Is there any absolute proof that God exist (Part three of five)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

For more reading about God, click here

Answers to bible Questions

Scriptures are from the KJV of the Bible

(Q)  Is there any absolute proof that God exist? 

(Part three of five)

 

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

(A)–>  The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

THE GREAT PROOF OF CREATION

We have established that creation demands a Creator. The next few paragraphs introduce some amazing scientific proofs of creation.

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these “theorists” try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

COMPLEXITY OF LIFE

Everyone has witnessed explosions. Have you ever seen one that was orderly? Or one that created a watch or a clock? Or one that produced a single thing of exquisite design, instead of the certain result of chaos and destruction? If you threw a million hand grenades, you would see them produce chaos and destruction a million times! There would never be an exception.

Consider the following quotes, involving the likelihood of an explosion creating the entire natural realm of life all around us on earth—let alone the beautiful magnificence and order seen no matter how far one looks out into space.

Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, “…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings—let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.

Another scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer and professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, stated, “The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (Nature, Vol. 294, Nov. 12, 1981, “Hoyle on Evolution,” p. 105).

INCREDIBLE CELLS AND “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY”  Consider the common mousetrap. Everyone is familiar with it and most have used one. Which part of a mousetrap could you remove and still have it work? The answer is—not one! As ingenious as it is, it is a very simple mechanism. But since the mousetrap cannot be made any simpler, it represents a condition called “irreducible complexity.” Certain living organisms also cannot be simplified or reduced in complexity, and survive. The removal of any single part causes the system to cease functioning. Irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced gradually, by slight successive modifications from a less complicated pre-condition. They must exist exactly as they are—whole, complete—or they cannot exist at all! Take away any part and they cease to function and, therefore, cease to live. What is the significance of this?

Charles Darwin, in his famous work, The Origin of Species, framed a great problem that he and all other evolutionists face: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (emphasis mine).

Nature contains many different biochemical systems that cannot be reduced in complexity. They are sometimes referred to as “molecular machines” and, like a four-stroke gasoline engine, cannot be simplified and still function.

Here is just one amazing quote about a single, incredible organism. It illustrates the principle we are discussing. You may need to read it two or three times to appreciate its impact. Its length is necessary to illustrate the complexity of just one molecular machine. The quote is from the article Molecular Machines by Michael J. Behe, and the emphasis is mine:

“Earlier we discussed proteins. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell’s surface or to ‘row’ single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.

“But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered ‘walking’ of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other. However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links…convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.

“Now let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.

“What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale.” You see the point!

This was terribly complicated. In a way, that is the point! Organisms are all complicated—some wonderfully so. And yet they cannot be reduced, diminished or simplified in their complexity. They had to come into being exactly as they are, because they never could have arrived at their present condition gradually.

We should stand in awe of any God great enough to be able to design and create cilia!

AMINO ACIDS, PROTEINS AND DNA

Let’s take a journey deep into the cells of all living organisms. This will be unlike any journey you have ever taken before.

Immediately, we see a world of such exquisite detail, design, complexity, inter-dependence and specificity as to boggle the mind. Let’s paint a picture.

Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine).

A brief discussion of proteins and sequencing is necessary. Proteins must appear in exact sequences to cause specific chemical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. This action is called specificity. It is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. They are as different in purpose as an axe, a drill, a hammer and a screwdriver.

This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: “The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ‘supermolecule’ simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed.

“It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos.” (Andrews, E.H., 1978, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29).

Here is a second statement: “Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer’ (1982, p. 130, emp. Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence” (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]).

Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).

In conclusion, regarding DNA, nothing works unless everything works at the same time. It could not have gradually come into existence. Special creation is required for DNA to exist!

“TINY ENGINES” INSIDE CELLS

We need to look at one more example of molecular machines to better appreciate the complexity of cells.

Japanese and German scientists have now discovered the smallest of nature’s machines, called “tiny engines.” Consider this advanced research on these remarkable little engines.

As you read this quote, ask yourself where they came from: “A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature’s own rotary engine—no bigger than ten billionths by ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. The tiny motor includes the equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0 revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow.

“In Germany, a research team used the new instruments to examine an enormous molecule, the yeast 26S proteasome. Though not the largest molecule in existence, the yeast 26S proteasome contains over two million protons and neutrons and is the largest non-symmetrical molecule mapped to date. This molecule can only be described as a ‘wonder.’ It serves as an intracellular waste-disposal and recycling system” (Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Small-scale Evidence of Grand Scale Design).

These organisms could never have evolved gradually. No wonder God says of those who do not believe in His existence, “The fool has said…There is no God.”

 END OF PART THREE (Part four coming soon)—John

2 Replies to “Is there any absolute proof that God exist (Part three of five)”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.