Question:
do you believe the bible because it is true - or?
aurora03uk
2006-09-18 06:38:58 UTC
is it true because you believe it ? I would contest that - since you are not all knowing - it is the latter. Religion requires a high level of egotism. You elevate all the things you believe and imagine them to be some ultimate truth.

To claim that the bible is the word of god - requires that you believe it to be the word of god. The believer always put themselves before any belief they happen to have
32 answers:
David E
2006-09-18 06:42:44 UTC
The bible is a big bag of tat. Was the world made in 6 days? did a man grow from the ribs of his father? Water into wine, yeah.. but not in seconds! all religions have their faults, and christianity is no different to any other. Just be tolerant of each other. We're all different, but expect everyone to be the same as ourselves.
jeff m
2006-09-18 07:28:34 UTC
in fact the books decided on were picked by people, by assemblies, not by one person. Also they decided on books that they did not particularly like, but because the book had retained a status o fauthority over hundreds of years, it was allowed in, like Ecclesiastes.



I would not doubt that many Christians today have serious issues with Ecclesiastes and ignore it. Those are the Christians who only like to hear what itches their ear.



Obviously there is some level of trust to accept the Bible, but it is not that great of a leap. The sayings of Jesus were preserved in a seemingly honest manner. The disciples were not shy about letting everyone know that Jesus said he was Lord, not Caesar.



They also threw in the bits about Jesus' saying he will judge the whole earth one day. It seems like anyone, regardless of what their faith will quote from Jesus. The problem is if you believe he said the Sermon on the Mount, you alos should believe he said other more controversial things. Why would the Sermon on the Mount be more historically reliable than anything else.



If anything the more controversial stuff would be more historical because the Sermon on the Mount was not new teaching. Rabbis had been teaching similar things for years, even a version of the Lord's prayer!



Now it is recorded that Jesus took the Scripture (the OT) as God's word, and because I have a reasonable faith in Jesus I believe the OT is God's word as well as those books written by those who Jesus appeared to.



For a REASONABLE defense of who Jesus is, see C.S. Lewis, and Luke Timothy Johnson.



Basically Jesus must either be looney tunes or who he said he was, based on what he said.
2006-09-18 06:56:24 UTC
To believe in God is to have the ultimate faith in something outside of yourself. I cannot prove to you in any uncertain terms whether the Bible or anything within it is true. What is in the Bible are accounts of different people and how they dealt with the world around them. How they persevered through triumph and tragedy through indignity and shame through pleasure and pain and how they dealt with it. It is meant as a guide to a better way of living. In order to believe in any faith you must put your trust into it. You must trust it through the bad times and good. and that requires Faith. You are right though first you must believe. YOU must believe. Putting your trust in God is a personal thing and it is something that only you can do. Whether the Bible is one hundred percent accurate, I don't think so mainly because it was written by man in many different languages and with each retelling certain things were probably lost or over glorified but to overlook the whole Book for some minor mistakes is foolish. Everyone can learn something from reading the bible. I am sorry if this comes off preachy but when i speak of God and his Book i know no other way. God bless you and keep you always.
Ria K
2006-09-18 06:53:53 UTC
I don't think it is egotism, it is complete and utter faith in something that makes you feel better about the world you live in and the person you are. I personally am an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with Christians and their beliefs. If they feel that this is the truth, then that is completely their choice. I do agree that they put themselves before their beliefs though as there always seems to be a competition about who is right and who is the most devout, and I don't think it is meant to be about that. Good question though, should get a lot of interesting answers
cbmw95
2006-09-18 07:02:57 UTC
The key word here is Believe. Another key word is Faith.

People just believe things. We can not apply the logic of math to faith. If you could then their would be no room for faith.

Also to keep the masses faithful we teach them that if they do not believe they will go to HELL. We talk about this a lot so they will keep coming back to church and give us money. We found out that if you get people to be afraid all the time you can control them. Also a lot pf people want easy answers to complected questions, so we give them easy answers so they don't have to think to much. We Christains don't like to question God to much and accept every thing in the bible as fact even thought a lot was put in by man and not God. I have a connection with God. He speaks to me every day. He has sent me here to correct some of the teachings you are miss informed about. If you do not believe this prove me wrong. God does not like it when you turn againest one another. This is the truth. learn to help one another.

That is the Message of God.
2006-09-18 07:01:51 UTC
The Men of the Great Assembly decided to create a complete Bible - Scriptures. They carefully sifted through numerous writings to decide which had the proper degree of holiness for inclusion. They incorporated the Five Books of Moses, of course, and ended up selecting 19 other volumes (written over the 1,000 years following Mount Sinai) to be attached to the Five Books. Many other books weren't included; there are references in Scripture to various "Books of Kings and their Wars," for example, which were deliberately left out (others, like Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, almost didn't make it). Upon finishing their selection process, the rabbis sealed the Bible (about 350 BCE), declaring no further writings (such as Maccabees, which came later) could ever be added to the Written component of G-d's Word (as opposed to the Spoken Word, which would be written down in stages in future centuries).



Among those 19 additional books chosen for Scripture by the rabbis were some written by the rabbis themselves — basically, all the later books, including Esther, Ezra/Nehemiah, Daniel, and the Chronicles (I & II). Portions of Ezra/Nehemiah and of Daniel were even written, not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic (an earlier dialect of the same language as the Talmud).



So, ironically, Christians are brainwashed to reject the rabbis (the judges of Israel) and their works — while simultaneously accepting the Bible that was chosen and compiled by those same rabbis, and even including several books written by those rabbis!



The bottom line is that the only basis on which anyone can (properly) conclude the written Bible is, in fact, G-d's inspired Word is that the rabbis say so. By accepting the Bible of the rabbis, Christians are unwittingly embracing the core teachings of the rabbis as to what constitutes G-d's Word. Yet they simultaneously embrace the Roman selection of various Greek writings as a "New Testament" of bogus "scripture." The average Christian has no idea of the contradiction.



As the cloud of deception by Church leaders dissipates, we will see Christians flocking away from the Church by the hundreds of millions to embrace G-d's complete Word, Written and Oral, as one indivisible Truth — while rejecting the Roman-compiled "New Testament" as an uninspired fraud.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1659326/posts
Jimbo
2006-09-18 06:51:19 UTC
An interesting concept you have there. It is known that you have to have faith to believe in the Bible. And what you believe in, you have to believe as being true or you would not believe it. I think this believing creates an ego which convinces the people to think that the Bible is true and that they have to be right. If they weren't right, their whole belief system would crumble and break and they would lose a sense of their identity, what makes them them. The ego does everything in its power to make sure this doesn't happen. This is why people will defend their religion and beliefs so rigourously, denying anything to the contrary, even though deep down, no one is really sure what will happen in the afterlife until it happens.
waycyber
2006-09-18 06:43:00 UTC
I believe The Bible because it has proved to be true by my experience. I was in a crisis and becoming a Christian got me out of it. The alternative would have been a lifetime on anti-psychotics. Things happen in my life which indicate either I am extremely lucky, or I have more than my fair share of positive coincidences, or Somebody Up There is making everything in my life go right, even when it looks like its going down the pan.
weeroppadc2
2006-09-18 07:00:35 UTC
Honestly, The Bible is the most reliable source of History. Not only is a book of religion and belief, but of peoples lives and history, a story about people written by several different people about the same situation as witnessed by reliable sources of the time
2006-09-18 06:48:21 UTC
This is tricky....



I understand the concept that the Bible conveys, "Honorable conduct would save Humanity". Now, this being the case, I read through it building on this belief. Oftentimes, I see things that are just plain impossible....... but there is a very good chance that those are just metaphors, so I don't get hung up on them. In conclusion, the Bible, as it turns out IS true. Honorable conduct DOES save lives. It IS rewarded. Those that practice it ARE more likely to achieve immortality. Wicked behavior IS punished. Those that practice it ARE more likely to die senslessly. It IS okay to fight back against Barbarians.... and it WOULD be a good idea to just wipe them out while you still can (they are little better than animals. People that try to imulate Barbarians often speak of our 'primal' (animal) nature and the laws of the jungle).



So, that being said, I believe the Bibe because it's true.



Adder_Astros

Powerful Member of the House of Light.

[]xxxxx[];;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>.

adderastros.com is temporarily down for renovation.
2006-09-18 06:42:48 UTC
The bible actually means 'Book of Stories' ... and it has been pr oven that some of the events in the bible could have actually happened, although there was no divine reason for it, just purely coincidences.



Science also goes against the bible in the sense of evolution ...



I would like to believe there is something else out there, do you believe in ghosts? do you believe in aliens? Wouldn't it be pretty naive to think we are the only life form at all. But whether all this boils down to the bible being true, or what we've been taught being fact is another story.
Harley Moma
2006-09-18 06:45:20 UTC
The reason I know the Word of God is true is because of the change in my life since I started over 21 years ago to implement it's teachings into my personal life. The change it has made in me can't be explained in a brief statement.



People want to live the way they want. But you will have to answer for your actions if not to God then to the authorities. Or you will die in your sin.
fishy
2006-09-18 06:47:27 UTC
Just a quick point. It seems to me the bible is the word of God in response to a question like this, and the word of man when inconsistencies such as dinosaurs/the ice age are pointed out. Surely it's one or the other?
Pearly Gator
2006-09-18 06:50:23 UTC
Hebrews 11:12b, "...so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable."



When that was written, the scientific world believed that there were only around 6,000 stars in the sky. Only after the invention of the telescope was it verified that there are trillions of stars in a galaxy and there are tens of thousands of galaxies. Who could have know that the stars were innumerable but God?
Commander
2006-09-18 07:27:41 UTC
Do you know of any other book that accurately tell us our past, present and our future in such detail other than the Bible??



The Bible says that heaven and earth shall pass away but the word of God never will.

How is that for a statement??
P-H
2006-09-18 06:47:21 UTC
God and the Gods were a creation of man, to explain the unexplainable, volcano eruptions, lightening, floods and things like that, and eventually the clever people used this to keep people's behaviour peaceful,,,,,, and along came the extremists and separatists to confuse the issue, and started the killings in the name of God, the crusades and the like,,,,, the bible is a collection of children's stories as is the other one, and i believe this to be true,,,,, so please don't abuse me because of my beliefs
2006-09-18 06:44:09 UTC
Well the bible is the true word of God. Not just any bible will do either. Study the bibles and you will know which one is here because saved people died for it and died for the word of God so we might have it today.
2006-09-18 06:43:03 UTC
The Bible is the word of God
2006-09-18 06:46:29 UTC
I can't find anything in the scripture that is less-than-perfect as a document to guide our way of living. As a historical text there may be some things that will make you say not-for-me. But from a philosophical perspective, there isn't anything in it that is disputable
sashmead2001
2006-09-18 07:41:32 UTC
Just to say to "Spirited"; 'Bible' does not mean "book of stories"; it means collection of books. The word's origin is from the Greek "byblos" meaning "book/collection of book" after the name of the town "Byblos" as it was a port where Egyptian papyrus was imported to, which was used to make books. Therefore, there is NOTHING of the idea "stories" in "Bible" (this is indicated in Romance languages, e.g. "bibliotheque" French for library).
2006-09-18 06:47:22 UTC
How can people answer this by saying the bible is the word of god? Do you honestly not realise how ridiculous that is? Would you believe me if I wrote "God says he doesn't exist"?
2006-09-18 06:42:07 UTC
Jesus caimed the Scripture is the Word of God...



So what's the problem?

If you don't want to beieve what Jesus believed then its your choice...but then so are the ugly consequences, Pal.



Thank you Williamz for the good explanation...keep it up.
jojo
2006-09-18 06:43:28 UTC
faith is believing in something not seen , but just knowing its there . and it's a hell of alot better than believing in nothing. stop dissing people who believe in the bible , is it really hurting you ?
somebody
2006-09-18 06:49:06 UTC
I beleive everything in the Bible.
mrcricket1932
2006-09-18 06:45:37 UTC
That is a very good attempt at the twisting of logic. Hope it satisfies you!
2006-09-18 06:41:25 UTC
That is true GODS word tells us
Grandreal
2006-09-18 09:25:04 UTC
Because it is true I believe!
dumberthangeorgebush
2006-09-18 06:46:51 UTC
Thank you WilliamZo, I haven't read anything so preposterous for ages. Oh and there may be a reason why your local christian bookshop is so well-stocked (and dusty) !!!
2006-09-21 03:33:40 UTC
bible is not true because Jesus escaped death and fled to India and is buried there.
williamzo
2006-09-18 06:40:33 UTC
M-A-P-S to Guide You through Biblical Reliability



by Hank Hanegraaff











Use M-A-P-S to guide you through Biblical reliability:



Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, Statistics







Have you tried to show someone the historical reliability of the Scriptures, and not known where to start? A quick trip to your local well-stocked Christian bookstore likely will overwhelm you. Where among the dozens of impressive, comprehensive reference books should you start?







Fortunately, while there is a wealth of information available to support the reliability of Scripture, you don’t have to burn, the midnight oil to give a reasonable answer to those who ask, “How can we know the Bible is reliable?” Four basic principle chart your way to understanding basic biblical reliability.







To help you remember, I’ve developed the simple acronym “MAPS.” Remember the word MAPS and you will be able to chart Bible reliability.







Manuscripts







Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym — BEE — will help you remember these).







The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.







We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.







The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.







The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.







The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.







The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.







Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.







Archaeology



Returning to our MAPS acronym, we have established ,the first principle, manuscript reliability. Let us consider our second principle, archaeological evidence. Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence.







For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.







One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.







Prophecy



The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records predictions of events that could not be known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.







Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).







Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion (Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22). Predictive Prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!















Statistics



Our fourth MAPS principle works well with predictive prophecy, because it is Statistically preposterous that any or all of the Bible’s very specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit. When you look at some of the improbable prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, it seems incredible that skeptics — knowing the authenticity and historicity of the texts — could reject the statistical verdict: the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, just as Scripture predicted many times and in many ways.







The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by forty different human authors in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, noncontradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s redemption of humankind. Clearly, Statistical probability is a powerful indicator of the trustworthiness of Scripture.







The next time someone denies the reliability of Scripture, just remember the acronym MAPS, and you will be equipped to give an answer and a reason for the hope that lies within you (1 Pet. 3:15). Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, and Statistics not only chart a secure course on the turnpikes of skepticism but also demonstrate definitively that the Bible is indeed divine rather than human in origin.
rhodes727
2006-09-18 06:40:34 UTC
BLAH!
A.M.D.G
2006-09-18 08:50:56 UTC
TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS, IT IS MIND-BOGGLING.

FOR THOSE WHO NEED LOGIC, REASON AND SCIENCE TO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, YOU HAVE IT ALL HERE.



THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - The Software

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" Genesis 1:11 (KJV)

When George Wald and Francis Crick stated that the spontaneous origin of life was "impossible," they were speaking primarily about the origin of the cellular "hardware." Indeed, when we consider the effect of equilibrium, the reversibility of biochemical reactions in water and the fact that the building blocks of life are not safe in the air or on the land,1 spontaneous biogenesis stands shoulder to shoulder with raising the dead and walking on water - events which also defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Chemical Equilibrium - something which cannot be explained by natural law. However, for the purpose of this chapter we will allow that sometime on the earth the oceans became filled with spontaneously derived DNA.

The question we must now answer is this: Would a DNA molecule that arose by chance possess any information, codes, programs, or instructions? To put it another way - can information, codes, or programs arise by chance? In the last half of the twentieth century, evidence has accumulated which has decisively answered this question. The answer profoundly impacts the debate on the existence of God.



Encyclopaedia on a Pinhead: Chance or Design

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pin head. Yet, it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! If all the DNA chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times! The source of this information (the "software") is at the very core of the debate on the origin of life.

When Carl Sagan said, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," he was expressing the materialists' position that the universe is a closed system.2 That is, they believe that no information or matter can be inserted into our universe from outside our space-time domain. Consequently, with no intelligent source, materialists are forced to conclude that the sum total of the information on the DNA molecule arose by chance.

On the other hand, creationists believe that a transcendent Creator pierced the veil of our universe and infused information and order onto the chains of the DNA molecule. Again we see that the debate boils down to chance or design. To settle this debate we must look at the nature of information as defined in the field of information science.



The Nature of Information Systems

The modern field of information science has revolutionized our daily lives in the last four decades. Computers, fax machines, cellular phones and many other daily conveniences would not have been possible without the rapid advances in the field of information theory.

In recent years information engineers have examined the nature of the genetic code and concluded that it is an error correcting digital coding system. While digital coding systems can be very complex, error correcting digital codes are much less common and much more complex. Furthermore, the DNA molecule has built-in redundancy. That is, the same packet of information (called a gene) is often located in more than one place in the organism's DNA. Consequently, if one gene becomes corrupted with informational errors, the backup gene will take over the function of that gene! This level of complexity is found in only the most sophisticated computer system.

The DNA coding system can be compared to that of a compact disc. The music on a compact disc is stored in a digital fashion and can only be appreciated if you have a knowledge of the language convention used to create the information on the disc. Appropriate machinery, which functions to translate that code into music, is also required for the music to be played. In a compact disc player this decoding process involved dozens of electronic and moving parts.

It isn't much different in the living cell. The information carried by the DNA molecule contains the instructions for all the structures and functions of the human body. Within each cell resides all the necessary hardware to decode and utilize that information.

When we look at a compact disc, we see no evidence of the musical information stored on the disc's surface. We see only the rainbow effect on the surface of the disc. Without the knowledge of the language convention used to create the disc and the machinery to translate it, we must simply be content with the colourful surface. This is exactly the same dilemma we face with spontaneously derived DNA or any information storage system.3

If we examine the sequence of nucleotides on the DNA molecule, they simply have the appearance of a long chain of chemicals and not the appearance of a message system or a code. It is only when one possesses a knowledge of the language convention (the genetic code) and the appropriate machinery to translate the coded information on the DNA molecule, that the nucleotide sequence becomes understandable. Without such knowledge and machinery, the sequences on a spontaneously derived DNA molecule are meaningless.

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - The Software

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" Genesis 1:11 (KJV)

When George Wald and Francis Crick stated that the spontaneous origin of life was "impossible," they were speaking primarily about the origin of the cellular "hardware." Indeed, when we consider the effect of equilibrium, the reversibility of biochemical reactions in water and the fact that the building blocks of life are not safe in the air or on the land,1 spontaneous biogenesis stands shoulder to shoulder with raising the dead and walking on water - events which also defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Chemical Equilibrium - something which cannot be explained by natural law. However, for the purpose of this chapter we will allow that sometime on the earth the oceans became filled with spontaneously derived DNA.

The question we must now answer is this: Would a DNA molecule that arose by chance possess any information, codes, programs, or instructions? To put it another way - can information, codes, or programs arise by chance? In the last half of the twentieth century, evidence has accumulated which has decisively answered this question. The answer profoundly impacts the debate on the existence of God.



Encyclopaedia on a Pinhead: Chance or Design

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pin head. Yet, it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! If all the DNA chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times! The source of this information (the "software") is at the very core of the debate on the origin of life.

When Carl Sagan said, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," he was expressing the materialists' position that the universe is a closed system.2 That is, they believe that no information or matter can be inserted into our universe from outside our space-time domain. Consequently, with no intelligent source, materialists are forced to conclude that the sum total of the information on the DNA molecule arose by chance.

On the other hand, creationists believe that a transcendent Creator pierced the veil of our universe and infused information and order onto the chains of the DNA molecule. Again we see that the debate boils down to chance or design. To settle this debate we must look at the nature of information as defined in the field of information science.



The Nature of Information Systems

The modern field of information science has revolutionized our daily lives in the last four decades. Computers, fax machines, cellular phones and many other daily conveniences would not have been possible without the rapid advances in the field of information theory.

In recent years information engineers have examined the nature of the genetic code and concluded that it is an error correcting digital coding system. While digital coding systems can be very complex, error correcting digital codes are much less common and much more complex. Furthermore, the DNA molecule has built-in redundancy. That is, the same packet of information (called a gene) is often located in more than one place in the organism's DNA. Consequently, if one gene becomes corrupted with informational errors, the backup gene will take over the function of that gene! This level of complexity is found in only the most sophisticated computer system.

The DNA coding system can be compared to that of a compact disc. The music on a compact disc is stored in a digital fashion and can only be appreciated if you have a knowledge of the language convention used to create the information on the disc. Appropriate machinery, which functions to translate that code into music, is also required for the music to be played. In a compact disc player this decoding process involved dozens of electronic and moving parts.

It isn't much different in the living cell. The information carried by the DNA molecule contains the instructions for all the structures and functions of the human body. Within each cell resides all the necessary hardware to decode and utilize that information.

When we look at a compact disc, we see no evidence of the musical information stored on the disc's surface. We see only the rainbow effect on the surface of the disc. Without the knowledge of the language convention used to create the disc and the machinery to translate it, we must simply be content with the colourful surface. This is exactly the same dilemma we face with spontaneously derived DNA or any information storage system.3

If we examine the sequence of nucleotides on the DNA molecule, they simply have the appearance of a long chain of chemicals and not the appearance of a message system or a code. It is only when one possesses a knowledge of the language convention (the genetic code) and the appropriate machinery to translate the coded information on the DNA molecule, that the nucleotide sequence becomes understandable. Without such knowledge and machinery, the sequences on a spontaneously derived DNA molecule are meaningless.

Consequently, the enormous challenge facing the scientific materialist is to explain how a language convention (the genetic code) and the necessary cellular machinery to translate the information stored on the DNA molecule arose independently without intelligent guidance.

The chicken-egg dilemma has confounded scientists for decades. Chemist John Walton noted the dilemma in 1977 when he stated: "The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."4

By allowing the spontaneous generation of long chains of DNA, what would you have? Do those chains of nucleotides possess a code or a program? Of course not. What you have is an admittedly complex chemical which has the potential of carrying a code or information. However, there is no inherent information on such spontaneously generated DNA unless a system of interpreting those sequences exists first. A couple of simple examples will help us to understand the nature

of this dilemma.



"Save Our Souls!"

If I were to show you a sign which had painted on it the sequence, dot, dot, dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot, dot, and if you were knowledgeable in Morse Code, you would know that this means S-O-S, and that I am in trouble. However, if I take that same sign to an isolated tribe of South American Indians, they will see the unlikely arrangement of dots and dashes, but there will be no information content transmitted to them without the knowledge of the language convention we call Morse Code.



The English Language

Similarly, if I take a book written in English and hand it to an Australian Bushman, it will make absolutely no sense without a prior knowledge of the English language convention. Just like the dots and dashes, the 26 letters of the English language have no inherent information in them. Their shapes have the appearance of order (reduced entropy) but by themselves they are meaningless. It is when you "sheperd" or gather the letters into specific sequences, as determined by the rules of the previously existent language convention, that their arrangement begins to have meaning. Unless the language convention and the hardware (the human brain) to interpret it exists first, the arrangement of the letters can transmit no meaning.



Primordial Disk Soup

The magnetic disks used to store and retrieve information in computers provides another fascinating analogy to the DNA molecule. When I purchase a blank computer disk, have I purchased a code or a program? No. I have only purchased a chemical medium which has the potential to carry a code or a program. However, to possess real information the blank disk must be formatted and programmed by a computer which was in turn built for this purpose.

While the disk is being formatted a "program" is placed on it from an intelligent source (the computer) that exists outside and separate from the disk. This is accomplished by arranging the iron atoms on the disk in a predetermined fashion according to the rules of the computer's language convention. Once the disk is formatted and imputed with information, it weighs no more than it did before this procedure was done. This is because information has no mass or weight.

As in the case of the 26 letters of the English alphabet, the structure or shape of the iron atoms on the disk does not convey or possess any information in and of itself. Rather, information ( a code or program) is conveyed by the orderly arrangement of the iron atoms. This arrangement of atoms is then interpreted by the computer's hardware according to the predetermined rules of its language convention. Without the hardware and the pre-existent language convention, the arrangement of the iron atoms is meaningless.

Does the computer create its own language conven By allowing an ocean of spontaneously derived DNA, I have given you the equivalent of an ocean full of blank floppy disks! In order for the DNA molecule to carry information, its molecules need to be arranged in a specific sequence as predetermined by the chemical code or language convention. But the language convention must exist first. According to the principles of modern information theory, language conventions come only from an intelligent source - a mind!

Miller and Urey were able to produce the unlikely, ordered building blocks of proteins. In the future someone may even produce nucleotides by chance chemical processes. However, without a pre-existent language convention, these chemical letters will be no more effective in transmitting information than a random sequence of beads on a string, iron atoms in a disc, or letters on a page.



Codes by Chance?

In the twentieth century, theories on the origin of the chemical hardware in living systems have come and gone with each generation.5 However, theories on the origin of codes and programs are few and far between. The claim by creationists that codes, programs and languages conventions, such as the genetic code, arise only from intelligent sources is often protested by scientific materialists (although most information engineers have no problem with this statement). Yet no one has come up with a rational theory on how true information, which is the antithesis of chance, can arise by random chance processes. As we will see, however, this problem has led to some irrational solutions.

One of the most celebrated theories on the origin of information by chance comes from materialist Manfried Eigen. In his book Das Spiel, Eigen attempts to show how a code or program might develop by chance. Eigen argues that if the letters of the genetic code can arise by chance, then why not the words, the sentences, the paragraphs and entire book.

Eigen envisions a machine that possesses the remarkable ability to generate, by chance, the letters of the English language and then randomly shuffle and combine those letters for millions of years. After examining the volumes of randomly generated letters we find some rather amazing combinations. The machine has generated "AND," "MAN," "DOG," "CAT," "The Lord is my sheperd, I shall not want..." We stand back and see that indeed, this machine has generated meaningful sentences. Eigen argues that this is proof of the random chance production of information. Is this true?

In his book, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, A.E. Wilder-Smith demonstrated the fallacy of Eigen's argument. Wilder-Smith invites a non-English speaking friend from Switzerland to examine the output of the machine. Again the machine puts out the random sequences such "HAT," "FISH," "BOY," etc. His Swiss friend stares at the machine with a blank look, quite unlike the smile an Englishman might carry. While the Englishman stands amazed at the randomly generated information, our Swiss friend points out that the sequences have no meaning to him at all because he has no knowledge of the English language convention.

Eigen's argument that "true information" has been generated by chance, is erroneous because he interprets his sequences by the rules of a previously existing language convention we call the English language. But where did the rules of English come from?

Wilder-Smith points out that the sequence of letters has meaning only when we "hang" the rules and the conventions of the English language on the sequences themselves. Just as dots and dashes are meaningless without a knowledge of the Morse Code, so too are the random arrangements of any letters, chemicals, beads, or magnetic medium meaningless without rules and conventions by which we interpret the sequences. But the rules of any language system are themselves arbitrary (i.e. man-made), abstract agreements between at least two intelligences which declare that a specific sequence of letters has a certain meaning.6 Put another way, the rules of any language system are neither a part of nor conveyed by any natural laws of nature. Therefore, a language convention, with its rules and regulations, must be devised first.

Information engineers know that language conventions will not, cannot, and do not arise by chance. Every information engineer or computer programmer knows that chance must be eliminated if one is to successfully write a code or program. In fact, chance is the very antithesis of information.

If Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation commissioned you to write a new software program and you simply began to type randomly on your computer with the hope that a new language or program might result, you would likely be assisted to a psychiatric facility for an extended medical leave of absence. We know intuitively that this method will never result in the generation of new information.

Yet, according to evolutionary dogma, the random shuffling of nucleotides for millions of years supposedly produced not only the DNA molecule but the code

which governs the storage and retrieval of the information it carries as well. If we make such a claim, are we not, in effect, asserting that formatted computer floppy disks, which are filled with millions of bits of information, can arise by the random combining of iron oxide and plastic rather than being the product of an intelligent source which is outside and separate from the

floppy disk?

The Monkey and the Typewriter

For centuries scientists have suspected that living systems contain a mechanism for the storage and retrieval of information used for cellular metabolism and reproduction. With the elucidation of the structure of DNA in 1953 and the subsequent deciphering of the genetic code in the 1960's this was finally confirmed. However, the debate on the origin of this cellular information predates the actual discovery of the DNA molecule by at least 100 years.

As in the case of the cellular "hardware," evolutionists have also appealed to the magic ingredient of time to explain the origin of the information, the "software," stored by living systems. Since the 1700's scientific materialists have argued that, given enough time, anything was possible, even the origin of the complex programs necessary for the production of life. Creationists, on the other hand, have argued that where there is design there must be a designer and where there are codes or language conventions there must be an architect for such information.

On June 30, 1860, at the Oxford Union in England, this was the very topic in the "Great Debate" between the Anglican Archbishop of Oxford University, Samuel Wilberforce and evolutionist and agnostic, Thomas Huxley.

Bishop Wilberforce, a Professor of Theology and Mathematics at Oxford University, applied the logic of the teleological argument for God. He argued, as did William Paley, that the design we see in nature required a Designer. Therefore, the information (an evidence for design) found in living systems could not arise by chance.

Huxley, on the other hand, declared that given enough time all the possible combinations of matter, including those necessary to produce a man, will eventually occur by chance molecular movement. To prove his point Huxley asked Wilberforce to allow him the service of six monkeys that would live forever, six typewriters that would never wear out and an unlimited supply of paper and ink. He then argued that given an infinite amount of these monkeys would eventually type all of the books in the British Library including the Bible and the works of Shakespeare!

Applying the mathematical law of probability, Huxley showed that if time (T) is infinite, then the probability (P) of an event happening is equal to one, i.e., one hundred percent.7 Consequently, he argued that with an infinite amount of time any and all combinations of letters, including the necessary chemical combinations to produce life, will eventually be typed out purely by chance, without the necessity of a Creator.

Bishop Wilberforce, a skilled mathematician, was forced to concede the truth of Huxley's point. To this very day the Monkey/Typewriter argument is frequently applied by evolutionists when confronted with the question of the origin of life.

Bishop Wilberforce lost the debate because he was unable to see the flaw in Huxley's argument. At the time of this debate the nature of biochemical reactions and the genetic code was not understood. Consequently, Huxley's argument seemed reasonable. When time is infinite the probability formula does indeed predict that all possible combinations of letters will occur. However, with the revolutionary discoveries in molecular biology and information science in the last four decades, Huxley's use of a typewriter to simulate the chemical reactions in living systems has, in fact, been shown to be erroneous.

In the last chapter we saw that the chemical reactions in living systems, such as the combining of amino acids and nucleotides, are reversible. The reversibility of these chemical reactions is quite unlike those simulated by Huxley's typewriter.

A century after the "Great Debate," Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who also studied at Oxford University, demonstrated the fallacy of Huxley's argument. Wilder-Smith points out that because the chemical reactions upon which our bodies run are reversible, for Huxley's argument to be valid, his monkeys would need to use typewriters which also type reversibly!8 With each key stroke such a typewriter places the ink on the paper, and when the key is released the inks jumps back onto the hammer of the typewriter leaving the paper reversibly without a trace!

This is, in fact, a more accurate demonstration of what happens in biological reactions. The building blocks of life continually combine ("type in") and come apart ("type out") as the solution approaches a state of equilibrium. With a typewriter that types reversibly-typing in (bonding) and typing out (uncombining)-we will have typed as much in one minute as we would have in 5 billion years!9

Huxley's argument is invalidated by the fact that the building blocks in biological reactions do not stay combined. The building blocks of DNA and proteins are driven (by the Second Law and chemical equilibrium) to break down (come apart) in the watery environment in which they supposedly arose.



On the other hand, the hypothetical books typed by Huxley's monkeys are stable end products. They do not decompose (come apart) into their individual letters as do the building blocks of life. Therefore, Huxley's illustrations is an erroneous and inaccurate representation of biological systems.

Finally, we saw that Stanley Miller's spark and soup experiment generated 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed amino acids. We saw that right-handed amino acids are, in many cases, poisonous to enzymes and living cells. Consequently, if the keys in Huxley's typewriter represent a true primordial soup, every other key stroke would be potentially lethal! How far do you think the monkeys would get toward typing the genetic code with such odds?

In his characteristic style, Sir Fred Hoyle comments on the improbability that Huxley's monkeys might type the genetic code:

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."10



Time: Magic Bullet for Unlikely Villain

When confronted with the many evidences against the spontaneous origin of life, the scientific materialist will inevitably and repeatedly appeal to the magic ingredient of prolonged time periods to accomplish biochemical possibilities. However, as in the case of the chemical "hardware," the addition of prolonged time periods does not increase the likelihood of spontaneously derived information.

In the previous chapter on the origin of the cellular "hardware," we saw that the laws of thermodynamics and chemical equilibrium demand that all systems tend toward disorder with the advance of time. In the field of information science, these laws have enormous implications as well.

When applied to the field of information science, the Second Law demands that the total amount of information in a closed system decreases as time advances.11 Put another way, as time advances the sum total of the information stored on magnetic tape, the pages of a book, or the sequences of a DNA molecule

always degrades. This is, in fact, exactly what we observe with these media. As time advances, DNA molecules collect informational errors (mutations) and the organism eventually dies. Ancient scrolls lose their ink. Old recordings become filled with informational noise. In each case the result is always the same-loss of information.

The Theory of Evolution demands that just the opposite occurs. To change an amoebae into a human being requires a million-fold increase in the information stored in the DNA of each cell. According to evolutionary theory, this increase in information must also occur without any intelligent guidance. Such an occurrence would not only breach a foundational truth of information theory-that true information comes only from a mind-it would also defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics which demands that the information stored on the DNA molecule must degrade and not increase.12

In their book Evolution from Space, materialists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe address the problem of the origin of the information carried on the DNA molecule:

"From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed [for the origin of life]. We have argued that the requisite information came from an 'intelligence,' the beckoning spectre."13 (Emphasis added)

In this remarkable statement, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe admit that living systems require "enormous" amounts of information for their construction. This information, they conclude, cannot be generated by "natural" or random chemical processes. Consequently, they assert that the source of the information is from an "intelligence."

The implications of this admission by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are mind boggling. Since, in their opinion, chance "chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet [earth]" cannot create new information, then the source of information found in living systems must have been of extraterrestrial origin!

"Of the Dust of the Ground"

The evidence presented thus far has brought us to a remarkable conclusion. As we have seen, the order and complexity in the universe is well beyond the reach of chance. We have seen that to "wind up" and order the physical universe requires the introduction of energy and intelligent guidance from a source outside the bounds of the space-time domain. Furthermore, the enormous complexity of living systems and the nature of the information on the DNA molecule cannot be explained by natural laws within the dimension of our universe.

Surely, at the dawn of the twentieth century, few scientists would have anticipated that their quest to explain the existence of the universe on natural grounds would have brought us to the point where their own discoveries now demand the existence of the very Creator they were trying to explain away! And yet, this is exactly what has occurred.

To create the universe and its life forms the Creator must, of necessity, be transcendent. To create the universe in the first place He must have preceded it. Secondly, to order and establish the matter within galaxies, solar systems and living beings, He would need to "enter," in effect, the arena of space-time that He created. This ability to simultaneously exist inside and outside the dimensions of the universe demands a transcendent, supernatural Creator.

To many, invoking a supernatural cause for the origin of the universe is abhorrent. However, to invoke the god called "chance" is, according to many, a belief in "mathematical miracles." So we must choose between mathematical miracles, without a supernatural agent to perform them, or a transcendent Creator-the "First Cause," who ordered and established the universe and its life forms. The god called "chance" or intelligent design? You must choose.

For thousands of years the Bible has revealed a transcendent Creator who acted prior to the origin of our space-time domain.19 To create the universe and life on earth, He transcended time and space, then inserted information or know-how onto matter. The result was the birth of an ordered, energized universe filled with information and every appearance of contrivance and design.

The Bible declares that this same Creator entered time and space physically in the person of Jesus Christ. Finally, the Bible authenticates the authority of its message by demonstrating that its text came from a transcendent, supernatural Being who exists beyond time and space.

Reference: Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler, "The Creator Beyond Space and Time", Copyright 1996 The Word For Today. p.67-82

Chuck Missler's Organization

Footnotes:

1.Due to the destructive effects of oxygen and UV radiation

2. Carl Sagan, Cosmos. (Random House, New York, 1980). pg. 4.

3. During the time of recorded history there have been dozens of information storage and retrieval systems developed by man. The use of clay tablets, ink on paper, beads on a string and modern computers have all been used to store and retrieve information. No matter what medium mankind has used, all of these systems share two vital elements. Each of the systems uses a material medium (air molecules to carry voice, clay tablets, beads, etc...) to carry the information. Secondly, each of the systems employs the use of specific rules and regulations which determine the meaning of the arrangement of the letters on a page, beads on a string or impressions on a tablet. Consequently, the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica can just as surely be stored by beads on a rope as it can with a compact disc.

4. John Walton, "Organization and the Origin of Life" Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30-31.

5. In the last decade a number of scientists have proposed that RNA and not DNA was the first self duplicating molecule upon which life arose. The function of information storage was later transferred to DNA which evolved later. However, RNA is even more unstable in water. Its chemical bonds are even more sensitive to the destructive effects of equilibrium in a watery environment. All of the processes that are destructive to DNA are even more destructive to RNA. Furthermore, spontaneously derived RNA would also contain NO information. Others have claimed that the first life forms were clay based self reproducing systems (See Shapiro). However, no rational system of converting silica or clay based life to carbon based life is imaginable. Further, where did the information for reproduction, growth, metabolism and repair come from in clay based systems?

6. This is one of the fascinating evidences that God exists in at least two personages.

7. According to the probability formula Pt=l-(l-Pl)t , when time (t) is infinity then the probability of any event happening Pt approaches 100%.

8. A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, The Word for Today, Costa Mesa, Ca.

9. The problem is even worse for biological systems. Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Law of Mass Action, amino acids and nucleotides "type out" far more readily than they "type in" in a watery environment.

10. Sire Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pgs. 148.

11. In the field of information science, this is actually a corollary to the Second Law. Applied to information storage and retrieval systems the Second Law demands that the net amount of information in a closed system always decreases as time advances. A closed system is an environment in which no information, matter or energy can be added or removed from beyond its boundaries. Applied to biology, the sum total of genetic information within an interbreeding pool of genes will degrade with the advance of time. This is the very cause of extinction in biological systems. In breeding situations bringing in "new blood" (new alleles) into an isolated breeding population has the effect of stabilizing the population and delaying the inevitable extinction. In this situation new information is "injected" into the a gene pool that was, in effect, previously a closed system.

12. The Second Law, applied to information theory, demands that in order for the information in a system to increase it must be inserted from outside the system from an intelligent source. Since the net amount of information in a closed system decreases with the advance of time and since, according to materialists, our universe is a closed system, then at the beginning of time, the total amount of information in the universe was at a maximum. Since information does not arise by chance, the challenge for the materialist is to determine where it came from in the first place?

13. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, op. cit., pg. 150.

14. Francis Crick, Life Itself, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981.

15. Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, "Directed Panspermia", Icarus, 19:341-46.

16. Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space; 1981.

17. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pg. 271, Adler and Adler, 1986.

18. Hoyle, Sir Fred, "The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

19. II Timothy 1:9 "who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." Also, Ephesians 1:4 "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love."


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...