Encyclopedia Vol. 1
1. PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT
A surprising number of reputable scientists have
stepped forward to declare the chance formation of life to be a total
impossibility. Let us briefly consider some of their statements.
The entire possibility of an evolutionary origin
of life field to be little more than a matter of faith:
"The hypothesis that life
has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.
W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
A random beginning would be impossible:
"No matter how large the
environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning."—
Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), dust
The origin of life was almost a miracle:
"An honest man, armed
with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some
sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so
many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it
going."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, (1981) p. 268.
*Conklin compares the possibility of an
accidental origin of life to the impossibility of self-production of a
"The probability of life
originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged
dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."—*Edwin
Conklin, Reader's Digest, January 1963, p. 92.
*American Scientist declares it to have been an
"From the probability
standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid
molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for
the origin of terrestrial life."—*American Scientist, January, 1955.
Scientists are not even able to agree on how it
could have occurred:
"There is no general agreement on what
represents primitive earth conditions."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of
Life (1968), p.27.
"There is general
agreement on only one broad point—that organic compounds, biotically
synthesized, preceded the origin of life . . But there is no general agreement
of the constitution of the primitive atmosphere nor on the mechanism of
synthesis of organic compounds."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life
(1968), pp. 13, 54.
Just one probability calculation eliminates the
possibility of an accidental formation of life:
"If one is not prejudiced
either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that
life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the
mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court. "—*Fred
Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space (1981), p. 24.
The chance assembly of correct chemicals through
proper reactions into a living organism is inconceivable:
"Even if we were to
accept the assumption that each of these reactions pre-existed in the 'soup',
the chance assembly of all of them into a functioning unit is
inconceivable."—*J. Keosian, "The Origin of Life Problem—A
Brief Critique," in Molecular Evolution, Prebiological and Biological
(1972), p. 14.
Scientists really do not know what they are
talking about when they discuss the subject:
"We have little
expectation of being able to conclude a discussion with the statement 'this is
how life did arise'; the best we can hope for is 'this is one of the ways life
could have arisen' . . We do not know what we are trying to generate or from
what. "—*N. W. Pine, "Some Assumptions Underlying Discussion on
the Origins of Life, in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 66 (1957)
pp. 369, 376.
"But it is not just one
instability that makes it impossible to cross the threshold between life and
non-life; it is, rather a succession of instabilities of which we are only now
beginning to identify certain stages."—*Ilya Prigogine, "Can
Thermodynamics Explain Biological Order?" Impact of Science on Society,
Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1973), p. 169.
Chemistry and physics cannot provide an answer:
"Proof in the sense in which one thinks
of it in chemistry and physics is not attainable in the problem of primordial
biogenesis. "— *A. I. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and
Development (1961), p. 33.
The random shuffling of molecules could never
"Biochemical systems are
exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through
random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a
point where it is insensibly different from zero."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 3.
So many conditions would have had to be met,
that the origin of life constitutes a miraculous event:
"The origin of life
appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which
would have had to have been satisfactory to get it going."—*Francis
Crick, Life Itself (1982), p. 88 [discoverer of DNA].
The origin of life is a total mystery and
Darwinian theories are nothing more than myths:
"Ultimately the Darwinian
theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the
twentieth century. . The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still
largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle. "—*Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.
McCann goes into detail in his description of
the utter impossibility of life originating by itself:
violate three principles of common observation. They are these: 1. Order never
emerges unassisted from any existing condition where chaos reigns; from
existing chaos only greater chaos is produced. 2. The source for the
production of any product is more complex than the product turned out. A
producing mechanism is therefore always more complicated, all factors
considered, than whatever is produced. 3. Energy is required to build
anything. In order to construct a product, energy must be of the right kind of
the right amount, and made available at just the right time. Let us look at
these ideas one at a time.
"1. Let us construct a
possible [evolutionary prescribed] scenario for the world at the [theoretical]
time that life is purported to have arisen: Volcanoes dot the landscape and
are spewing out chunks of earth's insides . . Winds often of hurricane force .
. Lightning is flashing . . Torrential rains are producing horrible floods
which tear at the exposed landscape. The earth itself pulsates with
earthquakes. . The sun unshielded by an ozone layer plays on this swirling
interplay of forces with searing intensity, irradiating everything with deadly
"Out of this troubled scene of disorder
is supposed to have arisen the most ordered construction of all time—life
itself . .
" 2 . In our everyday
experience, a machine which turns out a product such as steel bolts, let us
say, is much more complex than its products. In fact, in this case the machine
itself would not only be constructed partly of bolts itself but it would also
possess nuts, gears, supports, a source of power, controls, etc. All of these
would exist in a complex arrangement of coordinated operation. This kind of
hierarchic relationship in which the producing mechanism is always more
complex than the finalized product, one finds to be universally true. Yet
Darwinists want us to accept the idea that the most complex product possible,
life itself, would have been so unexacting in this regard as to arise from an
antecedent situation completely lacking in complexity, in fact, totally
chaotic. Experience makes this impossible to accept.
" 3. Whenever a product
is being produced, we find from every earth-bound experience that energy is
being brought to bear. There never is a 'free lunch' in this regard. It always
costs energy to produce something. It is also true that nothing complex can be
produced without the correct amount of energy being directed in just the right
way, at just the right time, and it must be just the right kind of energy in
the first place.
"One cannot place a
needle beside a piece of thread, strike the two with a sledge hammer and
expect to produce a threading of the needle. It represents the wrong kind of
energy, in the wrong amount and improperly directed . . Yet Darwinists want us
to believe that capricious energy, that is, of indeterminate types, of no
particular intensity, and coming at indefinite times could have produced the
most complex of all products—life itself."—Lester J. McCann,
Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), pp. 74-76.
Not until the evolutionists can impart life to
dead organisms, will they be prepared to tell us how the organism put life
"It is interesting that
A.R. Moore found that if the plasmodium of slime mold is allowed to flow through
a sieve, even a very fine one, it will accomplish the feat unharmed.
However, if forced through even a moderately fine sieve, it will be
found on the other side apparently unchanged physically and chemically, but
dead" [A.R. Moore, "On the Cytoplasmic Framework of the
plasmodium," in Science Reports, December 1933, pp. 189—191] . .
"But until man is able to
take the dead slime mold, which was alive only a moment before and which
seemingly has all its chemical elements and substances present, and make it
alive again, he stands no chance whatever of synthesizing living protoplasm by
mingling substances from the bottles in his laboratory."—Howard Peth,
Blind Faith (1990), pp. 74-75.
Proteins just do not come about by chance.
"Living matter is
composed largely of proteins. Since 1930 it has been known that the amino
acids that comprise proteins cannot join together if oxygen is present. In
other words. Proteins could not have evolved from chance collisions of amino
acids if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the
earth's rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, show that the earth had
oxygen before the earliest fossils formed. Even earlier, oxygen would have
been produced by solar radiation breaking water vapor apart into oxygen and
hydrogen. Some of the very light hydrogen would have escaped from the
atmosphere into outer space, leaving behind oxygen.
"To form proteins, amino
acids must also be highly concentrated. However, the early oceans or
atmosphere would have diluted amino acids to the point where the required
collisions between them would rarely occur. Besides, amino acids do not
naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, energy sources for forming
proteins (the earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation)
destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have
formed. The many attempts to show how life might have arrived on earth have
only demonstrated the futility of the effort, the immense complexity of even
the simplest life, and the need for a vast intelligence to precede
life."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 6.
*Charles Darwin hoped that a
"warm little pond" way off in the past somewhere, might have produced
the first living creature, which became the ancestor of all the plants and
animals in the world. An experienced scientist, *Yockey, replies to this
"The ‘warm little pond' scenario was invented ad hoc [for a special purpose] to
serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is
unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until
such evidence is found. Even if it existed, as described in the scenario, it
nevertheless falls very short indeed of achieving the purpose of its authors
even with the aid of a deus ex machine. One must conclude
that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the
genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on
the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."—*H. P.
Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by
Information Theory, "Journal of the Theory Biology 67 (1977), p. 396. (deus
ex machine, "god out of a machine," refers to a stage trick of
the classical theatrical tragedies, in which a god was lowered in a car onto
the stage to solve problems.)
2. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
"Spontaneous generation" is the theory
that life forms (plants and animals, including microscopic creatures) generate
into life out of non-living materials. This idea was sacredly believed by many
scientists over a hundred years ago, but was debunked by Redi, Spallanzani, and
Obviously, if life can only come from life, then
if is impossible for life to have sprung forth from non-life at some earlier
First, we will consider a quotation from
*Asimov, summarizing the evolutionists' position, and following that see what
scientists have to say about spontaneous generation:
apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All
this left a germ of embarrassment for [evolutionary] scientists. How had life
arisen, after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous
generation? . . [Asimov then explains why the "life seeds" from
outer space theory would be impossible] . .
scientists, even today, find the possibility of seeding attractive, the large
majority feel it appropriate to work out reasonable mechanisms for the origin
of life right here on Earth.
"They are back to
spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of
spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very
Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 639, 640 [italics his].
So, openly or secretly, the
evolutionists still believe in spontaneous generation! Here are statements from
genuine science on the topic. First, a quotation from an article which defines biogenesis,
which, in opposition to spontaneous generation, teaches that life can only come
. From the Greek words bios, life, and genesis, birth, source,
creation, is the biological term for the doctrine that living organisms are
produced only by other living organisms, . . biologists are now not only in
virtually unanimous agreement that all life derives from preceding life, but
that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same kind."—*Encyclopedia
Americana, 1956 edition, Vol. 3, p. 721.
Now for a definition of spontaneous
the generation of living from nonliving matter. . [is taken] from a belief,
now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arise
spontaneously from it."— *Webster's Dictionary.
The scientifically abandoned
theory of spontaneous generation is the basis of the theory of evolution:
"One has only to
contemplate the magnitude of this task [spontaneous generation], to concede
that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here
we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."—*George
Wald, Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.
A century and a half ago, a majority of
scientists believed that toads were nothing more than pond mud that turned into
tadpoles, that decaying fruit made itself into fruit flies, and flies were
nothing more than manure that had come to life. Here is the story of how that
scientific myth was overthrown:
"Francesco Redi, an
Italian physician, was the first (about 1688) to carry out controlled
experiments that disproved the belief that maggots arose from decaying fish,
snakes, and meat . . Redi proved that maggots and flies arise from living
parents, not from dead matter.
"Lazzaro Spallanzani, an
Italian priest (about 1780), sealed numerous vegetable juices in glass flasks
and then boiled them. After allowing these materials to cool and stand for a
number of days, Spallanzani could not observe any organisms. Even microscopic
examination did not reveal them. Spallanzani concluded that nothing developed
in the juices because boiling killed any living organisms that might have been
present. Consequently, there were no living organisms to give rise to new
"Louis Pasteur, a French
scientist (about 1860), conclusively demonstrated that microorganisms,
which are present everywhere, get into organic matter, which serves as their
food. After feeding and growing, the microorganisms reproduce and thereby give
rise to many others like themselves. If flasks containing food are sealed and
sterilized... even after many months, no microorganisms appear."—*Mark
A. Hall and "Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in Biology (1966), pp.
Oddly enough, modern science is based on a truth
which can only point to Creation as the origin of living creatures. Yet a
majority of the scientists practicing modern science believe in evolution, which
is a denial of that truth.
"Modern medicine and
surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds
only from life, and only from life of the same type and kind."—*McNair
Wilson, "The Witness of Science, "in Oxford Medical Publications
"[There is a question as
to] how life originated, I am afraid that, since Pasteur [since his experiment
disproving spontaneous generation], this question is not within the scientific
domain." —*T. Mora, "Urge and Molecular Biology, " in
Nature, 199 (1963), p. 122.
Evolution is founded on spontaneous generation;
without it life cannot originate by itself, and without that origin, it cannot
"Until the 1860s, many
men believed the theory of 'spontaneous generation'—that is, that life
(particularly lower forms of life) can arise or be generated spontaneously
(from characteristics within the substance itself, as in spontaneous
combustion). Perhaps no view has ever seemed more self-evident, more safely
"After all, didn't worms
spring from mud, and maggots from spoiled meat? If one left rags in the
corner, mice would appear. Frogs were created spontaneously in pond water. And
wheat would generate rats. Even Sir Francis Bacon (15611626) believed
that insects were 'creatures made from putrefaction,' lice were ‘bred by
sweat close kept,' and fleas 'principally of straw and mats, where there hath
been little moisture.' . .
of life is the first link in the chain of evolution. Obviously, if that link
cannot be forged, the whole evolutionary theory is hopelessly weakened. There
must be life itself before there can be diversity of life. So it is
quite necessary for the evolutionist to insist on some form of spontaneous
generation, as that is the only way life can be accounted for apart from a
Creator." —Howard Peth, Blind Faith (1990), pp. 70-71 [emphasis
Without spontaneous generation, an evolutionary
origin of life is totally impossible.
"I think it is fair to
say that all the facile speculations and discussions published during the last
10-15 years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be
far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact
seems as far from solution as it ever was.
"The origin of even the
simplest cell poses a problem hardly less difficult. The most elementary type
of cell constitutes, a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine
yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man. There is no real clue as to the
way in which any of these riddles were solved, so it is open to anyone to
espouse any theory which he finds helpful." —*W. Thorpe,
"Reductionism in Biology," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology
(1974), pp. 116,117.
involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all
considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time
until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe
would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting
for a miracle."—*R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth (1986), p. 128.
PRIMITIVE OCEAN THE PRIMITIVE OCEAN
Evolutionary theorists generally admit that a
"primitive soup" was necessary for the initial generation of life from
non-living materials. This "soup" is said to have been warm and loaded
with an astonishing concentration of a wide variety of chemicals needed for
life. Somehow, just the right amount of low-level electricity had to continually
play through it. All the hundreds of millions of aspects of a microscopic life
form had to produce itself in an instant. These aspects included the DNA code,
protein codes, and much, much more. Instantly if not sooner, that life form had
to successfully leave its water environment, so that hydrolysis would not occur
and the mixture turn back into solution. Here is what open-minded scientists
have to say about "pre-biologic soup:"
*Brooks and *Shaw maintain that if there was
such a thing as concentrated soup in ancient times, we ought to be able to find
some of it today:
"If there ever was a
primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet
either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various
nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the
like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast
amounts of nitrogenous cokes (graphite—like nitrogen-containing materials).
In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in
other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive
organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief
moment."—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of
Living Systems, (1973), p. 360.
There are five reasons why no ocean—present or
primitive—could produce the needed chemical compounds in sufficient
"At least five major
factors limit the kinds of compounds that might have accumulated in the
"First, there are
limitations on what can be made by inorganic means; second, all organic matter
degrades spontaneously with time; third, some substances are readily destroyed
by radiation; fourth, many compounds would have been removed from the ocean by
precipitation or adsorption; fifth, there are serious chemical
incompatibilities among the constituents of living matter, and some of the
components of the soup would react to form nonbiologic substances. In view of
these limitations, one is challenged to seek a series of steps toward life
that are compatible with the environment."— *P. Ableson,
"Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," in National Academy of
Sciences, (1966) Vol. 55, pp. 1365, 1369.
Whatever unusual compounds might have been
produced—would shortly be dissolved again:
"The prebiotic soup has
fared little better than the reducing atmosphere . . Lars Gunnar Sillen
. . starts with the assumption of a methane-rich reducing atmosphere, but
questions the survival of a soup under these conditions. If left to itself, he
reasons, it would gradually move to the position of greatest stability,
equilibrium. When this position was attained, we would be back at the starting
point, with almost all carbon in the form of methane and concentrations of
amino acids at negligible levels. A system may be kept away from equilibrium,
of course, by a steady input of energy. All life exists in this situation
today. Enormous amounts of energy would be required, however, to maintain an
entire ocean in this condition. Furthermore, mixtures of organic chemicals are
far less adept than living systems at handling a heavy energy flow. As we say
in the Miller-Urey experiment, they continue to form chemical bonds until a
heavy insoluble material, a tar, is produced, unless they are protected in
some type of sanctuary."—*R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's
Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986), pp. 112-113.
The situation, as far as a "primitive
ocean" producing "pre-biologic soup" is hopeless:
"The physical chemist,
guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics,
cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of
organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervate."—*D. Hull
"Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature,
(1960) Vol. 186, pp. 693—694.
IT OUT OVER EARLY ATMOSPHERE
A battle is waging in the
scientific world over what type of air existed in ancient times. All the
evidence favors one view, but evolutionary theory requires an opposite one.
For decades evolutionists
claimed that the primitive environment had no oxygen in its atmosphere. They
said this since they knew that, chemically, it would be impossible for any kind
of amino acids (living or non-living) to form spontaneously in the presence of
oxygen. Even in modern laboratories amino acids cannot be made in an oxygenated
Then, about 1980, it was
discovered that the earliest rocks (the Precambrian, which were theorized to
have been on the surface of the earth when the first life appeared out of dirt
and water)—had oxygen in them! This was an obvious evidence that the primitive
atmosphere would have had to have it also.
The Precambrian rocks are
the rocks BELOW the fossil strata—and therefore the rocks that evolutionists
claim to have been on the surface of the earth when life first emerged!
(Much more information on the
Cambrian/Precambrian problem will be found in chapter 17 (Fossils
and Strata)Fossils and Strata)
* Haldane was the first to
realize the importance of an original non-oxygen atmosphere for the origin of
J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems
to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no
free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from nonliving
organic matter."—*R. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the
Origin of Life," in E. Mayr (ed.), Evolution (1978), p. 30-31.
As is normal in the march of
twentieth-century science, this news caused an uproar. The evolutionists fought
the fact with dinosaur tooth and fossil nail. But other scientists—the
ones who were interested in basing science on facts and not
imaginings—protested. Here is an insight into the heat generated
by the battle in recent years.
Nobel prize—winner and
co-discoverer of DNA, *Francis Crick, recognized the problem of getting life to
form spontaneously on earth if oxygen were present. In 1981, at the time that
newly-discovered evidence for oxygen in the earliest Precambrian rocks was just
beginning to be discussed, Crick wrote:
"If it turns out that the
early atmosphere was not reducing but contained a fair amount of oxygen, then
the picture is more complicated."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself
(1981), p. 79.
By 1982, many scientists
were—among themselves—frankly admitting the truth of the fact that the early
atmosphere had oxygen. An article published that year in *New Scientist, said
geophysicists now seem to be reaching agreement on their interpretation of the
early atmosphere [as containing oxygen and carbon dioxide]."—*New
Scientist, May 13, 1982.
The article went on to say that
volcanoes today release large quantities of water vapor and carbon dioxide, so
we should expect that the primitive environment had it also. It added that,
since Venus and Mars both have atmospheres of carbon dioxide, why would we not
expect our ancient world to have it also.
The article then said that the
textbooks had been teaching error to the children and young people of America!
"It used to be widely
thought, and widely taught, that the original 'primitive' atmosphere of the
early Earth was a 'reducing' atmosphere . . The reasoning behind this
assumption developed primarily from the belief that such an atmosphere would
be ideal, and might be essential, for the development of the complex nonliving
molecules that preceded life . . This picture captured the popular
imagination, and the story of life emerging in the seas or pools of a planet
swathed in an atmosphere of methane and ammonia soon became part of the
scientific folklore that, today, 'every schoolchild knows.' "—*Ibid.
The next paragraph got down to basic issues:
"But now, this particular
card house seems to have been demolished, and a new scientific edifice is
arising in its place. In order to convince people that the Earth started out
with a reduced, not a reducing, atmosphere—that is, one with oxygen already
locked up in gases such as carbon dioxide, and which cannot take up more
oxygen—astronomers, geophysicists and, more recently, climatologists have
had to explain how life could arise on a wet planet with a carbon dioxide
atmosphere laced with traces of ammonia. By such devious routes is scientific
The April 1984 issue of
*Scientific American, reported on an international conference of the *Precambrian
Paleobiology Research Group. The conference reviewed the latest data
on the Precambrian atmosphere, and decided that there is clear evidence of free
oxygen at least 300 million years before any living cells formed in the
One of those in attendance at
that meeting said that it was time we start telling the truth about these
matters in the school textbooks:
"All we have to do now is
rewrite all those textbooks and ensure that `every schoolchild knows' what the
best theory of the evolution of the earth's atmosphere and the origins of life
is today."—*John Gribbin, quoted in Scientific American, April 1984,
As early as July 1980, an
article in *New Scientist said the same thing:
concerned with the origin of life often quote an early atmosphere consisting
of reduced gases, this seems as much from ignorance of recent advances as from
active opposition to them . . The time has come, it seems, to accept as the
new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial
planets [on earth, as well as already acknowledged on Mars and Venus],
starting out from a methane/ammonia atmosphere energized by electric storms
and solar ultraviolet needs to be rewritten."—*"Smaller Planets
began with Oxidized Atmospheres," in New Scientist, July 1980, p. 112.
Yet, to date, the textbooks have
not been rewritten on this or any error of evolution. Textbooks for grade school
through graduate school, and popular literature for the public—all portray
evolution as a totally proved fact, with no questions or points to the contrary.
Only in scientific publications for the scientific community will be found the
mournful confessions and pleadings for open and honest confessions to students
and the general public.
At the present time, the matter
has been left unresolved. The scientists know that the early atmosphere had
oxygen; the evolutionists are calling it reducing (non-oxygen) in the textbooks.
"Geologists now realize
that a methane and ammonia atmosphere would have been destroyed within a few
thousand years by chemical reactions caused by sunlight."—*R.
Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, (1986),
In spite of clear-cut evidence
to the contrary, there are still those who find it difficult to accept the fact
that our planet has always had oxygen. They recognize that in so doing, they
place the possibility of life originating by chance in great jeopardy. (See
*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 639-643.)
Yet there is such a massive
amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere—and in the crust beneath it—that
there is no way that there could have been a time when it did not exist here.
How could oxygen, one of the basic elements, magically make itself out of one of
the other elements? It is so lightweight that it surely did not fly into our
atmosphere from outer space. *Asimov says this:
"Nearly 94 percent of the
volume of the Earth's crust is taken up by oxygen. The 'solid' earth is a
well-packed set of oxygen anions (negatively charged ions), crowded closely
together, with the small rations (positively charged ions) of the other seven
elements tucked here and there in the interstices. Even the Rock of Gibraltar
is a heap of oxygen and little more."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Book
of Facts, p. 326.
In spite of such a powerful
truth, only two pages away Asimov parrots good evolutionary philosophy:
"Life on the Earth
probably developed in an oxygen-free atmosphere."—*Isaac Asimov,
Asimov's Book of Facts, p. 328.
Here is the conclusion of a
careful scientific study into this matter:
distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and ferric and ferrous iron depend
greatly upon ambient pressure and should reflect any major change in the
proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere or hydrosphere [oceans and lakes]. The
similar distributions of these elements in sedimentary rocks of all ages are
here interpreted to indicate the existence of a Precambrian atmosphere
containing much oxygen.. We can find no evidence . . that an oxygen-free
atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history
recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks."—*Erich Dimroth and
*Michael M. Kimberly, "Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the
Sedimentary Distribution of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron, " in
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 13(9):1181—1185 (1976).
Walton adds this:
" . . [It thus is clear
that] no other conclusion than that oxygen has always been an important
constituent of the atmosphere seems possible. "—*John C Walton,
"The Chemical Composition of the Earth's Original Atmosphere," in
A similar example of an error
clung to, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is the theory of
recapitulation (see chapter 22). Not one straight-forward scientist in America
believes it to be true, but it is none-the-less taught in every popular overview
presentation of the "proofs" of evolution.
Three NASA research facilities
did a research project based on recent data from so-called "young
stars." Their findings bring us down to earth: The methane and ammonia
needed for the theoretical beginnings of life on earth could not have existed,
according to these researchers, because the molecules are too short-lived in the
presence of ultra-violet light.
"Such an atmosphere was
photochemically unstable if it existed at all."—*New Evidence on
Evolution of Early Atmospheres and Life" in Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 63(11):1328-1330 (1982), p. 1328.
On this basis they conclude:
majority of chemical evolution experiments [Miller, Fox, etc.] since the first
in 1952 may have been conducted with the wrong atmospheric mixture."—*Op.
cit., p. 1329.
They suggest that oxygen should
be included in further such experiments, yet they recognize that to do so would
immediately bring disastrous results:
"The implications of all
this are profound . . How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile
No evidence for; but much against.
"What is the evidence for
a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is
no evidence for it, but much against it."—*Philip H. Abelson,
"Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55 (1968), p. 1365.
reactions go the wrong direction. (They break down, instead of forming.)
"I believe this [the
overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite
to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem
that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for
the origin of life)."— *George Wald, Physics and Chemistry of Life
(1955), p. 50.
Almost no concentrations, and they quickly
"The conclusion from
these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal,
to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations
predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic
compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such
compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D.E.
Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation, "
Nature, May 28, 1960, p. 694.
FOR LIFE ELSEWHERE
Men dig in the ground and explore the heavens in
search of proof for their beloved theory of evolution. Since all of the evidence
indicates that it is impossible for life to have accidentally started on our own
planet, a search has been made for life forms on other worlds. If it could have
accidentally started there, that might help prove that such accidents occurred
Here is a brief listing of 15 of the projects
funded by the United States; 14 of them are already in operation or completed.
The search for life was not always the sole objective of each of these projects:
- $1 million — A Green Bank radio telescope probe of two nearby stars (Epsilon Eridoni
and Tau Ceti) for signals indicating
intelligent life. Result: No signals detected.
- $30 billion — Exploration of the moon, in the hope of finding
evidences of life. Result: No life detected.
- Cost not available — This interspace probe was sent out beyond our
solar system in the hope that intelligent beings would find it and contact us.
A plaque is inside it. Result: No life/signals detected.
- Cost not available — 500 of the
closest stars have been monitored for intelligent radio signals. Result: No
- Cost not available — This, the largest radio telescope on earth, was
constructed for the purpose of continuously monitoring nearby stars for
signals. Result: No signals detected.
National Radio-Astronomy Observatory—1974
- Cost not available. The NRAO scanned 10 nearby stars for intelligent signals.
Result: No signals detected.
Two Viking landers—1977
- $1 billion — These two landers were sent out in the hope of finding
evidences of life on the planet Mars. Result: No life detected.
Voyager 1 and 2—1977
Cost not available — Probes sent to outer planets; each carrying detailed
messages from earth. Result: No life/signals detected.
- $230 million — Probes sent to planet Venus to measure
atmospheric conditions and the possibility of life on its surface. Result: No
Very Large Array—1980
- $78 billion — 27 radio antennas constructed in New Mexico. They are
probing for evidence of organic molecules in interstellar gas. Result: No life
- Cost not available — This probe was specifically designed to
analyze Saturn's largest moon for signs of life. Result: No life/signals
Hubble Space Telescope—1990
- $1.5 billion — This newly-launched orbiting telescope will be searching
for planets circling other planets. Result: No life/signals detected yet.
- $20 billion — Result: Not constructed yet.
So the search continues.
Billions of dollars are being expended on the task. But all to no avail. As with
all the other hoped-for proofs of evolution, this one eludes the scientists
also. But the search will go on. Cyclops is next.
'' In 1971, a NASA
group under Bernard Oliver suggested what has come to be called Project Cyclops.
This would be a large array of radio telescopes, each 100 meters [109 yd]
in diameter; all arranged in rank and file; all steered in unison by a
computerized electronic system. The entire array, working together, would be
equivalent to a single radio telescope some 10 kilometers [6.2 miles]
across. Such an array would detect radio beams of the kind Earth is
inadvertently leaking at a distance of a hundred light years, and should
detect a deliberately aimed radio-wave beacon from another civilization at a
distance of a thousand light years.
"To set up such an array
might take twenty years and cost 100 billion dollars."—*Asimov's New
Guide to Science (1984), pp. 648-649.
only means of achieving communication with other planetary systems, using
existing technology, is by radio. Radio waves move at the same velocity as light
and would take years to reach even the nearest star. Nevertheless, it is about
all that the scientists have to go on in their efforts at trans-communication
with intelligent beings on other worlds.
In 1960, radio astronomers at
Green Bank, West Virginia, began an ambitious program known officially as
Project Ozma. Powerful radio equipment, connected to radio telescopes, is
focused on the two nearest stars that are reasonably like the Sun: Tau Ceti
and Epsilon Eridani, both of which are over 10 light years distant, and
are slightly smaller and cooler than the Sun. A wavelength of 21.1 cm [8 in] was
selected because this is the wavelength of the radio signals emitted by the
clouds of cold hydrogen spread throughout the Galaxy. The thinking is that radio
astronomers on other planets in the universe might also use that as the
particular wavelength for communication. The first radio signals were sent out
in 1960, and the earliest radio responses could return from other worlds was
1980, but, to date, no signals have been received.
The experts are watching for a
radio signal pattern that is rhythmical enough to be classed as
"artificial;" that is, produced by intelligent beings.
Interestingly enough, all of
nature—stars, planets, moons, orbits, plants and animal life on earth—is
filled with patterns and structures requiring an intelligence far beyond ours to
conceive and fabricate! Yet all this is ignored as the result of "random
selection," while men instead listen for radio signals with systematic
patterns from outer space.
‘exobiology' are the studies of life in outer space. These are the only
fields of 'science' without evidence or subject matter. People in these fields
are trying to detect signals from outer space that would imply an intelligent
source. Radio-telescopes linked with computers are searching thousands of
radio frequencies for a non-random, non-natural, extraterrestrial signal. NASA
is even planning an expensive project to monitor 14 million separate
frequencies and 800 nearby stars. These researchers hope to find just a short
sequence of information that would imply an intelligent source. And yet, these
researchers fail to see that the long sequence of information in the DNA of
every living thing also implies an intelligence—a vastly intelligence
Creator."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 87.
A WARNING FROM ROSS—Hugh
Ross, an astrophysicist at Caltech, did some research and, about the year 1989,
came up with an intriguing observation. We have noted that immense pressure has
been placed on the U.S. Government and NASA to fund, at enormous expense, a
manned voyage to Mars. Ross has discovered a primary reason for this seemingly
senseless waste of money.
As you may know, winds carry
small living creatures, such as microbes and spiders, to high atmospheric
levels. Ross says that solar winds are able to waft particles of formerly living
substances out of our high-level atmosphere—and blow them away from the sun,
outward into space. Ross declares that some of the particles, caught in Mar's
gravitational field, could well have landed on the surface of Mars.
He believes that evolutionists
are well aware of this possibility, and that they want to send that manned
flight to Mars to recover those particles. The main objective of the mission
would be to find dead life forms on the surface of Mars, and then use that as
"evidence" that life once must have independently evolved on Mars! It
is felt that this would provide a powerful boost to the evolutionary cause.
We have here another example of
evolutionary deceit at work, and we may well see this "discovery" made
within the next decade or two.
BIOLOGY CLASS DISCUSSION
The first life
form came into existence about 4.6 million years ago.
But Prof., how can we
know it happened 4.6 million years ago?
theorized the date. The first living creature developed from inorganic
But Prof., you mean
dead things like rock and water became alive?
Well, we don't
like to say it that way, but I guess that is what happened.
But Prof., how could
something that was dead come to life?
We think it was a
thick soup. A concentrated brew of chemicals in a primitive ocean produced the
first life forms.
But Prof., there is
no evidence today—or from the past—that any such concentration of diverse
chemicals has ever existed outside of living plants and animals. And if they
could get together in the ocean in one instant, in the next they would
separate out again because of the law of mass action. This is common knowledge
among chemists. In addition, only a well-stocked laboratory would have the
It is thought that
a lightning bolt energized the mixture and produced those first delicate
But Prof., whether it
be delicate or rugged, a lightning bolt would kill any living creature.
A continual source
of energy was required for the task.
But Prof., a
lightning bolt is neither a continual source of energy, nor a low-level
As a result, a
living creature immediately came into existence.
But Prof., the next
instant it would die, unless hundreds of thousands of different functions and
structures were not immediately formed within it. Instant success in every way
So life originated from non-living
But Prof., this is
the theory of spontaneous generation warmed over! It is a superstitious belief
from the middle ages, which Pasteur and other scientists disproved over a
hundred years ago.
After coming into
existence, the first living creature gradually adapted itself to its
environment as, over a period of millions of years, its food came into
But Prof., that first
living creature would have had to immediately have its food available—and
that food would have to be organic; plants already living, or both plants and
After a lengthy
time, this first creature would, by chance, evolve methods of division and
But Prof., that first
creature would have to be able to immediately produce additional cells and
It is fortunate
that the oceans of the world are so large, for this increases the likelihood
that the right chemicals might somehow, by chance, get into the proper, strong
concentration to produce a living creature.
But Prof., chemicals
dissipate in the ocean, they do not concentrate in it. In addition, chemists
know that the chemicals needed to produce life must, in laboratories, be
handled in fluids other than water! The presence of water inhibits the growth
of complex chemicals.
So we see that all
these organic products were formed in the ocean—and then became alive.
But Prof., the
problem of chemical precipitation would instantly nullify all that might be
gained. The chemicals themselves would quickly inhibit and destroy the
chemical compounds and enzymes produced. Many of the chemicals would also
react with other chemicals, producing non-useful—and even toxic—compounds.
In a similar
manner fats, sugars, and nucleic acids were produced.
But Prof., they would
all have to be produced simultaneously at the same time and in the same place.
The problem of fluid condensation would doom them all to destruction. This is
because only by the careful removal of water can fats, sugars, and nucleic
acids be produced from protein. Without controlled, yet fairly rapid water
loss, proteins could never form in water.
decided that the only practical place where life could have come into
existence would be in the primitive ocean.
But Prof., every
biochemist knows that the chemicals of life quickly decompose in the presence
of oxygen. So there could be no oxygen in the atmosphere—and no oxygen in
the water. And that's two-thirds of what water is made of: 1 part hydrogen and
2 parts oxygen!
We think that the
original atmosphere was reducing, that is, without oxygen. It was composed of
carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen, instead of our
present carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and oxygen.
Prof., there is no evidence anywhere in the rock strata that this planet has
ever been without oxygen. The earliest rocks show evidence of oxidized iron,
and there could be no water without oxygen. Every living creature has to have
water, and it has to have oxygen!
is true, but we think that the oxygen came later.
Prof., without oxygen, deadly peroxides would quickly form, killing all life.
Without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer in the atmosphere. Without
ozone, there would be no protection from lethal ultraviolet rays from the sun.
is thought that, perhaps, on the very day the first living creature came into
existence,—the atmosphere suddenly changed.
Prof., there is no possible way that that could happen!
we know that life can come from non-living matter, because it has been done in
Prof., no life resulted from that lab experiment, only non-living amino acids.
And they were made without water, without oxygen, and in a very concentrated
mixture of certain laboratory chemicals, aided by continued
You have just completed
NEXT— Go to the next chapter in
-DNA AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION