Evolution: Improbable or Impossible? Is God's Existence Logical, Part II

By COGwriter

These would then have had to line up in liquid in a particular sequence for certain proteins, including genes, to be produced. This improbability has been estimated to be so high that it could not have been expected to happen by chance (also, even having amino acids in sequence would not cause them to form the necessary proteins without some type of external catalyst).

Why nothing, because amino acids of themselves are not alive. Furthermore, they would also have to have lined up with the occurances of various other biological materials such as lipids and carbohydrates, and that also combined at the correct time. But that still would not make anything alive.

Instead of accepting this reality, hard-line evolutionists then claim that it was possible that there was some change in the atmospheric conditions of the Earth (or some other planet whose life somehow ended up on Earth) that allowed the non-living to somehow come alive. While true scientists do not doubt that there have been different atmospheric conditions on Earth throughout its history, there is no scientific proof that any atmospheric condition could cause non-living matter to become even a primitive live cell (and the available evidence suggests that the Earth has not had the type of atmospheric conditions to cause non-living matter to come alive).

A Series of Impossibilities Should Lead One to Realize the Existence of God

But what if we allow the impossibility of spontaneous primitive life to have occurred? The primitive life would have to die. Part of the reason for this is that even a single-cell is so complex, and so full of various biological subsystems, that scientists have learned that many systems are essentially necessary for life to exist or continue. Science recognizes that living organisms must be self-contained, eat, digest, and reproduce to continue to exist.

Spontaneously alive lined-up amino acids (with other substances coincidentally there) would die because:

1) All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism. Living organism must be somewhat self-contained.
2) All living organisms need nourishment and direction. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus to provide direction, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with ability to determine what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.
3) Even if the cell had all the above, it would die, because there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated a digestive system in order to utilize the food.
4) Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this article discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated an ability to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.

It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29). The idea of an 'intelligent design' by a Spirit being is the only explanation that does not defy scientifically provable knowledge--for all other explanations result in something that must die out.

By the way, God apparently expects humans to realize that He exists through various aspects of His creation. Notice:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

It may be of interest to note that Charles Darwin, the human credited for the so-called scientific development of the theory of evolution (and to be technical, evolution is a model and not a scientific theory), wrote the following in his book The Origin of the Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Darwin C. The Origin of Species. In Chapter 6, Difficulties on Theory).

Thus, even Charles Robert Darwin's writings contain an admission that he understood that additional complexity would disprove his theory (perhaps it should be noted that the discovery of DNA would seem to qualify as sufficient complexity that he was unaware of).

Darwin himself seemed to acknowledge that life could not have started on its own. He seemed to, some degree, rely on the biblical account in the Book of Genesis as he wrote:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one (The Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin, 2nd and subsequent editions).

Thus, apparently Darwin recognized the impossibility of life starting on its own without a Creator (God).

Comments About Other Evolution Arguments

Evolutionists have come up with a variety of arguments to try to justify their position. But upon further review, they tend not to hold up to long-term scientific scrutiny.

The March 1, 2008 issue of New Scientist makes the following claims:

“Yet the idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism. Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is “there are no transitional fossils”. This is manifestly untrue.”

“Creationists simply have no answer for such irrefutable evidence.”

Of course, the above is false.

The history of evolutionist “proof” has been riddled with made-up “evidence”, lies, and ignoring the laws of science. 

For example, I remember looking at drawings supposedly of human and non-human embryos in a science text in school, only to learn later that the drawings were not accurate, but were modified to make the embryos look more similar in order to support “evolution”.

I also recall seeing pictures of dark moths on trees in the UK which supposedly proved some aspect of evolution only to later learn that those moths do not stay on trees and were pinned on them for purposes of making a photo for evolutionary “proof”.

Furthermore, some of the early so-called “missing link” skulls for alleged human “evolution” turned out to be scientific frauds even though evolution accepting scientists accepted this evidence, sometimes for decades.

What about this “transitional fossils” argument? 

Essentially, it seems that many evolutionists hope that if they can CLAIM some fossil is a “transitional species”, then this proves that there were some many other “transitional species” (which they never have produced complete evidence of) and that evolution is true.

But evolution has never actually provided that evidence.  Furthermore, the concept of “transitional” species violates at least one of the principles of evolution.  And that is, that the organism is developed to where it is best to survive.  Or in other words, since (according to evolutionists) there is simply random development and the fittest survive, then there is absolutely no reason why any species is or could be “transitional.

One so-called “transitional fossil” is supposed to be a reptile with feathers, allegedly proving that reptiles evolved into birds.  But, that has also been proven to be false.  Notice the following news items on that:

Paris - Palaeontologists have fired a broadside over a fossil which is the cornerstone evidence to back the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.

The row focuses on Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China, a treasure trove of the Early Cretaceous period some 130 million years ago.

About the size of a turkey, the long-tailed meat-eating dino was covered with a down of fibres that, Chinese researchers claimed, were primitive feathers.

That claim had the effect of a thunderclap.

Although the “feathers” were clearly not capable of flight, their existence dramatically supported a theory first aired in the 1970s that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As a result, a once-outlandish notion has become the mainstream concept for the ascent of Aves, as birds are classified.

But a new study, published by a team led by South African academic Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, sweeps away the proto-feathers claim.

The two-branched structures, called rachis with barbs, that were proclaimed as early feathers are quite simply the remains of a frill of collagen fibres that ran down the dinosaur’s back from head to tail, they say.

The evidence comes from a recently discovered specimen of Sinoauropteryx, also found in the same Yixian Formation at Liaoning, that Lingham-Soliar put to the scrutiny of a high-powered microscope.

“The fibres show a striking similiarity to the structure and levels of organisation of dermal collagen,” the kind of tough elastic strands found on the skin of sharks and reptiles today, the investigators say.

The fibres have an unusual “beaded” structure, but this most likely was caused by a natural twisting of these strands, and a clumping together caused by dehydration, when the dinosaur died and its tissues started to dry.

The tough fibres could have been either a form of armour to protect the small dinosaur from predators, or perhaps had a structural use, by stiffening its tail.

The first known bird is Archaeopteryx, which lived around 150 million years ago.

What is missing are the links between Archaeopteryx and other species that would show how it evolved. But fossil record is frustratingly small and incomplete and this is why debate has been so fierce.

The birds-from-dinos theory is based on the idea that small, specialised theropod dinosaurs - theropods are carnivorous, bipedal dinos with three-toed feet - gained an advantage by developing plant-eating habits, growing feathers to keep warm and taking to the trees for safety.

From there, it was a relatively small step to developing gliding skills and then the ability to fly.

Lingham-Soliar’s team do not take issue with the theory itself.

But they are dismayed by what they see as a reckless leap to the conclusion that Sinoauropeteryx had the all-important “protofeathers”, even though the this dinosaur was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx.

The evidence in support of the primitive feathers lacked serious investigation, Lingham-Soliar says.

“There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a protofeather,” Lingham-Soliar says.

Given that the evolution of the feather is a pivotal moment in the history of life, “scientific rigour is called for”.

The study appears on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a journal of the Royal Society, Britain’s de-facto academy of sciences.  http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070523091808579C659855

And even if there were feathers, since this creature apparently did not fly, it makes no sense to claim that it was evolving into something that would fly.

I remember being taught that humans having an appendix was proof that it was a vestigual organ--"useless organ" that we were somehow stuck with after we supposedly evolved pass the point of needing it. But it is not even true that the appendix is useless, only that scientists often do not know all the facts the suggest that they know. Notice the following:

A Vestigial Organ? The appendix is an organ that evolutionists have viewed as an unnecessary part of the body. Removal of the organ is a common practice in the western world.  However, recent research sheds new light on why God created the appendix. Duke University scientists discovered that the appendix is designed to help the body handle and manage bacteria in the gut. It also manufactures “good bacteria”—playing a significant role in keeping us healthy (MSNBC.msn.com, October 5, 2007). Scientists are just now discovering the answers to “why an appendix?”—answers that God knew when He designed the human body. Human nature tends to dismiss items, concepts, and even body organs, as unimportant or “no longer useful,” if we do not understand their purpose. Yet, 3,000 years ago, David asked, “What is man that You are mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:4). David concluded, “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works” (Psalm 139:14). David demonstrated his teachability and “faith” in what he could not see and understand (Psalm 119:27)—unlike many today who deny a purpose until and unless they can first demonstrate it. It is exciting to watch modern research substantiate the validity of Scripture and a God-ordained creation (World Ahead Weekly Update. March 13, 2008).  

Evolution normally attempts to try to explain life beginning without a creator.  Something that other laws of science show is not true. 

The truth is that for life to randomly begin and have the immediate ability to find/ingest/digest food and to reproduce ignores various laws of science.

The other truth is that evolution is accepted by many who do not actually want to live God’s way of life, nor do those “believers” tend to take seriously the prophetic warnings of the Bible.  Actually the Bible is supportive of the idea that those who accept theories like evolution have allowed their minds to de-evolve in the sense that they wish to believe a lie (Romans 1:18-32).

The plain truth is that evolutionists, and those that support them, are the ones that actually ignore science. 

Comments From a Renowned Academic and Atheist

Sometimes, those who advocated evolution as the origin of life change their mind once they look into the details. And although Charles Darwin died before having detailed knowledge about DNA, others who have learned more about DNA have taken note.

One modern example who be Professor Anthony Flew:

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," said Professor Antony Flew, 81, of the University of Reading, United Kingdom. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose". (Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God", Associated Press report, Dec 9, 2004)..."Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century . . . ," says the atheist writer Richard Carrier. "So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy" ("Antony Flew Considers God . . . Sort of," December 2004, www.infidels.org). Professor Flew mentions that his mind began to change for the existence of God and against atheism over the last year. One line of evidence that became a clincher was the biological investigation of DNA. He says in the video "Has Science Discovered God?" that DNA evidence "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved"...The Sunday Times of Britain also stated: "Darwin's theory of evolution does not explain the origin and development of life to Flew's satisfaction. 'I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary complicated creature,' he said. The article went on to explain that Professor Flew is, in his words, "following the argument wherever it leads. The conclusion is—there must have been some intelligence" (DNA evidence prompts famous professor to renounce atheism. Good News, March-April 2005, p.17).

Science recognizes that living organisms must be self-contained, eat, digest, and reproduce. Living matter could not have progressed to the point of eating, digesting, or reproducing without intelligence. And there has been no plausible explanation of why initial life itself could have any intelligence.

B. Thiel, Ph.D. Evolution: Improbable or Impossible? Is God's Existence Logical, Part II. www.cogwriter.com 2004/2005/2006/2007 0316