For the purposes of this article, we will call them NAMD's. That way I do not have to type so many letters.
1) We have a finite Universe according to observation, It is an expanding Universe (thus we have a red shift in the light received from stars) and furthermore calculations of the mass of the Universe tell us that there is too much expansion to be reversed by gravity. The Universe, should it continue on as is, will experience heat death when all energy has become entropy. Some scientists like to propose it as a cold death and perhaps a big crunch when everything contracts back into itself and explodes. Some like long walks on the beach and Pina Coladas, too. But too little mass, no retraction, no explosion, no more Universe.
The Universe is finite, ergo, it must have had a beginning. So ask a Christian where all time and matter came from and he will say, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Ask a NAMD who or what made the Universe and he may take fifteen minutes or fifteen seconds to say, "I don't know."
A Creator God who is supernatural and pre-existent is a logical first cause for the Universe, NAMD will say no, I do not believe in God, it had to be something else. "God could not have created the Universe because I do not believe in God." This is a metaphysical statement and not a scientific statement. You have now identified the problem NAMD has with existence. The only logical conclusion is denied by NAMD because it does not fit their religious belief system, their worldview, and not because of observation. Christians have an eyewitness account of the Creation from God in the Bible. We have evidence to support our belief in what Occam's Razor would tell you is the answer. God Created.
2) Life. Life is hard to define. We know when a person is alive and when he is dead and we have been able to revive patients who temporarily quit breathing or whose heart stops. Sometimes we can keep the blood flowing and the lungs filling with air artificially but if life goes, it goes, and you cannot measure it. You can only deduce when it is no longer within an organism. Life can only survive within an organism. Organisms are rather complex beings that I and many others would argue could not possibly have happened by accident. In fact, all living things carry a design code, a blueprint, some would even say a signature of the Maker which is DNA.
Where did life come from? Ask a NAMD and he will not be able to give you an answer that is worth repeating. I have heard some astonishing and ridiculous ideas but never has a commenter on this blog or a scientist anywhere in the world proposed a means by which life came from non-life. "By some happy accident", or words to that effect, will be your answer. If God is kind you will not get stuck in a conversation with someone who proposes something ludicrous like "on the backs of crystals!"
Christians have an answer. God created all living things and the order in which He created them is laid out in Genesis 1. In fact, Louis Pasteur proved to the satisfaction of the scientific community that life only comes from life, the Law of Abiogenesis, so that at one point science was willing to agree with the Bible. Now an NAMD says, "I don't believe in God, so I do not believe He created living things." In other words, NAMD's have abandoned the findings of observational science because they prefer not to believe in God. This is, again, a metaphysical statement and not a scientific statement. The scientist says that life only comes from life. The Bible says God made life to reproduce "after it's kind". Science and God agree. NAMD's do not so they are in this case simply unscientific and being driven by a religious point of view.
3) Information. I have used several posts on this blog to demonstrate that information has no mass, is not material in form but is in fact the transfer of intelligence or a message from intelligence. Commenters have miserably failed to do more than repeat Darwinist propaganda here. Classic analogy. I have a pen and paper. I stand on a weigh scale. You stand on a weigh scale. I write a message on the pad and hold it up for you to read. You read it. Your mass does not change. My mass and the mass of the pen and paper set does not change. But information flowed from me to you.
DNA is an intricate information coding system that works with information in the cell to produce and sustain life and to provide the information for new life. Where did the information in DNA come from? Would you believe one commenter said "Natural selection and mutation." Mutation is a mistake. Mutation is when something is broken or malformed. Natural selection is a description of a process that is driven by the cell.
Does a tornado assemble a 747 and fuel it and fly it?
A Christian would tell you that DNA is God's signature in the cell. A NAMD will say, "I do not believe in God so it had to have come from a long series of accidents." Now which is more logical? That a Creator God would design self-replicating organisms with a coding system that causes them to adjust to changing conditions in order to provide an ecosystem for our planet, or that accidents and mistakes and oops and poof and voila and abra cadabra provided the most efficient coding system known to exist? Again, a NAMD resorts to his belief system to deny the obvious. Only an intelligent Creator could devise such a remarkable coding system and the fact that it is found in all organisms within all the man-made "domains" and "phyla" points to a common Designer.
4) The Cell. While in the automotive industry I worked in every facet - union labor, management, quality control lab, technical/engineering team and auditing team. Now man is a great copier of creation. The Wright Brothers, who were Christians by the way, were bicycle makers who studied birds to try to figure out how to make a flying machine. Modern nano-engineers study microbes to learn to make nano-machines. In any event, early automobiles were made powered by wind-up springs, by steam, by two-cycle engines using petroleum products and then four-cycle engines became popular. Some early automobiles had three or six wheels but most have four now. People tend to learn from others.
Nevertheless, our plant would make one part that fit all C-body GM automobiles, be they Cadillacs or Chevys or Oldsmobiles. We also made the same part for Fords but when we made Ford parts we had to change the molds on the presses because Ford had a different basic frame design for their cars than GM used. You will find that most automobiles come with disc brakes, at least on the front. But you cannot use a Ford disc brake system on a Chrysler product, it won't fit. You cannot put a set of Buick pads and caliper and rotors on a Lincoln. Each manufacturer has his own standard frames upon which the automobile is built and also many auxiliary parts and systems will only work on that particular kind of automobile even if almost all automobiles have similar systems. Most fluids like oil and brake fluid and antifreeze can be used for pretty much any make. But few parts are interchangeable. You would not find that bird wings work on a bat nor will seal flippers suffice for a penguin.
Because the cell lays the frame for the organism, no matter how the DNA of the mother and father combine in the embryo of the creature it will be the same kind as the mother. Furthermore, the mother will only be able to mate with one of her own kind. Just as you don't find Ford making Cadillacs, you will not find a fish producing an amphibian or a dog produce a lemur. DNA within both father and mother contribute genetic information to the new creatures during reproduction but the cell drives and controls reproduction, lays the framework for the child and within the cell and DNA are multiple redundancies in the code to control errors and multiple switches preset within the organism for the most common speciation choices. Often a mutation simply causes a switch to turn from "on" to "off" or vice-versa.
A NAMD will simply deny that cellular control of reproduction is true because most of them are not well-informed on the subject. Most of them will not know of genetic redundancies (that in and of themselves falsify Darwinism) and deny the facilitated variation theory because it is a design feature built in to the organism and design means Designer with a capital D and that ryhmes with G and that stands for God and that means trouble, right here in Darwin City!!!
You will agree that it is logical that a Creator would make organisms that would be able to adjust and adopt to lots of differing environmental factors and keep on taking their part in the circle of life? Naturally He would design them to conserve their kind while being able to vary within the kind according to circumstances. This is logical and it is what we observe. All kinds of animals are able to speciate according to conditions, sometimes (like Darwin's Finches) changing back and forth from one prevailing trait to another, but never becoming another kind of creature. God created every kind of creature He thought to be good and necessary for the planet. That is logical.
Do a blog search for genetic redundancies or facilitated variation theory on radaractive blog and read up on what I have posted. You can leave me behind and do more research for yourself. That would be fun, to actually seek the truth rather than just swallow the Darwinist gruel they pass out in school? Ad nauseum, how does a NAMD explain contingencies and redundancies built into the cell and reproduction controlled by the cell? "I don't know but it couldn't be God because I don't believe in God."
That God created matter and time/life/information/cellular reproduction all make sense logically. It is a simple cause and effect. Newton and most of the other great scientists of the past believed that if the Universe was the product of a Logical Mind, then one could study it and learn how it operates. Scientists have used the scientific method to observe and analyze processes and systems and forces and particles and waves to comprehend their workings and add to existing knowledge. Somewhere along the way somebody let naturalism be shoe-horned in to the study of science and the result has been billions and billions of dollars wasted searching for the Missing Link and Aliens from Outer Space and similar wastes of time and energy. SETI ceaselessly scans the skies for one hint of design while the brainwashed and/or the high priests of NAMD pretend that design within the cell is not overwhelmingly obvious.
I am not wise enough to win my way to God nor good enough to qualify for His friendship nor strong enough to fight my way to God. God in His mercy allowed me to see Him in the merciful life of Jesus Christ, in the wisdom of His Bible and very obviously in the awesome and intricate design of all of His Creation. The information in the cell cries out to the logical mind of man to recognize the signature of the Designer. If you come to understand the science behind the cell and how DNA functions and you remain a Darwinist then I must come to stand in awe at your faith in blind chance and circumstance, it is a faith beyond what a Christian can comprehend.