.
.
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  Q u e s t i o n s  a n d  A n s w e r s
p a g e  1
Answers to Scientific American.(sciam.com), Magazine's, '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense', written by biologist John Rennie'. A creationist is one who believes the Great Infinite One created it all, which is true! 

Evolution can not explain how life first appeared on Earth, as you will see.

So why do some educators teach it as true? Like duh! Shouldn't education be based upon the truest most accurate information available and this be used for careful, exact evaluation and comparison with alternate information regarded as being still within theoretical experimental boundaries?

The challenge to evolution comes not from creationists but from the study of nature itself. In spite of massive evidence to the contrary, evolutionists holding an agenda apart from scientific thinking continue to engage in telling their fairy tale. This is not science. It is closed-minded religion, the religion of evolution!

-Scientific American Magazine article:."The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive.nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed...".[SA 81]

Answer:.Actually, they have found out how some major building blocks.cannot.be formed, e.g., cytosine. The proposed 'prebiotic' conditions that biochemists attempt to recreate in the laboratory are unrealistic because it is highly unlikely that the alleged 'precursor chemicals' could ever have concentrated sufficiently and these chemicals would have undergone side reactions with other organic compounds. Cytosine is far too unstable anyway to have accumulated over 'deep time' because its half life is only 340 years at 25°C

-Scientific American:."...and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units...".[SA 81] 

Answer:.Spontaneous.polymerization is a major hurdle for non-living chemicals to overcome. Chemical evolutionists have yet to solve these problems, let alone produce any self-replicating system which has any relevance to cells.

-Scientific American:."... laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.".[SA 81] 

Answer:.Another response based upon the hopelessness the.Scientific American.contributor obviously encountered when speculating about current theories of how some evolutionists figure life spontaneously generated on Earth.

The amounts of these chemicals are tiny, far too low to contribute to biological processes. 

The wide variety of compounds in itself counts as evidence against any chemical evolution. With pure compounds used in experiments the results are meager, so how much worse would they be with the contaminated gunk produced in the real world? 

Sugars are very unstable and easily decompose or react with other chemicals. This counts against any proposed mechanism to concentrate them to useable proportions. 

Living things require homochiral.(homo 'man-made', chiral 'relates to the structural characteristic of a molecule that makes it impossible to superimpose it on its mirror image).i.e., with the same handedness, but the ones from space would not have been this way. 

Even under highly artificial conditions, there is no plausible method of making the sugar ribose join to some of the essential building blocks needed to make DNA or RNA. Instead, the tendency is for long molecules to break down. 

Even DNA or RNA by themselves would not constitute life, since it's not enough just to join the bases.('letters').together, but the sequence must be meaningful and this sequence is not a function of the chemistry of the letters. 

Even the correct letter sequence would be meaningless without elaborate decoding machinery to translate it. Unless the decoding machinery already existed, those instructions could never be read. Similarly, this book would be useless to a non English speaker, who may know the Roman alphabet but lacks knowledge of the code of the English language to convert letters into meaningful concepts. 

-Scientific American:."Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin.(for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.".[SA 81]

Answer:.Evolution is a pseudo.intellectual justification for materialism, because it purports to explain life without a Creator. So materialism would be in great trouble if evolution had a problem right at the start.('chemical evolution').and it does. After all, if the process cannot even start, it cannot continue,.duh!
 


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