Science Disproves Evolution

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter)
has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes
only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called
the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this
scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter
through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b).
However, some say that future studies may show how life could come
from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others
say that their theory of evolution doesnt begin until the first life
somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then
evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on
scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a.	And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of
spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University
professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine
acknowledged the dilemma.

The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur]
was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to
believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no
third position. George Wald, The Origin of Life, Scientific
American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous
generation.

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede
that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Yet here we areas a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed
to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the
impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable
virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the
miracles.  Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the
genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly
greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. So, today, the
impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly
established, regardless of the time available. But unfortunately,
several generations of professors and textbooks with Walds
perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for
evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

 that with increasing time (their miracle maker) comes increasing
degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

 that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood)
for the scientific observations that evolutionists thought showed
increasing time.

Readers will later see this.

b.	The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which
is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet?
Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the
occurrence of spontaneous generation. It was supposed that lowly
forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying
meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that
this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an
accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises
except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the
only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to
lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that
scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it
what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable
philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire
for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of
causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless
it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific
men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood,
from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and
chemistry.  J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York:
The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed and is invalid.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes2.html#wp1903241

date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:48:01 -0700 (PDT) author: unknown

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

X-No-Archive: yes

 wrote in message 
news:55c1a52b-ee7d-4c3c-9590-6e6f5ccf9181@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter)
has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes
only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called
the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this
scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter
through natural processes (a).

****snip***

Ok.
let's have your ideas as to how this happened then.
Paying particular attention to *how*.....
That is, for example,  the genesis creation account?
Or, did god create it in the first place.....then the big bang occurred, 
followed by evolution..?
Or, there was no 'big bang'  ... just a universe created by god followed by 
(hu)man made from dust   ?
How did the creation of a (hu)man, if you believe this, take place...?  a 
fully grown adult?  a child?   how did they arrive on earth?     from 
where...?
How do you understand that your god has the power to create life...?
Where, in your assessment, does the knowledge of all this come from.....the 
bible?
Let's have some indication as to how this amazing feat of creation is any 
less amazing than biogenesis and evolution......

Do tell.....



Mark

date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:19:05 +0100 author: mark