.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

C r e a t i o n  I n d e x

C r e a t i o n  p a g e  1 7

Darwin was a sincere and smart man, yet ignorant of reason for variation within a species. With research spanning 25 years in his quest for answers, Darwin amassed evidence to support his theories, yet the conclusive.proof positives he needed remained elusive.

Biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it by identifying the molecules that allow for these variations and other functions.

Biochemistry is the study of the very basis of life. Molecular evolution is not based upon scientific authority.."There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of complex biochemical systems did occur or even might have occurred."....Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania. 

Such is the Darwinian theory encompassing molecular evolution today and focusing on transitional steps in cell creation, when the true essence of cellular life is regulation. That's like comparing vehicles; perhaps one a 4x4, the other a compact car. Hmmm, they both have tires; they both have doors, etc., but one is larger, so perhaps it progressed in design from the smaller one. This type of reasoning says nothing about how the internal systems of each are regulated; how one may be distinctly.advantageous, which one exhibits higher efficiency, etc. Molecular biochemistry has answered what Darwin called."the mystery of mysteries", how life came to be as it is.

Through careful measurements and methods to mix and react chemicals, chemists have produced proteins.and nucleic acids in their laboratories, by first making amino acids and nucleotides

One problem for the gradualism and natural selection evolutionary believers is that amino acids dissolve in water.

Was there water in the prebiotic soup from which evolutionists teach life proceeded? Would they not then have disintegrated

Having the chemicals in a lab does nothing without purpose and design behind them where there is a guiding hand ensuring the end result is according to what was in the chemists mind to produce. Who did this 4 billion or more years ago?

From where did the chemicals originate? "To reach a presumption of non design requires the demonstration that a system is not irreducibly complex, or does not have much specificity between its components."....Michael Behe..Albert Einstein too!

And that's just for creating them. To go on from there to joining amino acids together is extremely difficult in the best equipped labs today; no equipment and labs 4 billion years ago.."A molecule must be removed for each amino acid and joined to the growing protein chain and the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins. Carefully controlled procedures are required to produce proteins and nucleic acids in a laboratory."....Michael Behe

The story many well versed in evolutionary tenets.tout is about the amino acids being washed up on shore eons of time ago, where the Sun heated them, evaporating the water to begin the coming forth of life. This doesn't, shall we say 'hold water', as it has been shown that heating amino acids gives a smelly dark tar, but no detectable proteins, so necessary for life. There are staggering difficulties facing an origin of life by natural processes idea, or to put it another way, staggering difficulties are encountered when attempts are made to turn the fable of Darwinian evolution into science

Evolutionary biologists make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. Chemists do. 

This places evolutionary biology into the same category as other so called 'sciences' known as behavioral, like audiology, psychology, sociology, etc. and is on about the same par as astrology. Statements made devoid of scientific evidence don't stand up to commonsense

Darwin observed the variation in species. Some were larger, lighter in color, smaller, faster, etc. He reasoned that it was limited food supplies which couldn't support all organisms that are born. Is the Creator limited in any way at all? The ones whose chance variation gave them an advantage in the struggle for life would tend to survive and reproduce, outcompeting the less favored ones. If the variation were inherited, then the characteristics of the species would change over time; over great periods, great changes might occur. Darwin had trouble here too:."The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown."

Darwin had trouble here too and here too.

Microscopes in the 17th and 18th centuries.(the 1600's and 1700's).would show very small, apparently living cells in liquid.(urine, beer, milk).if they were allowed to sit for several days. They became cloudy from something growing in them. So it seemed reasonable.(to those not seeing the bigger picture of creation).to presume.that living organisms could arise spontaneously from liquids and postulated that life came from some a prebiotic soup.."Darwin never imagined the exquisitely.profound complexity that exists at the most basic levels of life, as evidenced by his accounting in his theory for his starting points, the origin of life and the origin of vision."....Michael Behe.

I mean, really, you just have to question the intelligence of anyone selecting the swamp goo explanation for the beginning of life over the Creator created us explanation.

Evolutionary theory presumed cells were simple and so it could point to animals with different kinds of eyes, etc. As to observation of these processes, imagination drastically influenced their conclusions. All the while a quest toward any pathway that evolution might have used to make a complex function such as the eye, etc. was avoided; unavoidably so, in ignorance of the science we have today.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*