Top
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Evolution Bias
References
EVIDENCE #3
Although evolutionists
state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and
humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science
and the natural world.
Life is far too complex to have resulted from any
chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of
parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the
organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and
interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the
law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come
only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply
have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity.
Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity
and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any
reasonable means from the rest of the living world.
- "The simplest
organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell,
is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem
rather low-tech." ([11], p.102)
- "The cell needs all its basic parts with
their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had
evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come
into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously
come together in a precise order." ([22], p.15)
- "...the probability of life
originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary
resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!" ([22], p.15)
- "...research
has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between
organic and inorganic matter." ([4], p.373)
- "The Law of biogenesis...declares
that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by
stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of
the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to
originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable
assumption." ([22], p.14 5)
- We find that the same elements that supposedly
created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then
produce life again? ([4], p.373)
- The cell principle, excepted in Biology and
all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells.
- We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.
- Life is more than the sum of its parts. This may be why, at least in part,
science cannot define life. It can only give the characteristics of living
things.
- Darwin wrote, "The first appearance of new beings...is a
mystery of mysteries."
- All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are
said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the
atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space
for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing
(and neither can common sense account for it) and this is not to even
mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In
fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space
for the something that is to come from it.
- In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity. Therefore,
those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply
disseminate into space not draw together to form anything.
- Morality is
generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself
creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.
- Famous
evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and
animals, "Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme
technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and
ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from
nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds
that for evolutionists this gap is an "embarrassment, something to be
explained away." ([15], p.22)
- Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the
co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this
argument (natural selection) convincing until he attempted to explain the
advanced state of human faculties." ([15], p.26)
- Regarding people's
intellectual powers and moral sense among other things, Wallace also
asserted that these "could not have been developed by variation and natural
selection alone, and..., therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is
required to account for them." ([11], p.310) He
also concluded, "...a superior
intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and
for a special purpose." ([15], p.26)
- Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded
"Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the
qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special." ([15], p.26)
-
Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar
chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the
chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe
the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest
relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's
closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is
man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry
test, the butter bean is man's closest relative."
([19], p.362)
- We find
human's dominance over animals as utter and complete making a common
ancestry virtually impossible. Wallace and Broom asserted, "The whole
purpose, the only raison d'etre (reason for being) of the world...was the
development of the human spirit with the human body."
([15], p.26)
- Broom
asserted, "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in
man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for
him to dwell in (and therefore)...the evolution of man must have been
planned by some spiritual power." ([14], p.42)
- Regarding the 99% similarity
chemically to apes figure, why is our dominion over the apes so
extensive if the 99% is so significant?
- Perhaps Darwin would have
abandoned his own theory had he realized these three gaps in the order of
living things. He stated, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural
selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of
descent." ([10], p.33)
Top
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Evolution Bias
References