| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Want to get organized in 2022? Let Dokkio put your cloud files (Drive, Dropbox, and Slack and Gmail attachments) and documents (Google Docs, Sheets, and Notion) in order. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free. Available on the web, Mac, and Windows.

View
 

EVOLUTION and THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Page history last edited by Byron LeBeau 10 years, 8 months ago

The following is a thought-provoking  look at a group of chemicals brought together to try to fashion life from NON-LIFE. The source of the data comes from Dr. Jonathan's Sarfati's 2008 book, "BY DESIGN," which poses what looks like a dilemma for evolutionists. Consider the following which comes from chapter 11, fittingly called, "The Origin of Life.'

 The problem ensues from a rather famous experiment of Stanley Miller, a graduate student of Harold Urey, who had won the 1934 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for discovering deuterium (heavy hydrogen.) [171] They then suspected that they could form life by using methane ammonia & hydrogen; they also had a flask of boiling water that would be used to simulate lightning by driving the gases to circulate past 60,000-volts.

 

THE PROBLEM: After a week, they found (among other things) a small amount of amino acids; the theory was to fashion building-blocks, which in turn could produce "life" as they understood how the origins thereof began 'milliions of years ago.'  The amino acids produced were only two, and these two were the simple ones, I.e., glycine & alanine (172,) but there were OTHER PROBLEMS ALSO.

 

Dr. Sarfati indicated that there is almost universal agreement among specialists "that earth's primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen--'reducing' gases. Rather most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen" (172.)

 

WHAT DID THIS MEAN?  It meant that the early earth was O2 rich with some nitrogen, a less reactive mixture than Miller's, or it might have been composed largely of carbon dioxide, which would greatly deter the development of organic compounds.

 

THE OXYGEN DILEMMA: The Miller-Urey model excluded oxygen because no amino acids can form in the Miller-type experiments if even a trace of oxygen is present!  Free oxygen would destroy any organic molecules rapidly. However, there was no evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was ever oxygen-free, even though the experiments require it (172.)

 

THE DILEMMA: Dr. Sarfati argues that if there were no oxygen, then there would be no ozone which shields Earth from short-wave radiation, so ultraviolet light would destroy any biochemicals. This is a real 'catch-22'. Another one  is that hydrogen cyanide (HCN) polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine, (an essential DNA/RNA base) can occur only in the presence of oxygen (173)

 

WHAT DOES THIS BOIL DOWN TO?

 

It would seem, on the face of the above suggested data, that the argument that amino acids forming what would supposedly generate life COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN since oxygen was always present, and oxygen itself would nullify the presence of the very things necessary for the alleged building blocks of life from Non-life. THEREFORE the only alternative to this dilemma is that an uncreated Creator was responsible for bringing any & all of these 'concoctions' together to form life in a very short time (like in 24 hour day intervals) so that what we see about us came directly from the WORD OF GOD, just as it says in chapter one of GENESIS!

 

byron lebeau

 

PS: To grasp the concept of 'day' as it was meant to be understood from Hebrew translation, please read chapter two of Dr. Sarfati's book, REFUTING COMPROMISE.  

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.