Print this article
Email this article
|
5 Reasons Chemical Evolution
is false (introduction)
|
|
SERIES—Introduction
Our goal in this series is not so much to convince those already embedded in false thinking.
If one is convinced that something false is true, and is willing to ignore "some of the evidence" to remain in a comfort zone,
then convincing that person of truth is obviously impossible.
Instead, our goal in this series is to
appeal to honest, truth-seeking people—with honest, "scientifically-correct," logical thinking.
I understand that some of you who happen to read this article may not believe that God created you, or may not realize that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Furthermore, you may not know that
these facts are provable—but
the process of proof requires patience, and a dogged desire for truth no matter what
peers may think.
If that is your attitude, then you too will come to the above conclusion.
Evolutionists' confidence make many think twice
This brings us to the incredibly popular Theory of Evolution.
Many today feel somewhat unsure about the subject of evolution.
On the one hand, evolutionists seem "beyond convinced" that it's a fact.
On the other hand, they never can seem to put together any actual logic, much less laboratory experiments, that warrant such "confidence."
Worse still is the mountain of counter-evidence that evolutionists have no answer for—evidence that points
to no other conclusion than the involvement of a Divine Creator.
But, since evolutionists are so convinced of their theories—notwithstanding the many convincing evidences to the
contrary—many feel evolution must therefore be true. After all, how could all those experts be wrong?
If that's your thinking, I hope this series will help to put things in proper perspective for you.
Scientific blunders common when speculation involved
Just as with any field of study, scientists get in trouble when they leave the path of truth due to their desire to follow a
popular path of thinking.
Evolution is based almost entirely on speculation. Examine ANY aspect of evolution and ask: "Can this actually be proved,
or is there room for 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of honest truth-seekers?"
The honest answer is: "Every major tenet of evolution contains reasonable, indeed 'convincing,' doubt."
Instead of being disciplined and dedicated to the scientific method (simply put, using only actual evidence to prove
conclusions)—evolutionists
have fallen to the temptation of popular thinking, book sales, and jobs (your likelihood of getting a significant teaching job
in biology—if you don't believe in evolution—is about the same as that of evolution being true).
So, if truth is truly your quest, pausing to ponder the reasons past scientific theories have been embarrassed could be a worthy consideration
for evolution as well.
Scientists have been wrong so many times it would be impossible to document them all.
In fact, when it comes to speculation (which is what evolution is entirely based upon), scientists been wrong far more
often than they've been right (please read
Numerous bloopers have yet to teach scientists 'lessons').
And unsurprisingly, several common denominators of scientific blunders seem to crop up repeatedly:
- First, they are always convinced of their correctness, often looking disdainfully on anyone 'foolish enough' to oppose traditional thinking.
- Second, they don't let a lack of actual evidence get in their way.
- Third, they don't like "to be confused with the facts" if those facts seem to contradict their popular theories.
- And fourth, they allow their conclusions to be influenced by traditional thinking. The scientific community is an extremely
"peer-pressure" oriented society, and (like many of us) hate to creep out of their comfort zones.
That's because they will pay dearly for doing so, EVEN if they're right.
It's better to let someone else take the beating for new thinking and quietly wait until everyone catches up with the truth—than
to have the courage to step out and tell people what they don't want to hear.
Because of these pressures, the vast majority of scientists are fearful of "testing traditional limits" too much.
Yet, as our Lord said, "only truth will set us free."
For that truth our Lord paid the heaviest price, and consequently
now sits at the right hand of God and as second in Command over creation.
He will also return one day to execute vengeance on those who do not glorify God and do not obey the truth. The Bible says:
...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their
foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...
(Romans 1:19-22)
Where Evolution begins: "Chemical Evolution"
The first jumping off point of evolution is "Chemical Evolution," so that's where we begin.
Chemical Evolution may well be the most outlandish deception ever sold to the scientific community.
Basically, this theory suggests that there once existed a "mother of us all" bacterium from which every plant and animal
on earth macroevolved: from weed to wood, ant to alligator, rat to rhino, and dinosaur to duck.
This little bacterium allegedly was, in essence, spontaneously generated from nature—that is to say, it was
simply an amazing accident due to random combinations of chemicals.
After successfully convincing themselves that a tiny "mother being" had once populated our planet, the next question for Evolutionists
apparently was:
"Where did the little mother get randomly produced by nature—on earth, or in another world?"
The first theory (the "Soup Theory") suggested that about 4 billion years ago the world's mother-being (a bacterium) was inadvertently formed from
earth's primordial oceanic soup of just the right organic ingredients.
The original belief was that since bacteria are so tiny, they couldn't possibly be complicated; meaning nature could easily
produce a bacterium by random combinations of chemicals.
However, as time progressed, it became glaringly clear that bacteria, although being the simplest known creatures in our universe,
are vastly complex beings.
(I encourage you to view the above video, which remarkably illustrates the awesomeness of these microscopic creatures.)
But evolutionists like to evolve things, so the Soup Theory, itself consumed by the usual lack of evidence, evolved
into the "Alien Hitchhiker" theory.
Promoted by NASA other scientists, this theory speculates that alien life, or perhaps an alien's nucleotides, arrived from somewhere in outer space,
possibly riding atop the tail of a comet or surviving the trip in the warm, wet nucleus of a meteorite. This "all new" version
was felt necessary due to the increasing realization that 4 billion years was simply not enough time for first-life to have spontaneously generated
itself from mud. By having the first stages take place elsewhere in the universe, this, they felt, bought evolution more
time to create the "mother of us all" bacterium from which they claim we ALL (including plants) came.
Finally, they tell us, our original "mother" allegedly began to furiously reproduce, producing offspring
that essentially took part in a gigantic manufacturing operation of oxygen (via photosynthesis).
With oxygen, macroevolution allegedly kicked in, resulting in the development of
fishes, worms, frogs, rats, snakes, monkeys, and finally you—all thanks to the incredible theory of Chemical Evolution.
Disturbing Problems with Chemical Evolution
Scientists, educators, politicians, television producers, book writers, and even NASA have jumped onto the amazing Chemical Evolution vegetable cart.
But many people are asking themselves: Did it really happen?
Did life pop out of mindless oblivion?
Did we evolve from an incredibly lucky incident, an inexplicable accident of nature,
from a mindless expanse of nothingness, out of a senseless oceanic primordial soup of sub-imbecility and
zero IQ—all without the involvement of God or any Supernatural Being?
Apart from the mountain of speculation upon which the entirety of Evolution is built, many people have
trouble swallowing all the fabulous fable-like conjecture.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, feel that given billions of years almost anything's mathematically possible. If only they had
proof to back their feelings!)
Surely, they insist, anyone can see that it would be "just a matter of time" before the chemicals of earth (or Mars, or...take your pick) could
clump up to form an "uncomplicated" miniature organism.
Our bodies, after all, are fundamentally composed of molecules, of chemicals.
Imagine if all those chemicals were placed into a large vibrating barrel (the universe), and that barrel were
allowed to rattle a few billion years. Isn't it possible that eventually the proper combinations of chemicals might accidently
reconstruct our bodies—or perhaps a "simple" amoeba—exactly as we see them today?
Well, not exactly. In fact, not hardly. Indeed, not even close—as we plan to demonstrate in a moment.
The truth is, the number of scientific and logical problems associated with Evolution in general, and Chemical Evolution in particular, are far
too abundant for any one person to adequately document.
Therefore, we've decided to narrow our focus to 5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is false...
5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is False:
REASON #1—That "simple little organism" isn't so simple after all
REASON #2—Nature can't produce complex organic molecules
REASON #3—'Irreducible complexity' insurmountable problem
REASON #4—Thermodynamics is a deathblow to evolution
REASON #5—Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible
Conclusion
PART 1
|
|
|
|
|
