Life Cannot Arise Naturally!!! A Creator Is Required!!!
One or two commenters have made some unsubstantiated charges that I am using logical fallacies to assert that there is no way life comes from non-life (Law of Biogenesis, anyone) and he even pretends that Darwinists do not incorporate claims that life arose from non-life in their curriculum and the drumbeat of propaganda. It is ridiculous to claim that Darwinists do NOT teach this and it is also ridiculous to assert that it could possibly happen!
The Darwinist dilemma is great, for the truth that life cannot come from non-life has been proven as thoroughly as science can possibly prove a positive. Science is very good at ruling things out and then the answer that is left is the one everyone rolls with unless and until a better solution comes along. Darwinism was proposed at first in disguise in that Darwin first pretended that he was only proposing that simple life apparently created by God developed into more complex life. However, the real point of Darwinism is to do away with the idea of God. The unscrupulous men who worked to promote the idea of long ages and no God include Thomas Huxley and Charles Lyell and Ernst Haeckel, liars all, who were willing to promote things they knew to be untrue in order to popularize the fable of evolution.
One by one the pillars of Darwinism fell. Eventually, with no eternal Universe to provide unlimited time for a still-impossible chemical evolution the Darwinists looked for other explanations for life without resorting to the Creator. Panspermia is one such nonsensical idea. As Spike Psarris would say, if Darwinists found life anywhere else in the Universe, it would just be one more place that they could not explain where life came from! Hubble's discovery of the redshift of starlight made the possibility that the Earth might be in a special place after all was another piece of bad news for Darwinists. Then came the discovery of DNA. This was terribly disturbing news for them! But it keeps getting worse. Junk DNA was not junk. Vestigial organs were useful. The continuum of transitional forms in the fossil rocks just didn't show up. Just lots of fully-formed organisms, remarkably well preserved and inexplicable without the Noahic Flood. The rock formations are world-wide, there are far too many fossils for Darwinism, because fossils are hard to form and yet we have MILLIONS of them. The standard geological column is a myth. Darwinists had miscalibrated radiocarbon dating. There are all sorts megabreccias and polystrates and unconformities and cross-beds and interbedding and the sheer mass of the rock layers put the lie to a local flood.
I could keep going and going. But for now, let's settle this idiotic idea that life can come from non-life. It can't happen. Ever. Life had to be designed and I know Who designed it all!!! God.
An animation of the basics of a cell’s protein synthesis system.
-of-life scenarios need to explain how this came into existence without (supernatural) intelligent design (see points 14 and 15).
15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary
Dr Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, explores some of the most-cited ‘explanations’ of biochemical evolution, and shows how they point to a Creator, not ‘time and chance’.
1. There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Origin of life: not so hard after all?
We have reported that the chances of life arising from non-life naturalistically are so low that ‘0’ is for all practical purposes the actual probability. Are such numbers too low? K.T. from Australia writes:I hope you can respond to the attack that the number (and many other numbers) you used in one of the articles about the probability of a cell coming to being by chance (1058000) is (are) rejected on the grounds of error, according to R.C. Carrier’s 2004 journal article “The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life”CMI’s Dr Don Batten responds:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When we say organisms are designed, we are not arguing from ignorance or incredulity. We recognize the hallmarks of design - machines, systems, redundancy, contingency planning, error-checking and many other features of the cell that remind us of a very well-run factory. But one of your cells is far more complex and requires far more information than any factory in the world. We also recognize the coding mechanism, it reminds us of our computers, but again the cell is far more advanced than anything mankind has devised. A wise man nods and wonders at the marvel of a Creator capable of making such an amazing world and yet using enough common design features that our finite minds could begin to comprehend and use it all. A foolish man denies God and denies the findings of real science and holds desperately to his outdated and clumsy mythology.
When we say organisms are designed, we are not arguing from ignorance or incredulity. We recognize the hallmarks of design - machines, systems, redundancy, contingency planning, error-checking and many other features of the cell that remind us of a very well-run factory. But one of your cells is far more complex and requires far more information than any factory in the world. We also recognize the coding mechanism, it reminds us of our computers, but again the cell is far more advanced than anything mankind has devised. A wise man nods and wonders at the marvel of a Creator capable of making such an amazing world and yet using enough common design features that our finite minds could begin to comprehend and use it all. A foolish man denies God and denies the findings of real science and holds desperately to his outdated and clumsy mythology.