Spontaneous Generation Disproved
The work of Lazzaro Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur prove that life cannot spontaneously be generated from non-life.
When we rely only on observable biology—protein specificity, enzyme rarity, folding constraints, and interdependent systems—rather than on speculative naturalistic assumptions with no empirical support or evidence whatsoever, the probability that life arose by unguided chance becomes astronomically small and unattainable. Without speculative escape hatches, blind chance collapses under probability, and eternal, inanimate matter collapses under logic and entropy.
10
chance a simple 30 unit protein could be spontaneously assembled.1
Thats less than 1 in a trillion trillion trillion... or a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 chance.
2000 of these proteins/enzymes are needed for life. 2
-1
sghjsyjdyhjkdk
The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.
Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London
10
chance that 2000 proteins/enzymes needed for cellular life might all be present simultaneously. 3
Thats a 0.0000000000 (+39,990 zeros)...1 chance.
This outrageously small probability that’s conceded by the likes of Richard Dawkins , “couldn’t be faced even if the entire universe was made up of primordial soup.” 4
-35,000
10
chance that life arose from bacteria. 5
Thats a 0.0000000000 (+999,990 zeros)...1 chance.
Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala calculated this probability. To compare, there are only 1070 atoms in the universe. 6
-90,000
We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells
Dr. Dean Kenyon, professor emeritus
Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. …The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science.”
I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities.
10
chance that all steps of human evolution could have occurred in succession. 7
Thats a 0.0000000000 (+23,999,990 zeros)...1 chance.
Mathematician and Physicist Frank Tipler together with Astronomer John Barrow determined 16 steps and their probabilities. At a digit per second rate, it would take you approximately 277 days to simply write this decimal down.
-23,000,000
If biological evolution, guided by blind chance, is so utterly improbable, then it is also scientifically and mathematically illogical. We should follow the science.
If it is illogical, it's unfounded and the entire framework and theory is flawed, it's in crisis, and should be put to bed. Answers should be sought elsewhere.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises."
Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University]
Darwinist evolution is based on mathematical probabilities which are so astronomical that they are not acceptable, and the nature of biological systems are based upon millions of cases of specified complexity which makes evolution completely untenable.
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology
The fossil record conclusively rejects any kind of evolutionary paradigm because there is not the slightest trace of observable macro evolution (Darwinism) in the fossil record, but rather, sudden change and transition.
In it's essence, evolution isn't trading miracles, because there is nothing behind blind purposeless chance, which is the central tenant of evolution. A miracle is purposefully enacted not by chance but through an intelligence, whereas Darwinism is unguided and lost to complete and utter chance. The scientific probabilities then speak for themselves.
Observable, tested scientific discovery
S.U.R.G.E.
Follow the ...not a theory in crisis.
In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.
Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University
I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.
Søren Løvtrup Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.
Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London
There is no logical way out of it. I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale.. . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.
Sir Frederick Hoyle, Astronomer, University of Cambridge
“...Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”
Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981
A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
Sir Frederick Hoyle, Astronomer, University of Cambridge
To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.
Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”
Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University
So who
The question is as old as the catalyst in which it inhabits: time. Time has a beginning, God does not. Think about it, there is no beginning or end without time.
A god that is created is no God at all. We can only think in the realities we find ourselves occupying: space, time and matter. An eternal God is outside all of these created constants, he is not limited or contained by them. If we can try to imagine God outside of space and time, we are then one step closer to seeing him for what he simply is: eternal.
It is difficult to grasp because everything we know and understand has a beginning. But to compare/contrast with evolutionary concepts, either the universe is eternal or God is.
The argument of infinite regress coherently contends that the inanimate
physical universe can't be eternal because ever event or existing thing has a cause or justification. If the chain of causes or justifications goes on infinitely, the entire chain can't be explained. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is not itself caused or justified by anything else. This uncaused cause is identified as God.
The observable and natural laws of science covered in the S.U.R.G.E. section above have also demonstrated evidence that the universe isn't eternal, but has had a beginning. Logic it seems would also favor a mindful Creator being eternal - rather than inanimate space gases being eternal.
There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible
Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology
320px
900px
0.2%
106px
0º
97.2%
626px
0px
0px
0px
0px
0px
#FFFFFF
0%
What about you?...
Alone these 5 things build a case, but coupled with the probabilities and natural science that we've covered here, and the logic behind them, it builds a fortified position attesting that we are not here by blind chance.
If you genuinely seek and ask God to reveal himself to you. He will, if you ask him honestly with an open mind and heart.
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." - Jeremiah 29:13
If the numbers aren’t doing it for you, here are some other things to consider:
Hundreds of thousands of NDE’s (near death experiences), where the persons are clinically dead, then come back to life. Often seeing and attesting to physically accurate things that they had no way of knowing).8
Countless medically documented, and undocumented miracles i.e Forty physicians, all of whom confirmed the cure "of a medically incurable quadriplegic postencephalitic" child9 see reference for more.
Millions upon millions of lives changed who can attest to the fact, that their lives drastically improved upon beginning a relationship with Jesus. This is anecdotal but the group size is impressive.
The historicity and resurrection data of Jesus Christ. (Did you know that most secular historical scholars recognize the resurrection as a real event? 90% of historical scholars (skeptical and or non-religious included) have been persuaded to concede that in one way or another, Jesus' followers had actual experiences of seeing Jesus after his death, to what extent, and how, they aren't sure.)10
Reconsider the natural laws of science and it’s unfathomable complexity and fragility.11