Answers to Scientific
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!
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
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
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!
origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists
have learned about how primitive.nucleic
acids and other building blocks of life could have formed...".[SA
they have found out how some major building blocks.cannot.be
The proposed 'prebiotic' conditions that biochemists attempt to recreate
in the laboratory are unrealistic because it is highly unlikely that the
'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
organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units...".[SA
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
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
response based upon the hopelessness the.Scientific
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
• 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.
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
is a pseudo.intellectual
to explain life without a Creator. So materialism would be in great trouble
if evolution had a problem right at the start.('chemical
it does. After all, if the process cannot even start, it cannot continue,.duh!