What are the odds that the first cell could have popped into being?
A cell pops into being one sunny day. Doesn't sound too hard does it? Just, "POP!" and there it is. Gross ignorance would accept this fairy tale, but reality always gets in the way of fairy tales. Evolution isn't science.
To the extent that anything can be proven impossible, spontaneous life has been proven to be impossible. To the extent that anything can be proven impossible, evolution has proven to be impossible. These two ideas stand with the flat earth theory, the big bang theory and so many others. Even so, evolutionists remain closed-minded.
Scientists, way back in time, thought that there was such a thing as a simple cell. It was believed that a simple one-celled creature popped into existence one day by chance. The right combination of chemicals just fell together and voila: spontaneous life. Scientists now know that life is too complex for that. To date, we don't even know much about what constitutes life. We know a little about the elements that could be alive if they were alive. We know conclusively that these life-capable components could not just fall together by chance. The job of evolutionists is very difficult because they must argue that impossible things have taken place without any evidence that these impossible things did take place and with insurmountable evidence that these impossible things are impossible.
H. S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, said: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject the theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." Isn't that ever scientific! Lipson, and the "physicists," made up their minds before looking at the data. Then, the physicists are having trouble with what the data is telling them. They still can't believe it! Evolutionists are not open-minded at all, but Lipson was being more honest than the average so-called scientist when he wrote the above quote.
Evolution and Statistics
Fact: Scientists have failed every attempt to create the twenty different amino acids that are required to produce the proteins that exist in the smallest living cell. There was the falsified claim that a group of scientists had created life in a test tube, but that was a falsification. The experiment at that time confirmed that life couldn't be created by any known natural process. It only dealt with the attempt to create some molecules that are capable of combining to form other molecules and building blocks of cells. These molecules are not self-sufficient or capable of supporting life. They are simply molecules, and the scientists were not successful in creating them. They created some amino acids, but, in all amino acids, the molecular structure for living matter is different from that for non-living. They were not able to create the molecular structure for living matter, but only that of non-living matter. The method they used to create these few molecules of non-living amino acid has the unfortunate effect of destroying amino acids thousands of times faster than it creates them, so there would be no hope of accumulating enough to start assembling them into a DNA molecule, let alone a cell.
"... the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one out of 10,000,000,000^124--a number that exceeds all imagination. ... the odds of the random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on our planet's surface are one in 10^20.... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^20,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.... And this is just one step in the formation of life. Nothing has yet been said about DNA and where it came from, or the transcription of DNA to RNA, which scientists admit cannot even be numerically computed.... Nor has anything been said of mitosis or meiosis. [Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason, p.35].
The probability of a non-living amino acid producing the special structure of living matter by chance is one in 10 to the 123rd power, that is, it is mathematically impossible.
The number just given is a 10 with 123 zeros behind it.
Interestingly, the news media and many schools claim that life was created in a lab. Of course, this is simply a lie.
For comparison 10 with 123 zeros behind it is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. Odds like that constitute a scientific impossibility. and this is just one very insignificant step in the process that would have been required. The molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication is possibly the most ridiculous scientific conjecture / fabrication that has ever been put forth by anyone at any time.
The math isn't important except to understand that the odds against evolution constitute an impossibility. Of course, people tend to prefer to believe what they prefer to true. In addition, the speculative assumptions of each person's world tend to solidify, even though these speculative assumptions have no basis. People get mentally stuck. Once speculative assumptions solidify, each person garners selective facts and speculative rational-lies-zations to bolster his or her foundationless assumed speculations. When the speculative assumptions aren't even addressed, but quietly are assumed to be obvious, they are very hard to deal with. They become mystical revelations of the Secular Humanistic intellectuals. At a certain point, the person making the speculative assumptions finds it hard to challenge his or her own paradigm, even when the odds become ridiculous. This is what has happened to evolutionism. Human weakness has made it possible for intelligent people to, not only accept the impossible odds just mentioned, but also to continue stumbling on to ever greater leaps into the preposterous.
OK, back to what would be required to have the initial cell pop into being. The first step along the way would be to have a method to create all the amino acids in nature. We already went over a little bit about the odds against that.
But, let's pretend: if there were a way to create amino acids of the right type, the next impossible leap would be to form an ocean of these specially structured amino acids. (Keep in mind that even one of the molecular structures-let alone an ocean-already has failed the possibility test.) But lets play pretend. Out of the bazillions of specially structured amino acid molecules that would make up this fictitious ocean, 500 must line up in the proper order; the impossible odds are one chance in 10 with 200 zeros behind it. Oh, this is silly to even think about. If you're an evolutionist, you don't want to know how big that number is. That is odds of 1 chance in 10 to the 200th power. Again, this alone would be impossible. But this is the land of make believe, isn't it? So let's press on to never-never land.
Next, a sea of these chains has to form itself by chance. In spite of the fact that forming a sea of these chains is well beyond being farfetched (when it's impossible for random chance to form one or even one part of one part), let's pretend that there's a sea of them... just for illustration's sake. From this sea, DNA must randomly be formed; the odds used to be one chance in 10 with 155 zeros behind it, but now we know more about the DNA. DNA is much more complex than we ever imagined. The DNA is a tiny computer holding genetic programming of more information than a library of books. This computer must be perfectly and completely programmed in the simplest form of life; the odds against forming one of these DNA molecules, given all the materials listed above, used to be one in 10 with 400,000 zeros behind it. Now, with the little bit of work they've done trying to figure out the logic of the DNA... every time we get more information, evolution becomes sillier and sillier. Every time we learn more, it gets worse for the evolutionist. But the evolutionist thrives on the ignorant. They survive because people want to believe what they prefer to be true, not because they have any facts.
And the DNA is only one part of a cell. Every once in a while, we find out more about just how complex cells are. With every discovery, evolution is more silly.
False information and false logic have produced this unworkable hypothesis called evolution. And we haven't yet mentioned any level of complexity that would be capable of supporting life. We don't know enough about cells to really give a fair estimate of what it would take to pop a cell into existence by chance, but the odds get worse with each new discovery.
If you are one of those who is honest enough to admit that you don't understand these numbers, don't feel bad. Math can be very intimidating. We can't write out these huge numbers; they're too big. Telling how many zeros are behind the first 10 is a way to make it possible to write them, but it does give a false illusion of smallness. You know, from experience, how zeros affect a number. If 3 zeros are added to a check for one dollar that makes it a check for one thousand dollars. If 20 zeros are added to a check for one dollar, then that check would represent more money than exists in the world. What would 400,000 zeros do? Just make the check payable to me.
As if these numbers weren't large enough, you must realize that, when the odds of creating one of a certain type of molecule is one chance in 10 with 200 zeros behind it, the odds of creating two at the same time is one chance in 10 with 400 zeros behind it. When evolutionists say they need three of them to accidentally fall into place at the same time, the odds used to be one chance in 10 with 800 zeros behind it. It remains to be seen where the new research will put these odds, but they will make the concept of evolution much more unbelievable. Take a minute to grasp what happens. The odds keep getting more unbelievable for each additional one of these molecules that evolutionists need to create by blind chance. Take a moment to let that sink in. Now think of the evolutionists' ocean of these molecules covering the planet. The odds against all this nonsense happening are impossible to write using our method of telling how many zeros were behind the first 10. These odds become so fantastic that expressing them in a meaningful way becomes impossible. Every fairy tale you ever heard as a child is much more probable than the fairy tale of evolution.
The flaws in evolutionism compound from here. A partial amoebae, for instance, cannot sustain life or reproduce, and the law of entropy quickly destroys every element that is needed to make any creature. This means that all the events listed above plus the amazing complexity of an amoebae need to pop into being in a moment by blind chance. It must happen in a moment, because the second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for things to go from lower levels of complexity to higher levels of complexity.
The Evolutionists will tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will tell the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.
The ungodly are forced to hold on tightly to some basic presuppositions. These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions. They are filters and a way to censor out any data that supports the existence of God. They set up a web of rules to filter out God. They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. Naturalism claims that God does nothing. Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm. Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record. Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored. The way that it is censored can take several forms. The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean. A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly. If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth. The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people. When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it." They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge. The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator. They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.
For a scientist to insist that life started by chance is more ridiculous than if an archeologist discovered an ancient city as complex and large as New York and insisted that wind and other natural forces had formed it, with all it's computers, electrical, plumbing, electronic, and structural systems. If he or she refused even to consider that there might have been an intelligent designer/builder, people would say that the archaeologist was nuts, wouldn't they? Well, that's just because people understand cities better than they understand cells, because we're finding out that a cell is a lot more complex than a city. We know how to build cities, but we can't even build the basic components of a cell.
The current trends in "science," can only be described as bizarre weirdness.
"... Speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened millions of years ago." (Quote of Ernst Chain, Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond).