The first two Impossible posts:
Evolution is Impossible...a reasoned set of arguments about Thermodynamics and the Origin of the Universe
Life Forming by Chance is Impossible! A reasoned discussion of the Law of Biogenesis and why it STILL precludes the Evolution of Life!
The high priests of evolution should turn in their "scientist" labels and just come right out and admit that they depend on faith in untenable and unproven myths perpetuated by those who prefer ANYTHING BUT GOD! The Bible has an account of creation and history of mankind that we have found matches evidence we can compile today and historical records as well. The Law of Biogenesis has never been broken despite being tested and tested again for centuries! But without life coming from non-life, evolution is irrelevant as well as impossible. Darwinists actually believe in miracles without a Miracle-Maker. Not gonna happen, never did, never will. You want miracles? Check out God, He is the only source of miracles. Only God. Period.
Now Jeff Miller finishes his treatise on the lies that scientists and teachers in public schools and colleges and the media and the mass of unthinking people adhere to without sufficient cause. The sad-but-truth:
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
“Well, I know it’s impossible, but maybe…”
Most…biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. [Actually, they “are left” with God.—JM] I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).
To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are…. (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).
“Watch us convert young minds to the Church of Evolution, in spite of the evidence!”
As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur—it is a curious thing that until quite recently professors of biology habitually told this story as part of their introductions of students to biology. They would finish this account glowing with the conviction that they had given a telling demonstration of the overthrow of mystical notion by clean, scientific experimentation. Their students were usually so bemused as to forget to ask the professor how he accounted for the origin of life. This would have been an embarrassing question, because there are only two possibilities: either life arose by spontaneous generation, which the professor had just refuted; or it arose by supernatural creation, which he probably regarded as anti-scientific (1962, p. 187, emp. added).
The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand completely. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth’s oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. Scientists do not know how these vital information-carriers formed, but there are several interesting hypotheses (pp. 344-345, emp. added).
convinced other scientists that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was not correct. In other words, Pasteur showed that all living things come from other living things. This change in thinking represented a major shift in the way scientists viewed living things (Miller and Levine, 2006, pp. 12-13, emp. added).
|Structure of a Cell|
OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
An Unreasonable Assumption which Leads to Contradiction of the Evidence
In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists. I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position (1986, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
Living things arise from living things through reproduction…. The mistaken idea that living things can arise from nonliving sources is called spontaneous generation. It took hundreds of years of experiments to convince people that spontaneous generation does not occur(Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, pp. 36-37, emp. added).
Some philosophers call this a principle instead of a law, but this is a matter of definition, and definitions are arbitrary. Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig.).
A Recent Quibble
The High Priests of Darwinism are like magicians. They pretend to present scientific arguments just like a magician pretends to pull a rabbit out of a hat or to saw a woman in half. Darwinists use verbal sleight-of-hand to redirect the minds of students just as magicians use sleight-of-hand to do tricks that appear to be magic by causing us to look at one hand while the other accomplishes the trick. Magicians build impressive mechanisms to accomplish tricks, just as Darwinist scientists build big models that purport to explain origins of things like existence and life and information while actually having no real answers at all. Magic is a con. So is Darwinism. You already know Who created everything, why not admit it to yourself and shake off the lies of Darwinism?