Creation vs Evolution

Always question the meaning of the wording:
"Creation" vs "Evolution"
   Inaccurate statement leading us to believe there is a choice between these two options. 
Technically everyone knows the world was created. Existence implies creation. The real question is "was creation an intelligent design"?.

"Miracle"
- "Miracle" is normally defined as "an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature , ... an act of God".  
The implication of the word implies that everyday things such as life, beauty, intelligence, etc are ordinary, fall within the laws of nature and is not an act of God. 
That is completely false! Do not fall into the trap of accepting everything around as ordinary. It is all created by God.
A single flower can not exist without God. "...God so clothe the grass of the field...". We are living in a world of miracles the awesome design of GOD. 
We are taught natural follows the laws of nature (outside of God), and miracle is when God intervenes.  
Biblically the word miracle is a "token of the presence and working of God; the seal of a higher power".

"Science" vs "creation"??
- Implications of "Science" vs "creation".  
Science and Creation are not opposite things that the wording implies.
Any attempt to use science to disprove evolution will fail in most people's minds because often they are thought of as opposites.
The fact is evolution is a micro observation of creation observed using science. 
Science is the study of GOD's creation, all science already logically points to creation. 

"Occurs naturally"
The word natural, really means "inborn" or "governed by (the instincts of) nature".  "the force, laws, order of nature".  
Example usage: "Trace elements occur naturally in soils and some are essential nutrients for plant growth as well as human and animal health".  
Attributing something to nature is an illogical dismissal of the actual source. Requires defining the source of nature.
- "evolved over time".   Keep in mind the technical definition of evolve "To work (something) out; devise". The word evolve implies design and intelligent guidance.
- "Natural Selection". The word selection means "carefully chosen" which also implies intelligence. 
This word is a recognition of the requirement of intelligence in creation, as anyone's common sense would conclude.  
However the word natural is an attempt of misdirection. The word natural "produced by nature", means produced by itself.  
It is not scientific to use the word "natural" as a force of intelligence without defining the source.  
A historic comparison might be sun worshippers. They saw the direct effect of the sun giving warmth and directly contributed it to a source of life. 
There is logic in it but over simplified, just as natural selection is over simiplified. 
The sun is a source of energy of all life, just as the cycle of life and death is also part of the design. 
Focusing on one small aspect of a design and calling that a source is heavily flawed logic.  
All aspects of creation must be considered, including energy, elements, molecules, etc, and why they have their properties that in the end support life.

"Cause and Effect"
Man is logical and seems to analyze cause and effect, just like the riddle which came first the chicken or the egg.  
For example there is much colour and beauty in our world. Our minds tells us what is beautiful without being taught. 
Man in an attempt to dismiss GOD and intelligent design, makes attempts to explain beauty. 
The first step is to blindly accept the properties of matter that permit sight to exist, such as an energy spectrum, 
and matter that selectively absorbs and reflects portions of the spectrum. Then air which is transparent to the spectrum, 
and the acceptance of biological receptors sensitive to specific wavelengths, combined with transmission paths to intelligence that can Interpret the signals.  
Once that is accepted science ask for example, why are flowers so beautiful? So they turn to cause and effect to try and explain the design.
We observe the designed in properties of a flower that we enjoy, and also contribute that the insects also attached by the same design aspects, 
and hence attracted to them, increasing pollination probability.  
The failure in science is not recognising this as a design but rather attempting to contribute the reason of the beauty of the flower to the insects that visit it for nectar. 
"Symbotic relationship".  Once again too narrow of a focus, ignoring the need for intelligent design.  
Even a vague look at a bigger picture reviews that in the study of insects, many can only see 2 colors. Mostly ultraviolet and green. 
Red, orange and green are the least visible to them. So why are flowers red, orange and yellow, where human eyesight finds beauty in them? 
The answer is in design. Just as why human scientific research can find so many medical benefits to flowers, their seeds and oils, and plant leaves.  
It is by design.  So be careful whenever cause and effect is considered.  Be sure to include all variables. 
But also I fell into the trap of using scientific observation, to disprove evolution, as that was not the goal, and is unnecessary. 
The goal is pointing out that all scientific observations point to enforce creation, by intelligent design. Best to praise rather than criticize. 

"Probability"
People believe in slim chance, no matter how high the odds. 
The illusion is that assumption has to start the matter existing. The reality is that a single random atom can not appear from nothing.
Yet alone a full suite of matter and energy, with the right properties and distribution can not appear from nothing. (List could go on and on to include, gravity, light, sound.) 
These are complex properties, that nobody proposes evolved!

"Instinct"
Instinct, "An inborn pattern of behavior", "a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex 
and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason". 
This instinct is stored in the brain, and is pass on thru the DNA. 
Instinct is an example of passing on not just a physical trait, but a reaction to stimulus. Something like programming/software not hardware.  
Instinct has been compared to the boot up in a computer, required before learning is possible. Instincts drive survival, reproduction, etc. 
It could be argued that all life has instincts including plant life. It could also be argued that in evolutionary theory, instinct had to be in the very first life form. 
If so where did it come from, and is it not miraculous that it was pasted on thru reproduction? Once again the observation of instinct is reversed. 
Instead of recognising it as designed preprogrammed response, it is considered the outcome. All backward.

"Worship"
Definition: "to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion". 
Believers in God worship him because he is worthy. Believers in evolution will claim they do not worship the concept. 
However a belief in evolution affects every decision a person makes. The form of worship it sometimes creates is inward. Belief in oneself, strength, wisdom, power and rights.
The claim that evolution is not a form of worship is false. Even money can be an idol and worshipped. How much more so, (without even realizing it) evolution?
The topic of the source of life is of great psychological/physical importance to everyone, and has an affect on the way we live our lives.

"Christian Science"
The definition of "Christian Science" varies including being called a "religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy". 
I was surprised as I researched this as I thought it was a Christian Perspective of Science. 
Based on that definition I must confess I know little about the organization. This is clearly an example of the importance of word definitions.

"Creation Science"
Creation Science on the other hand is "scientific evidence or arguments put forth in support of creationism" ref Merriam-webster Dictionary.
Personally since I feel all Science is the the study of Creation, the term Creation Science should not be necessary, but such is life...

Once the mind set of looking at scientific observation in a limited window is set:
-theories that look like they confirm evolution, can always be conceived.
-and can always be changed/updated to temporarily remove doubt. 
-The whole concept need not be understood, just as long as the arrow they see in the window points in the right direction that they want to see.
 
But if the whole picture is taken into account, it reduces the possibility of basis. 
What people want to believe they will find a way, even on a mass scale. 
History has shown that, and everyone thinks they are immune.  
The simplest example is that evolutionary science mostly only looks at existing life forms, and tries to trace them backward thru time. 
This is a pretty small window in creation.  For comparison, let us compare man's "evolution of the field of electronics".  
Many devices exist, all guided by generations of combined intelligence. 
When we look at the "DNA" of the electronics:
- we observe common constructs, used over and over
- and see evidence of the products improving, 
- and can correctly conclude the evolution of the products
- even thru different products/"species" that use common components. 
But it would be wrong to conclude that no intelligent design was necessary.  
Similarly identifying common design components of creation, and similarities points to intelligent design, not self evolution, 
enclosed under an umbrella of the mystic intelligence of "natural selection".  The bigger whole picture must be looked at. 

So what was the research that led to the two hypothesis?
 
Creation was based on the simple observation of the complex world around us, giving strong evidence of a designer (God the creator). 
Many also accept the historical evidence documented in the Bible (and else where). As well as many personal testimonies.
Evolution theory has the same complex world observation but gave birth with Darwin’s alternate explanation for the source of the design. 
That of natural selection (Survival of the Fittest).
“Evolution is the critical element of design” (https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc) 
The common denominator of the theories is the recognition of a design, and search for the source of the design.  
This is where we need to focus the major part of our research, and remember it when we look at the data.

The research clearly demands that we clearly define “design”.
 
Designed: “Done or made or performed with purpose and intent.” (Wiktionary)
A design has the following attributes: 
- it has a plan
- it has a pattern (not random) 
- has definable properties 
- sub assemblies show increased design complexity
- sub assemblies properties combine for bigger purpose
- it performs a purpose
- may have “revisions” for evolving (ex product revisions)
- has a beginning and end in time
- requires a guiding force (ex survival of fittest or intelligence)

From the definition of design it is clear that everything has design attributes. 

For further clarity let us look at the opposite of design.
 
Thesaurus shows these words as opposite of design: 
disorder, chance, chaos, random 
Definition of Random: “lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern” (Webster). Note that this is lacking all the design attributes. 
 
List of Random things: 
Key point is that things that are random lack the design attributes (mainly plan, pattern, properties, and purpose).
Lets try to identify things that are random:
Dice?
The throwing of a dice is considered random.
The reality is the dice are designed to have an input of so many variables they appear random.
But if we could control the variables throwing the dice, you could roll the same number each time.
And this is actually done with "Loaded" Dice.
Noise?
From a scientific point of view, science questions if there is anything truely random. Hence the word pseudo-random. 
For example I work in the electronics communication field, and “noise”, or thermal noise, is critical consideration in the design of communication circuits. 
It turns out that even noise has properties, such as crest factor. The crest factor indicates how high the peak noise is to the average noise. 
So even noise has properties, and is not fully random.
Random Numbers?
Communications Electronics also uses pseudo-random sequences of numbers, which is a fixed repeating sequence (of desired length) used to emulate a series a random numbers.
This is done because it is not possible to generate a random sequence.
Another perhaps better understood example is a single random number generator in a computer. 
Technically computers can not generate random number, but need a “seed” to start the process.  
If the seed is the same, the random number produced will be the same each time.  
So computers, use seed values that are environmently dependent such as time of day, temperature, mouse movement, fan noise, etc. 
But the reality is if you could control the variables, you could reproduce the same random number each time.  

Random Discussion.
We only consider it random because humanly we can not control all the variables.  
Everything follows the laws and properties that were designed into matter. 
In theory then if the exact conditions could be duplicated, nothing is truly random.  
Laws and properties of matter are patterns, because it is predictable outcome.  
Randomness only seems to exists for us because the number of input variables can be so high it is beyond our imagination and control.  
Why is this important? For us limited humans is it just a lesson in technicality.  
But it also can be a lesson on how GOD is in control and nothing is random for him. He is the Creator and does have control of all the variables.  
That is how creation occured.  

We look around at creation and need to decide if it is intelligent design. 
 
We know from nature and from math that randomness does not result in creation.
Randomness does not produce a organized periodic table of elements, not does it facilitate the formation of molecules from atomic elements 
that shows properties different from its foundation elements (ex H20).  
Even from compounds they do not produce the formation of the earth, sun and galaxy, Each with the right combination of elements and compounds, 
located in the right spots to generate or support life.  Randomness does not produce an energy source the feeds the properties of these elements and compounds. 
Randomness does not control the level of energy balance.  Randomness does not the elements and compounds to exist in different phases of matter.  
Randomness did not produce a property of gravity, light, and sound, smell, and the corresponding sensors in living organisms to not just sense them but to interpret them, and apply them. 
Then there is the concept of intelligence.

Natural Selection.
Science being the study of creation gives us the insight into the marvelous complexity and interaction of the design, 
but we must not make the fatal mistake of saying "we discovered a mystery, and have the power to understand, and thus is just another natural property."  
We grow up as children and accept all the organized structure around us as "natural". As adults it is time to open our eyes and apply the lessons that we learn from science in the correct way.  
Randomness is not a source of creation, nor is randomness a source of design.  
The vague concept of trying to give "natural selection" enough design power (after creation), is a feeble attempt to defy what we know from science about randomness. 
It is not logical or scientific to focus on one element of the design (natural selection), and say it is the source of everything else.  
Natural selection is a part of creation, but it certainly is not responsible for any of the preceeding conditions of life. 
The patterns and properties of elements, and compounds did not evolve. Nor did gravity, energy, light, sound, the states of matter, etc.  
These designs preexisted, and points to the continuing complex, and delicate balance of designs of life.


Conclusion.
Conclusion, everything follows a pattern, showing intelligent design, and nothing is truly random.  

-see section on randomness, as everything in creation seems to be a pattern.
Below are a few highlights of patterns in creation.

Periodic Table.
The periodic table follows a pattern based on atomic weights, and was so arranged it was possible to predict the existence of elements that led to their discovery. 
That is the reason behind the naming of the table, reflects the periodic patterns in the design of the elements. 
Patterns mean intelligent design.  Each element has properties and laws that it must follow.  
We observe them as "laws" but they could also be called design parameters. 
When man designs an instrument it also has design parameters, and is designed to perform a function of law.     
The whole structure points to intelligent design, due to its pattern (not random).

Molecules/Compounds
 
and the rational that elements are capable of being arranged into molecules/compounds and cells capable of leading to life.  
Then there is the realization that the elements are nothing without energy input. Absolute zero has no interactions.  
It is indeed a marvellous complex design that works.  
It does not take much observation to realise the whole design of atomic elements was with the ability to support physical life.  
Even when we only look at one of the moleclues, water we quickly see, that all the properties are right. Water had to be made up of hydrogen and oxygen.  
And water when it freezes has to expand and float (unlike other molecules) for ocean and lake life to work. 

DNA.
The ultimate pattern example in life, as it also has the built in blueprint for life.
No explanation required.

The observations in the design go on and on.
 
Pick anything, and patterns can be found. snowflake, trees, ...
It is very flawed thinking to contribute the pattern attribute to chance. It also requires an impossible assumption that the elements persisted without creation.  
Observance of the world teaches us that things decay, rot, erode, decline.  
It is only by design that things can be better.  Natural selection is so obviously part of the system design.

This research shows that the main effort to look for in the scientific data is the source of the design!!! 
And that any theory needs to address that issue. (As Creation and Evolution theories do try to address that issue).

This research also shows the concept of design vs random.
- shows Design Data is an important factor to consider when looking at the data in Step 4.  
- Since design data exists, we must consider it as evidence and decide how to treat that evidence. 

Consider the Source of the Data, for determining:
1  Is the source of the data using the unbiased scientific method?
2. Are they prebiased (evolution vs creation)?
3. Is the source already accepting a theory as fact?
4. Is the source "news" or peer reviewed scientific articles?

Difference of News and Research
News is commonly a for profit industry, and getting your attention is worth money to the industry. This is very apparent in the internet.
The term "Click Bait" is often used to entice internet surfers to click on a news link. Increasing the number of hits to a link increases revenue from advertising.
Same concept is true for all news sources. Radio and TV also are supported by advertisers.
Even published books must sell the books for revenue.
All the revenue creates a conflict of interest which often affects the presentation and accuracy of the news.
This is most apparent in news article titles, which are sensationalized. Reading the article reveals something more realistic.
Thought on news. (Tie in social media) [Note to self: expand this]
Headlines as "bait".
Biblical perspective of news.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/news

Reporting accuracy of books, and media. Give examples. 
  We know from history the power of the media, and the large majority of people get their education of evolution from it. 
  Sadly the media reports headlines for the most impact, not accuracy. 
  My personal experience with the media has been inaccuracy. 
  News releases of the company I worked always showed flaws, included a picture of myself that was not me. 
  Errors are not limited to media. Patent office has also listed names in wrong order. For news it pays to have inside knowledge. 
  The bible is not just news but written testimonies of the witnesses, not a reporter who did a short interview. Not a scientist, who did a study.

Compare phishing technique to evolution teaching. 
 "the practice of tricking Internet users (as through the use of deceptive email messages or websites) into revealing personal or confidential information which can then be used illicitly".
In other words they seem to find a little note of information that is true, or use information that is true to lead you to believe a bigger lie. 
Origin of word phishing 
"fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication" 
 "an alteration of fishing" 
 "It is a homophone of "fishing"" 
"By analogy with the sport of angling, these Internet scammers were using e-mail lures, setting out hooks to "fish" for passwords and financial data from the "sea" of Internet users." 
The bait they use is a little bit of information that could appear as the truth. But on examination is false.  
The ultimate phishing scam is one that lasts a long time, takes in many people, and has a large reward for the perpetrator. 
So how does one know what is a phishing scam and what is not?  Is the answer in closely looking at the bait?  
A fisherman's desire is to have a lure that is attractive for the fish (food). He takes the bait because he believes it is true.
Jesus used the term of making his deciples fishers of men. The bait he uses is truth.
Evolution uses bait too. That bait is a small piece of information, that looks attractive to a worldly traveler. 
The worldly traveller wants to go his own way, believe he is his own master, and hence has a desire for bait because it aligned with what he wants from life. 
That's what always makes bait attractive!  But we need to truly look at that bait, removing our own desires, bias. 
So what is this bait? The basic bait is a concept that is an alternative explanation for our origins, other than by design.  
The concept of "survival of the fittest" is this bait. Our intellect clearly identifies the attributes of something that has been designed. 
A design shows plan, pattern, properties, and purpose. The greater the complexity the more the design effort. Life teaches us that lesson in all the work we do.
So the bottom line is everyone clearly sees these design attributes, and the bait lures us away from the obvious answer, saying "here is an answer pointing away from a designer". 
We need to really look at that bait, before we take it up and get towed by its line. The bait is first off an alternative answer to the obvious. 
The obvious answer is that what looks like is has been designed, is actually designed.  
The complexity of life, and its interdependencies is nothing but enormous.
The bait is the design happens because of a built in natural force of law called "survival of the fittest". 
The bait wants us to take only a narrow look at this, and ignore the bigger picture of matter, energy, etc. 
Let's return to looking at the bait. The bait attempts to take an observed property of a design (SOF), and reapply it as the source of the complex outcome of the design. 
Beside the circular thinking, the first way to tell that the bait is false, is that it avoids consideration of the obvious answer of a designer. 
Then the bait is broken, because bait only has an inkling when applied to existing life, in an ecosystem. 
The bait ignores explaining creation of matter, and energy, and how those design properties support life. 
Obviously matter, energy their properties/laws did not evolve. This is left for other non related bait. 
The second bait is only attractive after accepting the first bait. But that is the job of the "line". 
The second bait is something along the line of "big bang".  
The bait does a pretty good job of making people consider that is it scientifically possible that something could come from nothing. 
And the resulting matter, energy is so organized that is describable in intense patterns, properties, laws, equations, etc. 
The reverse engineering results in a very complicated blueprint indeed. Ironically the big bang bait is opposite of evolution debate. 
One says billions of years, the second one instantaneous creation of matter/energy.  
What bait really says a faith that we don't know. We took the first bait, so then science will eventually explain the second, we can take that on faith.  
What that ignores is that science is just a study of creation.  
Truly using science without bias clearly points to a designer/creator. 
Every person and scientist would have to admit that life and the worlds/matter/energy appears created/designed. 
The role of the bait is to consider other impossibilities. 
After all if there is God the creator, then that affects everything we believe! We are not our own masters to do as we please.

Other possible investigations/comparisons.
Scam
Evidence

There is no need to attack evolution theories.
 
Simply open our eyes and look without trying to apply justifications as to " How could this be? ".  
Or blindly applying theories without understanding all the implications. Don't accept something as true based on popular belief or media.  
Truly look at all the facts, and don't rule out facts that don't fit the puzzle that your mind is trying to put together.

And above all make a distinction between fact and theory (from a scientific definition).
  
"scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)"
We must realize what the definition of fact is, and the science says it can change, and is never final. 
So that is a real dilemma, pointing out to us how careful we must be to evaluate facts.  Especially where time is involved.  
Our minds have taught us from babies to use all our senses to establish what is real. That is only correct in the present time. 
Something in the past can not be tested with our senses, and hence the truth then depends on things like personal memory, recordings, testimonies. 
We know that time changes perspectives, and we have hence seen for example native history rewritten improving accuracy based on this generations perspective. 
The point here is to be very careful in our minds what we accept as fact. Let's look at carbon dating and fossils.  
Fossils are something we can see in the present time. We can touch and feel it and accept that as a reasonable fact (subject to authenticity).  
However our minds can not see beyond the present. We can not see the origin.  Next comes theories, such as carbon dating. 
Carbon dating is a theory because we can not live long enough to prove it out.  
For example a search reveals that the carbon dating theory only applies for about 50,000 years.  
The objective here is not prove or disprove carbon dating, but to point out it is a theory vs a fact, and that the theory has many variables, 
and assumptions that affects the accuracy. Carbon dating for example does not even have an accuracy spec that a scientific measurement such as a temperature sensor has. 
One writer summarizes it as "In short, carbon dating is as useful as any other technique, so long as it’s done properly and the results are objectively interpreted. 
It is not, however, an inherently error-free or black-and-white method for dating objects".  
I don't know about you, but for me this means it is not a fact, and is highly subject to bias such as "objectively interpreted".  
In short those are two examples of fact and theory. When we establish something as a theory we must be mindful, that generally a theory will have opposing theories. 
And that we live in only a small snap shot of time and knowledge.  
For me, for deciding something as important as the origin of creation (everyone accepts one way or another the earth and universe was created) 
means I want to really accept facts and be care of theories.  So from now on let's try to look at the facts.
Example 1:  Let's look at the building blocks, the periodic table
So first we must decide if we accept the periodic table as fact or theory.  
We can not see it as it is one of the invisible things of the world.  
However there are repeatable scientific methods and experiments that have "been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true". 
It is heavily backed by mathematical equations across multiple disciplines such as physics, chemistry, etc. 
So even though I can not personally verify the fact, I accept it as fact especially since there are no opposing theories. 
So then let's objectively look at what the periodic table reveals.

On the "fact" subject let's diverge briefly and discuss if GOD's existence is fact or theory in scientific definition.
 
Let's recall the definition "been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true".  
Many people have testified to GOD's existence due to personal experiences. Not just in the present time but over many generations.  
Also there has been documented evidence passed on from generation to generation. The bible has been carefully preserved by not changing one dot or tittle.  
Also there is substantial evidence that belief in GOD improves physical and psychological well being (lookup studies). 
On a massive observational study, countries like Canada and US that were mainly founded on christian principles had substantial growth and lower crime, 
being rated as one of the best countries to live.  Now ratings drop as we see a divergence from Christianity.  
Healthy living (avoiding drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, abuse, tattoos, gambling, etc. addressed in God's law) statistically results in better and longer lives.  
Shows GOD's principles are true in measurable results. The bible has presented the principles of washing and isolation long before viruses were discovered.  
The Bible facts has stood the test of time. As science has agreed on other facts such as a round earth, sun going around the earth, the enormancy of the galaxy, etc, 
none of these accepted facts have contradicted the bible but rather reinforced it.  
This especially includes observations such as adaptation, and the apparently infinite details science discovers in invisible details of nature. 
It is as the bible states that "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:". 
Note the scientific principles defined in this bible quote involving repeated observation (from the creation of the world is a long time period), 
and understanding that establishes a fact.  The bible even has established the foundations of science 
(repeated observation/experiment to reach understnading/conclusion) which is "the study of creation".  
In conclusion using science's definition of fact, we can define the existence of GOD as fact. 
The existence of GOD has not defied any laws of science that have been found/discovered,
but rather it continues to explain how matter was created outside those physical laws (since it can not be created not destroyed).

No point arguing against an evolution theory other than pointing out flaws in assumptions. With correct assumptions any theory can seem to work.
Example: what on earth 1966.  Also shows perspective is important when looking at anything.

Looking for the Design Attributes (Plans, Patterns, Properties, and Purpose)
 
Matter and Energy 
- periodic table (show pattern even recognized in the naming). 
- each atomic element has unique, and stable properties, describable with equations and has sub assemblies.
- each atomic element has a purpose (performs a function).
- atoms are building blocks for molecules.
- molecules are building blocks for compounds. 
- molecules have a higher level of purpose.
- matter comprised of all of the above, and requires energy to exhibit properties.
- phases of matter: Gas, Liquid, Solid, Plasma – properties dependent on energy input.
- gravity, electricity, and magnetism properties all come from the combined effect the sub components.
- matter is organized into suns, planets, solar systems and galaxies.
- atomic matter is not distributed randomly, but grouped. Example gold mines. 
- on Earth matter and energy is distributed such that it supports life.
- numerous laws of motion, gravity, etc.
- numerous equations.

Observations like a child
Let's take the observations of child playing with building blocks. First note that the child has the power of observation, thought, and movement. 
A child does not know what do to with the blocks. We, as parents, give example and show what is possible.  The classic is the stacking of the blocks. 
We show that if we methodically take one block at a time and put them carefully on top of each other that it is possible to stack many blocks.  
We/they see/learn that there are limits to how high is stack is possible. 
As children the limit is accepted, until later when further learning/observations teaches the variables that control the stacking limitations. 
For example, careful alignment of each block allows the tower to be constructed taller.
On the other hand the child also quickly learns that things happen by chance. For example, by dumping the blocks, it may be observed that two blocks are on top of each other. 
However multiple repeats of the experiment does not result in a fall stack of blocks. This is an example of something we call a design of creation.
The concept of "creation vs evolution" is taught as two alternatives to the origins of life. 
However the concept of creation is mocked by many, to the extent that it is thought that the "scientific" community only considers evolution. 
However it is more technically correct to say that it is not creation vs evolution, as everyone believes that the earth and universe were created. 
To be more accurate the question is if the creation is intelligent or random chance. At this point we need to go back to the observations and experiments of the child. 
The child quickly learns that the dumping of blocks is not a good approach to stack blocks.  
Observation of the earth and life quickly show an incredible level of pattern complexity, with all things showing purpose of performing a task.  
All the ingredients showing that these things had been designed. 
Even if we disregarded all the creation (yes the word creation is valid, the question is if it is intelligent creation) 
around us and only looked at the atomic table of elements we must marvel at the pattern of these building blocks. 
Each building block have different properties. Very complex and varying properties. Take water of example, H2O. 
How two basic gas atoms can bond to form a liquid.  And that the very existence of these atoms/molecules still need the right level of energy input to even do anything. 
Too cold they are all solids. Too hot they are all gases. All molecules break down at various temperature. All of these building blocks exhibit properties of intelligent design. 
If we go back to the child with the buiding blocks, what would happen if the blocks themselves had no properties? That is building blocks have the same size and shape. 
These properties allow them to be used as building blocks.

Furthermore it is acknowledged that all designs require a guidance.
For example the concept involved in the word "evolution" is that there is a control factor 
resulting in allowing for the self improvement of a random occurence. 
Allowing for improvements vs time.  Property or behaviour would have to be a natural property in the building blocks.  
This theory needs a starting point.  Most concepts start at a "big bang" concept because a huge amount of material is needed, especially the entire elements in the atomic table. 
But scientifically it is not fair to start here!  
One must recognise the properties of the elements and see that these too fall under the same question of these would have required intelligent design or random chance. 
Coming back to the concept of self improvement over time. The first allowance for this to occur is the concept of the ability of duplication. 
The second would be the allowance limited existence.  That is model one of random chance must duplicate, then go back to original building blocks.  
But let's look at properties of the elements.  We know that 
1. They require the right energy input for reactions to occur.
2. Unless energy is input all reactions decay????
3. We need to look constructive vs deconstructive reactions.  For example the sun is in a deconstructive phase.

How wide is the window of factors that will support life?
 
Is there more than one possible type of life form.  That is we are carbon based, and many factors have to be right to support that. 

Let's try and write the equation for life! Many varibles. Every atomic element would be a variable. But elements form compounds and they are also variables. 
The mixing ratio etc.  But let's first only consider the sun. It is the main source of energy. Without it everything would go to absolute zero which means electrons don't move? 
The classic example used is the earth must be the right distance from the sun to support life.  
Technically but saying this we mean that life must see the right energy level to support chemical reactions that enable life. 
Not just energy but the right type of energy.  So we are not going to consider how the sun works but we are just going to look at it as an energy source and analyze it. 
We think of the sun as a source of light and heat. Analysis shows this to be a broad spectrum of energy from blank to blank.  Some is found to be good and some harmful. 
At the right energy levels of course. Those energy levels are highly dependent on the band. Xrays cosmic rays source?

Other varibles, electrical, magnetic, gravity (unified field theory)
It is not evolution vs creation because everyone knows the world was created. 
Anything that exists by definition was created! The real question is was it intelligent design!!!! 
But it goes much deeper because if we are even considering random chance vs intelligent design, what about the raw materials for the design!    
Not just where do they come from but what about the right mixture of element and compounds.  Even 1 teaspoon of the wrong substance is capable of killing millions.
So how do we know if something was intelligently created.  Well our minds/common sense tells us that it is something that is not random, not a mess.  
It serves a purpose, has patterns, exhibits properties that repeat and are predicable/repeatable. Performs a task. 
But wait is it more complicated because we know from observation/study of the world that at absolute zero degrees, nothing is possible!  
Nothing moves, no tasks are performed, no reactions of elements to form compounds. It is a question if even the electron spins around the atom.   
So then the first thing we must acknowledge is the requirement of energy input into a design insider to perform a task.  But wait what is energy?  
I think we can acknowledge the fundamental form of energy is heat. Just above absolute zero things start to happen!  But wait is it already getting complicated.  
We are now even considering the life yet in our question of intelligent design.  We have just added abit of heat energy to some elements.  
But wait from a creation point of view (intelligent design or not) we need raw materials and energy. So we have a huge problem, where do they come from?  
We need a miracle, something created (intelligent or not) from nothing.  Also if we want to get philosophical we need to assume that space and time exist without the need of creation! 
We take space and time for granted. Let's consider space. Is it possible that space is endless?  We measure space in distance. We can measure space in feet or even lightyears. 
If something is measurable it exists. So even space must be created! So back to the original question, is the creation of space intelligent design or chance?

Life requires a Designed Starting Point from Matter and Energy
Life is built from matter and energy using there pre-designed properties.

Life 
- DNA hold the plans for living organism. 
- life very dependent of correct arrangement of matter and energy. 
- life has numerous subassemblies (79 organs) that are interdependent. 
- life has a purpose.

Interdependence of Sub Assemblies (click to expand)
- typical extensive argument very present in life forms, which has many organs of which are dependent on each other for life.
- however this concept can also be applied to matter and energy, and atoms and molecules!

EXPAND THIS SECTION
The above list is very brief, but should be enough data to support a conclusion (Step 6) that everything has design attributes.  

The design parameters are visible everywhere to the extent that it arguable if anything does not show attributes of design.

Lets evaluate both hypothesis:
-to see how well each acknowledges the extensive evidence of design.
-how the hypothesis theory explains the source of design evidence.

Creation Hypothesis: 
Everything is designed by God the Creator. Hypothesis completely acknowledges design, and contributes the source of the design to God the Creator. 
  The design evidence is there, so the Creator exists.
  
Evolution Hypothesis: 
1) Life evolved: Acknowledges complex design improving over time (evolving design). 
   No evolutionist denies design. They only propose that the design force for evolution is “Survival of the Fitess” (Natural Selection)
2) Origin of first life: Theories are: was a chance event, with random source input based on the properities of matter and energy.
   Initial life was by chance (not Design) against incredible odds such that it is likely the only occurance in the entire cosmos.
   Hypothesis attributes design to random occurence from perfect conditions and raw materials.
3) Origin of Matter and Energy: Big Bang does not conceed any evidence of design, nor a design force.
   All the resulting enormous design attributes and interactions are accepted "as is".
  

Comparing man's intelligent design to the design of creation.
GOD had gifted me with some minuscule talent in electronic design.  
We (Wavecom/Vecima) designed a device that years ago was used for enabling internet data on cable networks.  
The product was exclusively used by a major international company and over a period of several years consumed many many thousands, 
to the point that they estimated that 60% of the world's email was going thru these devices. 
It would be classified a very successful design by human standard. The point here is that this took a major design effort.  
Many revisions of the product had to made, and even then every device required extensive tuning and testing.  
It was common place to have a failed device come back to us for "root cause analysis". 
This means we had to use extreme measures and efforts to identify the reason or source of the failure so the product design could be improved. 
A failed product in the field was like death, and the object of the design was to prevent the failures, so people would, for example, always be able to send/receive emails.  
The design effort was continually on going.  Basically the design effort continued thru the life time of that product. 
So where is the product now? Today I would be surprised if even one of devices was operating today.  
It is an example of a pathetic design by man, but it shows design is not chance, even pathetic human designs take huge efforts guided by intelligence, 
and never achieving full success, and all of them come to nought. It is the same for human designs everywhere. We have had generations of cars designed, 
all of them needing improvement, recalls. Generations of countless people and numerous trades, always trying to improve, and each design only lasting a year before another one. 
All the designs come to nought. Our human designs are technically not even designs but just re-application of observed properties of matter and energy.
I can not even imagine the infinite design intelligence and wisdom (omnipotence) of GOD involved in creation. 
Anyone who opens their eyes to the world around them realizes this.  To not believe in GOD the creator is turning a blind eye to the origin of matter, 
the evidence presented by the existing life on earth, and the current and documented history.

Detailed look at data applied to Creation Hypothesis
- all design data fits, with theory of a Creator.  
Objections can only come with further questions such as the origins of the Creator. Which is outside of matter, energy, and time and beyond our understanding.

Detailed look at data applied to each section of the Evolution Hypothesis 
1) Life Evolved: 
Claim is that the observed inherent property of life “Survival of the Fittest” is a force strong enough that when combined with random genetic variation 
and the right environment conditions that it could eventually result in today's diverse and complex life forms, both plant and animal. 
Design complexity is acknowledged, and the source of the design complexity is contributed to “Survival fo the Fittest”.  
An important observation here is that the source of the design is not contributed to any element outside of life, but rather an observed property of life.  
That does create a dilemma that does not seem to be addressed in the hypothesis. 
One cannot help comparing it to the hypothetical perpetual motion machine, “that can do work infinitely without an external energy source.” (Wikipedia) 
2) Origin of first life:
This is essentially a massive set of uncontrolled experiments under ideal environment conditions and ideal matter/energy mix. 
The theory is that given enough time the massive set of variables aligned to allow inorganic to become organic life.  
The theory is the resulting design came from no defined source, or at best the source is purely random occurence. 
The theory is based on a design force input of “randomness”.  
Once the first organic life occurred with DNA the “Survival of the Fittest” property kicks in to perpetuate the organic material. 
In short this hypothesis assigns no design source but rather a chance event, based on having the right raw material and conditions occur. 
3) Origin of Matter and Energy: 
No design acknowledgement, hence no need for a designer. Theory is based on a massive effect such as a “big bang”.  
Theory does not explain why the resulting outcome of the big bang is so organized, nor why it shows extensive evidence of design.  
Scientific community just blindly accepts the result as “properties”, “laws”, “equations”, etc and ignores the question of why, 
and adopts a concept of “acceptance” because that's the way it is.  
Theory definitely excludes the possiblity of evolutional involvement.   

It is important to observe how the set of Evolution Hypothesis changes: 
1) Life: Recognizing design complexity, and contributing to Natural selection.
2) Origin of first Life: DNA design plan, contributing to random event based on right conditions.
3) Origin of Matter and Energy: No design acknowledgment, contributed to spontaneous effect.

Back to looking for design vs random data 
- show that nothing is truly random.

Every Christian sets dividing lines in their lives. Hopefully this is an interpretation from the bible commandments and instructions. 
For most of us it helps define who we are.  My favourite verses in the bible are ones that give instruction. 
But there is a balance as there are problems in the letter of the law.
But nevertheless these lines are used by us to personally decide what is sin and what is not. 
Also it is acknowledged what is sin for one person may not be for another.
A principle in the bible is outlined that we should not do things that might be conceived as sin by a weaker brother. (Eating of foods sacrificed to idols). 
To me this means our limits need to be set on the conservative side to avoid being a stumbling block to others. 
But only when biblically based. Also it helps us avoid self conceit that we are not vulnerable (example alcohol or gambling additions)
The first example that comes to mind is the covid vaccine. 
It is not preached but the underlining current impression is that it is common for Christians to be against the covid vaccine.  
I am not aware of a biblical basis for this, so I decided I am not acting as a stumbling block when I decide to take the covid vaccine. 
But at the same time I don't make a point of drawing attention to it, to become a stumbling block.
Second example is alcohol and gambling. Personally I decide at the zero level, as this is the safest personally, as witness to others, and avoid being a stumbling block.

In a church there are some dividing lines that are clearly set and hence preached:
- Confession of faith, baptism
- Marriage, Husband (leader of household) and wife (helpmate, respect husband) roles
- Children obey parents
- Two genders, no fornication
- Perhaps taking of oaths

Then there are subjects that there seems there is room for individuals to chose the limits:
- Alcohol intake
- Gambling
- Divorce, never, or some instances allowed. Remarriage?
- Day of rest limit
- Modesty, makeup, tattoos
- Smoking
- Drug use, marijuana. (Medical use?)
- Wealth, standard of living

Then there are lines set by general agreement but not preached
- Covid vaccine

What about MAID (medical assistance in dying)
The issue could be broken down into 3 subsections:
1. Medical prolonging of life.
- What is reasonable? Organ replacements, life support?
- When should medical profession stop, and let death occur?
2. Support in the process of dying
- The patch (sleep)
3. Actively causing premature death.

 

Question: Are we our own thinkers? 
 
That is, are we independent?  We believe generally that what we think about issues is correct.  
How much of that is affected by our environment?

1.https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/07/20/the-global-god-divide/
	-perhaps add chart of countries with higher GDP
2. More education connected with belief that God is not necessary to have good values.
3. Believe in God also varies by country.

Conclusion: Yes our beliefs are affected by our environment.  Our thinking is not as independent as we would like to think.  What does this mean to us?  It means we need to be very careful in decisions, and not base it on our heart for what feels right, or local news reports.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273004/global-belief-in-god-or-a-supreme-being/

One of the basic concepts of creation of life is the probabilities. 
But that is flawed because it only addresses alignment not creation. 
People are lured into the false hood of, once all the conditions for life exist, what is the probability of life forming. 
That is a silly supposition as it ignores origins.  The reality is that starting from nothing there are no odds and probabilities.
Correlation Not Causation  
https://thepowermoves.com/how-to-lie-with-statistics/

Perception of faith vs evolution: Science as measuring stick.!!!!!!!!!!!!
The general impression of society is that evolution is science based, and creation is faith based, and that is why people tend to migrate to evolution theory. 
However history has shown we are easily deceived. We must carefully look at the evidence, and definitions of fact, theory, faith, creation, evolution, and science.  
Perception can more easily show that the reverse is more logically true, in that creation is logical given the evidence, and the evolution takes a leap of faith. 
The simplest way to go at this is not even to consider life, but to look at the creation of the world.  Note the avoidance of the acknowledgement, that the world was created. 
Created it was.
All of science makes the assumption that the elements and their properties are "natural" and exist because that is the only way they could exist!  
That properties are not designed in!  It is the only thing we can see.  They are constant. That is taking a lot for granted! Our minds like to stop at electrons, protons, neutrons. 
There are many subatomic particles, and science thinks that most of them are not even stable. 
We must acknowledge the design nature of the atomic elements/particles even without considering their origins.  
But considering origins, we MUST recognise the creator!  By comparison there is an argument that none of the designs man has done is the result of intelligence.  
And man's designs are dwarfed by GOD's designs. There is a reason elements are called building blocks.

2.  Evolution theory is guilty of tendency to start with the answers (evolution), then find the questions to match.

Objective of science should always be to formulate the question (about an observation) then seek the answer.  
Not seeking questions to fit the answers.  
Example would be to ask the question, how did man evolve, is not a proper unbiased scientific question, as the word evolve implies you have the answer. 
The "science of evolution" is really a phasing of wording attempting to give the credibility of science to the preconceived notion/theory of evolution. 
In comparison, asking the question "how was the world created" is unbiased.  The only assumption it uses is that the world exists.  
Also the question "was the creation of the world intelligent design" is also an unbiased scientific question based on observation. 
Equally unbiased would be to ask the questions. "Where does matter come from".  "Why is matter stable, with properties expressible in equations".  
"Why does matter need energy input to exhibit properties"  "Why does matter exist in both a form that creates energy, and absorbs (needs) energy".  
Improper scientific questions would be like "How did the stars and planets form?" because the question assumed the existence of raw materials.  
In order to formulate that question you must first answer the question "where did the raw materials come from" 
and "was the formation of the stars and planets intelligent design?".  
Currently science is really applying multiple unscientific assumptions to bypass the unknown.  
It is making observations but refusing to ask the basic scientific questions. 
The most basic flaw is the making an observation and immediately assuming the observation is "natural" without the need to question the reason.  
When we, as human inventors, invent a lawn mower, we design it with properities, such as, wheels that allow it to move forward, a motor that turns a sharp blade, etc. 
Everyone well understands these as the properties of the mower. We consider the natural expected result of the mower design. 
If it did not have those designed properties we would consider it junk. 
Yet somehow when we observe properties of matter we assume the opposite, that the properties are natural without the need of them being designed that way.  
Observations of matter need to be taken from a truly scientific point of view without bias, using parallel observations of other objects that have properties, 
and non-random behaviour. We need to ask the scientific question "is this observed property of this matter intelligent design? " 
or if the question seems biased ask it in another way "is this observed property of this matter, organized randomness and how? ".  
Sometimes science does ask the right question as to why a property exists, and starts to look at the atoms comprising the molecule, 
or the subatomic particles, which is the right direction but only finds more properties of design components, generating the same question, "is this intelligent design?" . 
It even reveals the greater complexity making the basic question more valid.
So to come back to the proper formation of scientific questions, if for some reason we wanted to postulate a theory of evolution, 
it would be partially correct to ask. "Assuming matter and energy was created from nothing, with the correct balance and distribution of the elements, 
having stable defined properties, (actually this list becomes almost infinitely long, as we have phases of matter, energy types, light sound, etc), 
then somehow we assume the formation of the first single celled organism theorized repeatedly until it has somehow the ability to reproduce. 
Actually I can not seem to even begin to write the scientific question because the assumption list is too long.  
Even if you could write all the assumptions in the question of evolution, 
it still becomes difficult to support the theory without counter theories to explain things like aging. 

One of the main reason people choose to reject a belief in God the Designer/Creator is because of evolution evidence. 
The most important thing is not to focus on a section of evidence and ignore the major evidence. That distorts the intrepretation.
example????

- ignores design evidence (what strongly appears designed isn’t – reallY!  Or in the case of life, the design force is incredibly WEAK!) and Big bang had no design force?
- window effect (only looking at small picture)  (earth appears flat?)
- researchers actually look for evidence to support theory (unscientific). Meaning a bias.  They actually look for transistional fossils.
- lie to ourselves, because that is what we want to see
- like a brief glance (our lives) and you see what you want to see
- reference how to lie with statistics (not intentional, but if appears to fit the evidence)
- force of evil
- peer pressure, go with consensus. Most people don’t examine the evidence.
- Headline effect, designed as click bait, but the details are different.
- Socially programmed pre biases:   (unintentional propaganda)
    - evolution is science, and creation is not
    - creation for uneducated.
- documented evidence in history rejected! (Bible)

Evolution evidence can be compared to a child stacking building blocks.  It works for a few blocks.  Evolution is a property of life. 
Stacking a few blocks works, but you can not stack very high before it falls over.

- nature shows evidence of degradation and decay. Not of improvement
- give many detailed examples
- only Survival of the Fittest (Natural Selection) theorizies a concept of  self improvement. To conceive this it has to combine the concept with random variations.

Pseudogenes, Junk DNA believed to have no purpose, Evidence of evolution.  
This is a classic example of starting with the answer and find the question to match. 
It is just misuse of what trying to fit one puzzle piece the way you want it to fit without looking at the whole puzzle.  
Actually this is more logically evidence of degradation, degraded DNA, from the perfect DNA at time of creation. 
Or another way to look at it, is the consequence on what our bodies pass on from one generation to the next. 
Just like life span are historically documented as living longer, implies better DNA. 

Why not use the documentation of the bible?
Why ignore "coincidence" of evidence of world wide flood?
Why is the earth so round? (because it has to be, and hence must be the result of natural forces?) And natural forces have no design origin? 

-reminder contradiction does not disprove any theory, just is part of the data for consideration
Old age (aging related to the sun). Before the flood the earth was protected by moisture in the atmosphere, exceeding life spans. 
Science has learned this makes sense.

https://wisehealthwealth.com/contradictions-of-evolution-is-it-really-science/
Life only comes from life.  We do not observe instances of life being attempted, then dying because of a failed attempt. 
  For life to have occurred from random chance, we should still be seeing evidence of the attempts.
Question: if evolution is good, why is inbreeding bad, and creates weakness.  
  Creation wise this makes sense, because a mutation is bad, and inbreeding makes the mutation worse. 
  By not marrying too closely we avoid multiplying or carrying forward the mutation.
  Evolution theory is based on mutations, given that almost all mutations would be bad with the theoretical possibility of one with more benefit than harm. 
  The problem is the correct interpretation of the observation as it is a very small window of observation. 
  1. Ignore origin of matter and life. 
  2. Trying to apply a small observation backward to explain origin and diversity and balance of life.  
  Is it more logical to look at the small observation as a design property in a complex system, 
  or to guess that it is so powerful as to result in the creation of all life, diversity, senses, taking advantage of all the other ready made properties of matter ready to support life.
  All we have to do to make it clearer to us is to step back and look at the bigger picture. 
  Look first at the creation of matter, and its properties. And not just random matter, but matter organized into planets, with energy source (suns), 
  and with the right mixture of elements.  Elements that form compounds.  Evidence of intelligent design is incredible!  
  Science attempts to contribute all the organization to the properties of the elements. 
  Which again if we have blinders on is true. But once again from the big picture we must face that these properties are the result of design and creation.  
  No matter how we look at it creation happened! Elements did not evolve to have properties to support life.
  

Reminder that we don't see things clearly.
No matter if you look at things purely scientifically or biblically, the main thing to realize is  "For now we see through a glass, darkly;" (1Co 13:12)
Meaning we don't have all the answers.  A simple reflection on history and how as the knowledge of man increases, facts are changed.  
If some things are understood, or appear to contradict, just remember we are far from all knowing.  Remember the big evidence. 
 
Besides if you are believer in God, you also then recognize that evil exists. Biblically speaking that evil's job is to make us question God. 
Is it surprising then to come across what appears to be contradictions?  Just look for wolf and sheep in the bible.

Remember it is not what man does not understand that proves GOD exists but what he does understand.
Don't fall into the trap that because science doesn't understand how a bee can fly that, that proves GOD exists, that it is beyond science.  
That is backward thinking.  It is the things that science (the study of GOD's creation), understands that reveal small understanding in the design behind the creation. 
Like the verse says
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: "

Things not explained by science should not be used as evidence of creation
For example if science can not explain how a bee flies, that is not evidence of creation.  It is only evidence that we see dimly.
but perhaps inconsistencies can.

Accept the fact that not all the puzzle pieces are available.
Remember we are meant to look thru a glass darkly.  If we think we understand we deceive ourselves, and open to being proven wrong later, and this affects our ability to witness.  
If science can accept the statement that we don't know the answer (missing puzzle piece), why can not we, who are christian, all the more claim the bible (God's word) and admit we see dimly. 
Claiming theories that might fit and answer could lead to lack of trust.  
We could perhaps propose something purely as a theory, but if we are not yet to know, perhaps it is better to accept that. Example glh book on pre-adam gap in time.

What about Miracles?
Miracles could be classified in two categories:
1. An event that was not expected or unlikely.
2. An event that defines the scientifically observed and documented properties of life or the cosmos.
 - Examples are the Miracles of Jesus documented in the Bible.

Let's play the what if game! (If the earth wasn't designed what did all these parameters come from?)
- What if there was no sun to provide energy for matter?

- What if there was not 3 phases of matter? No air? No oxygen?
- What if oxygen did not dissolve into water? No life in lakes and oceans. And the oxygen would not be carried in our blood streams.

- What if air wasn't transparent to light? 
- Why aren't more objects black? The visible light spectrum 
- What if the earth atmosphere did not filter out the harmful spectrum? (ultraviolet)
- What if air could not hold some humidity?
- What it the humidity blocked or distorted the light thru the air?
- What if the density of air was different?  Birds might not fly or the pressure would crush us. Air weighs 14.7 psi or pounds per square inch at sea level.  
The reason it does not crush us is that we are immersed in it, with equal pressure pushing out.
- What if wave theory did not exist?  We could not have sound travel thru the air.  No sight. The sun's energy would not travel to the earth.
- What if sound did not get sorted with distance. The world would just get noisier and noisier. Or even what if sound travelled as far as light before it got softer. 
It would be a very noisy world.

- What if different materials did not absorb and reflect light differently? There would be no color, not even a gray scale.
- What is ice did not expand when it gets cold, opposite to other matter (things shrink when cold). It would sink and kill everything!
- What if water did not absorb into the ground?
- What if water did not evaporate, or only was capable of evaporating at the boiling point?
- What if the water was incapable of holding moisture? What if the moisture did not distribute thru the air.  What if the moisture was also not capable of coming together to form rain?
- What if water had no surface tension, or capillary action, which the water seems to flow against gravity, but is actually part of the design.
- What if water was not transparent? How could life in water see?
- What if water dissolved all elements/components, instead of a selection? What if even the compound salt did not dissolved in water?
- What if water action was not capable of erosion?

- What if there was no wind?  Clouds would not transport the water to different areas. Water would run to the ocean, and we would be dry.
- What if gravity did not exist?
- What if there was no magnetic field? (Protects us from a lot of solar radiation)
- What if atoms or groups of atoms could not take on an electrical charge (+ or -) by gaining or losing an electron?  
Of course this would mean no electricity, but it would also mean the nervous system in the body would not be possible, no matter how big or small. 
All senses would be not possible. (Touch, smell, feel, sight, hearing).  But it would also make the design of the brain not possible.  
Electrical charge was a property of matter necessary for creation, and it was necessary that not all atoms had the property, 
as also "insulating" biologic matter was also required to make it work.
- What if there was no bacteria? Science has learned the body has many microbiomes. Including, gut, skin, mouth.
- What if a fallen tree did not decay?

- What if there was no friction. We would not even be able to walk on the ground, it would be worse than walking on ice.
- What if seeds did not know which way was up?
- What if the earth was not round? Diameter is 12,756km, but highest mountain is 8.8km above sea level.  
That is <0.07% of the diameter so it is pretty round. Above 8kms is known as the death zone. So basically the roundness enables go to almost everywhere.  
               It is just right, and the variables of force of gravity, weight of air molecu!es, and peak height are all variables involved.
- What if there was no moon? Science predicted a serious effect on the wobble of earth with a huge effect on seasons.
- What if the world had no oceans?
- What about aging? Science has not yet determined if they consider aging "natural" or a disease. Accumulated aging can occur, 
      and it is known that aging can be slowed by healthy eating and exercise. 
      Also genetics is a factor.  
      "Aging is an Evolutionary Paradox" but it is also possible to come up with theories so they theorize that the force of natural selection 
      starts to decrease after the age of maturity.  
      However this is just trying to fit the graph to outcome.  
      Logic (observations of the world around us) dictates that longer life means better chance of survival for the children, 
      and longer life definitely means more offspring. 
      Also since intelligence is rated so high on importance in evolution (since we are the top) intelligence results in more experience as time progresses.  
      Hence adding time to life in theory should be a major part of "natural selection". 
      But that only in the recent past has man's life span gone up, and that has not been due to "natural selection".


All of these parameters are clearly part of the design.  
Just because we understand a parameter and can define a mathematical expression for its properties, does not explain its existence without a creator.  
The correct view only points to the creator.  And these are single simple things. What about the complex things, that are interrelated. 

What about the paradox of what man historically considers "good" (no murder, protect life, help the sick) vs What natural selection considers good.  
Natural Selection requires that only the fittest survive, which means evolutionary thinking it would be smart for man to encourage the process, and follow the example. 

What is even more marvellous is that GOD did not just design the world, but gave us life with a soul, and everlasting life after death.  

Let's play What is the purpose of??
- Rainbows: 
- Aging
- Why is DNA fixed at conception? Would not evolution be effective only if DNA was modified during life, based on positive experiences in life. 
       Then it might actually make some logical sense.  
       But by being fixed at conception, the only natural selection is based on ability to survive to reproduce, and support the life of your offspring.
       

Sample of Bible Knowledge
Consider things that are known now by science that the bible knew, or revealed.
- Amount of water on earth capable of world side flood.
  "Approx. 30% of the earth is land with an average height of 850 meters. 
  Approx. 70% of the earth is ocean with an average depth of 3900 meters. 
  So if earth were a perfect sphere, then the entire earth would be covered with water with an average depth of 2,500 meters, or 2.5 km,"
 - concept of terms of isolation.
   isolation of people with contagious desease such a leprosy.   
- Concept of washing of hands, even when they did not know germs existed.
- Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
- Is 40:22.  Earth was round hanging in empty space.
- Job 40:15-26 dinosaur descriptor before the existence was known.
- Hebrews 11:3. Earth made of invisible elements
- Matt 3:9 "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.". 
  God is capable of matter changes at the molecular level. 
  Science has learned the relationship between different elements and knows the elements are based on one another and transmutation is possible.
- Psalm 102:25,26. "...all of them shall wax old like a garment;...". The universe will get old wearing out.. 
  "Everywhere we look, from the scale of the galaxies down to the scale of the atom, we find a universal, natural tendency of all systems to go from order to disorder; 
  from complexity to simplicity.". "
  This natural tendency towards disorder is so all-pervasive and unfailing that it has been formalized as a natural law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 
  Isaac Asimov has stated it this way (Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6):
  "Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'"
If there is a second law of thermodynamics, there must be a first law, of course. 
  Indeed there is, and this natural law confirms another scientifically testable statement found in the Bible. 
  The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. 
  One form of energy may be converted into another, energy may be converted into matter, and matter may be converted into energy, but the total quantity always remains the same. 
  You can't get something from nothing, and you can't take something and make nothing out of it.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy), the most firmly established natural law in science, 
  confirms the Biblical statement concerning a finished creation, 
  as found in Genesis 2:1,2: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
  And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made."

Use of Bible knowledge example
Maury's native state, the State of Virginia, has acknowledged the great debt navigation owes him, having erected monuments to his memory. 
  On these monuments may be found a plaque that reads as follows: 
  "Matthew Fontaine Maury, Pathfinder of the Seas, the Genius Who First Snatched from the Ocean and Atmosphere the Secret of Their Laws. 
  His Inspiration, Holy Writ, Psalm 8:8, Psalm 107:23,24, and Ecclesiastes 1:6."


link about Science and the Bible