Which came first?

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg". You've heard it many times. It's an old question. Many consider it to be unanswerable. The answer is simple, and if you don't know, it'll be apparent shortly.

At first glance, Francis Crick appears to have been a bright guy. Over fifty years ago he received a Ph.D. from Gonville and Caius College in Cambridge. He was an English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist. He was the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule. Crick, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".

To me, one thing about him really stood out - he was a devote atheist and evolutionist. He began his best-known book with this statement: "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Utter nonsense. That's the problem with believing the lie of evolution. It forces one to toss aside the truth for complete nonsense.

Crick knew better. His Nobel Prize was proof that he, of all people, knew better. Instead of admitting the truth, he "chose" the lie.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is what makes protein. However, DNA itself is made of protein. So, which came first: the DNA that makes protein or the protein out of which DNA is made?

In our physical universe (As an aside, have you ever looked up the word "universe"? Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus lists "God's handiwork" as a synonym), all life has DNA. Inversely, there is no life without DNA. Now here's the catch, DNA itself has life. So what came first, the DNA, which is a requisite for life, or the life that is necessary for DNA? Living cells synthesize DNA. So, which came first, the DNA, without which there could be no cell, or the cell without which there could be no DNA?

Life requires enzymes. However enzymes are not living things. Life produces enzymes. Which came first, the enzymes without which there can be no life, or the life without which there can be no enzymes? The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine contain histidine. Which came first, the histidine or the enzymes that manufacture it, which themselves contain histidine?

Many different enzymes are required to translate the genetic information encoded on DNA. However, the enzymes are themselves encoded by DNA. This presents a problem for an atheist; the genetic code cannot be translated except by products of translation. It's a vicious circle that allows for only one conclusion: the molecules that encode the information and those that decode it simultaneously came in to existence. This goes against evolution, but it's undeniably true.

Now, the atheist could take the Crick approach and spout some absurd nonsensicality, but why not state the obvious? It requires an act of creation by God.

HE came first.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1-3 KJV