Viewing By Entry / Main
October 17, 2020
Non-Work: The Case for A Creator


Dude - why are you aggregated on MXNA?

I'm Director of Enngineering for Adobe LiveCycle and BlazeDS.

I title all non-work blog entries clearly with the title "Non-Work...". Sorry if you missed that.


Damon, I appreciate you sharing your faith openly. If I had a blog I would probably do the same thing on occasion. No matter how negatively people respond, know that you are doing what you can do. Michael Schmidt

does this book try and explain who/what created the creator?

OMG just by the chapters what a load of garbage there is no evidence against Darwinist theory it has been observed in the lab and in the wild. retroviral DNA clearly proves this.

this is not even the slightest bit scientific please get a new blog and don't put this crap somewhere that will be sucked up by technology related blog aggregators.

while i'm at it, have a read of The God Delusion or similar work, or if ya want to get Scientific read a good biology book, Richard Dawkins has several. The blind watch maker is a good start

M@ - Why are you so upset? There's a *lot* of personal and non-development type postings in peoples blog. If it bothers you that much, just pass it by. For what it's worth, why are most people generally opened-minded about stuff, except when it comes to Christianity? Just curious?

Thanks for posting this Damon. I love Lee Strobel and I already want to watch this entire video now.

because generally the off topic posts are atleast scientific so ya can have them fall under the "science and technology" genre.

why do people get pissed off with Christianity posts? maybe hypocrisy maybe its because the god it talks of has killed over 1.8million in the bible when you read it fully and add them up where as evolution has and will kill everyone lol we aren't talking of it on Adobe technology blogs. and isn't that book not even meant to be Christianity but Christianity in disguise ?

there is plenty of blog lists out there for non scientific stuff. this is more so for computer science. anyway it is his blog. but try and not get the topics aggregated if possible.


nah, fair enough, it's his blog, if he want's to mark himself as the kind of idiot who believes in 'Intelligent Design' (that's what the book's about after all), then that's up to him. He should however expect hostile feedback.

If anyone wonders why I personally at least get worked up by this, it's because this kind of nonsense isn't harmless any more, it's become a co-ordinated attack on reason and scientific theory by the christian church and its spread is dragging not only your country but slowly our entire western civilisation back into the dark ages. The last thing I expect is a (presumably) intelligent scientifically minded person to perpetuate such stupidity.

@Adam: Shame on you for ever thinking hostile feedback is appropriate.

I welcome open-minded discussions about tough topics, but your derogatory name calling is far from scientific.

I was prepared for these types of responses, absolutely. And I'm glad you guys took the time to post.

As an engineer, and a rebel most of my life, I got skeptical about claims that we evolved by chance, and that aliens deposited our DNA on rocks from outer space and (the best one) that there is a machine that spits out universes and our happened to hit the jackpot for laws of physics that are perfect for life. These are the actual best theories today in the evolution-based scientific community for how we got here.

Sounded like total bull and pure science fiction to me.

As an engineering manager, I found it hard to believe, for example, that the 1 billion bits of information contained in the first DNA stand in the first cell, that tells the cell how to reproduce itself, setup protein factories, run the defense mechanism for the cell, manufacture food from its environment, etc could be assembled over long periods of time "by accident".

That's like saying Adobe ColdFusion 8 (consisting of only about 500,000 lines of code, written by my engineers and designed by my team) would write itself if you randomly shoved lines of code together for a few million years.

My engineers will tell you and I would posit: no way, not happening. No amount of monkeys hammering on keyboards would produce ColdFusion 8 in the length of time the universe has been around.

ColdFusion 8 had a designer. I think it's foolish to think the first DNA strand which is an incredible piece of programming work had a programmer. Definitely wasn't my team. Had to be someone, and there's only one option that I'm aware of. The aliens thing is too far out there for me.

I'd also posit that in the 200+ years of digging, and not having found a SINGLE shred of evidence for evolution between species, someone would finally say "Hey, maybe we need a new theory? This one has no evidence!". But we are still believing the company line out there: we came from mud. That's not scientific is all I can say.

Darwin himself in his book says that if any species would ever be found that could not have arisen from the process of evolution, then his theory would be invalidated. Take a look at the Flagella ( It's got a rotary motor that runs at 100,000 RPM, has two gears, consists of 40 parts, without any of which the species would have died. It's generally agreed this thing could not have evolved one step at a time (it would have died and therefore not been able to reproduce and carry on).

Probably the biggest piece of evidence I found amazing was the non-evidence, actually for evolution. The fossil record records changes within species but after 200+ years of digging stuff up, nobody has ever found a single, solitary example of inter-species evolution. How can that be possible if the theory is true?

Doesn't make sense to my skeptical brain.

What about the big bang theory? I think all scientists agree it's the way the universe got started. In general, anything that exists has a purpose. I have a keyboard, and it has a purpose. Mold exists and it has a purpose. The universe exists and started apparently from absolutely nothing somehow. How is that possible without something bigger and outside the universe involved?

And the list goes on and on if you truly take the skeptics view of what people are being told to believe and investigate the evidence from an unbiased perspective.

A jury who stands up as soon as the judge is seated and says "Your honor we have reached a verdict!" before the first gavel falls at the beginning of the case would not be taken seriously by the judge. Similarly, emotional responses to thought-provoking evidences PRIOR to reviewing the evidence makes little sense. I would suggest reviewing the evidence for yourself, and letting it lead you to your own conclusions, no matter where that might lead.

You might be surprised at what you find.


The problem with Lee Strobel's arguments is his assumption that because scientists can't prove why something is the way that it is, then the fallback answer is that it was made or designed by a Creator - rather than accepting that we don't understand or don't have the answers for everything. Why does the argument always have to favor religion as the default?

Things just go down hill when he gets to "irreducible complexity" and other "intelligent design" arguments though.

Watch his video on Evidence from Biology:

Then watch these videos:

The problem is that answers do come along sooner or later, and when they do it debunks an entire branch of arguments. This book and DVD is now 2 years old and is already out of date!

And in fact, here's a paper presenting the evolution of the flagellum, dating from 2003:

The argument there seems to be that have evolved FORWARD and then evolved BACKWARDS to our current form. I see.

Cute, especially when he wears the mousetrap as a tie clip, but regardless of what you call it, Darwin himself laid out the method for debunking his theory. See the wiki page of Flagella for an example a species he said would, if, if it were ever to be discovered, would unfortunately disprove his entire theory.


Looks like an engine assembly line. Maybe you missed the conclusion:

"The very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required"

In other words "we made one up, so therefore it's possible to evolve a rotart engine without designing one".

Sorry, I'm way to skeptical. Maybe I don't have enough faith.


ok, I'll bite...

@Brad - whatever, I'm just saying it as I see it, if you believe 'ID' then you are an idiot in my eyes, you essentially live your life around a fairy tale. I think it's about time some of us stopped quietly thinking "that's stupid" and started saying it out loud, as good men died for our right to be able to. Anyway, I find it quite offensive that Damon thinks I'm a bad person who will burn in hell because I don't believe in the same magic as him, he posted a cartoon about it a few days ago, but it's his right.

@Damon - ah, I think I see the problem, you don't really understand evolution or natural selection.

All of your arguments above are pretty well debunked (I think anyway) here...

As someone has pointed out above, isn't this just like saying... 'well there's some holes in physics still, so I'll believe apples fall by magic instead'? Going by this reasoning, and if you happened to be born in India, you'd be Hindu, and in Thailand, Buddhist... they can't all be the 'correct' default other answer can they?

I think you misunderstand me. I understand the theory of evolution just fine. The problem is not that that there are holes in it.

The problem is that there is not ONE SHRED of evidence for inter-species evolution.

Maybe I missed it somewhere. Please do enlighten us ignorant :)


No evidence? I'm sure it happens more often than we think:

And even if you don't call that evidence, no evidence isn't reason enough to say that a Creator is *the* answer.

(yeah, sorry if my tone's kinda confrontational but if there's one thing that makes me go grrrrr...! I'm sure everyone bothering to post here's the same :)

@Damon - nope, but then there's not ONE SHRED of evidence your (or any other) God exists, and a lot more people have been looking for him for a lot longer... and surely he should be a lot easier to find, he sure used to do a good line in quite visible plagues and miracles according to the Old Testament.

So if/when this evidence does turn up, you'll give up believing in God? I guess as long as you are open to changing your beliefs based on evidence then that's cool, unfortunately not many theists really would, they'd just find another hole or way of fitting the evidence into their religious framework and go right on believing. On the other hand if God does turn up tomorrow in fire and brimstone I'll be back here to say 'doh, you where right'. :)

Evolution Revolution: Two Species Become One, Study Says

"New research shows the insect was originally created from two different butterflies in an evolutionary process many biologists didn't think possible."

Wow. So just so I'm clear: if we're not having sex with other species, we stop evolving?

Come on, guys. This is bad fantasy science fiction. Which species will you guys chose to mate with, out of curiosity to help evolution out?


"New research shows the insect was originally created from two different butterflies in an evolutionary process many biologists didn't think possible."

Both were what? Butterflies.


"if we're not having sex with other species, we stop evolving? "

..nope, no-one said that, you're misunderstanding again or simply choosing to not accept what you want and muddy the waters. Your original point was that there's no evidence of it, he's now given you examples.

Also, the second link, the butterflies, I think was meant to reference the Flagellum argument, as it shows evolution running 'backwards'... as you scoffed at above.

Ho hum, guess you're still right though, no matter what evidence is presented, that's faith for ya! :)

oh, may as well point out the real reason I came here in the first place... you've got a typo in the title :)

I think it's you, actually who has the most faith. :)

Butterflies mating with butterflies = more butterflies, not a new species.

Flagella is one example of a creature Darwin was on the lookout for. The human eye is another example.

I honestly think if Darwin were alive, he'd be the first to stand up and preach to his faithful, while admirable in their blind faith, fiercely stick to a an old outdated theory that has been proven obsolete. After learning that not a single bit of fossil evidence has turned up in the 128 years since his death, and his theory still going string, he would be forced to conclude that scientists themselves have abandoned the scientific method of following the evidence wherever it leads, and revising or abandoning theories that don't bear fruit.

But, I'm still waiting on the "missing link" evidence. We've found rocks and fossils going back to the beginning of life on earth, and not a single example of a species that was "mid way" between species. Not even one. Nadda. Zip. Zero. That means there's nothing that can show that species evolution ever existed.

THAT, gentlemen is not a "few holes in the theory". That is what is called "nothing at all to support the theory whatsoever".

That's known as a "Faith Based System".


>>oh, may as well point out the real reason I came here in the first place... you've got a typo in the title :)

Thanks. I've corrected it. It will unfortunately cause a re-propogation of the aggregator feeds, sorry. :)


For all, two more points to ponder:


Psalm 14:1 says

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

2) If I'm wrong, not a big deal...I live a decent life with my beliefs, etc and die and get eaten by worms.

But if you're wrong, and there is a Creator and a judgement after death, that's a pretty major gamble: you get eternity in Hell.

If you think you're good enough to get into Heaven anyway, take this simple Good Person Test:

Let me know how you make out :)


Re: evolution of species, I think you should read The Salamanders Tale, pg 299:'s+Tale.&source=web&ots=AjZhQsJK5k&sig=Na9vHDa5wctmBS87HLwA5FhaZtY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA299,M1

Oh no, point number 2...

"If you don't clean your room, you won't get any ice cream". "If you aren't good, Santa won't bring you any presents". "If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell".

If you're born into Buddhism (just as people are "born into" other religions), you don't subscribe to the Bible. So by this same point, you're saying that Buddhists will get an eternity in Hell. That's unfortunate. What happened to people who walked this earth thousands of years ago before Christianity existed? I guess they're getting punished for not coming up with Christianity sooner... Silly them.

I would also recommend you read Dawkin's The God Delusion. It will expand your horizons with a few things you may never have considered before. There are other religions outside Christianity, and there are other things outside religion.

Ah, the brilliant Richard Dawkins.

In Expelled, Dawkins was asked the simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered.

Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.

In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labrynthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.

Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?

Nice. I love Dawkins. He proves that eveolution has lost any credibility as a serious scientific theory. He's a Creationists best friend. :)


Nice side-step, you picked up a single word out of the last reply and ran with it, ignoring the other couple of hundred words :)

This is what you call a Creationist's best friend:

"If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell".

Nope. Even if you believe in God, as long as that's all you do, you're still headed to Hell. All kinds of bad people believe in God and murder, rape, steal, lie etc. They believe in God, they just don't believe they will be punished.

The group in this thread seem to be of the mind there is no God. And that's fine, but just remember that even if I don't believe in the law of gravity, and I firmly believe I will step out of the plane at 10,000ft and fly like a bird, that doesn't make me able to fly. The reality of the law of gravity will still plunge me to my death, no matter whether I believe in it or not.

If you believe there is no punishment, then Hitler will never be brought to justice. Live as you want, do what you want, no consequences, ever. Party on Garth.

If you've ever lied or stolen anything, regardless of the value, or broken any other of the Ten Commandments, you are guilty by God's standards and will face a righteous judge when you die.

God gave us our conscience so we would know when we break His Law; the guilt we feel when we do something wrong tells us that we need to repent, be willing to turn from our sin, and put our trust in Jesus Christ like we would a parachute for our salvation.

WRT Buddhism, Hinduism, etc that pre-date Christianity, the God of Creation only knows what the deal is with folks who lived prior to Abraham. God is holy and just and will do the right thing there, as well as with the Jewish people whom he gave the original Ten Commandments to.

However the "new deal" as it were, of this time is in salvation to all mankind through Jesus Christ, son of the living God.

Which is good, because you are guilty of breaking God's laws (as we all are) and will face him on judgment day. The only valid answer for us to the question "Why should I let you into Heaven" is not "I worked my way here", or "I did more good than bad", but "I am cleansed by the holy and perfect sacrifice of your Son, Jesus Christ. He paid for my sins already. I sinned against You, but He paid my fine."

Like I said. Even fomr the pragmatic stance of "risk management", if you are wrong, the stakes are enormous. And with all the evidence pointing to a Creator, you have to ask yourself ,"Am I willing to take that chance?"


Come on, links to an old Womens's Liberty College debate are the best you guys got?

How about some actual evidence? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? :)


Who created the Creator?

>>Who created the Creator?

To answer this, let's look briefly at time. If you accept the premise that the universe WAS created for a moment, and there was a Big Bang at the beginning of creation, as science observations show, you realize that time is a dimension that was also created in the Big Bang. Not only was time created, but as with everything in the universe, man is man is also subjected to time.

The Creator must therefore dwells outside of the dimensions He created (for those with Bibles, check out 2 Timothy 1:9 & Titus 1:2). If true, the Creator is not subject to time. The Creator brought history into being. The conclusion can reasonably be drawn, I think that if He wished, the Creator of time itself could surely move through it (a dimension He Himself created) as easily a man flips through a history book.


Because we live in the dimension of time, logic and reason demand that everything must have a beginning and an end. We can understand the concept of the Creator's eternal nature the same way we understand the concept of space (not the observable universe, but space itself in which the matter of the universe resides) having no beginning and no end. We have never observed the beginning or end of space, we simply have to believe they are so, even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrums.

And for those with a Bible in their home, the Bible also happens to declare the same thing: the Creator is eternal: he told Moses he was the great I AM. That's it, no time-based beginning or end.

Brain hurt now? :)


How do I test and validate your theory that the Creator lives in another dimension?

Easy: look a book. Are you bound by the laws of the book, to have to act like one of its pages, to turn in sequence, etc, even if you were the creator of the book?

Neither then would the Creator of time itself have to be bound by time. The act of creation implies a beginning, but that's a concept that is time-bound, and time did not exist science tells us pripr to the Big Bang. How then can it be possible to have a Creator bound by 1) something He created and 2) something which didn't yet exist?


Here are a few questions for anyone earnestly considering origin theory:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

Good luck in your quest. I've settled on my theory, and it's the one that the most evidence points to, as uncomfortable as that makes some folks.


A visual summary of the evolutionists' "evidence" for the supposed evolkution of man from ape:


More false stories by creationist who know there followers will never fully research anything so they can tell them what they want.

Look how flawd your image is, not a single biologist on the planet believes modern man come from neanderthals and to try and say it was a old man in france LOL!! the whole name Neanderthal comes from the fact that they were discovered in Neanderthal Valley Germany. but not a single creationist bothers to look this up and keep going on about some old thing in france which was one of many many Neanderthal specimens. creationism is soooooooo far from science its not funny. there has never been a peer reviewed and passed creationist paper. its simply a money making machine to make money from the stupid


Um, seriously people, Ya'll need to calm down a bit.

Religion (Christianity in particular) offers a "why" to creation, whereas Science offers a "how". The two are not mutually exclusive. For an extended treatise on this viewpoint, take a look at Pope John Paull II's words on the subject from 1986. Pope Benedict 16th has recently reaffirmed the outlook of the largest Christian church on the planet.

"Creationist" and "Creation Science" theories are radical fringe groups, that are vocal minorities on the world stage. The vast majority of christians on the planet accept that "it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings." (quoted from the previously linked article).

Trying to argue that Science is wrong, or religion is wrong is discouting the largest organized religious group on the planet that believes that they're both right.


Um, seriously people, Ya'll need to calm down a bit.

Religion (Christianity in particular) offers a "why" to creation, whereas Science offers a "how". The two are not mutually exclusive. For an extended treatise on this viewpoint, take a look at Pope John Paull II's words on the subject from 1986. Pope Benedict 16th has recently reaffirmed the outlook of the largest Christian church on the planet.

"Creationist" and "Creation Science" theories are radical fringe groups, that are vocal minorities on the world stage. The vast majority of christians on the planet accept that "it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings." (quoted from the previously linked article).

Trying to argue that Science is wrong, or religion is wrong is discouting the largest organized religious group on the planet that believes that they're both right.

Link was messed up in previous post:

Also, just noticed that addcomment.cfm doesn't do a redirect after a successful post, which means a reload reposts the comment. You may want to look at fixing that.

Ok, maybe evolution and big bang are bad theories, and there's not enough scientific evidence to support them. It's fair to be a skeptic and point to the lack of scientific evidence for both. But a true skeptic cannot pick and choose what to be skeptic about. What's the scientific evidence that there's a creator? What's the evidence for heaven or hell? We all know that there's no evidence for those. There're only stories that some chose to believe in, some not. That's why it's called faith.

So, I accept the "I'd rather not take the chance of burning in hell" argument. If that's enough for someone to blindly believe in something because you're not a risk taker, that's great. But I'd rather be a true skeptic, keep questioning, keep trying to find the truth using *only* proven scientific data and maybe some day I'll come to a conclusion one way or another, or maybe not.

If there's a creator out there, I'm sure he would prefer the intellectual curiosity (even if it leads to wrong conclusions) to the blind unquestioned faith that's based on fairy tales and not scientific data.