Living things on earth are
fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop
and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple
single-celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they
all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division
processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and
die.
All living things on earth share the
ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other
elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other
molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common
elements. This is not a mere coincidence. All plants and animals receive their
specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular
combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are,
in fact, segments of DNA molecules
in our cells. These segments of DNA contain chemically
coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in
specific sequences.
All of the tens of thousands of
types of proteins in living things are mostly made of only 20 kinds of amino
acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple
language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is
evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.
In addition to molecular
similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy
needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by
photosynthesis or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other
organisms that eat plants.
All of these major chemical similarities
between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they
either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of
similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a
theory of special and independent creation of different species.
The argument above seems almost logical in the
social imagination. However, there is no logic about it.
It is mere agreement reality. In the social reality and that is all there
is, all we have as confirmation of what is real is through agreement. We think
we have what we call science to prove our suppositions but what is science
based on? Math, then what is math based on? Only that which our social mind gives
credit or credence to, math and science included.
The problem with this argument for life is that it is flawed. How? The above supposes that all life
came from non living substances – chemicals. There is no scientific data to
back that up. There is no evidence that our universe has the power of
self-organization. Mathematicians have calculated that the probability of life
emerging from chance chemical interaction is impossible.
Look around, if we could produce a life from non
living chemicals, then we could turn a rock into a man. There would be no need
of evolution to do that. In a recent
article by William Crone, an apologetic, we read that mathematicians have no actual
equation for this. Sir Fred Holye a respected astrophysicist from Cambridge
University calculated that the probability of one living cell developing by
chance from non-living material would be 1 x 10 to the 40,000 power. That is a hugely enormous probability; and,
one which is not provable.
A theory it may be but theory is not science. If we want to hold onto something tangible,
then science to be called science has to prove something to be real to us...
even if it is only real to us through agreement. Supposing that life is
possible through non living chemicals could never be agreed upon. Statistically speaking, it isn’t even
possible for life to appear by chance alone. With these odds it is difficult to
see how anyone could possibly believe that the origin of life was merely a
random chance event. In fact, given the odds it is totally irrational to think
this is true.
But, what about this rock layer and what about this
feathered creature of old, and what about this discovery of early man? What
about that? There is no direct correlation of these things with non living
chemicals except for the rock layer. The
problem with rock layer carbon dating is that rock is non living, what we test
in it is carbon remains from living things. And, what we know is that living things
do not come from non living things.
We can agree that through carbon dating, it appears that one thing or something came from this or that
over a period of time; yet, it still does not confirm the basic
premise of evolution which is that living things came from non living
chemicals. If you say that evolution actually states the opposite which is that life came from
simple living forms, then what made those simple living forms and other simple
living forms and on and on and on? Was there ever an original living form? But,
then how could that be proved? There has to be agreement reality, but let us agree then that what we do know is from our past and present experiences of how things come into existence which is that a
complex design such as life, calls for a complex designer who is alive!
For those that insist on evolution which says that from non living chemicals comes life, then who or what is the cause for that possibility? "And (the) base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, ... things which are not to bring to nought things that are. 1 COR 1?26-28.
"... we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal ". 2 COR 4:18.
No comments :
Post a Comment