Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Evolution and the Origin of Life Problem

Proselytizers of evolutionism are divided on the issue of the origin of life. Many know that life could not originate on this planet. Period. One option is to distance themselves and say, "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's only about the development of existing life". Untrue, as anyone who reads an evolution textbook or watches a documentary on it, or even checks Wikipedia, one of their sacred texts, will clearly see. To further distance themselves from abiogenesis (chemical evolution), some evolutionists push the problem out into space — maybe aliens did it.


Credit: Image * After
Of course, it is also easy to simply ignore the problem and make assertions, expecting people who want to believe evolutionary theories on the origin of life to simply accept them because "scientists say so". (Unfortunately, to many people are unable to think critically.) Watch for when they redefine terms to suit their own purposes, or make false statements such as "Evolutionist is not a real word".

Worse that this, however, is when the Evo Sith will not only misrepresent creation science, but spin yarns that are completely untrue. (And they call us liars!) It appears that for some people, the end justifies the means, and the end is to get people to believe in materialistic evolutionism at all costs. Biblical creationists do not have to resort to dishonesty, we leave that to Darwinists.
We have reported that the chances of life arising from non-life naturalistically are so low that ‘0’ is for all practical purposes the actual probability. Are such numbers too low? K.T. from Australia writes:
I hope you can respond to the attack that the number (and many other numbers) you used in one of the articles about the probability of a cell coming to being by chance (1058000) is (are) rejected on the grounds of error, according to R.C. Carrier’s 2004 journal article “The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life”
CMI’s Dr Don Batten responds:
You can read the response and analysis of a liar for Darwin at "Origin of Life: Not So Hard After All?"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels