"Darwinism is a religion masquerading as science. The high priests of Darwinism believe that the public is either too stupid or too lazy to investigate their claims, so they make deceptive and preposterous statements based entirely on beliefs rather than scientific evidence." - RadarBe sure to check out the end of the post where many scientists, most of them Darwinists, make admissions that Darwinism doesn't really line up with evidence.
Truth is that, if you have ever had a teacher who told you that life could have come from non-life, they were giving you a fairy tale (Pasteur used the word "chimera" which translates best as a bad dream). They had deliberately abandoned science and stepped into the world of religion. That life could come from non-life is far too unlikely to have ever happened and then, when you consider how many different kinds of life there are and multiple variations thereof, preposterous is not a strong enough word for it. Even when Darwin was first positing his hypothesis he did not try to propose a natural start to life, but rather began with the concept of simple life evolving into more complex life. It was the drive of atheists demanding a replacement for God that brought the world of secular science into the land of Tooth Fairies and Easter Bunnies. Spontaneous Generation of life has already been disproven, so Darwinists renamed it Chemical Evolution and continue to pretend that there is hope of finding a way it could have happened. World? The check is in the mail...yeah, right!
Intentional liars like Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel and Charles Lyell helped popularize a hypothesis by the classically deceptive Charles Darwin that should not be believed by anyone with half a brain.
Huxley was willing and able to invent a life form that did not exist, Bathybius haeckelii, in order to promote Darwinism. The Duke of Argyll complained that Huxley and other Darwinists were promoting a "reign of terror" to bully and silence opponents of Darwinism. Gee, that hasn't changed yet!
Darwin was motivated by an antipathy towards God and it was worldview and not science that prodded him to produce his hypothesis, one partially stolen from Creationists and unbelievers alike.
Haeckel made a faked embryo chart that sometimes still appears in textbooks despite being obviously faked and deceptive. He wanted to promote his favorite lie: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.
Charles Lyell invented a rate of erosion for the Niagara Falls that he KNEW was wrong just to try to prop up his hypothesis of uniformitarianism and sell copies of his book.
They have earned their place in the Hall of Shame.
Darwinists have no respect for your ability to think and reason for yourselves. They think that critical thinking is dead and that the ordinary person isn't going to question their propaganda. So they treat you, the student or the parent or whatever stage of life you are in, as if you are just plain dumb. Their method is pretty simple. They assert that no one but a total idiot would believe in God. Then they ignore the actual evidence and tell just-so stories that only a total idiot would believe if the entire story was told. They tell you that with infinite time (which we do not have) anything could happen. Why should you have to suffer all this lying and deception just to keep them company? Why should you believe the cobbled-together Darwinist dogma when Creation makes far more sense?
Darwinism is not science, it is nonsense!
"The present age abounds with a race of liars who are content with the consciousness of falsehood, and whose pride is to deceive others without any gain or glory to themselves."Samuel Johnson: Adventurer #50 (April 28, 1753)
You have 100 trillion cells in your body. For every cell you have, you probably have ten companion organisms like bacteria, archaea and fungi. Darwinists cannot explain how even one simple organism of the simplest kind could have ever naturally formed. In fact every experiment ever done continually proves over and over again that it cannot happen. Meanwhile they expect you to believe you evolved???? Really? For a one-celled "simple" living organism is statistically impossible and you are 100 trillion times impossible and have ten times that many "friends" along for the ride?
You want to call this an argument from incredulity? Sorry. An argument from incredulity requires that a person does not have the imagination to comprehend a possibility. Darwinists have continually asserted that life came from non-life, which breaks the Law of Biogenesis and this law has been proved over and over again billions upon billions of times. The laws of statistics have told us that life coming from non-life is a statistical impossibility and the food industry of the 19th Century and forward along with countless lab experiments have continually proven that the Law of Biogenesis is true. At some point Darwinists have to give up on their fairy tales and admit that life cannot come from non-life. But they do not do this because the only other answer is that God created. God created is the Occam's Razor answer, it is the scientific answer and it is the obvious answer. But it doesn't fit into the Atheist's religious point of view. Atheists cannot allow for the idea of God at any point. Once God gets involved then everything they assert is cast aside and the entire preposterous Rube Goldberg Machinery of Darwinism is exposed as a house of canards. It was Christians who were the first modern scientists and there are plenty of them working in science today.
But seriously, folks, since we know life cannot come from non-life you need God to create life. If He created life, why should we not believe He created it the way He wanted it? Is there any plausible explanation from Darwinists for the process of photosynthesis, of multiple symbiotic relationships, of the neck of the giraffe or the explosive cannon of the bombardier beetle or the inbred ability of the brush turkey to keep a big pile of dirt and twigs and leaves at an exact temperature and humidity? How do monarch butterflies know to go down to Mexico where they never have been? How do flights of migratory birds know how to use a formation that cuts down the drag on the trailing birds so that they can take turns in the lead and they can all thereby fly farther? How did humans manage to arrange to give homes to bacteria that help us digest our food and where did they live before there were people if people actually evolved? A woodpecker has a specially insulated brain that keeps it from destroying said brain while their beaks hammer at trees. Do we see any transitional woodpecker skulls, or beetles beginning to have a bomb factory, or birds learning to build tiny mounds and working their way up? Do we see any half-giraffes?
I end this with one page from the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia:
You will not read these facts in the newspapers or the popular press. But scientists are wringing their hands over the lack of evidence or mechanisms for how life forms on our planet could have originated. Evolutionary theory is unworkable. It is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Primitive Environment
An Ongoing Puzzle: The origin of living creatures is an astounding mysteryThis material is excerpted from the book, PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
Evolution is Based on Spontaneous Generation: This is the big secret you are not supposed to know
The Correct Chemical Environment Would Not Exist: There are many reasons for this
Other Problems: For example, why do living systems operate intelligently?
Conclusion: There is only one solution to the puzzle
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Primitive Environment.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
"Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the `book, called The Origin of Species, is not really on that subject' while his colleague, Professor Simpson, admits: `Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'
"You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of the creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.
"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J. Gould, "An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.
"Pasteur's demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently.
"All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . .
"They [scientists] are [today] back to spontaneous generation."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.
"His aphorism `omnis cellula e cellula' [every cell arises from a pre-existing cell] ranks with Pasteur's `omne vivum e vivo' [every living thing arises from a pre-existing living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology."—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35.
" `Every cell from a cell.' "—Rudolf Vircho, German pathologist. `Every living thing from a living thing.' `Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].'—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist." Quotations in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.
"It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans . . But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being equal, a diluted hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1 / 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability."—H.F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.
"If there ever were a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such material has been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Broks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
Enzyme inhibitors would surely have been present and would quickly have destroyed that which had been produced.
"It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was, by definition, a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance. There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however, even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
Rapid fluid loss would not have occurred.
"One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the enzymes were not present in the primordial soup."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
If oxygen were present, the required chemicals would quickly decompose.
"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."—*A. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley Miller and *Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
Just producing the needed proteins would be an impossible task.
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is fatal to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186 (1960), pp. 693-694.
"In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [atomic self-destruction process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: Each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of the year or a century."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.
Not even the scientists know how to produce the required fatty acids. Yet sand and seawater are said to have figured out the process.
"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of the higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98.
A reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be required, yet it would produce peroxides, which are lethal to living creatures.
"The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted."—*P. Abelson, "Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p. 275.
A continuous supply of energy would, from the very first, be required.
"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—*P. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed, S.W. Fox (1965), p. 43.
"Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence' . . Today, this `intelligence' is called `information,' but it is still the same thing . . This `intelligence' is the sina qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.
"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." —*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.]
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
"All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.
"The probability of life origination from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." —*Edwin Conklin, Reader's Digest, January 1963, p. 92.
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."—*American Scientist, January, 1955.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the next topic in this series: WHY LIFE COULD NOT SELF-ORIGINATE: 30 scientific reasons why it could not happen