DNA contains a coded, structured language, far more ordered and complex, than even the complex arrangement of matter around us.
DNA's coded, structured language. The material it's held might come together by chance (unlikely) but the coded information (with error correction built in), and structured language have to have come from an extra-natural source.
Metabolism, repair, specialised -function and reproduction, is coded in DNA.
How do such extremely large coded language structures arise? There are no examples of this ever happening by chance, not even theories! Watch how the subject changes when athiests are presented with this one.
Life forming isn't just about the parts coming together, instructions and the ability to read them are needed.
instructions/information inserted somehow.
Instructions/Info point to purpose and intelligence.
An external source of information & purpose is needed (but not explained by Atheists).
Scientific law dictates this.
E=MC2 dictates the conservation of energy in energy or matter form.
The first law of thermodynamics means no more energy or matter is being created.
The second law of thermodynamics means useable energy (usually heat) and also order (lack of chaos) is decreasing.
Therefore there was a beginning, preceding these laws, that introduced, matter, energy and information (order) and that no more is being added and that that there is, is slowly reducing.
Human language, our ideas and our ideals, fall far outside the possibility of random chemical formations.
Matter and life are two different categories and it is impossible to transform one into the other.
Reproduction. Only life can make life. There's no evidence evolution can call for this.
The parts don't change (geological to organic, organic to biological).
We now realise a cell can develop into a complex organism only because the parts and instructions are in the original cell produced from conception.
Evolution (the "origin of kinds" bit, not "origin of species", which explains natural selection, not actual origins) is not based on evidence but the prevailing world view requires it, so has blind faith in evolution.
There's no evidence evolution can call on for sigle cell life forms progressing to 2 or more cell life forms.
There are single cell organisms (bacteria), but no, 2, 3, or 4 cell organsims, showing there is no progression, no missing link. Complex life forms came about at the same time, not over time.
Mutations don't help. They are mostly bad.
Mutations on a molecular level such as DNA are predominantly disruptive.
Mutations don't stick anyway
The bits wouldn't survive a generation until perfected or all other needed bits were ready. How do you incrementally change from cold to warm blood, or fin to a feather?
Mutations wouldn't become predominant
All those of the species or kind without the mutation, would need to die. With the low rates of reproduction in many animals it becomes clear that there has not been enough time (even with huge time scales).
Mutations sited are from loss of information or limbs
Mutations on a molecular level such as DNA are always with loss, not gain in, information and complexity.
There have been no examples of mutations adding info, only loosing information.
Order doesn't come from Chaos. The Laws of physics and maths confirm this.
The second law of thermodynamics means useable energy (usually heat) and also order (lack of chaos) is decreasing.
Chaos Theory (Maths) proves that randomness or chance events can't be created, they are at best pseudo random.
Evolution ignores laws of physics and maths. The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proved law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the second law of thermodynamics.
It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems, in fact all systems, without exception. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order. They go towards disorganisation and loss of complexity.
The law of increasing entropy therefore precludes evolution, because all evolutionary systems are expected to increase in order and complexity.
Mathematical impossibility.
One anti-Christian British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle and a colleague, after doing calculations on the possibility of a single cell coming together on its own by the natural laws on earth, claimed the probability was a number greater than the atoms in the universe. They concluded that our planet could not have produced life on its own.
Failed experiments
Miller experiment 53. To prove life could come about by chance doesn't. The experiment was designed by scientists, results were gained by removal of amino acids as soon as they were produced (to stop them being destroyed), oxygen was excluded (which would have destroyed them, and has always been present) and the amino acids formed were equally right and left handed (living systems have all left handed amino acids).
Example - Beautiful painting of a landscape
A painting can't be explained as having happened by chance. It gets worse since you can't explain the existence of the paint and canvas either. To otherwise believe the landscape itself happened by chance, but the painting didn't, is materialistic evolutionism.
Example - Clay pot found in archaeological dig.
No one thinks it happened by chance. They think humans made it by evidence of design. It's an ordered structure. How is this different for the formation of life from non-living chemicals?
Example - A jet aeroplane
It's like believing a jumbo jet could be formed by a tornedo hitting a junk yard for long enough. planner and maker needed for our inventions. The natural world is unimaginably more complex
There is no such thing as a simple cell.
Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional gene or protein - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?
Information capacity of cells is huge.
There's more information capacity in a single human cell than needed to store the 30 volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 4 times over.
Information capacity of DNA is really huge.
A pin head of DNA holds info equivalent to 500 stacks of books from the earth to the moon.
DNA has code capable of protecting against errors.
The DNA genetic code is the best possible for protecting against errors.
Dolphin's sonar system
can detect fish the size of a golf ball 70m away. Experts in chaos theory needed to show that the click pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information. It has a lens and focus and point the beam.
Insect Flight
No connection with birds and having an entirely different mechanism for flight.
Normal bird flight
Feathers! A marvel of lightweight engineering. Barbs and barbules make them wind resistant. They have hooks to hold them together, once parted can't be fixed. The hooks on on ridges that can slide over each other. There's no notion or fossil record showing how they could come from reptiles. The feathers also need a lubricant system to stop them from fraying. This comes from a preening gland at the base of the spine. The bird also needs an incredibly light bone structure, which is achieved by them being hollow. They also need a forward facing elbow joint for flapping. They also need to breathe differently to enable oxygen to go straight into air sacs that connect directly to organs, removing the need to breathe out carbon-dioxide before the next intake of oxygen.
Humming bird flight
Even more complex and intricate than normal bird flight, allowing them to hover and fly backwards.
Bat flight
Wings made of skin and a echo-sounding system with pin point accuracy. No half bat has ever been found in the fossil record. How could a halfway creature survive. Why so many different ways of flight?
Spiders and their sticky spider webs.
What came first the Spider or the Spider Web, the spider Web is not only strong (stronger than anything man has made of the same thickness) but it also has a sticky glue, so it seems the spider Web decided a sticky glue is better than a Web on its own.
Eco-systems, how they function, adapt and recover from injury.
Evolution assumes there must have been many failed attempts, that didn't adapt, but there's no evidence of these.
The Fibonacci Sequence
Based on Fibonacci’s ‘rabbit problem,’ this sequence begins with the numbers 1 and 1, and then each subsequent number is found by adding the two previous numbers. Therefore, after 1 and 1, the next number is 2 (1+1). The next number is 3 (1+2) and then 5 (2+3) and so on.
A few examples include the number of spirals in a pine cone, pineapple or seeds in a sunflower, or the number of petals on a flower.
The numbers in this sequence also form a unique shape known as a Fibonacci spiral, which again, we see in nature in the form of shells and the shape of hurricanes.
Hexagons in Nature
Another of nature’s geometric wonders is the hexagon. A regular hexagon has 6 sides of equal length, and this shape is seen again and again in the world around us.
The most common example of nature using hexagons is in a bee hive. We also see hexagons in the bubbles that make up a raft bubble. Although we usually think of bubbles as round, when many bubbles get pushed together on the surface of water, they take the shape of hexagons.
Concentric Circles in Nature
Another common shape in nature is a set of concentric circles. Concentric means the circles all share the same centre, but have different radii. This means the circles are all different sizes, one inside the other.
A common example is in the ripples of a pond when something hits the surface of the water. But we also see concentric circles in the layers of an onion and the rings of trees that form as it grows and ages.
Fractals in Nature
Fractals are another intriguing mathematical shape that we seen in nature. A fractal is a self-similar, repeating shape, meaning the same basic shape is seen again and again in the shape itself.
In other words, if you were to zoom way in or zoom way out, the same shape is seen throughout.
Fractals make up many aspects of our world, included the leaves of ferns, tree branches, the branching of neurons in our brain, and coastlines.
Maths in Outer Space
Moving away from planet earth, we can also see many of these same mathematical features in outer space.
For instance, the shape of our galaxy is a Fibonacci spiral. The planets orbit the sun on paths that are concentric. We also see concentric circles in the rings of Saturn.
But we also see a unique symmetry in outer space that is unique (as far as scientists can tell) and that is the symmetry between the earth, moon and sun that makes a solar eclipse possible.
Every two years, the moon passes between the sun and the earth in such a way that it appears to completely cover the sun. But how is this possible when the moon is so much smaller than the sun?
The moon is approximately 400 times smaller than the sun, but it is also approximately 400 times further away.
This symmetry allows for a total solar eclipse that doesn’t seem to happen on any other planet.
There's too much diversity and variety for evolution theories.
Given there's so much of each and so little (none) evidence of anything haven changed "kind" (yes there's species deviations but not Kinds) and how aggressive evolution (natural selection) purports to be, there just wouldn't be so much according to evolution.
We aren't related because of common traits
Similarities aren't evidence for evolution, but of a common creator with a pattern.
Common traits could be God's way of saying it was just him.
And not a bunch of different Gods.
It's like how we recognise a painting of famous painter.
Van Gogh, Monet, Manet, Surrat, Renoir - You could see a painting from each, that you'd not seen before and know who painted it because of the similar system of marks and paint application they used in all their works.
The feelings and skills aren't "helpful" in a materialistic survival sense, not liable to chance formation.
And if they are argued to be necessary for species survival, it's another area of unlikely, un-evidenced, co-dependent evolution. Passion, emotion, purpose, music, art, writing, dance - come on!
Reality and truth aren't limited to the empirical.
Many mistakenly think that reality and truth are limited to the empirical (verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic).
If it was an accident, so is our reasoning.
If it was all an accident then our brains were too. Why should one accident be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents? If our own minds are a product of the irrational, how shall we trust our minds when they tell us about evolution?
We cannot prove ultimately that we exist!
We cannot prove that our thought process are not just random chemical reactions in our brain occurring in our brains. Descartes was wrong with "I think therefore I am", then, as you have to trust your ability to reason. For Evolution this is a faith step more than the creationist.
Maybe we just want to believe, but if so why? Where does that want come from?
Perhaps we're just "weak" us Christians with a desire to have this explanation. If that is so, perhaps the desire is from God's imprint on us anyway.
Intelligence and its limits
Many mistakenly think that man's knowledge and reasoning are our supreme guide.
Man's conscious and spiritual aspects defy strict scientific definition, much less a natural process of development.
Once you get down to the smallest thing measurable, these things stop behaving as we'd expect, i.e. with location and time.
The founding principle of classical physics is that a real, objective world exists, a world the scientist can understand in limitless detail.
Quantum theory takes away this certainty, asserting that scientists cannot hope to discover the “real” world in infinite detail, not because there is any limit to their intellectual ingenuity or technical expertise, nor even because there are laws of physics preventing the attainment of perfect knowledge. The basis of quantum theory is more revolutionary yet: it asserts that perfect objective knowledge of the world cannot be had because there is no objective world. https://richmazzola.medium.com/a-beginners-guide-to-a-hidden-reality-quantum-mechanics-and-musings-on-a-simulated-reality-e48c20d66b03
Also it has been discovered that:
There is an end to the universe, where there is no time, matter or energy (the macrocosm)
There is an end to how small you measure distance it's 1x10 to the -33 meters (the microcosm) at which point matter has "no location".
There is an end to how small you measure time its 1x10 to the -43 seconds.
Our reality can then start to be thought of in terms of the films the Matrix or the Truman Show!