How Close Is 96%?

We have been told many times about how similar Human DNA is to Chimpanzee DNA. At first we were told they were 98%, then 97%. Now it has dropped to between 95-96%, but even so, that still sounds like a lot, right? But how close IS it really?

DNA is made up of what are termed 'base pairs'. These are the instruction codes that make us who we are. There are roughly 3,125,000,000 base pairs in human DNA. That means at even 96% similarity, there are still 125,000,000 differences!

What does this mean to evolution? Evolution states that each of these differences came about over time by chance, random process. They use these long periods of time because these changes are rare and most changes are not passed on but weeded out. So very few changes continue down the line. The question is how much time for how many changes.

Using evolutionist's figures, from the time human and chimp separated down different paths from their mutual ancestor, approximately 300,000 generations have come and gone. A staggering amount to be sure. But is it enough?

125,000,000 differences divided by 300,000 generations means that EACH and EVERY generation must have and pass on 133 mutations of the exact variety needed to be passed on and separate the two lines. Remember, mutations are very rare and the vast majority of them are not passed on. Alone, 133 mutations is unheard of in a single generation, little lone 133 beneficial ones that are actually passed on to offspring.

Simply put, even given an additional ten times the number of generations they allow for would not give enough time for such a divergence to take place. This shows that the similarity in DNA does not fit with the 'common ancestor' model. However, it still does fit with the concept of a common creator.

In His service... Arthur Smith

Matter+Energy+Time=?

Many of us were taught that Matter + Energy + Time = Life. Meaning that given enough time and energy, life will come from non life. However, is this true? Simply put, no, and here's an easy example why.

Lets take a computer. You assemble (time) all the parts (matter) and plug it in and turn it on (energy) and it works because you have those three pieces, right? Ah! There is one thing missing: software. If your computer has no program to run it, then it will never run. The hardware (matter) will never work by its self no matter how much time or energy you put into it. It must have the information in the program to work.

The components of life are the same. Given all the time the evolutionists claim has past and any amount of energy, matter could never form life because it would never have the information required for life. That information is hard coded in the DNA, in the genes and chromosomes and made usable through the RNA in our cells.

The scientific Laws of Information in Nature state that information cannot arise from matter. It ALWAYS arises from a source of higher information. Again, think of a computer. A computer cannot program itself. And it cannot program something more intelligent than itself. It takes an external source, a programmer, to install and upgrade its information.

So the equation for life is lacking. To be correct it MUST be Matter + Energy + Time + information = Life. Information cannot come from matter but always from a higher source of information. To program an amoeba, you'd need something with vastly more information than an amoeba. To program a dog, you'd need something with vastly more information than a dog. To program a human, you'd need something with vastly more information than a human. Vastly more information than a human? Where does that lead us to?

In His Service... Arthur Smith

Could all the animals fit on the ark?

Many people say that they know the account of Noah is not real because all the animals could not fit on the ark. Ask them then, how big was the ark and how many animals had to be on it. Typically they will not know. Do you?

Genesis records that the Ark was 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is the length from one’s elbow to the tip of their finger. Traditionally this is accepted to be 18”. However, up to a 22” cubit is accepted by Jewish Historians and being 600 years old, Noah’s could have been even bigger!

Accepting the smallest size for a cubit, the Ark would thus be 450’ x 75’ x 45’. This would give the Ark 1,518,750 cubic feet of room. Equal to the capacity of 565 railroad stock cars! But was that enough? To answer this question, we must know how many animals were on the Ark.

Genesis records each “kind” of animal was on the Ark. Though we do not have a list of God’s classification of ‘kinds’, in the creation account, we see that kinds can reproduce. Bearing this in mind, we can see not every ‘species’ was required, but a far smaller number would be required. For instance there would not be a Poodle, Labrador, Great Dane, Wolf and fox on board, but one dog kind.

It is believed this number to be less than 35,000 animals. However, even if we were to take the worst case, and look at species, is there enough room?

Looking even at species, there are only 21,100 species that would have needed the protection of the ark. Multiply this by 2 so we have a male and female of each brings our total to 42,200. There are well less than 1000 ‘clean’ kinds but even adding 7 of each at that many, still leaves the number at less than 50,000 even after adding in two of each dinosaur kind. But will they fit?

If you take all animals, including dinosaurs, from the smallest to the largest, the average size would be that of a sheep. As stated earlier, the Ark can hold the same as 565 railroad stock cars. Shipping records show a stock car will hold 240 sheep. So:

50,000 animals at 240 per car = 208 stock cars. Only 36% of the Ark’s capacity to fit all the SPECIES! Room with plenty to spare!

Evolutionary trees actually more like grass

<
I remember growing up, I had a book on animals and dinosaurs. It had a huge evolutionary tree and I loved reading about the animal, then looking on the tree and tracing it backwards through its evolutionary history. I was completely in awe of those diagrams and just as completely convinced by them. Growing up through the school system, this conviction was solidified in this icon of evolution.

It is no wonder then, when my search to once-and-for-all find the absolute proof of evolution began, that I started with these trees. Yet to my disappointment, I quickly found their flaw. Let me show you:

The first image here is a simple version of one of evolution's "Trees of Life". You can easily follow the evolutionary path and it is quite nice and convincing. But is it accurate? Let me ask you, what is on the black lines, or 'branches'? Why don't they show them?

The reason that they do not show what is on these lines is because they do not know. There simply is nothing to show so instead, they draw lines. What they really have is in this second image to the right: fully formed plants, animals and humans with nothing in-between!

That's right, instead of a tree, what is actually found by real science are fossils of the last leaf on the end of their supposed branches. To make their trees honestly reflect what is observed in nature, we need to remove the lines. What is left, is hardly convincing.

In fact, evolutionists make all sorts of these trees showing how certain things supposedly evolved. Lets look at a few of their examples. On the left is what they will show. The bold or colored lines show what is actually found. The light or dashed lines show what their IMAGINATIONS want you to believe. But these magic lines are an illusion. Remove the imagination, leave only the facts and what you get is shown in the right side of each picture. Lets take a look...

Okay, do you see the point? What they try to show is not what the facts actually show. The facts are on the right of each example. You can either use their imaginary, magic lines and try to connect them with lines, or you can read them for what the facts actually show: that each and every animal was created exactly how they were and did not evolve into anything else. They ALWAYS show up in the fossil record 100% complete in their kind. And you know what? That's EXACTLY what God said.

In His service... Arthur

Which Came First? The DNA or the RNA?

We all know the old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It is a question evolutionists can't specifically answer. However another such question that is more important is "which came first, DNA or RNA?"Okay I know, the topic alone is daunting. We have seen the pictures like those above and they are way too technical and over our heads. Most of us try to purge any knowledge of these out of our brains as soon as we finish our Biology final. However, the concepts of DNA and RNA are easy to grasp. Just remember these two bits of information:

1) DNA = coded information
2) RNA = the code itself

For instance, below is a code of instructions. Please read it and tell me what it is instructing you to do:

What? You can't? Well, this code is equivalent to DNA. It is all the information you need for something, but what? Without knowing the code, it is meaningless mumbo jumbo.

This is the same in our cells. Without the code (RNA), the instructions (DNA) are meaningless. So to help you out, listed below is the code which is equivalent to the RNA along with a new set of instructions for you to follow. Are you ready?

CODE:

Instructions:




Ok, so you have the code so you know what this second set of instructions is asking you to do, right? No? Of course you don't because you now have the code, but none of the instruction. So your code is useless. Remember, your code is your RNA. Without the information (DNA) your code (RNA) is useless. It is only when you have the two together that they are of any use. This is exactly the same as is the case with DNA and RNA. It is only when they are both together that they are of any use.

So, back to the question, "which came first DNA or RNA?" We see it could not have been either. Both are required to have originated at the same time. However, the chance that either developed naturally by chance, random processes is so remote as to be statistically impossible. But I will grant secular scientists that 'statistically impossible' and 'actually impossible' are not the same.

What that means is that though the chance is so remote as to realistically be impossible, there still is the slightest chance that DNA could assemble IF the information were available in the right form. There is the slightest chance that RNA could assemble IF the code were available in the correct form. But the chance that BOTH of these could happen completely independent of each other, at exactly the same time and place in the universe, by chance, random process and that they would be in perfect synch with each other is zero. It simply could not happen without the intervention of an intelligent, outside force purposely guiding the information and the code to work together to form a coherent combination of information structured into a specific instruction that can be decoded correctly.

The only thing left to determine is who or what was this intelligent force. As an answer, the decoding of the above instructions is as follows:

"Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not unto you're own understanding."

In His service... Arthur

PS - Oh, to answer the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg", Genesis says that all birds were made together on day 5. So the answer is the chicken!!

Evolution - Insulting Intelligence

I have to warn you on this one before I start. I am going to insult your intelligence. Please bear with me. You see, we have all seen the typical "Evolution of Man" pictures like this one.

But have you really thought about what it is trying to say? Does this make sense?

I am going to propose a 'theory' of my own evolution for you. You see, according to evolution, all we see started out of a "big bang" where nothing exploded and created matter in the form of Hydrogen and Helium. From these evolved everything including the elements which includes aluminum. So according to their 'theory', aluminum is a given from evolution.

EVOLUTION OF THE CAN!!!

So, millions and millions of years ago, there was a sandy beach. During a lightening storm there were strikes on land and sea. One of them at sea struck and formed completely new and complex structures from where they had never existed anywhere in the universe! Complex structures like amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA and the complex codes in them that together created life from non living elements!

A second strike of lightening wasn't as fortunate. It struck the beach, but it only fused together the aluminum that was there into a small, round, dish-like structure that collected the rain from the storm.

Through the next few millions of years, the new life from the first strike, evolved more and more complex structures, completely by chance that allowed it to move, absorb and process nutrients into life-sustaining energy and even reproduce! The aluminum dish on the other hand evolved some low, rudimentary walls which allowed it to hold more liquid.

Millions of years more pass and the life form has become multi-celled. It has evolved motors and circulatory systems and immune systems. Again all by chance, all from scratch and all extremely functional! The aluminum dish? Higher walls, sigh.

More time passes and the life form evolves a brain, eyes and sight, the sense of touch, hearing and smell, as well as gills to breathe and fins for propulsion! The Aluminum dish has also made great sides in this period of time. It has gained a lid. Oh, and a tab so the liquid inside still can be accessed.

Yet more millions of years and our life form has evolved feet and legs, lungs to breathe air, come aground and evolved new eyes and new senses like the ability to smell. All done completely by chance, random process from never-existing materials or plans! Our little can has progressed too. It has added specks of color because the lady cans prefer male cans with a sense of style.

We watch millions more years pass and our life form has developed hollow bones wings for flight or warm blooded creatures better adapted for new environments, complex brains that can reason and think. Eventually this life form's bones and muscles all change to allow it to walk on two legs, have feelings, make decisions, understand morality and type blogs on computers! Our can has added more color which makes it more appealing to the lady cans and can now be found in family units of six.

Of corse, along this evolutionary line of our little can, there were some mutations. These produced cans that looked a little different, but they were all still cans. Other fossils of cans that have been found were thought to be missing links between the steps, but were simply cans that had suffered from age, abuse and other deficiencies.

Okay, okay, I know you are well into thinking I have lost my mind. You know full well that the can did not evolve. I mean, just look at it and its complexity. It was obviously designed by an intelligent mind for its purpose, right? Yet what about the other half of the story above? The little life form? You laugh at that too because it is blatantly wrong. It is missing so many immensely complex steps as to be nonsense. The process I typed was so over-simplified that it is barely a representation of what happened at all.

Wait, what? A can evolving is impossible because of its obvious design yet evolving a human IS possible? A human which is infinitely more complex than a can? In fact, pick any one aspect of a human, say the eye and sight, the immune system, consciousness, reproduction, even a simple bacteria cell inside a human. Each of these are individually infinitely more complex than a can. So why is it an insult to our intelligence that a can evolved when we are demanded by secular science to believe that all of the components that make man, evolved from nothing, on its own, with no information on how to construct any of the new additions, completely by random chance? Now who is insulting your intelligence??

In His service...

Didn't they create life in a test tube?

Ah Miller and Urey... Simply put, no they didn't. They did get successful results, just not ones indicating life. To the left you see their experiment. To the right you see a diagram of it.

Miller and Urey's experiment starts out (1) with a sample of the 'primeval soup' - the stuff that was in the ocean before life arose. They added heat to vaporize it. This vapor rose up as the 'primeval atmosphere'. (2) An electric spark was added to simulate lightening and the matter created was condensed (3) and filtered out (4) to be tested.


Here's why it didn't do what you were told it did.

(1) There is no sample of this supposed 'primeval soup'. Its not even known if it existed little lone what it was made of. Why did he choose the ingredients he did? Not because of any proof, but to get the specific results he needed. You see, they knew that to even stand a chance of getting their desired results their 'atmosphere' (2) could contain no oxygen because oxygen immediately destroys the amino acids they were hoping to create. So whatever mixture they used for this 'soup' could not produce any oxygen.

To simplify this, take a standard box of 8 crayons. Now melt them all until what color is the result? The color you end up with is a result of the colors that were actually there. But that's not the color you wanted so you remove all the colors from the next box that do not fit your color scheme and change the amounts of the remaining colors so that when you melt the second batch, you get the color teal. The problem is, you didn't use what was actually there in the box. You took out what was actually there and only left exactly what you needed.

This is not scientifically valid. To have this be valid, the soup must be a valid recreation of what was actually here when they claim. NOT simply a mixture of the chemicals they need in order to produce the desired results they want.

"Maybe they early atmosphere didn't have oxygen."

A good thought. We don't know, right? Wrong. According to evolutionary scientists, many millions of years before life formed, rocks formed. Every rock ever studied contains oxygen. So without a doubt, the atmosphere had to have oxygen unlike that used in the experiment. Not to mention the Earth's ozone is made of oxygen. No oxygen means no ozone. No ozone and the sun's radiation kills everything on the Earth.

So the experiment started with the wrong solution, produced the wrong conditions and killed everything on earth. Anything else? Unfortunately, yes. You'll notice after the 'atmosphere' is zapped, it goes down another tube (3) where it condenses and continues into a water trap. Why? Because the amino acids dissolve in water. So Miller and Urey had to devise a way to remove them from the solution before they dissolved, hence the trap. The problem is, there is no such trap in nature. So without this trap, any amino acids created would also be destroyed.

Surely that's all the problems with the experiment, right? No. First, the experiment never claimed to have created life. What they created were amino acids which are used to build proteins which one part of what is required for life (with the above crayon example, its like saying you have blue dye and therefore have a crayon without having wax or any process to combine, refine and finish one). Now, in the amino acid world there are two types: Left handed and right handed. For there to be life, these all have to be left handed otherwise they cancel each other out. Think of it like a race track, if everyone goes left it is all fine. But even one driver going right would cause a catastrophe!

But in the Miller-Urey experiment, they were nearly equal parts left and right handed. Again a fatal flaw.

So the experiment:
1) Started with the wrong solution
2) Produced the wrong conditions
3) Created a fatally radioactive earth
4) Relied on a trap not found anywhere in nature
5) Got the wrong results

Scientifically speaking, the experiment was a success in that it proved that with their starting solution, following all their procedures, you could make a nearly equal amounts of left and right handed proteins. Unfortunately, that doesn't relate at all to how life started on this planet.

In His service...