Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith.
Here are merely 9 points out of thousands that are scientifically contrary to evolution. Why aren’t these points being taught in our public classrooms today?
1. What is meant by spontaneous generation and has it been proven to be true or false?
Spontaneous generation is the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously form into living matter (cell). It was scientifically proven false in the mid 1800’s and never been proven otherwise.
2. What was the goal of the Miller experiment?
The goal of the Miller experiment was to form (spontaneously generate) amino acids necessary for life.
3. Miller left oxygen out of his experiment. Why did he do this and what does the scientific evidence support?
Miller left oxygen out of his experiment because he knew oxygen causes molecular bonds to come apart, such as in amino acid bonds.
Furthermore, contrary to the no-oxygen setting of Miller’s experiment, the scientific evidence supports the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere.
4. Miller did get amino acids from his experiment. How did the amino acids he got compare to amino acids found in life?
Miller got a mix of 50% left-handed amino acids and 50% right-handed amino acids. Life requires 100% left-handed amino acids. This means the Miller experiment failed to produce the correct amino acids necessary for life.
5. What can be concluded about all attempts to build proteins necessary for life (biological proteins) from amino acids by natural processes?
Every attempt to produce amino acids by natural processes has ended up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Even when the experiment started with all left-handed amino acids, the amino acids naturally reverted back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
6. Some textbooks and other evolutionary materials suggest that life started in the ocean. Is it possible for life to start in water?
Life cannot start in water. Water contains an oxygen molecule which will insert itself into amino acid bonds. The result is that if the amino acids did bond together, they would very soon be pulled apart.
7. Why do the following three things prohibit life from arising by natural processes (evolution).
a. Oxygen: Oxygen pulls molecule bonds apart. Amino acids necessary for life will not form or bond together in the presence of oxygen.
b. No oxygen: Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no ozone to protect molecules or any life.
c. Handedness of amino acids: All amino acids in proteins of life are left-handed. The natural tendency is always to a mix of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
8. The probability of a biological protein being formed by natural processes, even given very generous assumptions, is 10 to the 191st power. The probability of a single cell being formed by natural processes is 10 to the 40,000th power. What about the argument: “Given enough time it will happen?”
Even given enough time (20 billion years), and very generous presuppositions, there is not enough time for even a single protein to form by random chance. Plus, mathematicians agree that any probability of 10 to the 50th power or greater means that it will not happen.
9. All living forms live, grow, and exist using very complex governing codes (DNA). What are the four necessary conditions for something to gain in information and complexity?
• An open system
• A source of energy
• A mechanism to capture and store the raw energy
• A mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use
Evolution offers neither a mechanism to capture and store the raw energy nor a mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use.
Conclusion: Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith. This fact and the scientific evidence contrary to evolution is being vehemently suppressed to further a blind faith of a religious dogma that cloaks itself as science.
Nice post!