Evolutionary thought claimed the spotlight in 1859 as Charles Darwin published his renowned work, “The Origin of the Species.” Since that time, many scientists have continued to follow in his footsteps and have morphed from believing that evolution is a theory to teaching it as a known fact. However, the truth remains, Evolution is and will forever be a theory, and unfortunately has been one of the greatest frauds perpetuated on mankind. And so, let’s spend some time refuting evolution.
The common belief of students in public schools and colleges is that living organisms evolve from non-living chemicals. Why? Because that is what instructors are teaching from their lecterns in biological science classes today. There are many people who believe that scientists have “created” life during scientific experiments because their textbooks bolster evolutionary beginnings. Some choose to base their evolutionary beliefs upon findings made by scientist Stanley Miller.
In 1953, Scientist Stanley Miller decided that he wanted to prove the theory of evolution by creating life in the laboratory. He thought about what must have been present before life began and decided upon a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane and water vapor) that might have made up the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. He passed an electric current through the gases simulating a lightening strike. From this experiment, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Science teaches us that amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are in turn the building blocks of life. Evolutionary proponents hailed Miller’s experiment as proof that life had evolved millions of years ago.
However, there are some problems with the results of his experiment:
1. Miller had no proof that his choice of gases were the gases which made up the earth’s atmosphere.
2. Stanley Miller made sure there was no oxygen present for his experiment. That is a big issue. If there was oxygen present, then amino acids could not form. However, if there were no oxygen present millions of years ago when life developed by chance, then there would be no ozone layer. If there was no ozone layer, then ultraviolet rays would penetrate the earth’s atmosphere and then destroy the amino acids as soon as they formed. So, according to Answers in Genesis contributor A. J. Monty White, “The dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.”
3. Science research tells us that the handedness of amino acids is quite important in regards to the beginnings of life. Amino acids exist in two forms – right-handed and left-handed. In all living creatures, only left-handed amino acids are present. Stanley Miller’s test produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids. Even if he were correct about the gases present in his believed millions of years ago, and even if lightening ran a charge through these gases, and even if amino acids were formed, life could not have developed since left-handed amino acids alone support life.
4. The last major hurdle is, where did the “information” come from that is programmed into living creatures? The human genome is packed with information. According to the New World Encyclopedia and Science Writer Dennis Overbye, the human genome occupies a total of just over 3 billion DNA base pairs and has a data size of approximately 750 megabytes. The late Professor Fred Hoyle concluded, “The evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.” In other words, random chance cannot produce information.
The theory of evolution is riddled with holes, but for those who subscribe to this ideological thought, it will take more than a few jabs at a fallacious experiment to change their minds. It will take a change of heart and only God can do that. I recently heard someone say that evolutionists cry that the Bible cannot be accurate concerning the origins of the universe because it is not a science textbook. For that, I am so thankful. Textbooks change often, God’s word stands forever. If one is willing to evaluate the intricacies of life, he or she must come to the conclusion that life cannot be accidental. The next step is acknowledging an all-powerful God who created and said, “It is good.”
The theory is riddled with holes, indeed. The numbers don’t add up to prove this flawed way of explaining the true origins of life on earth. From the tiniest little cells in our bodies, to the vast expanse of the universe, the complications of creation transcend Darwin’s ideas. With advances in technology, like modern micro-biology and telescopes to see deep into the heavens, evolotionist ideology diminishes.
Great post Bryan!
Love this article. Defending the Bible, and refuting evolution is one of my favorite debates with non-believers and evolutionists. Thanks for another great article and more weapons for my “theological tool cart”.
When I was in college, the Miller experiment was all the rage and used to ‘disprove’ creation–which should be the word on your blackboard, above, rather than Creationism, which has become the label for a very narrow view of Creation.
We need to choose our words well in this debate and take care against making unbiblical claims lest we put stumbling blocks before both believers and unbelievers.
When this scientific materialism was being tooted as disproving God. There were few in the battle. Henry Morris was one of the early warriors in defending the faith. One of the key arguments became that evolution could not happen as stated because the earth is too young. Unfortunately, this has remained a key point for those of the Creationism school. They do not take the first two verses of Genesis literally [and this has nothing to do with the speculative gap theory].
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/
I would like to see a part two on this sometime if you get the chance. Well done.