Evolutionists Simply Can’t Prove Life Arose By ‘Natural Causes’

 ‘Not A Shred of Objective Evidence’: Evolutionists Simply Can’t Prove Life Arose By ‘Natural Causes’ – By Ray Comfort - https://harbingersdaily.com/not-a-shred-of-objective-evidence-evolutions-simply-cant-prove-life-arose-by-natural-causes/ The theory of biological evolution requires that nonliving chemicals somehow developed completely by chance into highly complex, living organisms. However, nonliving things coming to lifeis the stuff of science fiction, not science. Louis Pasteur’s famous and repeatable experiments have demonstrated the Law of Biogenesis: that “spontaneous generation” is impossible and that life can arise only from other life. Scientists have spent decades trying to create life in the laboratory in carefully controlled experiments and have repeatedly failed. If highly intelligent scientists using all the latest,most sophisticated equipment available cannot create a living cell—even with the code and materials of life available to them—how could molecules possibly assemble themselves into living cells through only mindless, undirected random chance? The famous astronomer and mathematician Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of life: No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare,for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the wastepaper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true forliving material. The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. In Darwin’s time, it was assumed that “simple” cells were just primitive blobs of protoplasm, so it wasn’t too hard for scientists to envision them assembling by random chance. Because cellscannot be seen with the naked eye, scientists mistakenly thought that the chemistry of life was simple. But with today’s sophisticated microscopes, molecular biology has shown how vastly complex even a “simple” cell actually is. Molecular biologist Michael Denton, an evolutionist, acknowledges: Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designedpieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world. Not only are there no experiments demonstrating how life could have come into being, but the more scientists search for answers the more they are astounded at the complexity they find— andthe more the evidence confirms that life could not have arisen purely by chance. Geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute, points out the evolutionists’ ongoing dilemma concerning this question: Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth? In 2001, PBS aired the TV series “Evolution,” in which they put together all the best information they could find to demonstrate the case for evolution. In a Washington Post online forum,producer Richard Hutton was asked, “What are some of the larger questions which are still unanswered by evolutionary theory?” He named several items in his response, but the item topping his list is very telling: The origin of life. There is no consensus at all here—lots of theories, little science. That’s one of the reasons we didn’t cover it in the series. The evidence wasn’t very good. We can appreciate his honest admission that all they have is theories—no scientific proof. If they had any evidence at all, they would have presented it. Of course, there is no evidence supportingthe claim that life arose by natural causes—because life has a Supernatural Cause. “There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth…So why do biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in orderto deny what is so patently obvious, that the 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance?” –Frederick Hoyle