Evidence for Creation

[Craig.Paardekooper]

What is Irreducible Complexity?

Here is an audio podcast about Irreducible Complexity -

Irreducible Complexity 1


How Many Examples are there of Irreducible Complexity?

EVERY biological system is characterised by irreducible complexity. There are 7 main systems that are found in all living things - within each of these main systems there are thousands of sub-systems - ALL of these are characterised by irreducible complexity.

respiration
digestion
excretion
locomotion
perception
metabolism
reproduction

Each of these systems dsiplays irreducible complexity.

Hearing


The Creation Model predicts Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity is a prediction of creation, since minds can have purposes so could create individual parts for an overall purpose, even though the parts on their own would lack any function until brought together. However, irreducible complexity is not a prediction of mind-less evolution.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What is Irreducible Complexity?

Here is an audio podcast about Irreducible Complexity -

Irreducible Complexity 1

How Many Examples are there of Irreducible Complexity?

EVERY biological system is characterised by irreducible complexity. There are 7 main systems that are found in all living things - within each of these main systems there are thousands of sub-systems - ALL of these are characterised by irreducible complexity.

respiration
digestion
excretion
locomotion
perception
metabolism
reproduction

Each of these systems dsiplays irreducible complexity.

Hearing


The Creation Model predicts Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity is a prediction of creation, since minds can have purposes so could create individual parts for an overall purpose, even though the parts on their own would lack any function until brought together. However, irreducible complexity is not a prediction of mind-less evolution.

Hey there Craig,

I'm glad you started this thread. There is so much misinformation out there that needs to be corrected. Case in point, the video on the mechanism of hearing strongly and repeatedly asserted that the auditory ossicles (the little bones in the ear called the hammer, anvil, and stirrup) were examples of "irreducible complexity" because the ear would not work if one of them were missing. I find this outrageously ironic in light of the truth concerning those bones. Here is how the wiki article Evolution of mamalian auditory ossicles explains it:

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented[1] and important evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.

In reptiles, the eardrum is connected to the inner ear via a single bone, the stapes or stirrup, while the upper and lower jaws contain several bones not found in mammals. Over the course of the evolution of mammals, one lower and one upper jaw bone (the articular and quadrate) lost their purpose in the jaw joint and were put to new use in the middle ear, connecting to the stapes and forming a chain of three bones (collectively called the ossicles) which amplify sounds and allow more acute hearing. In mammals, these three bones are known as the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and stirrup respectively).

The evidence that the malleus and incus are homologous to the reptilian articular and quadrate was originally embryological, and since this discovery an abundance of transitional fossils has both supported the conclusion and given a detailed history of the transition.[2]

Consider the irony here. The example used in that video is actually powerful evidence for evolution! And worse, it makes a mockery of the claim of irreducible complexity because it shows that the ear bones that supposedly could not have evolved because they were "useless" until used in the ear actually had other purposes before they were "repurposed" for hearing. This utterly destroys the entire argument for "irreducible complexity" because that argument is based upon the premise that the "parts" used in "irreducibly complex structures" did not have some other purpose. That is a premise that cannot be proven, so the entire "irreducible complexity" argument fails in general.

But there is a much larger issue that must not be ignored. You know a lot about DNA. That's great. I presume you also know about common descent - the fact that all species have descended from a common ancestor. This fact is proven by DNA. Do you believe it? If not, why not? If so, why do you bother arguing against evolution which is proven by the DNA?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Rose]

What is Irreducible Complexity?

Here is an audio podcast about Irreducible Complexity -

Irreducible Complexity 1


How Many Examples are there of Irreducible Complexity?

EVERY biological system is characterised by irreducible complexity. There are 7 main systems that are found in all living things - within each of these main systems there are thousands of sub-systems - ALL of these are characterised by irreducible complexity.

respiration
digestion
excretion
locomotion
perception
metabolism
reproduction

Each of these systems dsiplays irreducible complexity.

Hearing


The Creation Model predicts Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity is a prediction of creation, since minds can have purposes so could create individual parts for an overall purpose, even though the parts on their own would lack any function until brought together. However, irreducible complexity is not a prediction of mind-less evolution.

Hi Craig,

I have a question for you: Given the fact that Genesis 1 has a very significant numerical structure that points towards design, how does that influence your interpretation of the Creation Story?

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Craig,

I have a question for you: Given the fact that Genesis 1 has a very significant numerical structure that points towards design, how does that influence your interpretation of the Creation Story?

Rose

I'm very curious about that too.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Richard

Consider the irony here. The example used in that video is actually powerful evidence for evolution! And worse, it makes a mockery of the claim of irreducible complexity because it shows that the ear bones that supposedly could not have evolved because they were "useless" until used in the ear actually had other purposes before they were "repurposed" for hearing. This utterly destroys the entire argument for "irreducible complexity" because that argument is based upon the premise that the "parts" used in "irreducibly complex structures" did not have some other purpose. That is a premise that cannot be proven, so the entire "irreducible complexity" argument fails in general.

Regarding the irreducible complexity of the ear, it is going to be interesting to put forward very powerful arguments over the coming days.

He who has ears to hear let him hear!

Your use of words such as "irony", "powerful evidence", "makes a mockery", "utterly destroys" is not appropriate here since your position is far weaker than you would like to think, Richard.

As regards Genesis1 numerical patterns, the discovery of this second level of meaning, and it's coincidence with patterns and mathematical balances within the genetic code, only goes to show further that DNA does not prove evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Rather it demonstrates creation by intelligence. Please see here - Genetic Patterns

As regards the interpretation of the Creation Story itself, life has existed on earth for millions of years in different forms. Genesis 1 merely describes the most recent creative activity of the Elohim. Why God/Elohim chose this time to be creative is uncertain, but I would surmise that some prior devastation of the biosphere rendered such action necessary. I believe that this devastation has something to do with the fall of Satan, that preceded the time of Adam, and also preceded the fall of the Watchers during the time of Enoch.

Infact, I have put together a little book on my interpretation of Genesis which can be found here - My little book


Best Wishes

Craig

[Rose]

As regards the interpretation of the Creation Story itself, life has existed on earth for millions of years in different forms. Genesis 1 merely describes the most recent creative activity of the Elohim. Why God/Elohim chose this time to be creative is uncertain, but I would surmise that some prior devastation of the biosphere rendered such action necessary. I believe that this devastation has something to do with the fall of Satan, that preceded the time of Adam, and also preceded the fall of the Watchers during the time of Enoch.

Infact, I have put together a little book on my interpretation of Genesis which can be found here - My little book


Best Wishes

Craig

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the link....I took a quick look through your booklet, so I'll just give you a couple of the big problems I see with your theory of trying to redeem the Creation Story of Genesis 1 by having it be a re-creation story.

First off, Genesis 1 speaks of God creating (for the first time) the heavens by the dividing of the waters, implying that the heavens had not existed up to that point.

Secondly, in Gen.1:15-18 it says God specifically creates the sun, moon, planets, and stars (for the first time) to place in the heavens to give light upon the earth, and for times and seasons.

On just those two points alone it seems that you have taken excessive liberties with the text to fit it into your theory. If one is willing to alter the text in that manner then I would think anyone should be free to change other parts of the Bible as well to fit their own theories. I just don't see how there is any way for the Creation Story of Genesis 1 to be scientifically accurate, but I applaud your effort I know you put a lot of work into the research for your booklet.

Also, even if the earth was covered in darkness because of volcanic ash, and extremely cold because of lack of sunlight there are still many forms of life that live in the depths of the ocean where it is extremely cold, and dark. So, the earth would not be void of life even if the hash conditions you mentioned existed.

All the best,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Dear Rose,

with regard to "excessive liberties" that you suggest I have taken, I should point out that Genesis 1 v 16 can also be translated as "made to appear"

Yet, another valid interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the sun and constellations were only made visible upon the earth on the fourth day.

This is based primarily on the Hebrew word for "made" which is asah. The word asah occurs 1,200 times in the Old Testament and has a wide variety of meanings, some of which include: did, made, show, appear, made to appear, etc. In light of this fact, the possible meaning of Genesis 1:16 is that God made the sun and moon to appear on the fourth day

[Rose]

As regards Genesis1 numerical patterns, the discovery of this second level of meaning, and it's coincidence with patterns and mathematical balances within the genetic code, only goes to show further that DNA does not prove evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Rather it demonstrates creation by intelligence. Please see here - Genetic Patterns

Best Wishes

Craig

I too am astounded by the numerical patterns found in the "Genetic Code". Also, the design found in the "Bible Wheel" and "Holographs", that is why I think it is of utmost importance to question every detail that seems to be contrary to what we know to be scientifically true. The only way to discover the truth is by acknowledging facts, not by trying to force what appears to be right in our own eyes.

There is definitely something going on with the design of the Bible, I just don't think its going to turn out quite the way we are expecting.

All the Best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard

Regarding the irreducible complexity of the ear, it is going to be interesting to put forward very powerful arguments over the coming days.

He who has ears to hear let him hear!

Your use of words such as "irony", "powerful evidence", "makes a mockery", "utterly destroys" is not appropriate here since your position is far weaker than you would like to think, Richard.

Hey there Craig,

Very appropriate quote from Matthew 11:15.

I didn't mean to sound like I was speaking triumphalistically. I said "irony" because it seemed to be the best descriptive term since the evidence you presented to support your point actually works against it. Likewise, the phrase "powerful evidence" seemed quite appropriate because the transitional forms really do provide such. Are you challenging this fact? And I said "utterly destroys" because I really do believe that the premise of irreducible complexity is faulty for the reason stated - specifically, it is impossible to prove that the elements of any "irreducibly complex" structure did not evolve for some other use before they were "repurposed." Does this not contradict the fundamental premise of irreducible complexity?

As regards Genesis1 numerical patterns, the discovery of this second level of meaning, and it's coincidence with patterns and mathematical balances within the genetic code, only goes to show further that DNA does not prove evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Rather it demonstrates creation by intelligence. Please see here - Genetic Patterns

As you know, I am extremely impressed by the alphanumeric patterns found in Genesis 1, and the way the link to John 1, and the way they manifest figurate geometry of hexagons, stars, and triangles. I think this is primary evidence that "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible. But I do not see it as suggesting in any way at all that the Bible should be interpreted "literally" (whatever that means). I see the same thing with the Bible Wheel. For example, the Gospels are irreconcilably contradictory under any attempt at a "literal" interpretation - it is impossible to create a single unified narrative that includes all elements from all four Gospels. But the very thing that makes the harmony impossible proves that "something supernatural" is going on because the differences between the Gospels follow the pattern of the Keywords of the associated Spokes.

As regards the interpretation of the Creation Story itself, life has existed on earth for millions of years in different forms. Genesis 1 merely describes the most recent creative activity of the Elohim. Why God/Elohim chose this time to be creative is uncertain, but I would surmise that some prior devastation of the biosphere rendered such action necessary. I believe that this devastation has something to do with the fall of Satan, that preceded the time of Adam, and also preceded the fall of the Watchers during the time of Enoch.

Infact, I have put together a little book on my interpretation of Genesis which can be found here - My little book


Best Wishes

Craig

That sounds a lot like the "gap theory." Personally, I think it is foolish to attempt to read the Bible as if it were a scientifically accurate. It was written in the Bronze age by and for people who knew nothing of modern science. But I'll check out your book before commenting more.

I'm really glad we are having this conversation. We both know that "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible, but if I am to believe that the patterns in Genesis and the Bible Wheel are signs of a supernatural intelligence, then I must conclude that the same supernatural intelligence wrote the rest of the Bible as proof that we are not to take it literally.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Rose,

with regard to "excessive liberties" that you suggest I have taken, I should point out that Genesis 1 v 16 can also be translated as "made to appear"

Yet, another valid interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the sun and constellations were only made visible upon the earth on the fourth day.

This is based primarily on the Hebrew word for "made" which is asah. The word asah occurs 1,200 times in the Old Testament and has a wide variety of meanings, some of which include: did, made, show, appear, made to appear, etc. In light of this fact, the possible meaning of Genesis 1:16 is that God made the sun and moon to appear on the fourth day

Hey there Craig,

I searched the internet for the source of your claims about the word "asah" (Strong's #06213). I found it here. Unfortunately, it is a mere assertion from a debate without any support from any lexicons or translations or any facts at all for that matter. Furthermore, I have not found any support for those suggested meanings in any lexicons or translations. If you can find any support for you interpretation please share it. Here is how the word is defined in Strong's:

6213 asah {aw-saw'}
Meaning: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to do, work, make, produce 1a1a) to do 1a1b) to work 1a1c) to deal (with) 1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect 1a2) to make 1a2a) to make 1a2b) to produce 1a2c) to prepare 1a2d) to make (an offering) 1a2e) to attend to, put in order 1a2f) to observe, celebrate 1a2g) to acquire (property) 1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute 1a2i) to bring about 1a2j) to use 1a2k) to spend, pass 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be done 1b2) to be made 1b3) to be produced 1b4) to be offered 1b5) to be observed 1b6) to be used 1c) (Pual) to be made 2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

As you can see, there is no mention of anything like "show, appear, made to appear" in this long definition. And there is a reason for that - the word "asah" is the quintessential "work" or "doing" word. It has nothing to do with the idea of "showing" in the sense of "making to appear." The closest we can get to that idea is in the KJV where "doing kindness" unto someone is translated as "showing kindness." But this does not support your interpretation.

There also is a problem with consistency in your interpretation. The word "asah" appears nine times in Genesis 1:1-2:3. The final three occurrences make the correct meaning clear:

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (asah); and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made (asah). 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made (asah).

This text is used as the explanation of the Fourth Commandment as recorded in Exodus:

Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do (asah) all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do (asah) any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made (asah) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The word "asah" is a "work" or "doing" type of word. It is not a "showing" kind of word. I can not find any validity to the interpretation you are suggesting.

All the best,

Richard