Many people think that science has ‘proven’ evolution (molecules-to-man) is a reality. It is taught in nearly every school system in the country as a scientific certainty. But, is it consistent with reality? Has anything like evolution actually been proven? What makes evolutionists think it’s true? Is there evidence available that contradicts evolution’s theory? These are critical questions that need truthful answers!
Why is this question so important? A person’s life outlook is directly affected by how someone views life in general. If there is a God, then it is the responsibility of the individual to find out about that God. It molds and forms the way people act, think and respond to the world around them. If there is no God, then life is (essentially) meaningless of purpose or design. The difference is staggering in its implications. We can see what a generation of children raised without the knowledge of God has wrought on the people of this country. That evolutionary life outlook is directly responsible for how people feel toward themselves and others. It also empowers personal responsibility – or negates it. The simple truth is that there are significant problems with evolution as a viable – and scientific – way of explaining the origin of life.
It is, therefore, critical that we each have a proper understanding of life, its origins and the personal accountability we all have toward the One Who made us and the universe we live in. Examining all the evidence (including stuff you won’t hear talked about in public schools, most academic circles or the media), as well as the difficulties associated with supposed scientific ‘evidence,’ will show if evolution is – or isn’t – the reality they claim it is.
We can start with some of the basic tenants of evolutionary dogma and go on from there. If these basic assumptions don’t seem to work, then the whole evolutionary ‘house of cards’ is pretty much null and void. The claims of evolutionists will be numbered and italicized, followed by the facts available concerning the claim. As we compare the facts versus what is claimed, you can decide for yourself if evolution makes sense or not.
All life began with chemicals (non-life).
1. Can life come from non-life?
A. I have never seen an estimated cost of any research along these lines, but we can safely say that it is substantial. Not only would the dollar value of any said research be huge, but the countless man-hours devoted to replication of all the variables (such as assumed early Earth atmospheric conditions) would be equally large, or larger.
There has never been an instance where life was created by man from non-living substances, and it has never been observed happening (either as a naturally occurring process or artificially induced). Mankind has surely spent multiple billions of dollars and decades of time trying to achieve the impossible, with the same results. Not only that, but countless scientists have failed to reproduce even one instance of life coming from non-life.
B. Modifying the genetics of living organisms does not count as ‘creating life.’ Experiments like the ones that claim to have ‘created life’ have to start with a living organism, or various intact components, in the first place. The only thing these experiments ‘prove’ is that you can alter what is already present and available to you in the first place. They do not, and never have, produced a living organism.
C. Some scientists claim that ‘primordial soup’ produced the essential molecules, amino acids and proteins necessary for the formation of life. The problems with this line of thinking are manifold. The elements all needed to be present in sufficient quantity, in the same location, at the same time, with the right amount and kind of energy to initialize the synthesis of the basic elements – just to name a few. These elements then needed to have a stable environment, remain in location for long enough time and meet other complementary elements which then allowed them to fuse into a more complex structures (like Amino Acids).
The fundamental problem with all this wishful thinking is that nobody knows (or can even agree on) what conditions were present when all of this supposedly happened! If you don’t know for sure and can’t even reach a consensus among scientists as to what ‘primitive Earth’ was like, you are forced to – from that point onward – assume a lot of things.
D. Even with the proper assembly of the necessary component substances, all in proximity at the same time, with favorable environmental factors, with enough time to allow for fusion (‘evolution’), you still need a source of the right kind of stimulation (or energy) for processes to start.
To sum things up, we would need the following situation to allow for even the most rudimentary substances to form;
• All the necessary elements included in life-sustaining organisms present
• At the same time
• In sufficient proximity to all the other necessary elements involved in molecule formation
• With a stable (and beneficial) environment – not too hot or cold
• With a source of energy or stimulation of sufficient properties (but not too much) which would begin the process of combining these elements into ever-increasingly complex molecules. This energy would have to go beyond simple covalent and/or electromagnetic forces for bonding, because evolution requires the addition of new energy, data and/or material to work. This source would be required to provide a catalyst, not only for initialization of molecule formation and synthesis, but also for sustained fabrication of more complex chains.
• Once the molecules had been formed, they would need sufficient time, proximity and stability to allow for continued formation, and also for assembly into Amino Acids – which are the building blocks of life.
Next time we will look at some statistical problems associated with the formation of Amino Acids.
This is Part One of a multi-part series. Keep an eye out for the next installment!
Image retrieved from: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3227601/posts?q=1&;page=273