Life Forming by Chance is Impossible! A reasoned discussion of the Law of Biogenesis and why it STILL precludes the Evolution of Life!
Part one of a two-part series by Jeff Miller. My intention is to post the series and then, by using blank sheets of paper and a pencil and the power of imagination, help you disprove evolution yourself in the comfort of your living room or bedroom or internet cafe or wherever you access the internet! The Impossible series is a lighter-hearted challenge to the canned lies of Darwinists that is directed towards the reader who does not realize he or she has been fooled and hopefully help that reader to be freed from preposterous fairy tales presented as established science. Sounds useful, yes?
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.
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?
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 Law of Biogenesis [Part I]
INTRODUCTION
It is highly unlikely that a high school or college biology student will learn about the gaping chasms that exist in evolutionary theory: chasms over which scientists have no crossing bridges designed or constructed. The existence of these chasms causes the entire theory of evolution to collapse, and that is precisely the reason these chasms are not broadcasted in school curricula: chasms such as the origin of matter as well as the laws which govern it [see Miller, 2007 for a discussion on the origin of matter]. At least two of these chasms exist due to the existence of the irrefutable, highly respected Law of Biogenesis, or Biogenic Law (Simmons, 2007). This law states that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its own kind.
The Earth is filled with non-living matter. The Earth also abounds with living creatures. The difference between the two is hardly insignificant. Human beings cannot create life, though many attempts have been made (e.g., Wong, et al., 2000; Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 343-344; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; for refutations, see Houts, 2007; Thompson and Harrub, 2003). There is no evidence that anyone has ever been able to bring about life from non-life in nature (i.e., excluding supernatural occurrences during the miraculous periods of human history [e.g., Peter in Acts 9:32-41; Elisha in 2 Kings 4:17-37; and Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24]). The jump from non-life to life is no trivial matter.
So, how did life originate? Entire worldviews are built upon the answer to that question. There are ultimately only two possibilities. Years ago, evolutionist George Wald, professor at Harvard University and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine, recognized as much, stating that “the reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (1954, p. 46). There are only two options for the origin of life. It was created; or it created itself. The late, eminent evolutionist, Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, “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” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. in orig.).
The biblical creationist asserts that life originally came directly from God. Concerning human beings, Genesis 2:7 says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” [Note: This view, incidentally, is in contradiction to the theistic evolutionist’s attempt to harmonize the Bible’s story of origins with evolutionary theory, which portrays God as giving life to the original cell on Earth. Then, that cell, in accordance with evolutionary theory, evolved and passed on life from creature to creature until humans came on the scene. God, in this portrait, never “breathed” life into man’s “nostrils” at all, but rather, into the “nostrils” of a noseless cell.] The atheist asserts that life created itself, a belief known as biopoiesis. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “biopoiesis,” also called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and autogenesis (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003), as “a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth” (2011, emp. added). In essence, once upon a time, there was a dead rock that oozed non-living, primeval, prebiotic, organic soup (Lahav, 1999; Miller and Levine, 1991; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978). One day, lightning struck, and that soup came to life.
The atheistic evolutionist must hold to a belief in abiogenesis in order for his position to appear tenable. It is a fundamental premise of the theory of evolution. If biopoiesis did not occur, atheistic evolution cannot occur. This fact was recognized as far back as 1960, when G.A. Kerkut published The Implications of Evolution. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (p. 6). In spite of the admission that evolution is based on non-provable assumptions, many today in the evolutionary community boldly assert that their theory is a scientific fact. However, the unbiased observer must ask: what does the scientific evidence actually have to say about the origin of life?
To finish reading Part 1, click on the title of that article, above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~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?