Replies

The next time you open a brand-new jar of jam, jelly, or peanut butter, let's find out how good of a scientist you are!

Do you carefully follow the evidence, or do you blindly accept the prevailing folklore? Are you a victim of the myths and legends of our time, or do you think critically for yourself?

Our entire culture - our science, our social structure, and our educational system - is based on the specious premise of biogenesis: that

matter + energy g new life (at least on rare occasions)

Let's conduct an experiment. Take a new (unopened) jar of jam, jelly, or even peanut butter - direct from the supermarket shelf - and examine it carefully.

Notice that it is an "open" thermodynamic system: energy can enter and leave the container as it is exposed to different temperatures. (In fact, the container is probably also optically transparent, but that is incidental to our purposes here.)

According to the dogmas of the current high priests of biology (and other venerated elders of our society), occasionally, if you combine matter and energy, it is possible to yield new life forms. The accepted theory is that even inorganic matter, subjected to totally random processes, originally combined itself into an initial life form, from which all subsequent life evolved.

Let's now open the sealed jar and carefully examine the contents inside. Did you find any "new life"?

Of course not! (And aren't you glad!) Our example even contains organic material, which contributes an unfavorable bias to our null hypothesis (a handicap, as it were), but even that, too, helps establish our basic point. To attempt to use inorganic materials in such a container further clinches our conclusion: did we really evolve from a rock and some water?

The equation implied by our current priesthoods of science is erroneous: the underlying equation is incomplete.

matter + energy -is not equal to- new life

matter + energy + information g new life

Unless there is introduced information, from an external source - a spore, or some other essential contaminant - no "new life" will ever be found. Ever.

Every day, for over a hundred years, we have continually conducted billions of experiments analogous to the one above and we never find any "new" life forms. Our entire food industry depends upon the fact that, unless an impurity is introduced, no "new life" is ever found. The Darwinists cannot explain the origin of life because they cannot explain the origin of the information necessary!

Link to complete article.

Let's conduct an experiment. Take a new (unopened) jar of jam, jelly, or even peanut butter - direct from the supermarket shelf - and examine it carefully.
Notice that it is an "open" thermodynamic system: energy can enter and leave the container as it is exposed to different temperatures. (In fact, the container is probably also optically transparent, but that is incidental to our purposes here.)
According to the dogmas of the current high priests of biology (and other venerated elders of our society), occasionally, if you combine matter and energy, it is possible to yield new life forms. The accepted theory is that even inorganic matter, subjected to totally random processes, originally combined itself into an initial life form, from which all subsequent life evolved.
Let's now open the sealed jar and carefully examine the contents inside. Did you find any "new life"?
Of course not!

OK, let's conduct another experiment. Go out into the country and measure the height of the surrounding hills.

According to the dogmas of the current high priests of geology (and other venerated elders of our society), mountains were formed over millions of years as tectonic plates pushed together, forcing massive amounts of rock upwards, in some cases almost 30,000 feet high.

Let's wait a week. Now go out again. Have any of the hills you measured a week ago turned into mountains yet?

Of course not! Nobody's ever seen a hill turn into a mountain. (Well, almost nobody.) Ergo, the prevailing folklore is incorrect. QED.

Evolution does NOT seek to find out nor claim to seek to find out the ORIGINS of life.

Evolution starts where the first selfreplicating organism came into being, and NOT before.

Abiogenesis is what you are talking about, and scientists have done a number of excellent experiments which have created very basic amino acids, one of the bases of life on earth.

Scientists have also created other forms of very basic chemical compounds that could have led to life.

Abiogenesis is still in it's infancy, to say that it is impossible is ASSUMING a lot.

I believe that we will find the answer, and it will NOT be an answer that you are going to like.