IPS-Eye-White

Section 5 .. Other Beliefs/Evolution

 

003white Index To Other Beliefs         >         Index To Articles on Evolution       >        Non-life To Life

IPS-Header
Evolution-Pl
 

The Instantaneous Transition From Non-Life to Life

Doug Sharp

Please Note: Each coloured link within the article will lead you to a related topic on a different page of this site. However while the text is part of the original article, the links are not. The author of this article may or may not agree with the views expressed on those pages, or anything else on this site..

Also See   Choose Life That You Might Live.... The Case For Christianity   &     Section II...  Reasons To Believe

Bible1-Bar

Evolutionists insist that it took millions, even billions of years for life to evolve from non-life. But we must remember that this is an either-or situation, much like a toggle switch. Something is either living or dead. If evolution is true, then this transition must have happened one time in the past, and it would have taken place in an instant, not millions of years. Scientists should then be able to duplicate this event, and show that it was a spontaneous occurrence. Why haven't they been able to do so, especially since this might be one way they could falsify the creation hypothesis? All they need to do is to take off-the-shelf dead chemicals, create life from them, and show that this transition is spontaneous and takes place as a normal course of events given a scenario for the origin of the earth.

This arena is a philosophical wasteland given our current knowledge of molecular biology. The molecules that make up life are incredibly complex, using amino acids, bases and sugars as an alphabet to code a monstrous object-oriented computer program that constructs the materials making up living systems. All life consists of this same basic underlying design, and all life has the same degree of complexity even at the basic cellular level. Consider that the technology that makes the bumblebee fly is much more sophisticated that a Boeing 747, and it is reduced down to operate at the molecular level. Our most advanced computers have not achieved that yet. The task of trying to constructing these systems chemically breaks down at the most simple level. The reagents needed to produce sugars used in DNA conflicts with the reagents needed to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. When these are formed artificially, equal mixtures of two isomers are formed, yet both sugars and amino acids use only one isomer. There is no wonder that attempts at creating life in a test tube from non-life results in nothing but burnt amino acids.

Here's another experiment you can try. Squash a hundred bugs, put the entrails in a test tube, mix it up and produce life from the chemicals. All of the tough chemistry is already done for you there, why can't you bring it to life? It appears that life is much more than merely physics and chemistry; it is a creation of God! The only escape from this is to hide behind millions of years of trial and error. This is an invalid argument. Since biological chemicals break down much more easily that they are constructed, time becomes an enemy to evolution [See The Second Law of Thermodynamics]. This problem is reflected at the species level: extinction occurs much more readily than the origin of new species. The chemistry of life toggles the switch immediately to the off position once death occurs. The off position is permanent and irreversible. If evolutionists want us to accept their theory, they need to demonstrate a scenario where cold, dead chemicals can be sparked to life.

I've tried that. All you get is brown sticky goo.

Evolution-Back2

Index To Articles on Evolution

www.inplainsite.org