Open Letter to an Atheist

Open Letter to an Atheist

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder against God and those who think that He -- rather than millions years (of genetic accidents) made us: by putting the information from our parents' DNA into a space that's smaller than the period at the end of this sentence: for that is how big we were when first conceived.

Does the thought of Someone greater than you, who actually made you, cause you to question your own (self) image?

Since we and the world do in fact exist, and since something cannot come from nothing, then Whoever made us is God. In this regard, as far as we know from empirical science, a non-person or non-biological piece of matter or chemical cannot give birth to something that has DNA and that is programmed to be alive, nor can matter or chance create new information. And since all living things contain DNA (which stores information), and since information has only been observed to come from intelligence: i.e. live thinking beings like ourselves, then the impersonal, normally destructive, forces of nature, cannot be our Creator. This is confirmed by the fact that we are all individuals with different names, dates, and places of birth, that make each of us unique. In other words, we are each a 'who' as opposed to a what; therefore it makes sense that we came from a 'Who' as opposed to a non-living thing. This is confirmed by actual observation: i.e. cows give birth to cows, dogs to dogs, cats to cats, etc. And in regard to humans, we are told that God made us in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1-3).

Don't be deceived, this is NOT about "religion" but about truth: the truth of how we all came to be.

As far as we know, the (non-thinking, and normally destructive), "forces of nature" can't even make the simplest protein, much less create the DNA structure and add an encyclopedia of information to it.

Computers were designed and created by intelligent people.   They are also quite complex -- so much so that even people with College degrees would agree that nature did not, nor could it, make one: even in many billions of years.   Computers are like DNA in that they store information and use it to make things. In the case of personal computers, they are used to create, copy, print and manipulate documents, letters, images, and programs. In the case of DNA, the information contained therein is used, first to construct a specific life-form (such as an amoeba, a worm, a whale, or a human), and then that information is used to make proteins that digest food, cause growth, and keep that life-form alive. Biologists and microbiologists are also realizing that living things are more complex than computers and other man-made things that have all been designed by intelligent people: and none of which came about by accident. However, man-made storage devices store information in two dimensions, while DNA uses three. Computers also cannot replicate, nor do they exist in different sexes.

Science is supposed to be a search for the truth, no matter where it leads: even if it points toward an Intelligent Being whom most refer to as God. And if God made the earth, and made it habitable for life, and designed all life forms and programmed their DNA, then that makes Him both the Creator and our (personal) Creator.

DNA stores Information ... And information is not just "atoms" or random data, as the following illustrations make clear: one of which depicts plain old atoms, and the other, those that are arranged to form letters of the English alphabet, like the words on this page.

However since some people who claim to be "scientists" (or truth seekers) have been, and still are, trying to exclude any and all creative intelligence from the discussion of how we all came to be, this means that science has been "high jacked" and made into a religion of what some people say, and/or WANT to be true: i.e. that all living things just (sort of somehow) came about slowly ... over millions of years, and that no Creator is behind the creation ... and that their beliefs are based on "science."

Science priests have declared themselves wiser than the public, and thus they pretend to know the truth of how we, and all other life-forms, came to be. But in reality they hate the truth because it points toward an Intelligence that is far beyond our own, and that tells those willing to hear that Someone greater than us made us, and the earth, and all other life-forms. This is confirmed simply by the fact that DNA stores information and uses it to make all sorts of different proteins: and to copy itself and even split up and make a new cell. Yet to read its own information requires (already) built-in microcopy machines known as DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, a motor-protein known as helicase, a supply of chemical energy (known as ATP), and many other ('transcription factor') proteins: that must have been in place (all at the same time) for the cell to work -- and which are so complex that none would come about by chance alone: even in many trillions of years.

The fact is that scientists can't even demonstrate how to make all 20 amino acids: much less how they could come together to form a single protein: apart from a pre-existing cell with pre-programmed DNA.

Is not your ultimate goal to remove God and His influence from your life?   Is not this the reason why you become so animated, if not upset, when the "G" word comes up? Is it not true that you want to cover up and try to hide God's very existence and rob Him of the credit for which He is due for making us? Is it not a fact that if you could you would terminate (or kill) God and remove Him from His own universe just to keep Him from having any control over your life? At least this is what we are told in Psalm 2. I.e. "Let us get rid of God and His Son and cast off their cords from us."

Is not this whole debate about the fact that you don't want to even think about the implications of what the truth implies: i.e. that IF God made us, and all other life-forms, and the earth, then, by that fact alone, He has the right to influence, what He made: to the point of declaring what is right and wrong.

Why is the debate said to be about ''science'' vs. ''religion'' when neither the atheists who say this, nor their "science" can demonstrate how the most simple one-celled bacteria -- nor even a single life-based protein – can come about by natural forces: apart from pre-existing life? In this regard an article on this subject states bluntly that:

"Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what (has been) taught." ¹

Those who question the above may be interested to know that scientists have yet to even make all 20 different amino acids (that cells use to build proteins) without using already existing bacteria or other biological organs. To verify this simply search online for, "Can scientists make all 20 amino acids" (from scratch) or "how scientists make proteins." Inevitably one will find that they use bacteria or other pre-existing biological organisms.

If God is the Creator, then it makes sense that He used His intelligence to Design the way that our heart pumps blood and works in conjunction with our lungs (and our environment) to carry oxygen throughout our body, and that our eyes were Designed to see and our ears to hear and our minds to think. And since DNA also has not been observed to make itself from chemicals, much less program itself, then why should we believe that it did so in the past?

Is it not true that we are more complicated and aware than frogs, worms, or amoebas, and that life itself is more complicated than rocks, minerals, or chemicals? In fact, life is more complex than anything mankind has yet made: including cars, airplanes, computers, and even a walking-talking robot that was Designed and Programmed by highly trained engineers and programmers who used their intelligence to do so.

With carbon and the right machinery, scientists can make a diamond, yet they can’t make an amoeba, nor an ant, nor a blade of grass, nor design and program a new type of self-replicating organism: at least not yet. Isn't this because living things are more complex, if not much more so, than rocks and minerals?

Not Designed .... but evolved (???)

That was the claim of those who want to explain the "appearance of Design" without a Designer: regarding (biological / DNA programmed) plant-hopper) gears. The article's author concluded it with the following:

"Wait a minute. How do we know these gears evolved, as opposed to having been designed? Because we know that everything in biology evolved. And how do we know that everything evolved? Because we know that nothing was designed. Right. But how do we know that nothing was designed? Because we know everything evolved.

Ah, got it now. Everyone clear?"²

If only one (highly biased) viewpoint about our origin is welcome in our public schools and the halls of science, then how can that be called "freedom" of thought: or freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads?

Isn’t education and "science" supposed to be a search for the truth: no matter where it leads? If so then it's wrong, if not evil, to exclude intelligence and Creation from the debate: whether in an open forum on a college campus, public square, or the classrooms and halls of our educational system: and especially that which is funded by the people with tax dollars.

Did Mutations do the Trick?

According to some proponents of evolution, DNA error-correction mechanisms that exist today were not always around, but suddenly came into existence at some point: i.e. after each life form arrived at where it is now -- after multitudes of favorable mutations caused (or created) time and again, all sorts of long chains of favorable alterations in organism after organism -- over millions and millions of years: ... and thus (are said to) account for all life forms on Earth today. In a book on origins, science and creation, the authors make the following comments in this regard:

"The theoretical production of a higher or more complex form (of life) by the accumulation of beneficial mutations is such a slow process that it is admitted ... to be unobservable. This ... accounts in large measure for the desire by evolutionists to increase the span of geological time, in spite of much evidence that the earth is actually quite young. In any case, ... it is ... unscientific for a theory of science to ... rely on non-demonstrable hypothetical processes for its basic mechanism."

"Computer models have been set up to test the possibility of advancement of an information code ... by selection from random variations ... (however,) The results indicate that loss rather than gain inevitably results." ³

Paul Nelson goes into much more detail on the subject of mutations creating complexity in a video on youtube. Dr. Stephen Meyer also discusses this in a book called Signature in the Cell.   See also Life's Origin.

Common Ancestry or Common Creator?

You assert that since many different types of life have similar things in common that this is clear evidence that they "inherited them from previous ancestors," but in this regard you fail to mention the just as likely -- if not much more likely -- scenario of a common Designer / Creator using similar tools to accomplish similar tasks. For example, wheels come in all different sizes and types, as do ball bearings, screw-drivers, and beams, yet they are used in all sorts of different things that were each made by people. So the common ancestry assertion doesn't "hold water," much less prove that we evolved.

Could it be that your hatred toward God or the thought of Judgment has played a part in the hostility and anger that you often display toward those who believe in God? Or is it simply that you may be wrong about what you say (you know) to be a "fact"?

Or is it because you want to be feared and obeyed as if you were God: even though you didn't make yourself, nor can you make an ant, or an amoeba, nor a synthetic blade of grass?

Is it not a "fact" that your jobs are on the line, and that your superiors require you to “toe the line,” regarding their evolutionist, "no-God-allowed" beliefs?

Are you aware that many founders of modern science were Creationists who believed in God -- and that He made the earth, and life: including them?

For example, Robert Boyle is called the founder of Chemistry, Isaac Newton invented calculus, Mendel is the father of genetics, and Pasteur discovered germs and disproved the belief that life came from non-life? Did you know that all of these men were Christians who believed the bible and that God and Jesus made the universe, and us?

Or is your bias against God linked to the fact that you don’t want anyone telling you how to live, nor about right and wrong, and a God who says He and His Son are coming back to assert authority over the world they made?

1. Scientific Evidence that God Created Life, Thomas F. Heinze, www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
2. Mechanical Gears Discovered on Planthopper Insects Provide an Opportunity to Recognize, or Deny, Design, by Casey Luskin,
     at: www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/mechanical_gear076801.html
3. Science and Creation, Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, 1971, p. 39

Copyright 2013, 2016, www.earthage.org Permission granted to copy,
mass-produce, reproduce, post on your website or blog, and/or distribute as you like

See also:
Proof of a Creator
Blue Letter to Atheist
Is Evolution Scientific?
If atheism were Science?
Which is More Scientific?
Questions for Evolutionists
Why People Believe in Evolution
Plant Geneticist Defends his Beliefs

Articles on the Age of the Earth:
The Missing Roots
The Missing Matter
Essays on Evolution
Science Vs Evolution
The Age of the Earth
Young Earth Evidences
The Age of the Universe
The Continental Drift Story
Evidence for a Young World
More Geologic Evidences Page
Evidence For A Recent Creation
The Scriptures and A Young Earth
Is the Earth really 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Do Evaporites and Varves favor an Old Earth?
What You Probably Didn't Know About Ice Cores
If Corals are so Old, then why do they Date so Young?
Young age of the Earth & Universe Questions & Answers

Books on the age of the Earth
The Young Earth
The Age of the Earth
Faith, Form, and Time
Thousands Not Billions
The Great Turning Point
Its A Young World After All
Illustrated Origins Answer Book
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

Links to Creationist Web Sites
Creationist Author Links
Creation Web Sites Links
VHS & DVD Video Links
The Age of the Earth Links
Modern Science's Foundation
True Origin Archive on Creation

Home
Fantasy Land
Old Earth Evidence
The Age of the Earth Debate

Radiometric Dating Continental Drift The Big Bang

Worldwide Flood Young Earth Evidence Comments