious day/night cycle. One pupose of all the circular motion of all objects in space is to provide stability. If planets and moons did not have orbital motion, gravity would cause them to crash inward. If the milky way was a stationary group of stars, then the stars would also begin moving toward the center. The galaxy's rotation prevents this unstable situation.

What about gravity? The earth's gravity keeps the moon in orbit; the moon's gravity pulls back and causes the tides. The earth also pulls downard on surface objects and gives them their "weight". On the moon we'd weigh six times less than on earth, because of the lunah gravity being less than the earth's.

On earth, gravity causes the rain to "fall". It also makes us tired, since we work against its downard force all day. Gravity cannot be turned off; no antigravity machine has yet been invented. I wonder what life on earth would be like if gravity as stronger than it actually is or less!

If it was stronger, no birds or planes could fly.
Ink would drain from your pen.
No tall trees or buildings could stand.
Neither evaporation nor rain would occur.
Clouds would like on the ground as permanent fog.
STanding up would be a difficult task.

What about a less force?

We would weigh less
A home-run baseball might fly for miles
Eath's atmosphere would escape into space
Oceans would evaporate

Clearly the gravity we have is at just the right strength to make life possible on earth. Issac Newston studied gravity three centuries ago, but modern science still does not known what really causes its force. What a mystery! How do the earth and moon "know" exactly where the other is at at all times and pull accordingly? Whatever the mechanism, aren't we lucky that we can sit here on our computers and even debate about it?

Does the seven day week support creation?

The earth's motion provides two natural divisions of time. One rotation or complete turn of the earth defines the 24 hour day. One orbital revolution around the sun defines our year. The week is a third, intermediate time segment that is not readily derived from observations. There is no obvious seven-day rhythm in the solar system or space beyond. Attempts to find an orgin for the week in moon phases or in seven distinct astronomical objects are unconvincing. Our week appears to be a direct reflection of the calendar cycle (Gen. 2:2 - 3).

Alternate calender groupings have been attempted in the past. In 1792 France instituted a new decimal calendar with a ten-day week. Each day was further divided into decimal parts instad of hours and minutes. This calender failed to satisfy French citizens and disappeared after just 14 years of use. In 1929 Russia also attempted to dissociate the week from its religious basis by simply eliminating Saturdays and Sundays from the calendar. Soviet people enjoy weekends just like everyone else and this unpopular calendar was also short-lived, lasting only one year. Surely the enduring seven-day week is a strong testimony to the reliability of the creation account.

Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

Dr. Gentry claims to have discovered evidence of primordial polonium in the earth's bedrock. Such evidence requires that the polonium be present in hardened bedrock. But in order for this to occur, the earth's formation would require an instantaneous creation of rock and not a billion years worth of cooling from a molten state.
Dr. Kazmann wrote, "The polonium halos, especially those produced by Polonium 218, are the center of a mystery. The half-life of the isotope is only 3 minutes. Yet the halos have been found in granitic rocks ... in all parts of the world, including Scandinavia, India, Canada, and the United States. The difficulty arises from observation that there is no identifiable precursor to the polonium; it appears to be primordial polonium. If so, how did the surrounding rocks crystallize rapidly enough so that there were crystals available ready to be imprinted with radiohalos by alpha particles from Po? This would imply almost instantaneous cooling and crystallization of these granitic minerals, and we know of no mechanisms that will remove heat so rapidly; the rocks are supposed to have cooled over millennia, if not tens of millennia." (R.G. Kazmann, 1979, summary of R.V. Gentry's symposium presentation at Louisiana State University, April 1978, quoted in CTM, p. 61).

I believe in creation, but also in six literal days to create the world. God is not limited at all, we are! There have been many attempts to stretch creation days into vast periods of time to accommodate scripture with secular science. However, the problem is not with scripture but with our attempts to rationalise and understand the creation week, something that cannot be done by finite minds! If God is the Creator of the laws of nature, then He Himself is not subject to them. He can use them freely, and can, through his omnipotence, limit their effects or even nullify them. There are many details of God's creative plan that simply cannot be compromised with current scientific opinion. Some of the unanswered questions are:

1. How could plants exist on the third day, before the sun was present? (if "days" are "eons" long).
2. "light" existed before the sun (Gen 1:3). What light source did God use to mark the first three days?
3. Since the seas were also formed before the sun (Gen. 1:9 - 10), why didn't they quickly freeze? why didn't the "water above" fall to the ground as snow? (Gen. 1:9)
4. Did the earth initially move in a straight line, or did it orbit the position of the yet-to-be-created sun?

Scripture:

All elements made together
Earth before the sun and stars
Earth covered in water intially
Oceans first, then dry land
Life first created on the land
Plants created before the sun
Land animals created after birds
Whales before land animals
Birds created before reptiles
Sun, moon and stars formed together

Evolution:

Elements beyond hydrogen and helium formed after millions of years
Earth formed long after the stars
Earth a molten blob initially
Dry land, then the oceans
Life started in the oceans
Plants came long after the sun
Land animals existed before birds
Land animals before whales.
Birds evolved from reptiles
Sun formed from older stars

All ideas which try to put eons of time into, or before, Creation undermine the Gospel by putting death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before sin and the Fall. When the bible makes it clear that all things were made good in the very beginning! When one accepts the first part of the bible, they usually have no problems accepting and making sense of the rest of the bible. Scholars have shown that 24 hour periods is the intended meaning of the text. The week of 24 hour days, so familiar to us, had its beginning in the creation week. God's ways are not our ways and how can one possibly determine exactly how it was done when speaking about a infinite, unlimited supernatural power? "The human mind cannot know all there is to know"(Col. 2:3).

Therefore, it really is up to the person to decide who/what is ultimately responsible for the universe and all it's balance and wonder and vast creative inhabitants!

Does the bible itself give any quotes regarding these beliefs or lack of? If anybody is interested, here is some such examples.

Romans 1:20 states "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".

We also read in Ephesians 4:18 "Having their understanding darkened, being alientated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart'.

In 2 Peter 3:5, the Apostle tells us that man is "willingly ignorant' - he deliberately rejects the truth about creation. "They deliberately ignore the fact that long ago there were the heavens and the earth, formed out of water and through water by the Word of God, and that it was through these same factors that the world of those days was destroyed by the floodwaters".

To avoid the truth, man has "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things' (Romans 1:23).

As Romans 1:21 states, "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened".