Part I. The Orgin of Life.
Everything in this area is bogus.
This explains why Moses says the moon and sun were made on the 4th day.
On the first ‘day’ the expression ‘light came to be’ was used. The Hebrew word used their for light was ‘ohr, meaning light in a general sense, but on the fourth ‘day’ the word changes to ma*’ohr, which means the source of light.
On the first day light penetrated the waddling bands, but the sources couldn’t be seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers around the entire earth.
Moses didn’t see the source of light until the 4th day, where he saw them for the first time.
Some say there is a second creation story in chapter 2 of Genesis, its simply more details of chapter 1.
How evolution started by Richard Dawkins. -from the book Selfish gene
Well, his first line says it best. SPECULATION!!!!
He speculates that in the beginning, earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy by lightning or volcanoes these simple compounds were broken apart and formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into protein like compounds.
Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
Then according to Dawking’s description, “a particulary remarkable molecule was formed by accident” - a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Dawking admitted that such an accident was exceeding improbable, he says it must have happened. Similar molecules gathered together and by exceeding little probable accident, wrapped a barrier of protective protein around themselves as a membrane. Thus, as he claims, the first cell was born.
At this point a reader begins to understand what Dawking said in the preface to his book :
“This book should be read almost as though it was science fiction.”
Recent knowledge has only magnified the difference between living and dead things.
“The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” says astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossils residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning….so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”
Steps of evolution
1) The existence of the right primitive atmosphere and
2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life.
3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that
4) combine and acquire a membrane and thereafter
5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves.
Do these steps correspond with the available facts?
Primitive atmosphere
In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some amino acids that exist, but they are just building blocks of protein. Also he managed to create only 4 of the 20 necessary for life. Even today, scientists are unable to create all 20 needed under any conditions that can be considered plausible.
Miller says the conditions in the flask were that of the primitive atmosphere. Why? He and a coworker said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing (no free oxygen in the atmosphere) conditions.” But evolutionist theorize that oxygen was present.
Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would have never got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
Hey, a FACT!!!!!
The fact is no one knows what earths primitive atmosphere was like.
Organic soup plausible?
Theories Theories Theories!!!!!
If the amino acids escaped lightning in a primitive atmosphere, and survived the trip through ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, evolution say they found their way beneath the surface of water.
But once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it to form larger molecules and evolve toward proteins for the formation of life. The problem is, once out of the water they are back in ultraviolet radiation again!
Hitching: “In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first relatively easy stage (getting amino acids) in the evolution of life is forbidding.”
Biochemist George Wald on molecules linking to each other in water: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, then spontaneous synthesis.”
Another stubborn problem that confronts the evolution theory.
Left hand right hand.
Big deal
There are 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in 2 shapes. Some are left handed, some are right handed.
If they were formed at random in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be left handed and half right handed. There is no know reason as to why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins All are left handed!
Physicist J.D. Bernal: “It must be admitted that the explanation…still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded “We may never be able to explain it.”
The odds of it happening at random are equal to flipping a quarter 400 times in a row and all are heads.
Probablility
To put the odds of nature randomly selecting the 20 amino acids better, imagine digging a scoop into a pile of 100 beans, full of different varieties. When you take your scoop out you must have only 20 of the red beans, and each one must be scooped into a proper place on the scoop. Imagine doing that over and over and over all the time, with the same results. Impossible. Virtually impossible.
What are the chances of a simple protein forming at random in a protein soup? Evolutionists acknowledge the odds are 1 : 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
(Yes, 1 followed by 113 zeros.)
Amazing? NO.... The rest just makes me want to nap
2000 proteins serving serving as enzymes are needed for cell’s activity. What are the chances of these being formed at random? 1: 1 followed by 40,000 zeros!
Amazing?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Hitching: “The answer must be, they developed in parallel.”
Does that sound reasonable?
Intelligent organizer
Arent the above odds too much to happen by chance?
From Evolution from Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe)
“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way…in which we can simply get by with a bigger, (which outrules small pools of sulpher) and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers that we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”
After acknowledging that an intelligent designer must have some how been involved: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”
Some scientists say intelligence is mandatory, but a creator is unacceptable.
“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” -Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivan
“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” -Biologist Edwin Conklin
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” -Biochemist George Wald
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” -Biologist Francis Crick
“If one is not prejudiced by either by social beliefs or by scientific training into the conviction that life originated (spontaneously) on the Earth, this simple calculation (the mathematical odds against it) wipes the idea entirely out of court.” -Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe
Not all scientists accept it
Physicist H. S. Lipson on the odds against spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation.”
Astronomer Robert Jastrow: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of a direct act of creation.”
This is my post on the origin of life. Soon I will post about evolution of animals, and even more evidence that points to an intelligent designer. [/B][/QUOTE]
