Skip to main content

Hi to all my Forum  Friends,

We all know that when we hear a speaker addressing evolution, or read a secular article about evolution -- 99% of the time the speaker or writer is referring to Darwinian Evolution.  So, what does Darwinian Evolution teach us about the origin of life?  Absolutely nothing!   In 1859 Charles Darwin published his book "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, First Edition."

One would assume from that title that Mr. Darwin is addressing the "origin of life" -- for how can we discuss the "origin of species, the preservation of favoured races" -- if we do not discuss how life entered those species and races? 

But, amazingly, Darwin's book does not address the "origin of life.  He discusses his beliefs on how species, already living, evolved into other species -- but, how non-life became life is a gaping hole in his theory of origin.

In our public schools, when students study biology -- they really are studying
"evolutionary biology."   Yet those biology teachers CANNOT teach how life originated -- for Darwin's book is the foundation of evolutionary biology and Darwin leaves that hole in his teaching.  Therefore students are being taught an incomplete theory that even its originator could not explain.

So, what happens when Christian educators want to have both Creation and Evolution taught in the schools?  The secular world explodes!  What do they fear?  Why will they not allow both to be taught in our schools?  Why will they not allow the students to decide which they will believe?  Why?  I know that our young people are intelligent and given an opportunity to evaluate both teachings, most will arrive at the only possible answer --  God created life.  And, that scares the peedoodle out our secular and atheist friends.

With that introduction, let me share with you an interesting article from the March 2014 issue of "Acts & Facts" -- the monthly magazine published by the Institute For Creation Research.

 

What Is the Origin of Life?
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.,
Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, Science Writer at the Institute For Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/article/7911/

One roadblock secular science faces is the origin of anything…and everything.  For example, how did the primeval Big Bang originate?  Materialists do not know and rarely even speculate.  In 1859, Darwin didn’t actually address the origin of the species even though it was the title of his book.  Over a century later, an evolutionist stated in a well-respected science magazine, “The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself.” (1)  For evolution to be true, before the origin of plants, animals, and people -- before any of these life forms ever existed -- there had to be some kind of transformation of inorganic non-life into organic (carbon-based) life.  Supposedly happening naturalistically over four billion years ago, this emergence of life from non-life has been a frequent and irritating question for evolutionists.

Secular scientists must start with a sterile planet composed of red-hot rock, an Earth with no atmosphere and no water.  From this forbidding environment all life-forms, from amoebas to zebras, must have arisen.  In fact, “the mystery of how living organisms sprung out of lifeless rock has long puzzled scientists.” (2)

The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life.  In conducting his brilliant swan-necked flask experiment, French chemist Louis Pasteur was able to cast significant doubt on the theory of spontaneous generation (e.g., mice manifesting from dirty rags or maggots emerging from putrefying meat).  Today evolutionists state spontaneous generation was just superstition and instead discuss abiogenesis or chemical evolution -- the development of living creatures from nonliving material.  But is it not essentially the same thing -- the claim that life came from non-life?

In their attempt to salvage an unscientific situation, evolutionists state that living things are simply made of nonliving chemicals.  But animals and people somehow have that additional, unique trait called life.  In the distant, unobserved past, they maintain, these nonliving chemicals happened to hit upon the right ratio, balance, and temperature, (and) somehow organized themselves in the most profound way imaginable, and then somehow became alive.
 
And there’s the rub.  No matter how hard secular scientists try, they are unable to step off of the first square in their naturalistic quest for life’s origin.  This is why most evolutionists would rather ignore the "origin of life" (OOL) question altogether.

Life is perhaps the most impossible event in the universe for them to explain.  Evolutionary reporter Susan Mazur interviewed Steve Benner of the Westheimer Institute of Science and Technology regarding an ("origin of life") OOL Gordon Research Conference held in Galveston, Texas, in January.  

Benner states: 

 

We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth -- to RNA.  There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we’re up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. (3)

 

RNA is ribonucleic acid, which is found throughout the living world.  Evolutionists suppose it was one of the first biomolecules on early Earth.  But later in the interview Benner says, “You have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA -- rather than creates RNA.” (3)

Every time secular scientists attempt to produce a “primal environment” containing critical ("origin of life") OOL elements in a flask, they end up with a toxic tar coating the container walls.  Nothing close to life has ever been produced.  The generations of scientists since Darwin’s day who’ve attempted to explain the origin of life have remained at a complete impasse.

What is the origin of life?  Creation scientists state that life only comes from life, specifically the Source of all -- the Giver and Sustainer of Life (John 14:6).

References:

  1. Donoghue, P. C. J. 2007. Paleontology: Embryonic identity crisis. Nature. 445 (7124): 155.
  2. Power Behind Primordial Soup Discovered. University of Leeds news release. Posted on leeds.ac.uk April 4, 2013, accessed January 5, 2014.
  3. Mazur, S. Steve Benner: Origins SoufflÉ, Texas-Style. Huffington Post. Posted on huffingtonpost.com December 6, 2013, accessed January 5, 2014.

* Mr. Sherwin is Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute For Creation Research.

Cite this article: Frank Sherwin, M.A. 2014. What Is the Origin of Life? -- Acts & Facts. 43 (3).

 

Point of clarification:  The article above tells us: "In conducting his brilliant swan-necked flask experiment, French chemist Louis Pasteur was able to cast significant doubt on the theory of spontaneous generation. . . "   To learn more about that experiment and why a swan-necked flask, please click on this URL link:

 

Pasteur Swan Neck Flask Experiment
http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/...swan-neck-flask.html

 

Did you find this article informative and useful?  Then you might want to consider subscribing to Acts & Facts, ICR's monthly news magazine which contains articles and information of current interest dealing with creation, evolution, and related topics.  Current and past issues can be read online, and you can sign up to receive future issues, all for free.

 

Sign up for a free subscription:  http://www.icr.org/subscriptio...nup&f_country=US

 

 God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

 

ICR Dual Logo

Attachments

Images (1)
  • ICR Dual Logo
Last edited by Bill Gray
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi Smokey,

 

Now that Vic does not have his period anymore -- I am happy to see you still have a period.   Otherwise, your lack of words would be a very pregnant silence. 

 

But, when one has nothing intelligent to say, I suppose even a period can be really stretching the IQ level.

 

Bless your pregnant little heart!

 

Bill

Last edited by Bill Gray

Crash, my Friend,

 

When the one with whom we are attempting to communicate -- can only think as high as a period -- we have to stay on the same level to be able to communicate.  Trust me, I would much rather have a constructive, somewhat intelligent discussion -- but, if one is to reach the barnyard neighbors, one must walk in the barnyard.

 

One day, God willing, you will graduate above the "period" level.  But, don't worry.  As long as you are down there -- I will come down occasionally to visit with you!

 

Bless your simple little heart!

 

Bill

Last edited by Bill Gray

Aeneas, my Friend,

 

Your analogy of prophecy and stock market prices is dead on target.   That is the kind of subterfuge atheists and other non-believers will attempt in an effort to distract folks from the truth of God's Word.

 

They do this -- because they have no other ammunition in their anti-God arsenal. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

1 - Bible_Open-FAMILY-GROW

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - Bible_Open-FAMILY-GROW

Johhny says:

 

"One would assume from that title that Mr. Darwin is addressing the "origin of life" -- for how can we discuss the "origin of species, the preservation of favoured races" -- if we do not discuss how life entered those species and races? "

 

Once again your ignorance of basic science is showing.  Please look up the words "species" and "iife".  Your premise will then be disproved - assuming you can understand basic English.  The rest of your post is therefore just more fundy nonsense. 

quote: Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
quote: Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

"One would assume from that title that Mr. Darwin is addressing the "origin of life" -- for how can we discuss the "origin of species, the preservation of favoured races" -- if we do not discuss how life entered those species and races? "

 

Once again your ignorance of basic science is showing.  Please look up the words "species" and "iife".  Your premise will then be disproved - assuming you can understand basic English.  The rest of your post is therefore just more fundy nonsense.

Crusty, my dear Friend,

 

I accept your challenge:

 

Species (noun):  Biology - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Life (noun):  The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

 

So, that simple, single, inorganic cell, floating in some primordial swamp (by the way, who or what created that cell and the swamp?) -- according to Darwinian evolution, suddenly (over billions of years) goes from no life -- to life!   Darwin could not explain it!  No scientist then, or today, can explain it.

 

All they can say is, "We have no idea how it happened!  But, we know God did not do it!"

 

Yet, with that kind of intelligence -- they still call themselves scientists?  DUH!

 

Crusty, my Friend, can YOU tell us the origin of life?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

1 - Bible-Science-Space_GODS-STORY

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - Bible-Science-Space_GODS-STORY
Last edited by Bill Gray

Bill, your ignorance is showing again.  You looked up the words and still don't know what they mean.  Then you go on about billions of years being "suddenly". 

 

It is impossible to have a conversation with a drooling idiot, so I will stop trying. 

 

Have a blissed day, Bill.  Ask Dory for a Kleenex for your chin.

Crusty, my super intelligent (?) Friend,

 

Since you are convinced that neither I, nor the dictionaries, know the meaning of "life" and "species" -- suppose YOU give us the correct definitions.

 

Whoa, what happened?  I believe I just saw Crusty ducking behind the bushes -- waiting for one of his other non-believing comrades to answer for him.  That way we will not see all the egg on that crusty looking face!

 

Bless your little "DUH!" heart!

 

Bill

Friends_Piggy

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy

Crusty, my thick headed Friend,

 

Never said that "species" and "life" are the same.  What I wrote is:

 

One would assume from that title that Mr. Darwin is addressing the "origin of life" -- for how can we discuss the "origin of species, the preservation of favoured races" -- if we do not discuss how life entered those species and races?

 

Are you trying to tell us that we can have a species evolve -- if there is NO life?

 

So, my yet to evolve Friend, what is your problem with my earlier post -- except for the fact that it is true?  And, that just fries your grits!

 

Bless your simple little non-believing heart!

 

Bill

 

Goofy - Forgot To Start Again

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Goofy - Forgot To Start Again

"One would assume from that title that Mr. Darwin is addressing the "origin of life" -- for how can we discuss the "origin of species, the preservation of favoured races" -- if we do not discuss how life entered those species and races?"

 

Why must we assume that The Theory Evolution must include the origin of life?  Evolution and biogenesis are two related but separate disciplines.  In studying chemistry, one does not study the origin of matter.  Yet we do not assume that chemistry must include the origin of matter (The Big Bang), and since that does not fit into our religious paradigm, dismiss chemistry all together.  And, chemistry is a much better scientific basis from which to approach biogenesis from since biogenesis was a chemical process.  And still we don't dismiss chemistry because it cannot yet provide a complete answer to the origin of life. 

 

Hi OldSalt,

 

You tell me, "Why must we assume that The Theory Evolution must include the origin of life?"

 

 If there was no origin of life -- there could be NO evolution.  If life did not exist first, there would have been nothing to evolve.  If life did not exist first -- you and I would NOT be sitting here having this dialogue.

 

So, yes, my Friend -- life and the theory of evolution are definitely connected at the hip.   First God created the chicken -- and then from the chicken God brought forth the egg!

 

Let me ask you.  How do YOU think that life came into being?  To YOU, what is the origin of life?

 

If you can answer those questions, you are either a Christian believer -- or YOU are smarter than Darwin and all evolutionists.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Wrong Again, Richard

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Wrong Again, Richard

So Bill, do you reject chemistry?  As I said before, chemistry is probably a better discipline to approach biogenesis from than evolution.  I, like most scientists, do not know how life began. Scientists know that under certain conditions that occur in nature inorganic compounds can be catalyzed into organic compounds.  Scientists have created in the laboratory cell wall-like membranes using organic compounds.  Still we don't have all the answers to the question of how life arose from inorganic compounds, but progress is being made.  Chemistry cannot completely explain the origin of life, and chemistry, life and therefore evolution are connected at the hip.

 

"I do not know" is perfectly acceptable scientific answer.  But just because we don't know how something happened does not necessitate the conclusion of "god did it."  Your problem with evolution is not that it is incomplete science, but the fact that the Theory of Evolution is anathema to your religious paradigm and therefore you must reject it.  I don't have a problem with it if you say "I reject Evolution because of my religion."  At least that is honest.  But to try to discredit the science of evolution because it does not answer a question it never tried to answer is unsound reasoning. 

 

Have a nice day!

 

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×