Atheistic Evolution is Impossible, 2) Abiogenesis, Life from DEAD stuff

Two views of how we got here are 1) Evolution, everything appeared very slowly during billions of years OR 2) Creation, God made everything in six days about 6,000 years ago. Which one is true? Both frameworks face the same obstacles. Three steps in either process require miraculous action because they violate known and proven scientific LAWS. Remember, Laws of science have NO exceptions. If they do, they can’t be a law, only a theory or a hypothesis. For Creation, this breaking of scientific laws requires no explanation because Creation is supernatural. God has the power to break laws, and they remain laws. WE call these events miracles and Jesus did many, walking on water, the Canna wine, raising Lazarus, calming the storm, healing many, etc.

My new book Without 3 Miracles Darwin’s Dead! Subtitled “Science Proves Atheistic Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE” can change many minds about the Evolution’s viability because Evolutionary development flagrantly violates three scientific laws, the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics and Biogenesis.   To break a scientific law, you need a miracle, and Atheistic Evolution cannot allow any because they reject the supernatural.  I call these three miracles: Magic, Frankenstein, and Uphill Molasses.  This week we’ll deal with the second, “Frankenstein,” the appearance of living organisms from dead stuff, which is a violation of the Law of Biogenesis.   Like Dr. Frankenstein in Mary Shelly’s novel, Evolution takes dead parts and assembles them into fully functioning living organisms by the process called Abiogenesis, which is the opposite of Biogenesis. This Law, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living organisms of the same kind, either by simple cell division or sexual reproduction (e.g., a spider lays eggs, which develop into baby spiders). Life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by believers in Spontaneous Generation before Pasteur made his discoveries.

In five different Evolution sources, I found statements like: “The appearance of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, or in the history of the Universe (see Panspermia) when life first arose.’

Evolutionists accept Biogenesis as a natural LAW and immediately declare it broken at least once.  Since life on Earth exists it must be explained, so either we break Biogenesis by one exception or beg the question by claiming life came from somewhere else planted here by a process called Panspermia. Honest Evolutionists sould just say: “We don’t know where life came from or how it appeared from dead chemicals.” When Dr. Richard Dawkins was asked about the source of life on Earth he answered with the concept of Panspermia; “life was seeded here from somewhere else in the Universe.” Dawkins statement is not science it is a faith statement that begs the question. If Evolution is true, life had to appear sometime, somewhere from dead chemicals and that’s scientifically impossible based on the Law of Biogenesis! Life from dead stuff requires a miracle!  Next week, going uphill in a downhill Universe, Uphill Molasses!

Charlie is the author of “Always Be Ready to Give an Answer!  A Former Atheist’s Personal Christian Evangelism Plan.” which develops an evangelism strategy that gets to the Gospel every time you witness.  His second book ANSWERS For “The Hope That Is In You.” contains answers to more than 100 questions that skeptics use to try to stump Christians.  Both are available @ http://yourchristiananswers.com  His third book, “Without 3 Miracles Darwin’s DEAD!” is available now @   http://w3mdarwinsdead.com

To get Charlie’s weekly blog search for http://charlieliebert.blog

To get video, answers to your “hard” questions go to http://www.sixdaycreation.com

Contact Charlie at charlie@sixdaycreation.com or 336-337-4975 (call or text).

8 thoughts on “Atheistic Evolution is Impossible, 2) Abiogenesis, Life from DEAD stuff

  1. Srila Prabhupada (1896 – 1977), the Vedic scholar, authored a book back in the late 1960s or early 1970s entitled Life Comes From Life. In it, he criticized those scientists that attempt to “create” life in the laboratory. It really is true, life comes from life. Life comes from the living God, the author of all life.

    Like

  2. Rick

    Life from dead stuff? LOL I don’t need to read even past your title to conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about. If there is dead stuff, then there already was living stuff. Do you even know what dead means?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s all in definitions. You define dead stuff as having been once alive. I define it as having no life as in chemicals, all matter not alive, etc. I note your presuppositions make it impossible to consider my arguments. I once was an Atheist so I know how powerful those presuppostions are.

      Like

      1. Rick

        Oh, so you just make up definitions? LOL I’m sorry you don’t know what the word dead means. Shows how little you know about biology, and why there’s no reason to bother even reading your garbage.

        Like

      2. @ Rick:

        “Shows how little you know about biology, and why there’s no reason to bother even reading your garbage.”

        If that is how you feel, why bother to comment? If you do comment, perhaps we can keep the discourse civil.

        Like

  3. Hi, Charlie. I’d point out some flaws in your argument, but there are so many I really don’t know where to start.

    But let’s start with a reworded and more correct question. “There are hundreds of explanations of the beginning of life that have been presented. One of them is a natural processes view of abiogenesis. A second is the Abrahamic religion’s explanation. How can we determine if either of these, or any of the hundreds of explanations, are correct?

    With evidence. That’s how it’s done.

    Quick note, I never said evolution. Evolution in no way, shape, or form has anything to say about the beginning of life. Evolution only addresses diversification of life after reproducible life already exists. That you are unaware of this is one way I know you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Secondly, because of your complete ignorance of evolution, you have tried to stretch a completely incorrect definition AND a weird straw man argument that nobody believes is correct anyway. You then looked at the ridiculous idea you made up, called it ridiculous, and called that proof that a different idea is therefore correct.

    Bottom line is, your proposition has absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Proving a different explanation wrong doesn’t make yours correct, and especially when you actually have no idea what the other proposition says.

    Forget evolution or abiogenesis or anything science. Provide evidence for your claim, or there is no reason to believe it.

    Like

    1. You make the same error that many critics make. You restrict Evolution to the diversification of life. That is one of MANY definitions. My use of the word in in the context of explaining all that exists. Another defimnition is “Change over time” In english comntext often determines definition. My working definition of Evolution,specificaiily the Atheistic kind is “molecules to man” NOT beginning with life! You criticism is invalid because you impose your definition on my conclusions. If we are going to have a discussion we must begin by carefully defining our terms. I look forward to your reaction.

      Like

      1. No offense, I dont care what your definition is, because that isn’t what anyone else means when they say “evolution.” The theory of evolution is about genetic drift in populations, and that is it.

        So if you wish to use a rather watered down definition, that of “change over time”, and by change you mean absolutely everything, then yes, that definition of evolution is unworkable and stupid. Congratulations.

        However, it still doesn’t change that evolution, as used in the sciences, is a subject limited to reproducible organisms.

        This makes me wonder why you are so insistent on expanding the definition from a demonstrably correct one, to a demonstrably stupid one?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.