Apr 11, 2005 18:32
"Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which is widely accepted by many without doubt, explains the origin of life on earth as the formation of living things from the complex combination of nonliving particles. Through a series of coincidences, simple amino acids are believed to have formed, combined to make proteins, and subsequently come together with each other in the precise order at the precise time to form a living cell. These cells eventually evolved, or changed over time, to form multicellular organisms, from which all of the diverse forms of life on earth today are said to be formed. [Good intro.]
"The majority of the scientific, and non-scientific for that matter, community believes this theory, and holds it as absolute truth. [This is a very strong statement. Absolute truth is derived from God. Proponents of the evolutionary explanation of the origin of life would not believe in the existence of absolute truth.] But the fact of the matter is, the miniscule probability of all of these reactions to have occurred at the right time and place in order to even form a simple amino acid is small enough to be considered a mathematical impossibility. [Good.] But, most believe, given enough time, anything is possible. For example, some say that if you evered the entire face of this world with chimpanzee banging away on typewriters, eventually one of them would spell out the complete works of William Shakespeare. [Most people would say that this was impossible. However, those same people would say it was possible for the "ancestral cell" to have formed in the manner proposed by evolutionists. This is because many do not realize how highly complex and organized a life and its parts are, though they do recognize the high degree of organization of letters, words, ideas, in the works of Shakespeare.]
"Probability aside, there are many other gray areas that evolutionists try to fill with assumptions about the climate of the Precambrian Earth. In order to explain the unbelievable event of complex organic compounds forming from free-floating particles in the atmosphere, scientists assume that the Earth must have been filled with a lot of energy, and explain this with high temperatures and frequent lightning.
"In 1953 Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey managed to create two simple amino acids from gases in a small, enclosed space using sparks to supply energy. This was performed in an oxygen-free atmosphere because oxygen would have been highly destructive to the products of the experiment. Because of this, evolutionists declare that the 'pre-life' Earth must have had an oxygen-free atmosphere. But oxidized iron bands have been discovered in some of the oldest rock formations in the world, in rocks said to have been around since the Precambrian era, before life. [Very good point.] Because oxidation can only occur in the presence of oxygen, the assumption that oxygen was absent in the early Earth is disproved.
"Another argument put forward by evolutionists is the discovery of coacervates and microspheres in the same Precambrian rocks. Scientists argue that these protein clusters resemble living cells. But, they admit that coacervates could not maintain stable growth, reproduce, or metabolize, three extremely important and defining qualities of living organisms. The physical resemblance to living cells is a very thin argument [good] used to support the Theory of Evolution.
"The fossil record of organisms over the millennia was intended by Darwin to fill in the missing pieces in his theory over time. He said that if, after time, fossils did not provide any additional evidence supporting evoutionary theory that i must be dismissed and disregarded. It seems to many that the fossil record has not upheld evolution at all, and therefore should be take as reason to do away wit evolution. But evolutionists bring up uncommon examples, such as the ancestry of the horse, to try and pad the fossil record. They say that the four-toed Hyracotherium evolved into the three-toed Mesohippus. This then became the Merychippus, which had one larger middle toe and one small toe on each side of the middle. The modern horse, Equus, is said to have lost the two outer toes and kept the large middle toe, the hoof. On the outside, this evidence seems true, and appears to be a strong argument for evolution. The only thing is, these species are not always found in this supposed evolutionary order. In theory, the oldest, Hyracotherium, should be found in the oldest rock, then Mesohippus, next Merychippus, and finally Equus. But this is not always the case. They have been found out of order and even together in the same rock layers. This shows that these organisms did not evolve specifically from each other, but that they were just separate species right from the beginning. [Good.]
"Other smaller, and more ignorant [good], arguments are made, such as the appearance of gills or a tail in an unborn human. These cases are easily overthrown, and should not be sufficient in leading anyone to accept the theory without further information.
"In science, and the scientific method, a hypothesis is made, evidence comes next, and then a theory is formed when there is enough information to support it. In the case of evolution, the hypothesis was made, accepted, and evidence created. The oxygen-free atmosphere and the presence of heat and lightning on the early Earth were just created in order to support evolution. The evidence has been supposed because the theory is held as truth. 'The Earth must have been . . . because organisms could not have formed . . .' Science and common sense are cast aside in the whole-hearted belief in evolutionary theory. [Very well-stated conclusion!]"