≡ Menu

Part 9 Problems with life coming from non-life?

Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact?

Macroevolution has two pillars that both have to be in place in order for it to be true.  If either one is wrong the theory fails.  One pillar is life has to somehow come from non-life and secondly, the fossil record has to be loaded with transitional fossils.  Let’s look at the first problem with macroevolution.

If Darwinian Evolution is a fact then why is there no evidence for life coming from non-life?

According to Darwinian Evolution there was a time when there was no life and suddenly without any help life came into existence.  How is this possible?  How does living stuff come from dead stuff?  The answer…no one knows!  NO ONE!  Over 45 years of intensive research has virtually failed to show any tangible results.

Many scientists theorize there had to be an early primordial soup that allowed for life to begin.  In 1953 Miller-Urey experimental evidence for primordial soup was cited when they demonstrated elementary amino acids (which are building blocks for protein) could be formed in a lab with an atmosphere resembling primordial earth.  However, the atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiments proved to be incorrect.  The true early atmosphere destroyed life instead of allowing it to develop.  Similar experiments have not been successful and/or utilized so much operator interference that their validity is questioned.  Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle has said:  “If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems toward living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning….No such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens…except the eventual production of a tarry sludge[1].”   Atheist Richard Dawkins states: “The probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard[2].”

In fact the situation is so bleak that in 1999 at the San Diego Origin of Life conference, the group from NASA attracted the most attention.  Why you ask?  They proposed life was started here by aliens who migrated to earth from another planet.  The reason for looking to outer space was because there are no other good explanations for life coming from non-life.  Francis Crick, one of the scientists who discovered DNA, is currently leading the way in searching for life in outer space, once wrote, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”[3] Instead actually saying how life began was a true miracle, one from God, he now looks to outer space; giving credit to little green men in space suits.

The problem with looking for life on other planets is answering the question, how did life come from non-life on that planet?  The problem is simply transferred millions of miles away.  Currently we have zero evidence for life on another planet.

So what is the evidence for life coming from dead stuff?  It doesn’t exist!  The efforts to jam chemicals together in a lab by scientists has only resulted in scant amounts of amino acids and are nowhere close to creating life from non-life.  And to think, these failed experiments are done in a lab by intelligent designers.  The overwhelming evidence for life from non-life points to an uncreated intelligent designer.

Go to part 10 here


[1] Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 24.

[2] Kenan Malik reviews The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml ?xml=/arts/2006/10/08/bodaw01.xml

[3] “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, Feb. 1991, 125.

Enhanced by Zemanta
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

About Us | Statement of Faith | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map
Never Miss an UPDATE Simply Enter Your Best Email 
x