Skip to main content

Dna, a Witness for God: Part 1


1. The informational density stored within the organic molecule, DNA, is amazing! At a certain resolution DNA looks like a string( if stretched out) but increase the resolution and its double helical structure is revealed, which makes it look like a very long and twisted ladder. A small section of this ladder is represented at image 1. At the resolution of a string we can calculate(1) its volume to be about 8X10^(-18) cubic meters(m^3); however, six men with Phd's said(2), "DNA could in theory be packed into a cube 1.9μm on each side," which gives it a volume of 6.86X10^(-18)m^3. This is the volume we will be using in this article(hub), and this is the volume in which the hereditary information for each individual is stored in their own respective DNA molecules.


These six authors also said in the same paragraph, "A typical human cell thus contains a total of 46 chromosomes and about 6X10^9 nucleotide pairs of DNA," and that, "By comparison, 6X10^9 letters in this book would occupy more than a million pages, thus requiring more than 10^17 times as much space."


The book they refer to, and authored, is a full sized textbook titled, Molecular Biology of the Cell. It is well written, thoroughly organized, and measures about 8.5 inches by 11 inches. Allowing for small margins a total of about 6000 letters and spaces( to separate words) can be fit on a page( so 12,000 for each sheet of paper). One million pages( 500,000 sheets of paper) would be a stack of paper about 110 feet high, and it would weigh 4,961 pounds( 2.5 tons). This is the informational density God put within a single DNA molecule.


2. Mathematics is, in my opinion, God's language. He can speak all languages, of course, but His fluency in mathematics dwarfs anything anyone has ever achieved with this language. We do not invent mathematical techniques; we just continue to discover them. But even now we have barely learned to "speak" it; nevertheless, even a rudimentary understanding of basic arithmetic will reveal aspects of God's omniscience and omnipotence which we would not clearly see without using God's language--mathematics. So let's put some more numbers to the informational density God packed into all the DNA molecules, which He created by Jesus Christ.


3. Grab a single hair from the top of your head, and cut it to a length of 1 inch, which is about as long as my thumb is wide. Now gaze at that hair and notice just how narrow is its diameter and how short is its length; nevertheless, we could still theoretically pack 35 million DNA molecules into it. If we stick with our current analogy that those six authors suggested, i.e. assigning a letter to each nucleotide pair, then our 1 inch hair, in this thought experiment, will contain 2.1X10^17 letters. Using our 8.5X11 copy paper( full size textbook pages) it will require 3.52X10^13 pages( 1.76X10^13 sheets of paper) to contain all those letters. This represents a stack of paper 733,000 miles high( 3 times further than the moon or a distance of 29 times around the earth's equator). This stack of paper would weigh 87 million tons, which represents the weight of 239 Empire State Buildings.


4. Whether it is bread dough, silly puddy or malleable clay, most of us know how to take a chunk of one of these substances and roll it into the shape of a tube( right circular cylinder). As we continue to roll it back and forth in our hands, the tube's diameter gets smaller, and its length gets longer but its volume remains constant. Let us hypothetically do this with our 1 inch long hair, which has a pretty small diameter to begin with. We will continue to roll it until its diameter is a constant 2nm( 2 nanometers or 2X10^-9 meters), which is roughly the diameter of a DNA molecule. Now how long would this tube be in order for the volume of this hair to remain constant? It would be 50,000 miles long or twice around the earth's equator. So what can we conclude from this arithmetic? Well, one thing we can conclude is that God "types" His information on very thin "lines" indeed.


5. There is a song sung in Christian churches with these words in it: "Our God is an awesome God." The informational density that God packed into a DNA molecule is only one example, from an arsenal of millions of examples, which prove those six words are absolutely true. Just as the luminosity of quasars, or the rotational energy in stars and galaxies are powerful witnesses testifying, by Jesus Christ, to God's omnipotence, so also DNA is one of numerous other polymers which testify, by Jesus Christ, to God's omniscience.

6. The link that follows, Genesis Unleashed, addresses the origin of the information that DNA stores within its geometric structure. This link is within's site who has thousands of articles substantiating that God is the Creator. This link is addressing the 2nd question among 15 that are posed to atheists and evolutionists concerning the impossibility of random processes constructing God's creation; however, random processes has very little to do with information. Information is an entity which must be understood by both the sender and receiver. DNA is the "paper" upon which the information is "typed" upon, but God is the originator of that information, and God taught the electromagnetic force to "type" it( Job 38:36). Amazingly, God also taught the atoms and molecules to understand the information in order to build the complex proteins as the human rantes protein below. I say "atoms and molecules" loosely and generally because the internal mechanism that directs the construction, or "writing," goes much deeper than even the emf( electromagnetic force). The emf is just a tool to construct the information on DNA, and then to use that information to build specific proteins. An analogy is us. We, our bodies, build skyscrapers, cruise ships, and airliners, but our bodies are just tools for the brains, arms, legs and hands that God created and gave to us to get those jobs done.

Origin of information on DNA

7. This next link below is from the same site as the previous link, It addresses the translation of information. As I have mentioned, it is not enough to just have information. One must be able to convey that information to a recipient that can process the information and execute its instructions, as building proteins in this case.

Evolution of the code, AND its translation?


You can read about this protein below at Wikipedia CCL5. Even though this is just a simplified schematic it demonstrates the complex proteins that DNA is encoded to synthesize. Also at the schematic blow up you can click onto the + magnifying glass and blow up any portion of the molecule. This reveals the prodigious detail of protein molecules even more. Keep in mind this is a simplistic schematic; the molecules themselves are much more complex.

Scroll to Continue


Dr. Werner Gitt wrote a similar article to this one, and I highly recommend it. Dr. Gitt uses different comparisons that are very fascinating. If you want access to hundreds of well written articles by competent authors who address the complexity that God designed into His creation, and articles that praise and glorify God, then this is a good place to go to get just that.


newenglandsun on September 25, 2013:

The debate between Cody and Brian on abortion?

No. Those were debates I found on other links.

Caleb DRC (author) on September 25, 2013:

Oh, I found the wrestling with God. It is at that last link, but have you written any more about that subject?

Caleb DRC (author) on September 25, 2013:


You have a impressive site with some very interesting perspectives, and very well organized. I saw the debate between Cody and Brian( I think that was his name). Are you cody?

I scanned what you said about wrestling with God, and tried to find it again tonight but could not. What article is that in? What do you think Genesis 32:24--31 is telling us? Why do you think God allowed Jacob to prevail? How does it apply to you?

Why do you think your beliefs change so often? That is what you implied in "What is it I believe?"

Have you written an article on Byzantine Catholicism?

newenglandsun on September 20, 2013:

Here's what Catholics believe about marriage.

Ha ha. I was discussing with my parents today and my parents are big on "traditional" marriage whereas I'm more focused on the spouses apart of the marriage itself. They believe that in order for it to be a "real" marriage there has to be no "pre-marital" relationship where the future spouses are living together. I hold there must be an intention to life-long commitment and the other stuff is just the public sign of the commitment. So if they're (the spouses) committed, then it's a legit marriage.

"Most people, including most Roman Catholics, do not realize that the ministers of the sacrament are the spouses themselves. While the Church strongly encourages Catholics to marry in the presence of a priest (and to have a wedding Mass, if both prospective spouses are Catholic), strictly speaking, a priest is not needed." (in the article)

Oh yes, I was struggling with the topic of monogenism recently. This is another article of Catholic faith (specifically so as to preserve Original Sin). I wrote this article on my own musings of it.

Right now, I'm leaning toward Eastern Catholicism. Specifically Byzantine Catholicism.

newenglandsun on September 03, 2013:

"Does the Catholic church believe that evolution is the way things came about?"

Not dogmatically. Dogmatically, they assert that there is no contradiction between science and religion.

Some Catholics believe in it, some don't.

Another good Catholic website is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.

Caleb DRC (author) on September 03, 2013:


Wow! I'm both delighted and astonished! Why have you chosen Roman Catholicism? And what has caused you to believe in God again? You mentioned "theistic evolution"; therefore, are you still an evolutionist? Does the Catholic church believe that evolution is the way things came about? This is major news!

You have your work cut out for you. I went to the Vatican site you linked above, and it appears you have about 20 years of reading to do. I had no idea the church had that much describing their beliefs.

One of my favorite shows is "The Thorn Birds." I cannot attest to its accuracy of describing the church, but the salient fascination I have with the show is the remarkable contrast between the life Ralph chose with the church, and the life he could have had by being married to the beautiful Megan. Ralph could not give his all to God, nor to Megan, so he lived a disturbed life that was never on a solid foundation, and never satisfying and tranquil. The Thorn Birds was written by Colleen McCullough, a successful neuroscientist turned author who researched her books very well. It is not a Christian show, and I would not recommend for that reason; nevertheless the complexity of all the characters is fascinating. I suppose that is to be expected from a neuroscientist.

newenglandsun on August 23, 2013:

But Caleb, there actually are varieties across the animal kingdom. Why is human DNA so close to chimp DNA? You do realize that they teach the animal kingdom to elementary school students, right?

Oh, and I am no longer an atheist. In fact, I am beginning my process of converting to Roman Catholicism. Reading into their doctrines right now.

I am aware that AiG is a "Christian" site. They are so "Christian" that they accuse the historic apostolic church from departing from the Christian faith.

Theistic evolution isn't a departure at all. They aren't even Catholic or Orthodox so they're the ones departing from the Christian faith.

Caleb DRC (author) on August 23, 2013:


I've checked out the links you sent. Actually, they seem quite good in explaining ET. The answersingenesis site is a Christian site, you know. It makes an argument for creation, not evolution. They argue that God's idea of species and our's are two different things. It clears up some of the disagreements between creationists and evolutionists. Their article describes a way we can distinguish between kind and species. There may be evolution between our concept of species, but there has been no evolution between kinds. Remember my above post of "6 weeks ago"( as of this date of 8-22-13 ) in which I quoted Genesis 30: 37-39) where Jacob actually used evolution within a kind to get the cattle he wanted. I believe God's Word; therefore, I believe in evolution within kinds. This is a feature God designed into all( probably) lifeforms, but it is restricted within each kind, which is further evidence of God's existence. Why can't lifeforms evolve across kinds? Because God designed them that way. The fact that we have evolution within kinds and not across is a testament to the accuracy of Scripture, and God's ability to design whatever limits and boundaries He desires.

I do not believe evolution within kinds is random because this is a mathematical impossibility. Let us take your giraffe example, or the example of Jacob. The giraffe develops a longer neck by stretching it as we get bigger muscles by exercise. Jacob's cattle develop new appearance( as the pepper moth) from the external environment. This ability has been designed into life by God because entropy would have made it impossible otherwise. Now how do you suppose that "improvement" is conveyed to the next generation? And don't give me a simple-minded answer like, Well, they have sex. The improvement must be stored as information, and information is a separate quality as Planks mentioned. Now what do you suppose uses the information to construct this "improvement" into the structure of the next generation? This is my point NES, you evolutionists do not think these things through. All lifeforms are build at the atomic and molecular level. What medium is used at this level, and how does it know how to do what it does?

The recent links you supplied have been helpful for me to have a better understanding of ET.

Incidentally, thanks for the correct spelling of scenario. No wonder I could not find it in the dictionary. Whose bright idea was it to plug a "c" in there? What? The "s" was not enough?

newenglandsun on August 17, 2013:

Hi, Caleb. I came across this on a list of arguments creationists should not use.

Considering you bring this argument that new species can't be produced through evolutionary means.

newenglandsun on August 10, 2013:

"scenario". That's the correct spelling if you're interested.

Nature itself is necessary to direct the forces. As I have explained already, if the plants start growing and producing leaves at taller lengths, only the animals with taller necks will be able to survive. Ever wondered why we don't see more giraffes in America? This is why.

There were several different exotic animals that Darwin found when he visited the Galapagos that couldn't be found any where. This includes the marine iguana. The reality of the manner, is that you don't really need to visibly witness a duck turn into a turtle to see the effects of evolution.

In due reality, I think your statements on evolution reflect a Pokemon understanding of evolution. What? Charmeleon is evolving? Congratulations! Your Charmeleon evolved into a Charizard! Pokemon evolution is more like metamorphosis. If you want to see a worm turn into a winged animal, I would recommend getting a caterpillar as a pet.

Evolution has genetics and random mutations involved but there is nothing random about natural selection which is how things survive. I have explained this over and over.

This link will hopefully work. It is also about penicillin and how antibiotics evolved. If you want a book, I would recommend Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". I have confidence that everyone will one day accept the theory of evolution and laugh about how they argued for or against religion because of it.

Caleb DRC (author) on August 10, 2013:


"Crazy and insidious"? From your perspective I'll let the crazy pass, but what possible reasoning and evidence do you have for, "insidious?"

You are missing the point. It does not matter if the changes are gradual or quick. Random processes are not going to make it happen. I could not access the penicillin link you gave. So far you have not given a link that backs up your claims. I have already challenged you to find the best argumentation your can find, and bring it over here. I'll have access to it, can refer to it, and I'll address it.

Let us suppose evolution occurs the way you believe it does. My argument is that random processes will not make it happen. God would still be required to direct the forces, retain the improvements, and fight the relentless drive of entropy. As Planks said, what about the source of information? How is it stored for the next generation? The EMF must execute these improvements for the next generations. Where does it get this new information to do this? Even using your theory, and your senario( can't find the correct spelling), you still do not have a viable argument.

Caleb DRC (author) on August 10, 2013:

I'm all for the experiment Planks. I talked to my dogs, and they are eager to contribute to the experiment, but they both said, "We ain't staying in that dog house!" They don't have to. The next time I give them left-over beans, I'll stay in the dog house.

Frankly, Planks, I think we are being much too generous with NES and other evolutionists. Why do I have to supply the dog, his tail, the boards, nails, shingles, hammer, and even attach the hammer to his tail? This is what the evolutionists want, right? Before they even attempt their conjecture of Darwinian evolution, they want all the goodies with which to work. They want God's forces( directed, no less), atoms, molecules, elements as carbon, amino acids, information, space and time( both proven to be created physical entities), fine-tuned constants, biosphere, planet, atmosphere, sunlight( just the right amount), . . . . Then--oh yes, then--they give us this simple--minded conjecture of how life came to be.

Ok, fine. I will supply everything, and my dogs will do the work because they know that there will be goodies at the end of each day. But as you said, no dog house will be built, and I will just have to open a window, and put the fan on high.

newenglandsun on July 31, 2013:

correction - insidious.

newenglandsun on July 31, 2013:

You deleted your recantation of intelligent design? Is this the first step in deleting this crazy and inisidious hub?

newenglandsun on July 24, 2013:

I wanted to make a comment on what you and PlanksandNails seem not to understand with the DNA issue. You guys are attacking something called linear evolution. Which is not what evolution is. It doesn't work as a line. A mutation is capable of providing a new variation of a species and multiple variations will create a new species. You need to look at evolution as a web in which a single species is capable of producing, over a given period of time, a myriad of new species. Such as with apes and elephants.

newenglandsun on July 21, 2013:

To be perfectly honest, I'm really not surprised that a lot of mathematicians reject the theory of evolution. For the most part, the math teachers that I have had in school have all been very skeptical of the theory of evolution. In fact, it seems that everyone who had experience with math at my high school (the teachers and the substitutes) all rejected evolution, were creationists, or were theists of some extent or another.

However, I think that this mostly comes from a misunderstanding of the probability theories and what they "say" about evolution and the whole "what entropy is" arguments against it. In reality, evolutionists have not violated anything with mathematics. All mathematics can do is give us probability statistics to help us figure out what the next evolutionary change is. With regard to entropy which asserts that isolated systems will eventually become stable. Note: a pan that has been in the freezer with water in it will come out having ice in it. Take it out and set it on the counter and we have a violation of entropy. Sorry, another system acting on it causing the ice to melt and turn back to water. Heat the pan and the water will be heated. Stop heating the pan and the pan will start to cool. These are violations of entropy - excuse me, natural occurrences. People are born each day which is a violation of entropy - sorry, a natural occurrence. If you're catching my drift, you will realize that entropy arguments really only work with isolated systems. Completely isolated systems. Which is why evolution does not violate entropy. Your insistence that evolution does violate entropy is based on a misunderstanding. Sorry to break it to you.

Jerry Coyne has a book entitled "Why Evolution is True".

Richard Dawkins has a book "The Greatest Show on Earth".

Francis Collins has a book "The Language of God".

Ben Stein, for his movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" refused to allow Francis Collins to be interviewed due to Collins's views that intelligent design was bogus. Note that Collins is an evangelical Christian so arguing that it is only the atheists who believe intelligent design to be bogus is ridiculous at best. These biologists are actually a lot smarter than you make them out to be. They understand mathematics and know enough about it to understand that mathematics does not pose challenges to the theory of evolution.

Caleb DRC (author) on July 20, 2013:

I must apologize--right off the bat--Newenglandsun, for replying to your 99.9% of the scientists comment. You said I'm causing you to loose brain cells, and not knowing how many you have left to lose, and at what rate you are loosing them, I'm taking a terrible risk in responding to your comment. But respond I must.

I wrote that science and mathematics prove that evolution is impossible. My belief in God is not contingent upon what are the personal beliefs of scientists. It is science and mathematics that are fatal to the "theory" of evolution. I challenge you to find one equation-- by any one of those 99.9% scientists--that will give mathematical validation to the random violation of entropy. Probability mathematics proves it is absolutely impossible. If you could gather 100,000 Ph.d's in math tell me that 1+1 = 3, I will have no problem calling every one of them a liar. But that is my point. None of them will come forth with the science AND with the math to claim that random processes violate entropy by any significant amount.

Well, Newenglandsun, I will respond to some of your other recent comments---especially the bacteria link you sent us on---but that will have to wait for another night. My dogs are snoring which is what I want to do.

Caleb DRC (author) on July 20, 2013:

"If evolution was natural law then . . . DNA could be use to create other species. This cannot be done . . . ."

Another excellent point, Planks. Even if we could do it, wisdom does not consist in knowing how to do something, but rather it is knowing whether or not it should be done, and acting accordingly. Going against God's will has never been a prudent path.

As you know, the only physical law that guides and dominates evolution is entropy, and entropy can flatten out cow piles, but that is about all it is good for---the culmination of its accomplishments. The--god--of--flattened--out--cow--piles can not build any significant structure; never has and never will. However, I must admit that the--god--of--flattened--out--cow--piles has an uncanny ability to get people to believe in him. This is remarkable. After all, how many guys out there in the silent world of loneliness, cannot get one girl to say, "I do," and how many girls who said, "yes" regret doing so . . . along with the formally happy recipient. And yet the--god--of--flattened--out--cow--piles can get millions to say "I do", I do believe in you, and hardly no one will divorce themselves from him. Planks, do you think it is because of his power? It is nothing to sneeze at. He can flatten out millions of cow piles worldwide, AND! he can do it simultaneously. Yes, when I now think about it, maybe I have underestimated the evolutionist's god: entropy and random processes--- the--god--of--flattened--out--cow--piles.

Well, Planks, I plan to respond to some of your other comments, especially concerning my dog building a dog house--you got a good laugh out of me on that one--but I'll put that off till another night.

newenglandsun on July 18, 2013:

For a full response. That, and Michael Behe has been refuted numerous times on this issue. I'm a little surprised to see them toting him as a champion.

PlanksandNails on July 17, 2013:

("Dude, if you believe this, than you are already halfway there to believing exactly what I do.")

Nope, I will not side-step natural selection by saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races. This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist and is not reality.

Harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could. Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes. It would be survival of the barely functional.

Cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimizes the accumulation of mutations.

Harmful mutations happen constantly. Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death. So even the earliest, "simple" creatures in the evolutionist's primeval soup would have needed a sophisticated repair system.

The repair mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, but they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts. The evolutionist is stuck with imagining the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution, all the way back to the very origin of life.

("You're going against 99.9% of scientists. Just wanted you to know that.")

There are many with advanced degrees that disagree with Darwinism. Here is the list here:

I don't believe that everything in the universe happened by chance. I don't believe in RANDOM processes that violate both the second law of thermodynamics (applies to all systems, open or closed), and the law of biogenesis.

newenglandsun on July 17, 2013:

"I believe in variation (microevolution) in species such as cats and mountain lions."

Dude, if you believe this, than you are already halfway there to believing exactly what I do. There is no distinction between micro and macro in the evolutionary field of study. If there is variation between the species linking them up together, this is already evidence for a common ancestor. Even the leading ID proponent (Michael Behe) nowadays accepts a common ancestor!

Your dog analogy is ridiculous. I thought you were going to state something about me breeding with Caleb's dog. A house is a non-living being. That's totally different. Again, I used to be an intelligent design believer. No more though.

"To make a claim that all the right mutations excluding all the destructive ones must happen ALL AT THE SAME TIME BY PURE CHANCE is not physically possible."

Yes it is. Were you born? Evolution.

PlanksandNails on July 17, 2013:


I understand the THEORY of Evolution.

I believe in variation (microevolution) in species such as cats and mountain lions. Where I disagree is when evolutionists cross those limits. Most breeders understand these limits because when they are pushed to the extreme, the line dies out, or becomes sterile.

I do not believe these limits can be crossed where changes continue gradually forming new kinds of creatures (macroevolution).

When bacteria is used as an example, it is obvious that there is much variation with many mutations, but we never see bacteria turn into anything new. They are still called bacteria. Additionally, fruit flies are said to have even more complexity with much variation, but once again, they do not turn into anything new, they remain fruit flies.

There is a distinction between the real and imaginary. The real is that through the rare occurrence of mutation a creature can have the improved ability to survive and reproduce.

All living creatures are constructed of components that rely on the connections that need to be in place for everything to work that are controlled by the genes that have to act in proper sequence. Natural selection chooses the parts that have all their components existing. It doesn't choose imaginary ones.

To make a claim that all the right mutations excluding all the destructive ones must happen ALL AT THE SAME TIME BY PURE CHANCE is not physically possible.

I propose an experiment that you can do with Caleb and his dog. Of course Caleb would have to agree to this first. Firstly, Caleb would have to buy all the materials for a new dog house. He would lay out all the materials out on the grass in his back yard, such as the boards, nails, shingles, etc.. You can imagine the excitement of Caleb's dog anticipating that something really exciting is about to happen. The dog's tail would be wagging feverishly in anticipation. Lastly, here is the fun part, you could carefully attach a hammer to Caleb's dogs tail (watch out for the licks) and then let him go wander around the yard. Grab a beer or two, sit back and wait. This is where the THEORY of evolution supposedly kicks in. The swinging hammer on the dogs tail is going to build a brand new dog house. I know, I know, you want jump up and do the jig and do a big YEE HAW....

Newenglandsun, sorry to be a party-pooper, but unfortunately this was all imaginary. I understand the excitement you felt about the experiment.

Here is the plain reality, mutations that happen in the DNA of plants and animals that are KNOWN are either harmful, fatal, or neutral.

I truly realize your optimism, we all love to tell a good story. It brings a tearful joy to my eye knowing that Caleb's dog would be having the time of his life. Somewhere along the line we must stop and get back to reality, wipe the gloss from our eyes and realize that "beneficial" mutations have not made all the creatures that exist, or existed. A computers motherboard that is short-circuited does not increase its performance. These are things that we can observe to be true.

Orphan genes reveal that macro-evolution is not reality and is physically impossible.

newenglandsun on July 17, 2013:


Your argument is stemming from a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. No, dogs do not produce kittens.

The differences in evolution happen over spans of thousands of years. What we do see is DNA similarity between mountain lions and cats indicating proof positive they shared a common ancestor. Likewise, monkeys and humans. Etc.

In addition to this, in scientific laboratories, evolution has occurred. If you want proof of this, just look at penicillin.

This is simply evolution in action here. To state a divide between macro and microevolution is misleading and is just the stereotypical IDiot's way of dismissing all relevant evidence. It's called shifting the goalposts. It's what Kent Hovind does and he's in jail for fraud.

PlanksandNails on July 13, 2013:

("For Pete's sake, you're going to have to do better than that!")

As I told you before Peter Pan relies on pixie dust to make his points.

Let's put Peter aside for a moment,

If evolution was natural law then it would be a constant. This would mean that in a labratory human DNA could be used to create other species. This cannot be done because DNA is coded to replicate a species, not generate what evolutionists call "speciation" where different life forms are created.

Dogs do not produce kittens and apes do not produce humans.

newenglandsun on July 11, 2013:

You're going against 99.9% of scientists. Just wanted you to know that.

Caleb DRC (author) on July 11, 2013:

OK, Newenglandsun. I have enjoyed our tennis match, and you will be welcomed back. I suppose we are at an impasse, and I'm sure you and I can agree on that.

I will be very upset if I truly was the one who caused you to loose brain cells---boy howdy, that was never my intention! This is the first time I have been accused of causing someone to loose their brain cells. Just between you and I--don't tell anyone this, but . . . well, I have been responsible of causing many people to loose their tempers. Now there is my forte. Remember those renters I mentioned. One of them was a stocky female with forearms like Popeye. I would tease her so much that she would jump out of that chair as if a bomb exploded. She'd come after me saying, "ooooooohh" and when she caught up to me just started whaling on me until my arms were black and blue. Of course, I could not defend myself because I was laughing so hard.

newenglandsun on July 10, 2013:


I am done here for now. I have lost brain cells trying to show you the truth and scientific fact of evolution. You appear to be suffering something called cognitive dissonance disorder. You need to be smarter and accepting of science. Smart people accept scientific findings because that's where the evidence leads them to. Dumb people reject science because it violates their already pre-conceived ideas. You are a dumb person. An idiot. I have trouble talking to idiots. Goodbye for now. Let me know when you are an evolutionist and no longer an idiot.

Caleb DRC (author) on July 10, 2013:


Whether it is by design or random chance, you are getting more consistent in getting a chuckle out of me.

I went to the "talkorigins" site you linked above, and checked out some of their argumentation concerning the violations of entropy, and I considered them to be simple-minded and conjectural. If you can find a good one there then feel free to present it here, and we will debate it.

Scripture does not deny micro-evolution( a change over time). God designed this into His creation. When Adam and Eve sinned, that act was inscribed onto our DNA, and we inherited that sin nature. Jacob understood micro-evolution when he modified the environment( Genesis 30:37-39) so he would have ringstraked, specked and spotted cattle( verse 40). Other simple examples of micro-evolution would be eating properly for a healthy body as opposed to someone who smokes, drinks alcohol, and eats the worst foods possible. Exercise is another example. It is often observed that fat parents will have fat kids, and thin parents have thin kids. This is God's design to demonstrate that what we choose to do will affect others including our progeny. It fulfills Scripture. As far as macro-evolution( evolution across species) is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence proving that that has ever occurred, nor will there ever be any evidence of it because it would contradict God's Word. Evolutionists want to begin with God's creation with all its matter, forces, and design, and then use it to explain God away. God designs cells to repair themselves, and molecules to build complex structures with themselves, and then evolutionists claim entropy is violated all the time, " just look at how cells and molecules do this". Probability theory distinguishes between chance and directed forces, and it is mathematically impossible for any significant structure to occur by chance.

You have not addressed any of my argumentation or any of the points that Planks brought up. Oh, you have attempted to do so, but your argumentation is inept. What about my letters analogy and their linear and 3D permutations? Or the energy input( open system) left to chance destroys structure, not build it? Or the arithmetical proof that DNA research and understanding is in its infancy? Or Planks' argument concerning the origin, and spontaneous generation, of information, or mine on how cells understand this information and process it to build structure? Or the origin of the 2 dozen concepts of the atomic realm in a previous post? Or the argument that time destroys any "improvement" before the next "favorable mutation" comes along to just happen to add to it? It is not my intention to be rude, but your eternal destiny is apparently hung up on the fact that you simply refuse to put your thinking cap on. An example of inept argumentation is in your last comment. You wrote, "guided it into an orderly state." Now suppose you tell me how random processes can do this. I got the same tripe from that "talkorigins" site to which you sent me. He wrote that input of energy violates entropy all the time, and an example he gave was heating up stagnant water. He said the resultant convection currents indicate greater order. I've always wrote "significant structure", not these simple-minded examples that are extrapolated to the building of organic lifeforms. A fart adds order to stagnant air--if it can find its way out of the pants to everyone's discomfort-- but that is a far cry from the unbelievable complexity of the gastrointestinal system that produced it. How can you not see this? I suppose a tornado can go through a junk yard and screw a bolt into a nut--highly unlikely but I suppose a slim possible chance. But that tornado can huff and puff its hot air throughout eternity and it will never build a boeing 747 even if the parts are all there.

newenglandsun on July 08, 2013:

Yay! You believe in evolution now! :) I'm so glad you finally accept what 99.9% of scientists have researched and have been able to conclude! :)

newenglandsun on June 18, 2013: The energy that was stored up in the matter and anti-matter released it and the natural processes guided it into an orderly state.

Science can only observe the natural. Not the supernatural. There was no doubt gravity involved as well.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 18, 2013:


Big day! Wonderful news! An occurrence that defies all probability!

YES! YOU AND I FINALLY AGREE: "i don't know how much simpler" you can make it either!

After you explain where the energy and matter come from, and the forces; fine tuning of the constants, and their origin; why potential and kinetic energy exists . . . then explain the directed forces. I'm talking about DIRECTED! forces. Blowing up something and destroying it is no surprise but putting a bomb in a junk yard and detonating it and all the cars or planes are reassembled is a horse of another color.

God directs those forces of construction, or He designed this ability into His creation.

newenglandsun on June 18, 2013:

potential energy - the energy is stored up within the matter

kinetic energy - the energy is released

the matter that cannot be created or destroyed has already stored this energy up and now releases it

the universe expands - big bang theory

i don't know how much simpler i can make it

Caleb DRC (author) on June 17, 2013:


For Pete's sake, you're going to have to do better than that!

newenglandsun on June 17, 2013:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Then we have kinetic and potential energy. Our universe is a self-producing wind up clock.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 17, 2013:


I thought that might cause confusion. I put "going from order to disorder" in parentheses to describe "entropy", not to describe the words, "the slightest tendency to violate entropy."

Thankyou for the "talkorigins" link. You are right; it seems to address just about everything concerning this debate. I scanned over it but I will scrutinize it later. They have a section on the physics and mathematics, and I'll be looking into that first; however, I'm not optimistic. I have never seen any mathematical argumentation that even remotely supports evolutionary theory.

Your comment to Planks does not address anything he said. His comment essentially addresses the origin of information, and that evolution needs a constant influx of information in order to build more complex structures. The improvements claimed by evolutionists must be stored as information in order to pass it on to the next generations. It is forces that mediate this process, and the electromagnetic force must "understand" this new information, and know what to do with it before it can be passed onto the next generation. Has anything ever been built without a force behind it? And these must be highly directed forces.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 16, 2013:


You have given outstanding points and reasoning. Yes, the source of information is from God, as is the ability of molecules and cells to process that information and act upon it; information is dormant until those two things occur. How molecules and cells know how to do this is way beyond our science, as God's omniscience is way beyond our comprehension.

newenglandsun on June 11, 2013:


What you are attempting to refute here is a process called abiogenesis that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And the building blocks build in regard to evolution and they also branch out. Your argument is missing these two facts. All we need for abiogenesis to work is the primary building blocks of life (carbon and energy) and the proper conditions to combine these elements. There are various different theories as to how this might have happened but regardless, the ingredients were already there when Planet Earth was here.

The DNA doesn't start off as complicated as we would like. The first life forms were probably microscopic prokaryotes and eukaryotes that would eventually develop into and produce other species. Another example is a mousetrap example. A common example used by ID proponents that actually refutes them. If you take away the catch and the hold, you can make a catapult with a mousetrap! Let's also observe the eye in nature. Not every animal has the same exact eye. For instance, naked mole rats can only see the light coming in from around them and that's it. Nevertheless, the eye evolved.

In science, we are about disproving things and analyzing theories and seeing which ones hold up. We have specific expectations for every theory. The problem is that intelligent design can't give any expectations and therefore isn't falsifiable which means it isn't really scientific. Evolution does have expectations and is falsifiable. It becomes a theory (aka scientific fact) when it has been tested over and over again and the expectations continue to match it. For instance a common ancestor is disputed by absolutely no scientist in a scientifically trained field. This is an expectation of evolution. Survival of the fittest is a concept of natural selection which we can observe in different species (especially ones going extinct). We would expect this if evolution is true and this is what we have. Similar DNA and adaptations that different animals make are other things we can observe which are consistent with evolution. What are the expectations of intelligent design?

I'm reading a book right now by Kenneth Miller and I think you and Caleb DRC should have a look at it too. In the book, Miller does his best to take intelligent design seriously and investigates it thoroughly. He explains in his book why intelligent design just cannot offer a legitimate explanation in an origins theory. But, as a Catholic, Miller also finds a way to harmonize scientific truth with his religious truth. I think you should reconsider intelligent design PlanksandNails and actually thoroughly investigate evolutionary theory especially from the perspective of an evolutionist before dismissing it like you are. Education is on the line in some places due to the sloppy tactics of ID adherents. Here's the book by the way:

PlanksandNails on June 10, 2013:

Caleb DRC,

The problem with evolution is that is that all life developed independent of any intelligent source of information. This would mean that at one point there was not any genetic information in existence for humans to have lungs to breath, but somehow information just spontaneously emerged (bam!) and was added to the gene pool. But wait, what about all the animals too? All the information for feathers, fins, legs, etc… are new genetic information that were added to the information biosphere. This would be a massive upward torrent of information for microbes to evolve into donkeys, peacocks, dingoes and flute players with new programs each step of the way. Incredible happenstance!

The problem is that net growth of genetic information does not happen by randomly mixing chemicals and then bam! you have functioning chemical processes. This means that a cell must be capable of responding to a new sets of directions controlled by massive amounts of new information. Additionally, the proteins must be tolerated by the cell.

The problem is that mutations that occur in populations of living systems occur without a gain of information and often occur with information loss.

Natural selection in contrast to evolution accesses existing information from the gene pool that was already there and allows for variability that can be easily observed with animals such as dogs or horses. Natural selection is incapable of designing anything, but only selects from designs that already exist.

The genetic code is extremely intelligent information that man is still very far from grasping. Since this intelligent code is way way beyond our grasp of understanding, it is deduced that there must be an intelligent sender of this information. This information that is conveyed in the DNA/RNA protein synthesising system (DRPSS) was created by God and we are the receivers of it.

The process of genetic information is intelligent information that requires an intelligent sender for the human to receive it. The intelligent sender of this advanced information is in the DRPSS.

The evolutionary claim that random (bam!) increased information requires extremely large amounts of information already in existence for their doctrine to work. The claimed increase of information is massively minute compared to the origin of information.

The proponents of evolution, like newenglandsun will focus is on the increase of information to make a case. The problem they have is that any proposition of information increase must use information that already exists. What they cannot answer is the source of the original intelligent information.

They will claim that pure matter alone went bam! and spontaneously self-organized with the sprinkling of pixie dust. There is no process that has been empirically observed where solely unguided material processes spontaneously emerge intelligent information in the real word. Of course in Peter Pan’s world anything is possible.

The sheer magnitude of density and complexity of the DNA/RNA protein synthesis exponentially exceeds the information and capacity of the most technologically advanced machines man has created.

Of course you can resort to Peter Pan, or aliens as being the ones that seeded this superior advanced information. Here’s the problem, how did they get their hands on this protein synthesizing system in the first place?

There is a better and more logical explanation than all of newenglandsuns’s emotional rants, hand waving and red herring’s. There is a Creator and sender of intelligent information.

newenglandsun on June 10, 2013:

"violate entropy( going from order to disorder)"

This just shows that you don't get evolution. It doesn't go from order to disorder. It doesn't violate entropy in any such way. You are making this up about the theory of evolution. All creationists do.

This is why I believe in evolution. The evidence supports it and creationists have to lie about the evidence. If you want to see a full detailed answer to all of your objections, I would recommend the following link:

It answers all of your questions from whether it is god-denying or not to whether it violates any other method of science. What I do worry about with your assertion as to evolution violating entropy is how you explain the increase in the human population? According to you, this would violate entropy so it can't happen.

"Planksandnails is one of the smartest people I've met"

He compares evolution (a scientific fact mind you) to a fairy tale. One can only get that way by smoking pot.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 10, 2013:


Your truthful and humorous comment got a chuckle out of me. Profound statements are no surprise from you, and your statement, "The problem with evolution is that there is not any genetic mechanism that could add information necessary for the upward process of molecules-to-man . . . ," is no exception. Information must be in place before structures can be built. This is why blueprints are made, and planning done. Twenty thousand chemical reactions occur in a single cell in a very short time duration( forgot just how short), and they are all perfectly timed, and in sequential order. How does random processes explain this? Actually, Planks, I'm not asking you this question, I'm asking the evolutionists' this question.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 10, 2013:


You are essentially are ignoring all my argumentation. I have already explained in detail how evolution violates entropy. You have not addressed the permutations argument, and I'm still allowing you to have the luxury of the forces, amino acids, atoms, atomic bonds and bonding energy, existence of information, etc, etc, and yet you still ramble the same chant. Address my entropy argument, address my permutation argument, address my specific protein argument, or the origin of information argument, or the mutations destroying favorable improvement argument. I have answered your arguments and links. The "pesky creationists" link I have addressed.

God, by Jesus Christ, is the Creator. It is as simple as that. You evolutionists cannot answer any of my questions. You cannot tell me the origin of anything: not gravity, space( which has structure and can be compressed or stretched), or time( which has structure and can be dilated). What is the origin of the electromagnetic force( emf), the strong force, color force, weak force, energy, photons, gluons, first membrane of a cell, information stored in DNA, matter, electrons, protons, neutrinos, neutrons, potential energy, kinetic energy, Pauli Exclusion Principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Planck's constant, Fine Structure constant, permittivity, permeability, moving electrons making magnetic fields? All these things must be "naturally" explained if God is not considered to be the Creator. Do you actually expect anyone to take the valuable time that God has graciously given to them, and inanely spend it coming up with fatuous conjectures( don't you dare call them theories) of how a book came into existence through random processes when everyone knows it has an author, a publisher who published it, a logger who got the wood, and a manufacturer who converted wood to paper? Do you think I'm going to waste my time coming up with ridiculous postulates of how my computer came into existence by random processes? Or how a tornado can build a skyscraper complete with plumbing and wiring? If you can't see God as the magnificent Creator that He is, then I suggest you bend those stubborn and insolent knees and ask Him to open your inanimate blind eyes, because if you don't, then you will have eternity to regret and remorse that you had not. Don't be such a fool! In your entire life have you known anything inorganic that has built itself, repaired itself, or had the slightest tendency to violate entropy( going from order to disorder). All elements are inorganic, including carbon. What makes carbon organic is how other elements connect to it, including carbon itself. Those connections are precise and designed, and that is done by God. The fact that God by Jesus Christ is the ultimate mechanism that keeps the universe working and together is clear. I would be interested in your best argumentation that will contradict this fact.

God is omnipotent! The amount of power required by Jesus Christ to get stars to spin is unfathomable. To get the sun to spin at its current rate required 1.6 x 10^36 joules. The United States of America produces roughly 1.06 x 10^20 joules per year; therefore, it would take us 1.51 x 10^16 years to get the sun to rotate. I know about the dust "theory" but you still have the same problem because of the conservation of angular momentum. And Jesus Christ did that for the 1.5 x 10^23 other stars. This does not even count the orbital kinetic energy that each star has around their respective galactic centers, which represents much more KE per star than its rotational KE. Where did this enormous power come from, if not from God, the Creator?

Newenglandsun, I have never denied anyone's comment, and I prefer not to start doing that. If I were to come to your site and criticize your mother, or someone you loved, then you would delete me. If you want to respectfully disagree with my guests' , that would be fine. Planksandnails is one of the smartest people I've met, and you do not get that way by smoking pot. You get upset and want to call me a "diphead" I'll probably allow it, but do not call my guests any names. Also, no vulgar language. While I'm on the subject, do not criticize God. Our debate is concerning His existence. When you criticize Him you are essentially acknowledging His existence, and it just pisses me off. I once had renters in my house, and we agreed to let a homeless man live there for a while. One day he was cursing at a picture of Jesus Christ that my renter had in his room. That person called Christ every name he could think of. I threw his ass right out the door, and he was about 2 seconds away from looking like a bulldog with his nose relocated to the back of his head. I welcome your comments, but just chill out on criticism of my guests and God.

newenglandsun on June 07, 2013:

Only the problem with what PlanksandNails has said here is that none of it is true and evolution is observable. Take into account penicillin. Evolution, right there.

See, look. Dust!

"The problem with evolution is that there is not any genetic mechanism that could add information necessary for the upward process of molecules-to-man unless you add this special ingredient that newenglandson is alluding to."

Really, PlanksandNails? Are you smoking pot or something? We call it random mutations. Primarily based on the Punnet square so we can make predictions. To state that there is no evidence for evolution, one would have to bury their head in a hole and live under a rock.

I like how you diphead creationists always try to inform us how ridiculous it is to believe in evolution by comparing it to fairy dust. Wasn't it your god that created a bunch of shit from, oh crap, dust.

Peter Pan: Dust!

Wendy, John: Dust?

Michael: Dust?

God: Dust. I just shape it like this and breath into it and "poof!" a man!

[taps Tinkerbell a bit with his hand to make golden dust come off and rain down on the kids]

Peter Pan: Now, think of the happiest things. It's the same as having wings.

God: We call those angels, Peter.

PlanksandNails on June 04, 2013:

Caleb DRC,

When you add mutations and natural selection together with special ingredient of pixie dust you get the Emeral Lagasse’s (bam!) special recipe for all life (evolution). The only problem apart from the addition of Tinker Bell's pixie dust is that natural selection is a redistribution, or reduction of genetic information that was/is already there. Most mutations corrupt genetic information. No new information has been gained, but is an alteration of pre-existing information.

The problem with evolution is that there is not any genetic mechanism that could add information necessary for the upward process of molecules-to-man unless you add this special ingredient that newenglandson is alluding to. I will be heading to the farmer's market this week to find this special ingredient to add to my primordial soup du jour.

Natural selection in action is the selection of information that already exists; therefore, it doesn't drive the Tinker Bell pixie dust- molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection does not have this special pixie power ingredient where you can supposedly add new information to the genome.

You may need to enlighten Peter Pan here that natural selection is not the driving process of evolution.

This is evolution in action:

Peter Pan: Dust!

Wendy, John: Dust?

Michael: Dust?

Newenglandsun: Dust?

Peter Pan: Yep, just a little bit of pixie dust.

[taps Tinkerbell a bit with his hand to make golden dust come off and rain down on the kids]

Peter Pan: Now, think of the happiest things. It's the same as having wings.

Newenglandsun: Natural selection and survival of the fittest are the primary driving agents of the evolutionary process, yes.

newenglandsun on June 04, 2013:

Natural selection and survival of the fittest are the primary driving agents of the evolutionary process, yes.

Let me ask you this - which of your parents died before you were conceived? Did your mother die before you were born?

If you answered "none" to the first question and "no" to the second then you are an evolutionist.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 04, 2013:


Before I answer your question, let's make sure you and I are on the same page. You said you have studied evolution; therefore, tell me if this is the way it works: As I understand it, random processes are the foundation of evolutionary theory. There are no intelligent directed forces making modifications of improvement. The improvements are remembered via survival of the fittest. I understand the improvements to be completely random, but over time favorable improvements are made and these are passed down to future generations. Is this the way it goes?

newenglandsun on June 04, 2013:


"Entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of disorder" (wikipedia).

I don't have to explain to you that evolution does not violate this. You need to explain to me how evolution does violate this.

This argument you bring up is straw-man. Evolutionist does not equal atheist. There are Christians such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins who believe in evolution and fully accept a creator god.

Again, the reason I believe in evolution is not because I am an atheist. It is because the weight of the scientific evidence points to it. I believed in evolution before reconsidering belief in god.

Caleb DRC (author) on June 03, 2013:

You can't possibly be this obtuse. I used the dog argument to point out how simple-minded is the statement that we have 98% of our DNA in common with an ape( or whatever primate they claim). I gave a good argument of why I believe our understanding of DNA is in its infancy; therefore, any argumentation from atheists to use DNA to show species transition would be inadequate.

Here is the bottom line for me, personally. Not you or any other atheist can give mathematical or scientific evidence to refute the entropy argument. As far as physical evidence is concerned this is the primary reason why I believe in God, the omniscient and omnipotent Creator of the universe through Jesus Christ. Links to pretty pictures of conjectured "trees of life"--excuse me, "tree"--or links to the vacuous tripe spewed from Richard Dawkins will do little to convince me of the "fact" of evolution until someone can explain the enormous violation of entropy.

newenglandsun on June 01, 2013:

I have the DNA tree of life you dip-wad!

Creationists cannot explain this because they deny common ancestry. Evolutionists can.

If you believe that entropy drives everything to a specific random state than this is what evolutionists believe as well.

No evolutionist has ever said "a dog is a human". We have stated that they, as mammals, share a common ancestor.

Caleb DRC (author) on May 31, 2013:


It was not even in my mind when I wrote, "You are not going to win this debate," that you would take it as a personal attack on your intelligence. What was in my mind is that you have no arsenal with which to fight. You have neither science nor mathematics at your disposal to make your case. Again, you may have a Ph.d in both, but my point is science or mathematics does not validate evolution, especially the scientific method. This is precisely why atheists and evolutionists do not use it to make their case--because they can not use it.

I did not think much of the 2nd link, but the 1st one was a good attempt to make your case; however--you knew there would be a however or but, didn't you?--I have a problem with it. I believe our understanding of DNA is in its infancy, and there is some arithmetic to back that up. About 2% of the base pairs are committed to protein synthesis, or 120 million. Assign a letter to each pair, as those Ph.d's suggested and we have 120 million letters committed to synthesizing 100,000 proteins, or 1,200 letters to each protein( it is now believed there are much more than 100,000). That is about 1/5th of a page. I believe it would require 1,000s of pages to describe all atomic aspects of a single protein. There is much more information being stored in DNA than what we believe. Observation proves this to be a fact also. They say that we have 98% of our DNA in common with an ape. Has any of these people even looked at an ape? That 98% is a ridiculous statement! I can say the same thing about a dog. A dog has a heart, liver, stomach, brain, legs, arms, nose, intestines, eyes, ears, kidneys, and many other physiological things--same as a human; therefore, dogs and humans are 100% the same. The fact is that observation proves they are not the same, and histological tests would confirm this. Personally, none of this matters to me anyway. Until evolutionists can counter my entropy argumentation, I'll never believe in evolution( transition of species). This is THE fatal blow to evolutionary theory, and no separate argumentation will surmount or vanquish it.

Yes, I do believe entropy drives everything to a specific state--a specific random state. How's that for an oxymoron? I don't think I would say my ENTIRE faith rests on intelligent design, but I will claim that, yes, I believe entirely that God, through Jesus Christ, is the Creator and He intelligently designed His universe.

newenglandsun on May 28, 2013:

This is a good one too.

newenglandsun on May 28, 2013:

Yes. I was a Christian when I was an anti-evolutionist. You cannot win the debate. Intelligent design is pseudoscience. You assume that the entropy is being guided toward a specific state. This is where your argument fails. Entropy is not being guided toward a specific state. Yes, genetic mutations play a key role in the evolutionary process and we might be able to make predictions about the next evolutionary stage (such as mamory glands on male humans) but overall, the mutation is random. Random mutation plus natural selection. Nature chooses which random mutation will be the most beneficial. However, evolution is a scientific fact and to deny it means giving up on intellectuals. You're not smart. You deny the theory of evolution. Stupid people deny the theory of evolution and, in addition to that, think that evolution has been refuted by intelligent design.

Your entire faith rests on intelligent design, this remains clear to me. Because it does, I will never accept the existence of your god. He is little and minute if he exists as well as quite deceptive.

Caleb DRC (author) on May 27, 2013:


What is that "one simple key fact" you are referring to, and built on it how? And how would it prove evolution is a fact? Also were you a Christian at the time you were an "anti-evolutionist?"

The entropy I'm referring to--and have always been referring to here at hubpages-- is that which is defined in statistical mechanics. At the Wikipedia article, "Entropy" at the 3rd par. it says, "in statistical mechanics, entropy is the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system." And at the first par. it says, "Entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of disorder." It can be thought of as entropy in the micro realm. The thermodynamic entropy you mentioned can be thought of as entropy in the macro realm. The amount of information needed to specify the exact physical state of a protein molecule is enormous. It has specific atomic bond lengths and strengths, specific torsion, twists, curvature, rate of curvature, number of atoms and specific atoms. This is the basis of explaining the number 1 chance in 10^50'000'000'000 of DNA forming by chance, which I have mentioned in my hubs and comments several times. I plan to write another hub on how the estimate of how much information stored in DNA is very much higher than what we believe, and it is based upon this information needed to specify a physical state. God is the Creator; this is so very clear. Evolution is trying to claim that random processes can form these complex structures, and hook them up into even more complex structures, and get them all to work together. Can't you see how stupid that is?

You are correct concerning isolated systems; however, I consider this to be irrelevant. Input of energy does not guarantee structure, unless God designed the mechanism to build structure as with our cells reproducing, or making new and different cells as our bones manufacture blood. If God did not design it to do so then input of energy usually guarantees the demise of structure. An explosion does not build a skyscraper; it tears it down. Nearly any structure that is heated enough will melt; thereby destroying its structure. The input of energy does not add to the structure. For structure to be built then the input of energy must be directed, as a carpenter builds a house. Lifting the boards, positioning them, hammering them together is an input of directed energy. Put the same amount of energy into one single explosion, and the house will be firewood.

Newenglandsun, this is serious business. God has never expected anyone to blindly believe in Him. He has inundated us with evidences. You will never die--no way! The funerals we go to indicate transition, not end of life. We all go to either heaven or hell forever. You are not going to win this debate, but that is a very good thing if it will open your eyes.

newenglandsun on May 21, 2013:

You asked in your article "why are the "favorable" mutations and modifications remembered". The punnett square demonstrates that these favourable mutations become the dominant gene and end up being passed down.

I used to be a hardcore anti-evolutionist myself when I thought that it just didn't make sense. I started studying it and I was impressed at how once I built on one simple key fact it just was easy to understand how evolution was a fact.

If you are referring to the laws of thermodynamics when you say that evolution violates entropy, then you need to recheck what these laws deal with. They deal specifically with isolated systems. Earth is not an isolated system since it receives energy from the sun. Meaning evolution does not violate entropy at all. It is a fact and all the evidence supports it.

Caleb DRC (author) on May 21, 2013:


Me accepting evolution? That's a good one!

No my silence has to do with the fact that I haven't a clue what argumentation you have buried in those pretty pictures, especially of the yellow and green bananas. Aa, CC, Cp, Yy . . . what's up with that?

Evolution violates entropy in a colossal way--way beyond our imagination. Evolutionary theory( species transition) has no scientific foundation, and it is completely devoid of any mathematical substantiation. On the other hand, both science and math can be use to crush the theory into worthless powder.

Newenglandsun, I'm not going to study Punnett squares. I do not consider myself to be narrow minded or closed minded. I have tried to study evolutionary theory( ET), but I got so annoyed at the simple-minded reasoning upon which it is built I gave up the attempt. I thought I could find something more challenging like twirling in my chair, or making funny noises causing my dog cock his head, and I'm acting like I don't know where it come from either.

newenglandsun on May 20, 2013:

So does your silence mean you now accept evolution?

newenglandsun on May 01, 2013:

The Punnett square is at the basis of what is called "random mutation". It has a hell of a lot to do with the theory of evolution. ie - how things are mutated, what the dominant gene is that shows up, the predictability of what happens. That's all in the Punnett square.

Caleb DRC (author) on May 01, 2013:


Well, I checked out the links, but I'm not getting the connection. The stuff you and I are debating is whole lot more complicated than what those links imply.

Did you read about the donkey debacle above? That right there proves that evolutionary theory is all washed up. How can that donkey be so much smarter than humans? Huh?

CJ Sledgehammer on May 01, 2013:


Thank you for conducting a full-scale investigation - I hope it was not at tax-payer's expense. :0)

Indeed, it would seem that the Law of Increasing Entropy and public television is adversely effecting the quality of donkeys these days, such that, they are hardly worth inviting to one's birthday bash anymore.

I hear llamas are cute, cuddly, they can hit a spittoon from 26 feet away and they love a good party. :0)

Best wishes, be well and behave - C.J. Sledgehammer

Caleb DRC (author) on May 01, 2013:


This is intolerable CJ. It has taken me 5 days to respond because I was conducting a full scale investigation as to how such an oversight could have happen. I even hired 7 full time employees and 3 part-timers to get down to the bottom of this unfathomably irresponsible neglectful act.

RESULT OF INVESTIGATION: The result of this exhaustive inquiry is that I'm not responsible; it is the donkey's fault. DNA analysis( toward the end of this investigation) have proven that he is a descendant of Balaam's donkey, and he is just as smart. It turns out that he figured out why he was at my parties so he sabotaged my parties altogether. He ate the apples, sat on the cake, hid the invitations, bit through the phone lines, and to add insult to injury he thinks it is funny.

I'm telling you, CJ, I'm thinking of getting a normal donkey!

CJ Sledgehammer on April 25, 2013:


What gives?

You informed NewEnglandSun "You know if you keep that up, you will not be invited to my next birthday party. We are planning pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, bobbing for apples and everything, so . . . so . . . so there!"

So, let me get this straight...all N.E.S. ("Nessy") had to do was show up with a baseless rant and his/her reward is an invitation to your next birthday party?!

I'll have you know, kind Sir, that I have been waiting for 2 years now to get an invite to your birthday bash and I'm beginning to grow impatient. From what I's the "only show" in town. :0)

In His Majesty's service - C.J. Sledgehammer

newenglandsun on April 25, 2013:

You've never looked at a punnet square have you?

When the animal is reproducing frequently, the gene that has the advantage will be passed down.

newenglandsun on April 17, 2013:

Sorry I haven't been here in a while.

There are three factors that go on with evolutionary development and how new creatures are ultimately produced.

1. random mutation

2. sexual reproduction

3. natural selection

Ironically, only one of these is actually "random". This has actually been witnessed in labs with things like penicillin. This is why pesticide companies like Orkin try to mix up the chemicals that they use on bugs because they do know how evolution works. If they kept using the same mixture of chemicals on the bugs all the time, the bugs would eventually produce a natural immunity to it.

I'm sorry to call you an idiot, but there is absolutely nothing that a simple explanation like intelligent design can accomplish for people in the future. If we fail to understand evolutionary theory, then we will continue to have pests in our houses and possibly, pests that cause disease. Evolution helps people which is why I believe in it. I have studied it. I have never used it as proof against Christianity though it certainly does come in conflict with understandings of God as a creator.

Isaiah 40:22 - It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; (ESV)

My friend, do you know what a circle is? It is a flat object. It is not a round, spherical object.

Now that I have given you the mechanism of evolution, I will answer your other questions. The modifications are remembered based on the data of the DNA that is within the object. Unless you are saying that a human can give birth to a cat, then this is in fact an observable fact. What the modifications are going to be next and why the modifications are made depends entirely on the environment. The favorable mutations end up being passed down because they provide the best adaptation. For instance, gills allow a fish to breathe. Lungs allow a human to breathe. Naturally, a fish without gills and a human without lungs don't have favorable modifications so they will more than likely die and not be able to pass down genes. Of course, in Darwin's theory, empathy for others of your own kind within survival of the fittest concepts develop which is why we humans would gather together to provide mechanical lungs for the human born without lungs. Water is an environmental condition that would require the production of gills. When the modification is benign to the creature, the modification will soon be passed down and those without it will die off.

Caleb DRC (author) on March 14, 2013:


Was it something I said? You know if you keep that up, you will not be invited to my next birthday party. We are planning pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, bobbing for apples and everything, so . . . so . . . so there! Wait a minute. Have you been talking to my sister? You know, I already wrote on one of my hubs that I was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you don't have to rub it in.

Well, you have spirit, newenglandsun; I'll give you that, but what you don't have is any argumentation. Do what Planksandnails suggested and "counter with your own evidence," and "come back and walk out your reasoning." I dare ya, no I double dare ya, to answer any one of those questions that you quoted me in your comment. There are actually six questions in that quote, and I challenge you to answer any one of them. There is NO WAY--that's right, NO WAY--that "Evolutionists DO know how this happens!" as you claim. OH, incidentally, do not think the two questions you quoted( "Exactly what is mutated, and what is modified") are the easiest ones for you to choose. You better think about it before you jump in with an answer. I'll give you a little hint so you don't embarrass yourself---it is not the hammer that drives the nail. Of course you can identify the hammer, and the nail, but I'm looking for much deeper thought than that.

As promised, I'll complete my reply to you which I began at April Reynolds' hub. I will not repeat what I wrote there as, for example, how evolutionary conjecture--oh, excuse me, theory--is poorly build upon the precarious foundation of simple--minded reasoning and thought. No way do I repeat myself. No one can accuse me of being redundant. No way. If there is one thing I'm not, it is being redundant. No way do I repeat myself. I say it once and that is it! Nope, I don't repeat myself. That is one thing I refuse to do is repeat myself. No I decided a long time ago that people better listen the first time because I refuse to repeat my self over and over again. That is why I refuse to be redundant. That's right, I'll not repeat something a second time. I mean some people are annoyed at that. They are like saying, "Will you just shut up." So don't expect me to repeat my self. No way will I repeat myself.

Anyway, although you attempted to answer some of my questions at Aprils' hub, you really did not accurately answer any of them. You wrote, "The Biblical prophets did not know about the stretching out of the heavens, and even if they did, they believed the earth to be flat." Neither statement there is true. In fact I can disprove it with one verse: Isaiah 40:22. Isaiah was written roughly 3000 years ago( 792-722 B.C.). There are about 17 verses that say God stretched the heavens. You wrote, "It is debated . . . ." So what? Just because something is debated does not change the truth of what is being debated.

The fact of the matter, newenglandsun, is you are bringing the extremely simple-minded thinking and reasoning, upon which evolutionary conjecture is founded, into this debate, and it is inadequate--to put is mildly. It is the same thing you attempted here concerning the 6 questions you quoted. Ponder those questions and answer them.

This is not a debate you want to win, and you can not win. Your eternal destiny is contingent upon you seeing the evidences that God has provided through Jesus Christ. You will not die. You will never die! The funerals we go to are not indicative of the end of a life; they are a declaration that the end of second chances has occurred once more.

Well, there may be mistakes in spelling, etc, but I don't care. My dogs are snoring which is what I should be doing.

PlanksandNails on March 03, 2013:


Unless you take something from the article and propose evidence to the contrary, all that can be responded to is an emotional rant.

("Evolutionists DO know how this happens!")

Explain yourself. Ad hominem is simply "paper tiger" syndrome. Instead of playground antics, clarify in a logical manner, step by step what you mean.

Take the evidence that Caleb has provided and counter with your own evidence. Words like idiot, stupidity, and ignorance are not evidence, but hallow words of personal feelings on the matter. You can insult and run, or come back and walk out your reasoning; otherwise, all that there is to go on is your emotional state of mind on this theme.

newenglandsun on March 03, 2013:

"Evolutionists claim random processes, mutations and modifications. How? Through what process? Exactly what is mutated, and what is modified, and why are the "favorable" mutations and modifications remembered, and how are they remembered?"

WOW! You are an IDIOT! Evolutionists DO know how this happens! The only people that don't believe evolutionists can't explain this are IDIOT creationists! I want to get into your head that IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY are the alternatives to evolutionism. NOT creationism. The mechanism that runs evolution is NATURAL SELECTION. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. The ones with the favorable mutations end up surviving to pass down their genes. Did your parents die in their childhood before they met each other? No. This is NATURAL SELECTION.

Sanxuary on December 26, 2012:

A report I read years ago stated that the energy in DNA was unexplainable and very odd. The group was attempting to trace DNA over time. They claimed that everywhere a person went that they could be traced for a period of time long after they left. In doing so they detected a chemical energy trace they could not explain. The longer one existed in a place the longer it lasted. Its all speculation but a number of theories were made. The specific energy we have will re-unite. Whatever it is may be more then energy but a combination of other things unknown. If we are inter dimensional or have a soul we may not be as dead as we think we are. Perhaps transformed into another form that makes us up. Its all interesting but we struggle to have any explanations as to what life is and how we ever gained the ability to freely think.

Caleb DRC (author) on December 25, 2012:

Yes, Sanxuary, I believe science is in God's terms. Sometimes we misinterpret what the science is apparently telling us, but it eventually brings us back to collaborating God's Word.

Would you expound further on your comment concerning DNA and energy?

Yes, I believe you are right on target concerning sub species and Noah's ark. It explains much.

Caleb DRC (author) on December 25, 2012:

Hi AngelitaRose: Thank you for your comment. My mouser is double clicking causing multiple comments being displayed so I have to delete the copies. I just thought you would be curious about the deleted comment.

Caleb DRC (author) on December 25, 2012:

@ Sharewhatuknow: Thank you for your comment. Actually, I prefer atheists leaving their comments. They are going to say it anyway, out there in the world, and at least if it is here I can reply with argumentation that will be useful for other Christians who are confronted with objections to God's existence. And, of course, if an atheist can be brought to a saving faith in Jesus Christ . . . well, that would be quite wonderful; however, no luck yet.

Sanxuary on December 24, 2012:

I have believed for a long time that science can be explained in Gods terms. It was claimed that DNA from a human lost in a mountain of other DNA will find its own strand. Unexplained energy is also a part of DNA and ones DNA can be found in terms of this Energy for a very long time afterwards. In breeding and out breeding is the key to improved DNA and its ability to adapt to change. In other wards conservation is a dead end and proliferation improves survival. If we determine the true maps of DNA we may discover why Noah needed fewer animals then we thought. A primary specie could be thousands of sub species and many extinct species may not be as extinct as we once thought. In fact we might be going extinct all the time in terms of change and nothing remains the same. Just as unknown may be the fact that many things may not be related at all and nothing close to similiar.

Angelita Rose from Dhaka,Bangladesh on December 24, 2012:

Good post..

sharewhatuknow from Western Washington on December 24, 2012:

Very wonderful and well written hub Caleb. You are correct, God is the ultimate mathmetician. I see now you have all the God/Jesus bashers on your back. There are a lot of them here at the hub, and it is very sad to see them knashing their teeth if anyone here affirms that God/Jesus does exist.

I can't wait until Part 2. Voted up, useful, awesome and interesting.

CJ Sledgehammer on December 14, 2012:

The Bible says that, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" And, I have always said that, "Ignorance allows the impossible to become possible." This is to say that the less people know the more apt they are to believe a lie.

I applaud you for your tireless work in this field, Caleb - you are truly an inspiration.

May God be with you and yours - C.J. Sledgehammer

Caleb DRC (author) on December 14, 2012:

It boggles my mind also, CJ. We think we are catching up to God with the informational densities we are achieving with some revolutionary techniques. Makes me laugh actually. We take 2% of DNA is committed to protein synthesis. That give us 1,000,000 times .02 = 20,000 "pages" dedicated to the project. There are 100,000 different proteins( actually could be a million or more in humans alone but this is another subject); therefore, that is 20,000 / 100,000 = 0.2 pages used to synthesize proteins. That is about 2 inches of typewritten page. There is no way the amount of information required to describe the protein pictured above in this hub can be done with that 2 inches. So the analogy of one letter to each nucleotide pair is too simplistic. God has a lot more information stored within the geometric structure of DNA than that!

Furthermore, the information is not stored on the DNA anyway. The DNA is the "paper" that the information is written on. Where did the electromagnetic force (EMF) get the information to store it in the structure of DNA in the first place? I believe God stores this information in the structure of space itself because the Bible says He stretches space in understanding. The EMF accesses this information from the structure of space and stores it on the DNA( within the geometric structure).

God did not stop there. Where did the EMF learn how to do that? Job( 38:36) says God put wisdom--not information-- in the inward parts. Wisdom is knowing what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, if at all. It is one thing to have ALL the blueprints to build a skyscraper-- that is information--but it is another thing to take that information and know what to do with it.


CJ Sledgehammer on December 14, 2012:

For such a complexed discipline as mathamatics...your article is simply amazing. Well done, Caleb...well done!!!

As a matter of fact, I just came across an article the other day which stated to the effect, that all the DNA in a person's body could fit within the confounds of a teaspoon. But, if all those DNA molecules were unwound and placed end to end - they would reach the moon and back to earth 1,000 times over (or something like that).

This stuff just boggles my mind!!! Thanks, Caleb...this was a real treat. Keep 'em coming. :0)

God's blessings to a good friend - C.J. Sledgehammer

Caleb DRC (author) on September 25, 2012:

Time better exist because I seem to be always chasing it; or it is chasing me--one or the other.

Yes they have something in common. Entropy makes ashes. Without entropy, ashed would not exist.

MJC from UK on September 23, 2012:

OK, there is something else.

An atheist would tell you, because I can’t touch, smell, hear, see, and taste God, He doesn’t exist.

Time. Can you smell, hear, touch, taste, or see time? No. Ergo: time doesn’t exist.

Of course time does have physical quality. We have divided a year through 365 days and we’ve divided a day through 24 = 1 hour, and we’ve divided 1 hour through 60 = it makes a second. This is why we can physically measure something what “doesn’t exist”. ?????

What about God? It looks that God and time have something in common, and that your own theory might be somewhere more true than you would expect :-)

Ashes to ashes and entropy ??? Do they have something in common?

MJC from UK on September 23, 2012:

:-) :-) :-) I have to read part two of your hub... soon :-)

Caleb DRC (author) on September 23, 2012:

Hi Jantamaya.

First I want to finish my reply to your "What is Time" comment. I do not know much about relativity theory, but I believe the equations of General Relativity are associated with the structure of spacetime. I think the equations of Special Relativity are associated with speed within space, not with the speed of space; therefore, I do not think my statement is contradictory. I personally believe for several reasons that the process of God stretching space is creating time, which if true would explain why we finally discovered an inextricable link between the two--space and time.

As far as the dark energy is concerned, I believe the energy required by God to stretch space is manifesting itself as dark energy. Energy has mass, and mass is manifested with a gravitational field. It was the anomalous effects of gravity that put us onto dark energy. A indication that this opinion may be headed in the right direction is since the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which is requiring more energy by God to do so, then the ratio of dark energy mass to known mass should also be increasing( the numerator getting bigger than the denominator).

Thank you for reading this hub, Jantamaya. I believe that science and math have unequivocally proven God's existence. I know I've used this argument a million times but until someone can actually refute it WITH science and MATH then I'll continue using it: Let us suppose you have all the parts( not put together) of a Boeing 747 in a junk yard. What is the mathematical probability of a tornado coming by and putting that plane together in working order? It is a mathematical fact that that will never happen with one 747 let alone a hundred. God made the universe and all it contains. Science and math continue to prove this, never disprove it. I have been given links by atheists that are supposed to confirm that science and math prove God does not exist. NEVER have I found a single formula in those links, and one link an atheist sent me to confirmed everything I was saying. It is on this hub or part 2 of this hub but you can see for yourself.

Concerning the statement " I can prove nearly everything with science; therefore God does not exist", Where? When did this happen? Both science and math show more and more complexity and power indicative of omniscience and omnipotence. Science and math are screaming at the top of their voices, "GOD EXISTS". I think this DNA hub is a prime example of what I'm talking about. An atheist will say, You see, God does not make proteins DNA does. But this only digs deeper into the complexity of God's creation. The directed forces required by the electromagnetic force to make proteins and the organic systems constructed from them are exquisitely directed, measured and timed. DNA gives more proof of God, not less.

I agree with you that God exists for a believer, and does not exist for an unbeliever; however, an unbeliever may deny the existence of God by a simple-minded act of denial but this denial will not negate either God's existence nor the proof of His existence.

Incidentally, Jantamaya, you remember what I said concerning time, and that the more mass there is, then the stronger the gravitational field and therefore time will slow down. Well, I'm just telling you this, my friend, and no one else--so keep it secret: I can slow down time. I'll do it right now. Where are my chocolate covered, jelly filled donuts? Oh WOW! here they are. Under my box of chocolates next to my banana cream pie. Well I gotta go. I going to slow down time!

MJC from UK on September 21, 2012:

I think it is impossible to prove or disapprove God.

1.Because I can’t explain scientifically everything, this proves God.

2.Because I can explain almost everything scientifically, this proves God doesn’t exist.

Both sentences are false.

Either you believe in God and see God in everything, like in mathematics, biology, science etc. or you don’t believe in God and don’t see God anywhere. The question is not if we can prove God’s existence, the question is if we believe or not believe in God’s existence.

It means,

God exists for a believer.

God doesn’t exist for a nonbeliever.

So simply it is.

Where is the truth? I think everybody must find the answer for themselves and stick to it.

Thank you Caleb for this great hub. I really enjoyed it.

Paladin_ on September 12, 2012:

Caleb, the "God of random processes," you're attacking is a strawman that doesn't exist -- at least not among my beliefs. Yes, I believe that random events play a significant role in the universe, but not the only role. And I certainly don't ascribe them to any sort of "god."

As for "waking up," I'm now more awake -- and more aware -- than I EVER was when I believed. I found my way out of the fog of self-delusion, and if you're as committed to the truth as you suggest you are, you will too someday. It's inevitable. When you do, I'll be happy to be the first to welcome you to the light.

Sorry to hear about your dog.

John Harper from Malaga, Spain on September 12, 2012:

Hi Caleb, Indeed we may see the window of commentary diminish or close, but I desist from forum statements in others workspace (though it often brings more readers) when the recipient shows no reason to proceed further, something about dusting sandals I remember.

Caleb DRC (author) on September 12, 2012:


Thank you for your sage comments.

When it comes to defending the Faith, you can use my comments section for as much and as long as you like. The day will come when the opportunity will have passed.

Caleb DRC (author) on September 12, 2012:

Paladin: I got a question for you, so maybe you can fit me in between coffee breaks.

How can you possibly figure that changing your belief in God, for the god of random processes is a step up in the reduction of illusion or delusion? As I understand it, the foundation of your belief is that science will someday be able to explain all the mysteries of creation. How is that going to happen? The mathematics of probability and of science prove unequivocally that random processes can't even build a cow pile, or a chicken coop, or anything of any significance. The science and math that you think will come to the rescue is constantly giving more evidence that God is the Creator. If you truly do believe in science and math then listen to what they have to say. Even if the universe was infinitely old--which it isn't--and favorable constructions occurred over eons; they would be destroyed by entropy over the same eons long before any improvements could be added. You are not stupid, Paladin, think it through.

There will never be a god of random processes because the evidence against it is so overpowering; however, the Bible( God's Word) does predict a god of forces that no one knew before. This will be the god that atheists will embrace.

Jesus said one can be cut off from the vine, but it is possible to be grafted back in. Wake up Paladin and get grafted( Romans 11:23) back in.

Say hello to your dog for me. Bone cancer took my Great--Big--Giant--Puppy in November. A day does not go by that I don't miss that big hunk of cuteness.

Paladin_ on September 10, 2012:

Indeed, I fear we've hijacked Caleb's hub. It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on this, so we need to let the discussion get back to the original topic.

I may visit one or two of your hubs in the future, but I just got put back on overtime at work, so it looks like I won't be doing too much Hubbing for a while.


John Harper from Malaga, Spain on September 09, 2012:

Hi Paladin,

Breaking free from what, to what is the question?

I switched sides also, aged 41 I went from working for the enemy to working for Christ, and have never needed to look back, but never stopped examining and challenging my faith (not in Christ, but Churchianity).

Self examination and reappraisal is good for us, but that has never changed my understanding of authority.

There are ONLY two choices in who we serve, when we reject one, we come under the authority of the other.

Whether your service to God or the enemy is token lip service or full blow involvement, the authority governs your life and shapes it's ultimate direction.

Anyhow, enough of using Calebs Comments box as a forum, nice meeting you, feel free to reply to any of my hubs covering what we speak of, of pop into the forums and we can 'chat'!


Paladin_ on September 09, 2012:

Actually, aqua, I used to be a believer, but I simply could not maintain the illusion (or, if you prefer, delusion).

You've speculated on the possible changes in my life, but I'm also considering the possibility that reason may touch YOUR life -- and James' and Caleb's -- one day and free you from the bonds of religious superstition.

Which is why I often make remarks like I did to James -- to encourage believers to re-examine what it is they believe, and why they believe it. Self-reflection is a good first step in eventually breaking free.

John Harper from Malaga, Spain on September 09, 2012:

Why should James feel silly at all, he has attained an understanding of how this world operates, any believer knows there are ONLY two sources of authority to be under, either Gods, or else, by default, under the enemy of God, known variously as Lucifer/Satan or the devil, or (as I view it) simply 'The Enemy'.

So discerning what power someone is governed by is simple, their words either are prayers and empowerment towards God, or the same in reverse to the enemy.

If your thoughts, words and possibly even actions are under the authority of the enemy, you may never realise it even!

Equally, God through His Holy Spirit, may touch your life one day, and you will become aware of who is pulling your strings, and if sensible, change your future, putting yourself under Gods authority by renouncing the enemies hold over your life.

But there are only TWO sources of authority to be under, and it is our personal choice to leave the authority we were born under (the enemies authority, by default) and place ourselves under Gods authority and protection.

Paladin_ on September 09, 2012:

James, since you didn't specify which particular attacks are "demonic," from your definition I'm going to assume this applies to every comment made by myself and others who oppose Caleb's argument.

So I'm "animated by demons." How very interesting. How can you read what you've typed here and not feel just a little bit silly?

James A Watkins from Chicago on September 07, 2012:

What are they? Attacks by people whose spirits are animated by demons. How can they be recognized? They are against God and all He stands for and against His People.

Paladin_ on September 05, 2012:

James, I thought I could ignore this, but my curiosity is getting the better of me:

Exactly what are the "demonic" attacks to which you refer in your most recent comments? Inquiring minds want to know...

Caleb DRC (author) on September 02, 2012:

I know how unbelievably busy you are, James, so I appreciate you taking time to read this hub and commenting.

No, I'm not worried about any attacks. I do not consider them much of a threat as far as the content and validity of their argumentation. The mathematics of probability annihilates any argumentation that attempts to prove how the universe, including all the lifeforms on earth, came about through random processes.

I consider some atheists to be very, and in some cases extremely, intelligent, but when it comes to seeing God as the Creator, then it is not intelligence that opens one's eyes; it is faith. In fact, I have been quite impressed with some of the creativity and innovations some atheists come up with to explain the existence of lifeforms without God as the Creator; however, as I said, mathematics --not to mention good ol logic--will vanquish those attempts.

James A Watkins from Chicago on September 02, 2012:

Thank you for this fantastic article! You are right on. You are gifted by the Holy Spirit with Discernment. I appreciate you sharing it with us. Don't worry about the demonic attacks. That should be expected. God Bless You!


Caleb DRC (author) on July 19, 2012:

Thank you, John.

I have enjoyed, and benefited from, your diplomatic comments in the forums as you promote and defend the Gospel.

John Harper from Malaga, Spain on July 18, 2012:

Caleb (love the name) you seem to have attracted sufficient opposition here to prove (to me) the validity of your argument and proposition.

Now off to part two to enjoy, many thanks, voted up and FB'd an all that!


Caleb DRC (author) on April 12, 2012:

Peter, thankyou for your comment. This is the first I've heard of that. In what way has it been proven?

Peter Baxter on April 12, 2012:

DNA proves Eve existed before Adam quite the opposite of any religious book.

Caleb DRC (author) on April 02, 2012:

4th Edition, thank you for your comment. God's character is described in the Bible. No, I do not think aspects of creation or mathematics parallel characteristics of God; however, tangents, yes, because tangents would touch upon certain characteristics of God. For example, I see quasars and black holes revealing God's omnipotence, and I perceive the exquisite design of proteins to disclose God's omniscience. Mathematics is another glimpse into God's omniscience. These things touch upon the vast character of God, but not really parallel it. I guess what I'm very poorly trying to say is to parallel something like God is too inclusive and limiting.

4th Edition on April 02, 2012:

Has anyone ever considered Math to be a parallel of His character? looking at the characteristics of Math theorems could possibly explain the character of God? Most people know something exists...but WHO is the question?...would you be interested in that approach?

Caleb DRC (author) on March 22, 2012:

Paladin, there is nothing wrong with your sense of humor. Since I'm using science and mathematics to make my case for the existence of God, I have to admit that I doubt that the entire structure of science will make a 180 degree turn to negate what I've written. However, if that highly unlikely event does happen, I will come to your side of the fence and bend my humble knees to your Dog.

Related Articles