The Creator of the Universe

Sorry for the forfeiture; I was really busy and got caught up and forgot to respond on time. I will gladly take a knock for conduct from any prospective voter. With that said, I will begin by defending my case and then move on to answering as many of your questions and statements as space and time permit. Evidence for a Creator God The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone. The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences. DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder. An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information. To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered—statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. All our observations confirm that each of the five levels is always pertinent for the sender as well as the receiver (http://creation.com...). Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. My Response to Your Statements You said, "First off the biblical model for creation is wrong due to lack of scientific evidence." This is a unsupported and false claim. I am presenting a particularly powerful line of evidence right now. You should more properly say that there is no scientific evidence which you are aware of. Your claims about the Bible are unsupported and entirely fallacious. The Bible was made by those in power? Fisherman, shepherds, and tent makers really sound like "those in power." You say, "The truth can only be obtained by investigative practices and scientific research not by faith alone." Can you prove that statement to me using the scientific method? Of course investigation is necessary, but this includes praying to the Creator to seek whether He and His word be true. You say, "We along with every animal on this planet are the result of evolution. We are not the result of the "God of the Bible". That is creationism which is a belief system that is not backed by the National Academy of Scientists." Yet another unsupported claim. If you would like to debate evolution in particular I would be glad to have another debate, but since I stated the resolution, we should stay on topic. So now all truth claims must be backed by the National Academy of Scientists? That is an arbitrary definition of truth. You say, "If creationists are correct then why do most of our human scientists identify themselves as atheists?" I doubt this is the case, but if it be, then the answer is simple, most of them have chosen to reject the evidence of a Creator in favor of the story of abiogenesis and evolution which has poor evidence. They do not want to accept that one day they will answer up to Christ at the judgment seat and give account of their life and will have to answer up for their sins. That is why. You say, "Based on the evidence gathered by our top scientists the biblical model for creation cannot be proven." Support? All observable data is compatible with the biblical model, and indeed supports the biblical model. The only disagreement is between naturalistic models and the biblical model, but these are based on faulty interpretations of the data based on assumptions about the past, not the data itself. You say, "As further evidence proves they've never seen the Creator of the Universe. . ." So now all truth claims are proven by sight? Can you prove that to me scientifically? Of course not, it is a biased and arbitrary definition of truth. You say, "If creationists are correct then how come none of them are top scientists." Well that would depend on your definition of "top scientists." Some top scientists in my view who accept the biblical account of creation include Dr. John Sanford, a world renowned geneticist who developed the biolistic gene gun which enables food production to keep up with rising demand, Dr. Matti Leisola, a world renowned biochemist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of enzymes, Dr. Raymond Damadian, a world renowned medical technician and inventor of the magnetic resonance imaging scanner or MRI, and Dr. Benjamin Carson, a world renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, well known for his daring and successful operations which include separating crainially conjoined twins, an operation that most neurosurgeons would not even dare to attempt, just to name a few You say science is, ". . .about evolution. . ." That, again, is a biased and arbitrary definition, in this case, of science. How can science be about evolution when we have yet to observe the introduction of anything new, genetically speaking, via Neo-Darwinian methods? You say, "It's also about reason because you can never have 'the faith'. . ." I agree that science involves reason and using out God-given cognitive capacity for logic and rationality, but to say science never involves "faith" is very naive. Especially when dealing with an historical science such as Earth history, scientists must always rely on axiomatic conditions or events which allow for their model to work or maintain consistency with the observed universe. You say, "The great scientist never submits to the irrationality of blind faith." Who ever said blind faith was something to be desired or accepted? God never asks us to put faith in Him or His word based on entirely unknown factors. God says to consider His creation which testifies of His existence and His power, and more importantly, to consider His sacrifice for our sins which have separated us from Him. Notice the language of scripture, "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things" (2 Timothy 2:4). "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else" (Deuteronomy 4:39). ". . .stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God" (Job 37:14). ". . .consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it" (Isaiah 41:20). ". . .that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18). God desires for us to consider the evidence of Him in His creation and to logically reason within our hearts the salvation which He has provided through the death of Himself upon the cross for our sins. You say, "The great scientist will only have faith in a system they know will work thats why they don't bother with anything outside the Universe." No scientist would claim that evolution or any historical science for that matter is a system which "they know will work" as it involves axioms and past events which are not repeatable, nor testable and especially not observable. By "outside the universe" I assume you mean anything unknown? How about dark matter and dark energy which is said to make up most of the universe and which are necessary constructs for the L-CDM model (big bang) to even be considered feasible? Or how about the construct of the fourth dimension known as hyperspace which is also necessary for the L-CDM model to work? It is neither testable nor demonstrable. Any scientist who accepts the "big bang" scenario must put faith into the existence of such model-dependent constructs. Your arbitrary definitions of science, truth and "the great scientist" are biased, entirely philosophical, and unsupported by the scientific method itself.