Questions and Answers: What is the basis for your statement that no new genetic information is produced or created?

How can we know anything about anything

To try to explain truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation. George Macdonald

Do we have to make a choice between science and the Bible?

NO!

That is NOT where the problem is, but that is what everyone seems to want to talk about.

Take science as an example. How can we know anything about the created material world around us?

How can we know anything from what we can see using natural sciences?

We all see the same things in the material world, but we don't come to the same answers.

Why is that?

How can we know anything about the Bible and what it teaches? Every person believes different things about the Bible and how it should be read.

Why is that?

Same scientific facts. Different answers.

Same Bible. Different answers.

Why is that?

The true question is this: How do we come to our answers that we get from what we can see through science or what we can read in the Bible?

How do we think about what we see using science or what we read in the Bible?

How do we analyze what we have seen and read?

How do we interpret what we have seen and read?

We use logic, but logic always has a foundation. Jesus talked about building on the Rock. That Rock is Jesus Christ. He is the true foundation. There are also the false foundations of the ungodly.

An example might help.

Question: Why do you believe in evolution?

Answer: Because my science teacher told me that evolution is scientific fact.

Question: Why do you believe your science teacher?

Answer: because he agrees with the textbook he assigned us to read.

Now, we have asked, "Why?" twice.

If we continued to ask, "Why?" we would come down to the foundation of this person's thoughts.

When we get down to the foundations, there are no more questions that can be answered. So where to the foundations come from?

There are three possibilities.

things that we make up, pulled from the air
demonic lies
divine revelation

Question: Why do you believe in creation?

Answer: Because God revealed this to me. He spoke to me through the Bible and gave me His faith so that I could believe Him.

See how quickly we got to the foundation. This is a belief that has a foundation that is solid and that cannot be moved.

In reality, the things that we make up, that are pulled from the air, are actually from demons and all the lies of demons spring from the prince of demons, Satan. So these are one and the same.

Divine revelation comes from the Almighty, Creator, God, Jesus Christ. So there are only two choices, but how do we know there are only two choices? Because God has revealed this truth to us.

The question then is how do we tell the difference between the revelation that comes from God and the lies of Satan?

The answer is that everyone who sincerely wants to do the will of God will know.

Jesus said, "If you really want to obey God, you will know if what I teach comes from God or from me"

The rejection of the revelation that comes from God is not an intellectual problem. It is a moral problem.

Jesus said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you: For everyone who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened." *

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to those who ask him? Matthew 7:7-11 *

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can set the truth before someone, but you can't make anyone believe those things that they don't want to submit to. They have to want to obey God.

How frequently it is brought to our attention that nothing good can be done if the will is wrong! Reason alone fails to justify itself. Richard M. Weaver

Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32)

"If we are not prepared to buy the truth at the cost of our own humbling we shall not receive it"

Lies appear to have no price upon them. They seem cheap and they abound everywhere. But for the truth there is always an obvious price to pay.

"[God] has set a day when He will judge all the world's people with fairness. And He has chosen the man Jesus to do the judging for Him. God has given proof of this to all of us by raising Jesus from death" (Acts 17:31).

"There is a judge for the one who rejects Me [Jesus] and does not accept My words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day" (John 12:48)

That also stands for every person who speaks the utterances of Jesus. When we hear them, we hear Jesus Christ, and we either accept or reject. Every person who follows Jesus Christ is commanded to only speak His utterances and not their own.

"When we love others, we know that we belong to the truth, and we feel at ease in the presence of God" (1 John 3:19)

Ravi Zacharias did two open forums in a university. On the second night, one man told him that he had brought two Atheists in the night before who said that the arguments presented were so strong that they could not contend with them, but they were going to remain Atheists because that is what they prefer to be true.

In another case of just listening to an unbeliever and drawing out his reasoning, the unbeliever finally came to his foundations.

They turned out to be assumptions that were pulled from the air. When asked why he believed his basic assumption, the unbeliever looked startled and blurted out, "I guess I'm making the whole thing up." It was quite a revelation to him since he hadn't even known that he had any assumptions. However, he decided to remain an Atheist because he didn't want God to rule over him.

Question:

My question regards the creation of new 'information'. First is this 'genetic' information that is not produced? Are you saying that no new genetic information is ever produced by natural means?

Answer:

Yes. We are saying that no new genetic information is ever produced. No evidence has come forward of any new genetic information ever being created by natural means. Mutations often result in changes to informaton, but information is lost or distorted, but no examples exist of genetic information being increased or created by natural means.

Question:

Second: Practically every pro-evolution site claims that evolution does produce new genetic information. So I would appreciate the basis for your statement that no new information is produced.

Comment:

Thank you for this question. These questions help us to realize how deceptive the lies are and they give us an opportunity to look to God to answer them.

Answer:

The basis for the statement that no new information is produced is plain in the frustrated Evolutionist quote below. There are many examples of claims by Evolutionists of proof of Evolutionism. Some of these false claims are the claims that "a new example exists that is evidence that mutations can generate an increase in information." Each time a claim is made, that claim must be tested by science. Observation and logic are applied. Since Evolutionists seem to be incapable of challenging any claim in favor of Evolutionism, it falls on the Creationists to apply science and see whether or not the claim is valid. To date, no claim has been valid. (Examples of false claims) It may be possible that a random event could actually add information, and it also may be possible that a random event could even add information that would be beneficial. The odds against this are very extreme. Even if an example were to be found, which has not happened, the finding of an example would not verify Evolution. We can see that the possibility of adding information is remote. The possibility of improving design by random process is insanely remote. The overall trend will always be downward. That is what science tells us. Every scientist knows this, but the social pressure and economic sanctions against any scientist who does not embrace and defend Evolutionism at all costs are so great that scientists tend not to even want to notice that their thinking is inconsistent and muddled. It is much more comfortable to just keep going with the flow.

In the same way, it is also possible that random events could add to the order and potential energy in one part of the universe. However, that would result in a reduction of order and potential energy in another part of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has never been refuted. No exception to this law has ever been shown. (Read More) The laws that regulate information apparently follow the same pattern as The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Evolutionists will tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will put forth the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.

More information on the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be found here & here & here & here & here

The following is quote of a lie that was given by an Evolutionist.

"No matter what example is offered as evidence that mutations can generate an increase in information, Creationists naturally have rationales for regarding that example as a case of loss of information. But every time Creationists "prove" another mutation to be an example of information loss, they add one more item to the list of biological changes which don't require a gain of information! If this pattern continues, Creationists will eventually "prove" that no biological change requires an increase in information; hence, they will have destroyed their own argument."

This evolutionist quote simply points out the difference between science and evolutionism. Let me re-phrase the quote to state the lie that is found in the quote more clearly:

Since we cannot find any evidence of mutations generating an increase in information, we Evolution-Believers must present lies in which we claim that information has been added when in fact information has been removed or swapped or duplicated or moved around. We resent the fact that Creation-Believers logically and rationally point out the fact that information has not been added. Therefore we Evolution-Believers would like to float an implication that even if we were able to find a case where information would be added we think that the Creation-Believers would rationalize (that is reason in a way that is not consistent with sane, logical, and rational thought) and say that an actual increase in information did not occur. We would like to imply that Creation-Believers would not be able to admit it even if we were to ever find any example of information being added to anything by random chance. (Of course, no such example has actually been found.) And now, we would like to also deceptively imply that all or most biological changes do require gain of information and that Creation-Believers are actually not understanding this and that they are using up all the possible biological changes (and we would like to falsely imply that these all required an increase in information even though no such increase in information has ever been observed) so we, the Evolution-Believers, now claim to have won this argument.

This quote by the Evolutionist is very clever and deceptive in a very illogical sort of way. There is more that is not stated here, but it is implied and must be addressed.

The presentation of arguments like this from Evolution-Believers holds an underlying false assumption. Actually, the false assumption is a bit of loopy logic. Now, we all get caught in loopy logic from time to time, so it is understandable that Evolutionists would also do this. And this is especially true given the tremendous pressure Evolutionists are under to conform to Evolutionism.

Here is the loopy logic: "If we could just prove that Evolution were at all possible by the furthest stretch of the imagination, then we would have proved that Evolution is not only possible but also that it took place and that would prove something about God or about what God did or did not do or about the age of the Earth or about the accuracy of the Bible or about all the above. The reality is that Evolution remains a scientific impossibility. However, even if it were possible that Evolution could have happened, that would in no way prove that it did happen. That would be loopy logic like this: "If x is possible, then x is a possible cause of y so if x can be shown to be possible, then this is proof that x caused y." For example, just suppose that you are arrested for stealing a car. The car was put into a garage five years ago and after five years, the owner looked in the garage and the car was gone. The logic given to the judge is this: "You are capable of stealing the car and you have not always been where witnesses could observe you at every moment over the last five years, so it is possible that you could have stolen the car and that proves that you did steal the car." You would protest that this doesn't prove any such thing. Yet, the whole Evolutionistic political force is built on this type of logic, always proposing some new supposed proof. The proof is never proof that Evolution happened but some proposed hope of proof that Evolution could be possible. Then, another scientist who is not tied to the Evolution money stream will study the supposed proof and show it to be bogus. To pre-suppose that "proving Evolution is possible also proves that Evolution happened" is a deceptive lie.

Evolutionism is a religion that pretends to be science. It has always been deceptive. When one lie is uncovered, it will hang onto the lie as long as it can and then, finally, move on to other lies unabashed.

There are many ways to pretend. One way is to say that Science = the Theory of Evolution. Another is to claim that the Theory of Evolution = Science. Other variations include claims that Biology depends on Evolution, or claims that Biology is Evolution, or claims that Evolution is Biology. These are not proof of anything but rather the placing of a label on something that is not based on observation and logic. That is not to say that observation and logic are the supreme way to knowledge. Such a statement would be scientism--another religion and a self-refuted religion at that.

Evolutionism is one of many cults invented by the enemy of the minds of humans. The enemy seeks to confuse and distract. He does not care by how much you miss the mark--just so you miss it. There is a meaning and purpose to life and it has nothing at all to do with Evolutionism. (Read More)