If you missed the first Impossible post, you will find it here. Scientists and teachers and the media pretend that the Big Bang is settled science rather than an empty and ridiculous unproven and unsupported premise. Read for yourself and see if you can see why and how the idea of the Universe creating itself is simply illogical and without real evidence.
THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis
EVOLUTIONISTS' CANDID ADMISSIONS CONCERNING ABIOGENESIS
is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. added).
Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (1991, 91:415, emp. added).
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones (1991, 264:119, emp. added).
“We Don’t Have a Clue”
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of “spontaneous generation”…. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion (1933, p. 94, emp. added).
How, then did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know…. There is one step [in evolution—JM] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some para-physical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, p. 403, 406-407, emp. added).
According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none.... At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth (1977, p. 60, 62-63, emp. added).
Take some matter, heat while stirring, and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest…. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.
We are grappling with a classic “chicken and egg” dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself.
The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery…. We still knowvery little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great challenges (1985, 106:30-33, emp. added).
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance (1988, 13:348, emp. added).
- “This course is unusual because at this point in time, there is so much that we don’t know about life on Earth.”
- “The origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front, we don’t know how life began.”
- “It’s as if we are trying to assemble a huge jigsaw puzzle. We have a few pieces clumped together here and there, but most of the puzzle pieces are missing.”
- “How can I tell you about the origin of life when we are so woefully ignorant of that history?”
This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicatedin a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life (2005, emp. added).
“It’s a miracle!”
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
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, theassumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the “primeval soup theory” of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach (1978, p. 26, emp. added).
So obviously Jeff Miller's second half of his treatise is the hero of the next post. Stay tuned!
But just in case you HAVE read the previous impossible post and have no idea whether any scientists have presented alternative presentations of the beginning of the Universe beyond the statement that God did it? Here are three men whose work has been referenced in this blog before, men who have been able to provide theories and equations that provide a Universe that was created thousands of years ago and yet contains planetary objects apparently millions or even billions of light years from Earth. We can say that God did it and then try to find evidence available to us today that supports that statement.
Dr. Russell Humphreys. His equations and basic premise (Starlight And Time is a book he wrote presenting the basics of his theories) gave him the ability to accurately predict the magnetic fields of several planets BEFORE the space missions intended to gather evidence from said planets had been launched and the data gathered. Having a theory that allows for predictions which prove to be TRUE is strong evidence for the credibility of the theory.
Dr. Moshe Carmeli. Sadly, he is now the late Dr. Carmeli. You will find his work presented in previous articles on this blog. Here is a link to Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large-Scale Structure of Space, Time and Velocity, Second Edition.
Dr. John Hartnett. A former commenter who identified himself as scohen scoffed at one of Hartnett's equations and claimed it was garbage. When actual engineers and math brains supported the Hartnett equation, scohen then lied about his previous comments and then disappeared from the comments thread. Not that Hartnett's equations have been proven, but at least they are not 96% fudge factors like the modern Big Bang equations are. You can easily obtain his work Starlight, Time and the New Physics and see for yourself!
Will you run away if you find that your pet belief system is not valid? Will running save a worldview that is based on false premises and missing evidence? Of course not, so why do it? The thinking person may put a question on the back burner, but something as important as the origin of the Universe or the origin of life is vital to your very reason for living, is it not? Is there a reason to your existence and a purpose for your life?