|Evolutionists Make The Sanity-defying Claim That The First Strand Of DNA Arose By Natural Selection.|
If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.
Life is NOT Self-Creating
Evolutionists make the odd claim that the first strand of DNA arose by natural selection. Sometimes, Evolutionists claim that the first cell arose by natural selection. That is just as strange.
The other tactic that Evolutionists use is to claim that the problem of the first cell has nothing to do with Evolutionism. They are aware that this issue makes the whole "No God" concept obviously bogus, so they are trying to fool the general public and themselves.
Natural selection requires a self-producing entity. For this reason, natural selection cannot explain the first life. I can think of only two reasons that Evolutionists would make such claims, and neither one of them is very flattering to the Evolutionists.
The Dawkins blind watch-maker theory tells a story of natural selection being able select one non-functional protein from a pool of millions of other non-functional proteins. This story is a lie. It cannot happen. It does not happen. Dawkins story is based on the incorrect assumption that natural selection has some sort of intelligent goal-seeking mechanism. It does not. Yet Evolutionists use this story even though they can easily prove it to be a false hope. There is no working theory or hypothesis that explains how a first cell could have been produced from a so called "primordial soup." The supposed Primordial soup is also so improbable as to be impossible.
The blind watch-maker theory is a theory about creating a single functional protein. The Miller and Urey experiments showed that it is possible to create a very simple, very dead, amino acid. Many have picked up on this and said that these experiments prove that life could have popped into existence through natural processes. That, of course, is not the case. The amino acid they created was less complicated than the amino acids needed to create life. Besides that, each amino acid must have a precise code. The blind watch-maker theory points out the fact that the creation of even one such precise code is impossible. There are other problems with the Miller and Urey experiments that would make their output invalid even if they had created the right kind of amino acids. And even that is not the whole story. You need DNA, which is made up of millions of the right kinds of amino acids all created and grouped correctly for their specific work. From there, the DNA make up chromosomes, and it gets more complex. At this point, we have only begun to talk about what goes into the nucleus of the cell. The simplest cells have complex machines and mechanisms that it needs to support life and fend for itself. The most simple of all cells is more complex than the most complex machine ever built by man.
In the same way, Craig Venter produced what he called "synthetic life" using the already created information and reading machinery of previously living cells. This is not synthetic life. It is messing around with created life.
The Evolution of Truth site, http://www.evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evogene.htm, has a wonderful explanation with graphics. There is much more to this story, and it is well worth knowing.
"'Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are freely reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.' The stories have changed, but the central dogma, ‘Life did not require an intelligent Creator’, has remained the same. But the new proposal, ‘the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins’, is false. RNA, like DNA, will not form outside of already living cells!" ~ Thomas Heinze
Ungodly people 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 information 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.
Last updated: Nov, 2013
How do evolutionists deal with the concept of spontaneous generation of life?
Feedback: Evolution has nothing to do with creation
Toons & Vids
There Are Several Very Clear Reasons that Evolution Presents False Dogma and These Reasons Cannot Be Refuted.
How Do We Know That Evolutionary Progress Has Never Been Observed?
Evolution Is A Series Of Broken Arguments
There Is No Evidence Of So-Called Evolutionary Links Between Kinds Of Living Things
What Is The Basis Or Mechanism That Would Allow Evolutionism's Claims To Work?
Breeding experiments have done much to debunk the evolutionary dogma.
Complexity, Information, And The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics Show Evolution To Be Impossible
Nothing Creates Itself -- Ever!
Evolutionists Make The Sanity-defying Claim That The First Strand Of DNA Arose By Natural Selection.
Has anyone ever seen proof of evolution?
Who Could Even Believe Such a Thing?! No One, Really. Some People Brainwash Themselves.
There Are No Examples Of Continued Overall Increases In Complexity And Information Without Intelligence.
What is the new type of scientific method that has been developed especially for evolution?
Questions and Answers: What is the basis for your statement that no new genetic information is produced or created?
Questions and Answers: What About the Kangaroo in Australia Only? Does That Prove Evolution?
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures