Spontaneous Generation?

Spontaneous generation = life from non-life = abiogenesis = the evolutionists theory of the origin of life = absolute nonsense.

Every attempt at creating life from non-life has been a complete, absolute, utter failure.

Even with the assistance of modern scientists, who have tried to create optimal circumstances and all the necessary components, life has not been created.  The Pre-biotic Soup that evolutionists conjectured about never existed.

Every logical approach to the statistical probabilities of “life from non-life” has shown that such a thing is beyond vastly and utterly improbable. It is completely impossible.

Even famed atheist proponents themselves admit it must have been an astounding and “miraculous” event.  In fact, in The Greatest Show on Earth (p. 421) Richard Dawkins conveniently concludes, “We don’t actually need a plausible theory of the origin of life.” (1) Since he is an atheist, and refuses under any circumstances to even consider the possibility of a Creator God, his answer is that it simply must have happened.  How’s that for scientist.

Dr. Paul Giem, an Emergency Room physician who has an MA in Religion and an M.D. from Loma Linda University decided to put this to the test in his senior chemistry seminar.  He examined the experiments that had been done relating to the origin of life.  In his words, “I was stunned by the one-sidedness of the evidence I found.  In fact, the evidence seemed (and seems) overwhelming that spontaneous generation did not happen… from that time on I never doubted that there was a God… and (that) science can support theology.” (2)  He goes on, “When properly understood, nature testifies to the trustworthiness of God’s Word. (3)

Dr Johnathan Sarfati states there are many examples of chemical processes which make evolution impossible.  He notes that the polymers required by life cannot be formed in a “prebiotic soup” for chemical reasons.  He notes that proteins require all left handed or all right handed amino acids.  But the evolutionists “prebiotic soup” would by definition produce equal amounts of left and right handed amino acids (if it could produce any). He also notes that the fatty acids required for cell membranes and many other vital processes would immediately be destroyed and precipitated by the calcium in the oceans. In addition, the genetic code itself has vital editing functions that are encoded in the DNA itself showing that “the system was fully functional from the beginning”. (4)

 

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

 

(1)Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 421.

(2)Dr Paul Giem: in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2001, p. 58.

(3) Ibid, p. 60.

(4) Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2001, p. 81.

Differing with Dawkins

man couple people woman
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

For most of my adult life, I have avoided the writings of Richard Dawkins.  Starting in college and subsequently, in grad school, I was exposed to his atheist views, and as a Christian, I was repulsed by them.  It is necessary, however, for the sake of the many souls suffering under his sphere of influence, to puncture the grandiose bubble of his atheist delusions and reply scientifically to his pseudo-science.  The scientific language barrier that exists for many in society can be a source of intimidation.  It may in some cases cause those who are not trained in the scientific method to retreat and concede ground needlessly to those in positions of “scientific authority”.  A man who is a skilled and gifted plumber, artist, or administrator might drift into a fog of oblivion when the doctor comes in and rattles off a string of medical, surgical, or pharmacological terms.  In the same way many people “give up” and assume that a scientist who can insert terms into a long and technical equation must “Know what he is talking about.” I believe such is the case with the writings of Richard Dawkins and some other prominent atheists.

For now, I will address some of his more popular philosophical statements.  Of course, I will agree with Dawkins on some topics and vehemently disagree on other.  For example, Dawkins wrote:

#1 “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism because we are born selfish.” Who could disagree with this? Psalm 51:5 agrees, saying “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” I would also heartily agree with his statement. I wonder how he could stomach being in total agreement with the Bible.

#2 “Natural selection is anything but random“.  You see, he is again himself agreeing with the Bible, and creationists.  It is true that natural selection is not random.  It only occurs within a species already created by God and it never occurs as a result of some accidental or random point mutation in a strand of DNA. Furthermore, his statement requires the presence of a higher power, or directive force.  If it is not random it is directed.  He can call it anything he wants. I call it God.

In another quote, intended as a slam dunk insult against Christians, Dawkins approaches the truth when he states:

#3 “Nothing is wrong with peace and love. It is all the more regrettable that so many of Christ’s followers seem to disagree.” Of course this is true.  See as proof quote #1. Everyone, Christians included, is born into sin.  Everyone has a fallen sin nature.  Of course I would add that as our society has gotten more secular over the last few decades, we have certainly NOT gotten more peaceful and loving.  And I would also note that our prisons are not populated primarily with those who attended church regularly and professed their love of Christ. But of course there are indeed evil persons in our churches as well.  2 Corinthians 11:13-15 reads, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

And who could disagree with this:

#4 “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”  True. They certainly do appear that way. Because they were designed with a purpose! Psalm 19 :1 says the same thing.  “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”  Job Chapter 12 adds “7 But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; 8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.”

But in his desire to worship his own intellect instead of his Creator, Richard Dawkins also wrote:

#5 “My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence, but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans.” Extraordinary indeed.  Only a fool could not see the Creator’s hand in all this. Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” and Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

#6 “You can’t even begin to understand biology, you can’t understand life, unless you understand what it’s all there for, how it arose – and that means evolution.”  And upon what is this based?  The word of an avowed atheist who has never even considered seeing the magnificence of creation through the lens of scripture! A man who can explain neither the origin of life nor the complexities of biology except to say it must have been a gigantic, meaningless cosmic accident!

#7 “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”  And how then does our great scientist explain Mozart’s Symphony #40 in G minor? How does he interpret the actions of Mother Theresa? Whence comes the universal appeal of the Mona Lisa, or van Gogh’s Starry night?  Why are we all dumbfounded and starstruck at a beautiful sunset? Or even more perplexing, why should we be almost universally repulsed by the murderous actions of a Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. Such actions should, after all, fit seamlessly into the evolutionary world of “blind, pitiless indifference”! They are actually at the apex of “survival of the fittest!”

#8 “A universe with a creator would be a totally different kind of universe, scientifically speaking, than one without.”  Now here is a glaring example of hubris if ever there was one.  A mere man, one who by his own testimony wasn’t very good in school, one who has never created anything but words on a page, pretends to know how one type of universe would differ from another.  A mortal with such limited comprehension that he cannot even explain the difference between time and eternity, or how a thing becomes alive, or what is the source of gravity, passes judgment on how an almighty God chose to order His creation!  Proverbs 26:12 “Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.”

 

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

“Just the Facts Ma’am.”

For generations now a debate has raged between the so called “scientific community” and those who believe this universe, and we ourselves, are not an accident or cosmic mistake.  For all these years we have seen a creeping, insidious indoctrination of all areas of society.  It started with the “academics” and infiltrated the schools, and it was aimed especially at our children.  They are told that evolution is an established fact, solid science.  But nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, most of the examples I was given as proof of evolution during my education in the 1960’s and 1970’s have been proven to be either mistaken, or outright fraudulent in the decades since.  Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Haeckel’s embryos, Java man, Lucy, and more recently Paderborn (Sande) man, and Archeoraptor to name a few.  Archeopteryx has been shown not to be an evolutionary intermediate, since it occurs in strata much later than modern fully formed birds appear (thus making it impossible that it was the missing link between dinosaurs and birds).  Nevertheless, the indoctrination continues.  Textbooks continue to be printed, approved, and distributed to our children, showing texts, tables, pictures, and diagrams that are known to be FALSE.  Why?  Because the alternative is admitting that evolution is NOT a fact, but rather a scientifically unsupportable theory.

Let me establish one thing first.  Some critics will infer that I (in fact anyone who believes in creation) is foolish, juvenile, unscientific, or a Bible-Thumper.  But this site is not about bragging or name calling,. It is about the scientific facts.  Neither is this site primarily a discussion of philosophy, or opinion, or even evangelism, although there will be instances of such. There are many other sites more qualified than this one for extensive conversations on the interpretation and meaning of scripture, or the social implications of Christianity vs atheism.  Each of these is certainly of great importance, but they are not our primary goal here.

This site is dedicated to the evaluation of the scientific underpinnings of evolution.  In light of that fact, and to that extent, all opinions pro, con, or otherwise, are welcome.  Please feel free to comment.

 

John 4:24  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.

Job 17:14 If I say to corruption, ‘You are my father,’ And to the worm, ‘You are my mother and my sister,’ Where then is my hope?

Antithetical

the chronicles of narnia book
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

an·ti·thet·i·cal

ˌan(t)əˈTHedək(ə)l/
adjective
1. directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.

Some things can’t co-exist.  Like the immovable object and the unstoppable force.  Like the light in a totally dark room. Like belief in evolution and  accepting scientific reason.  The practical application of scientific principles is antithetical to a belief in evolution.

 

But you say, “I thought science had proved evolution.”

Let’s start with a little history. Prior to Einstein’s wonderful discoveries, most scientists believed in a created universe.  Einstein himself believed in a static, eternal universe.  Most scientists currently believe in a 14 billion year old universe. In fact the current crop of atheistic scientists will say science is incompatible with religion, and especially with the Bible.

Yet many of the most influential scientists of the past were Bible-believing Christians.  These included Isaac Newton (mathematician, astronomer and Theologian), Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method), Robert Boyle (founder of modern chemistry), John Dalton (atomic theory), Gregor Mendel (Father of modern Genetics), and of course Lord Kelvin (who laid the foundations of physics). Perhaps you, like many, believe that we know so much more now, that we cannot any longer believe in “fairy tales” like the Bible.  But what if it is the other way around?

Scientific beliefs, since they are always based on the latest newest technology, frequently change.  They vacillate.  They adapt and they adjust.  Old theories are tossed out like garbage, like dirty smelly old socks.  The new is always embraced and trumpeted to the public as though it were Eternal Truth. But therein lies the rub.  If we depend solely on the latest scientific finding for our definition of Truth, our foundation is pretty shaky.  If our understandings of the meaning of life, and the origins of the universe are based on science, then we should be absolutely certain that the scientific foundations of our beliefs are 100 percent firm.  There should be NO room for doubt.  Zero tolerance.

I can say with absolute certainty that the scientific foundations of modern science are not that firm. Scientists disagree on the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether the earth is at the center of the universe, how big the universe is, and how the moon was formed.  Scientists also disagree vehemently on whether evolution can occur, how it could occur, and if there is any evidence it has occurred.

Still, in our schools and universities, with missionary zeal, our students are told there is no God.  They are told the Bible is a fairy tale.  They are told we are evolved from the apes.  The foundations and underpinnings of their Christian faith are systematically destroyed.  And they flounder and lose their way in heartbreaking numbers. Many look for answers in drugs or alcohol.  Others look for wealth or power or success. But one thing they are encouraged NEVER to do is look to God’s word, the Bible. This is ridiculed, and has supposedly been “proven” (by virtue of the latest fads in science) to be false.

And our youth, as well as our entire society, is paying the price for believing the musings and imaginations of men like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. Nevertheless, one thing is certain amidst all the uncertainty.  Evolution did not happen. It has been proven scientifically and statistically to be an impossibility.  And not a single atheist has any explanation for the origin of life, other than to say “There is no God so it must have just happened somehow.”  Not too scientific after all. For that matter, no scientist has ever offered any reasonable explanation for the origin of matter.  “There was a big bang. and it happened.” Not at all scientific.  In fact, when seen objectively, the Big Bang is patently ridiculous.

In a later post we will deal with the false, illogical and impossible “primordial soup” model, and with the scientific proving that the universe could not have originated in a “Big Bang” (If you believe that pseudo-scientific postulate, stay tuned).

For now, just consider this quote about mutations by Lee Spetner. “But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. … Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.”  (1)

 

 

John 16:13  But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

 

(1)Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations state in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, pp. 159–60:

Who are you going to trust?

When people say “Scientists believe… or Science teaches…” the statement that follows is likely to be erroneous, or at least a gross oversimplification.  All scientists cannot be lumped together any more than all preachers or teachers or truck drivers can be lumped together.  It is virtually impossible to get even the scientists within a specific branch of inquiry to agree on their research conclusions.  So it should come as no surprise that scientist in different branches of science may disagree as well.

So when an atheist says they “know” that evolution is a fact, or they “know” that the universe is 14 billion years old, that atheist is speaking for himself or herself.   When they say scientists agree that evolution occurred, they are at best uninformed, or at worst deliberately lying. There are hundreds of thousands of very intelligent, scientifically trained individuals who would disagree.

When we put our faith and trust in science, we should be aware of a few facts.  Science is quite good at telling us how high, or how far, or how big, or small or hot an object might be. Science can develop wonderful ways of evaluating this marvelous world, and seeing into the vast reaches of the universe.  But “Science” also brought us the Titanic, the Hindenburg, methamphetamine, LSD, and the Atomic bomb.

Some people say they “trust science” and so they believe in evolution and abortion and global warming.  Does that mean they also trust science and want to take meth while enjoying a ride on the Hindenburg? No, probably not. But each statement is equally illogical.  You see, science makes many claims.  Some are easily verifiable and others are not.  Take the science of pharmacology.  The belief in “better living through chemistry” has been both a blessing and a curse. Pharmacology has both saved millions of lives with medicines like insulin and antibiotics, and destroyed millions of lives with opiates, LSD, and addictive benzodiazepines.

So when it comes to the age of the universe or the origin of life, it is reasonable to question “scientists” who claim they have an intimate knowledge of such things.  Especially when they change their minds at least every 50 years when new findings require a whole new theory.  It is far more likely that they are spouting a popular opinion than offering a proven or time-tested Truth.  Behind closed doors, most scientists frankly admit they don’t really know much about the origin of the universe or how life originated.  “This matter is far from being settled by astrophysicists and cosmologists, so stay tuned. There could be radical new developments in the future.” (From the site Stringtheory.com.  Article entitled “How old is the universe”.

Consider that fact that scientists and astronomers (the same ones who say they know exactly how old the universe is) quite literally cannot find or measure 90% of the universe.  Yes, we can observe, see, or measure less than 10% of the mass of the universe.  The scientists have no idea what comprises the other 90%, but according to their calculations “it must be there”.  According to author Vera Rubin in Scientific American,  “As much as 90 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible. Detecting this dark matter will help astronomers better comprehend the universe’s destiny.”

So here is the latest, as the astrophysicists continue their guessing games. “Overall, dark energy is thought to contribute 73 percent of all the mass and energy in the universe. Another 23 percent is dark matter, which leaves only 4 percent of the universe composed of regular matter, such as stars, planets and people.” SPACE.com Senior Writer Clara Moskowitz.  So like I said, over 90% of the universe is missing. The very scientists who claim they KNOW there is no God, cannot find over 90% of His creation. I don’t know about you, but I think I will wait for the other 90% of the facts to arrive before I make any conclusions.

Nehemiah 9:6  “You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 24:4-6  The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish with the earth. 5 The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth’s inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left.
(See also blogs entitled “What about Public Education” and “Operational vs Historical Science”)

Natural Selection is “Magic”

If you watch and listen closely, you will notice a remarkable thing. Each time evolution proponents are cornered with facts which scientifically disprove their position, they change the subject. No scientist or educator who believes in evolution can support their position with facts. Rather they resort to opinion, interpretation, and theories. When the ice on which they are treading is full of cracks, and they are about to fall through and drown, they will quickly change the argument to another subject. Many times they will bring up natural selection as one of their diversionary tactics.

In an argument attempting to overcome the statistical impossibility of evolution, evolutionists almost inevitability inject the concept of natural selection. Natural selection has this wonderful and “magical” power to convince the listener to ignore the statistical facts. They imbue NS with great powers to rescue the otherwise impossible theory of evolution. But let us evaluate exactly where and how and why NS operates. And let us examine exactly what magic power it might have to support a biochemical process such as evolution.

Natural Selection is indeed a very attractive theory. In fact, it can and does occur in the natural world. But whether Natural Selection proves evolution is entirely another matter. We have already discussed some of the differences separating natural selection and evolution in another thread. But we will now address the idea of whether natural selection even supports evolution at all… or whether in fact, it is much more supportive of the creationist viewpoint.

The greatest argument against continual evolution is the lack of any evidence of positive mutations. In order for evolution to occur, there must be vast, incalculable numbers (quintillions upon quintillions) of positive mutations. Worse yet, these positive mutations must occur more or less sequentially.  In fact, for any one single protein to be upgraded or changed in any way would require dozens of simultaneous positive point mutations.  Such a thing is impossible.  It has never been observed, and nothing even approaching it has ever been documented in a laboratory. But don’t worry, NS to the rescue. Evolutionists say that it occurs because of natural selection. It is as if by believing it, atheists can make it so.  Kind of like Peter Pan and Wendy’s ability to fly with Pixie dust.  It’s magic.

The proteins which make up humans and other living beings are complex, 3-dimensional structures.  Their function is usually dependent on their shape, not just their chemical nomenclature or chemical/atomic sequences.  As a result, a mutation of one or two genes is vastly more likely to result in a dysfunctional protein or a nonviable organism, than a new functional protein. For example, if you mutate a gene/DNA that controls a protein in a bird, the first thing that will likely happen is the DNA will not function at all.  The second thing that might happen is it would change the shape of the protein so that the protein cannot function at all. But to imagine that it would suddenly cause a bigger, better, new and improved version of the bird is laughable. It is totally unscientific.

So the argument of the evolutionist falls flat on its face again. and the reproducing organism either reproduces itself, or it recreates a damaged, defective, or deficient version of itself, or it does not reproduce at all.  There is no newer, better, more advanced version.  There is NO evolution.  And this is exactly what we see in nature!

If it cannot happen even once, in the very simple example of a single protein, it certainly cannot happen quintillions of times (which is what is required to advance and evolve a species into another species). No amount of magical evolutionary pixie dust can change the facts.

Oh.  And one more thing. Of course evolution proponents will NOT tell you that NS would actually prevent evolution, if it were possible for evolution to occur.  Picture for a moment the supposed intermediary form (missing link) between dinosaurs and birds. in order to progress from rugged dinosaur to delicate bird, many changes must occur.  Hind legs must shrink or atrophy. Forelegs must lengthen, lighten, and become both stronger and more flexible (wings).  Bones must become hollow (heavy birds can’t fly).  Lungs must enlarge.  Heart must become more efficient. Brain (cerebellum) must enlarge and reflexes improve on a vast scale to control flight. Scales must undergo hundreds of changes to develop into feathers, and skin must develop oil glands to lubricate and keep feathers from breaking down. And for that matter the “bird” must learn to preen to distribute the oil among the feathers.

Enter the term “hopeful monster” first used by German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. Picture now a creature halfway between.  Picture the “dinobird”.  Perhaps it has small hind legs but no wings yet.  Or wings but no larger brain.  Or hollow (fragile ) bones without flight yet.  Perhaps it has ALL these things, but no feathers.  Or perhaps it has even developed (magically) all these things plus feathers, but doesn’t have the oil glands necessary to keep the feathers from rapidly breaking down, or the inherited coordination to fly.  This could go on for pages and pages.  The point is NATURAL SELECTION would eliminate all these “hopeful monsters” from any evolutionary line long before they could propagate.  They would never be able to keep up with or out-compete the other birds or dinosaurs or small mammals already present. Every intermediary form would be LESS likely to survive, and would be ELIMINATED by natural selection.

So even if abiogenesis (life from nothing) were possible and even if evolution were biochemically possible (which it is not) and even if a self replicating unicellular organism could have created itself from a bunch of left handed amino acids, Natural Selection would come along and immediately snuff it out. 

 

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

1 Cor. 13:4-6  Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.