According to the law that effects have causes, the only reasonable answer is that an intelligent being (God) put it there. Since life exists, and it has been demonstrated that it cannot arise by chance, God must have made it. This is not faith, it is logic and science. Faith requires believing something you can't see or reason out. Here is faith: Moses wrote, "And God said" for how life was created. The Word of God is powerful enough to create us all. The Word of God is the pre-Incarnate Christ (John 1:1)
Here is my demonstration that life could not have come by chance:
Miller once attended a lecture where his hypothesis was under attack. He was given an opportunity to defend himself, but he refused. He knew that his oppentents were correct in their criticisms. Here are the main problems:
1. His experiment utilizes a device used by chemists to make larger chemicals. So far, to my knowledge, no proccess in nature functions as precisely as this. He tried to suggest shorelines might concentrate the right chemicals, but lightening still hits beaches. The sparks in his "atmosphere" flask only hit the "atmosphere," but not where they settled into for his examination. In real life, lightening hits the ground and ocean as well. "Lightening" normally breaks down the very chemicals it makes at about the same rate it makes them.
2. His experiment relies on the complete absence of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. Even though he believed that their was no oxygen in the early Earth's atmosphere, examination of clays believed to be extreamly old has proven him wrong.
Miller said
"Although there is a dispute over the composition of the primitive atmosphere, we've shown that either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life. If you don't make them on Earth, you have to bring them in on comets, meteorites or dust. Certainly some material did come from these sources. In my opinion the amount from these sources would have been too small to effectively contribute to the origin of life."
Since the examination of the layers of the earth have shown there always was oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, he shown that life could not have come about by chance.
3. The vast majority of chemicals made in his type of experiment are highly toxic. They include toxic tars, cyanide, and formaldehyde. Even with his chemist's device, only 4% were amino acids.
4. Of these amino acids, that were later combined together, making a small amount of tiny chains, half were "left handed" and half are "right handed". All life ever examined has always shown to use only left handed amino acids in protien. The existence of just one right handed molecule renders the protein useless. The chance of a left handed average sized protein coming together from an assortment of amino acids both left and right is 1 in 10 to the 120 power. (The number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1 to 10 to the 79th power.) Add to that the fact you need more than one protein molecule to make a cell. It is safe to say the universe hasn't existed long enough for life to arise by chance. There is NO natural selection method that can change the frequecies of left and right handed amino acids. Even if you believe life started with nucleotides, they run into the same problem, for they use only right-handed molecules.
Comments
I love the fact that you reject a scientific explanation because there is no proof but then talk about faith. Makes me laugh!
by mister_c on January 19th, 2005
what mister_c said.
by jwmbiz on February 7th, 2005
You are correct. It's fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter & energy organized into living systems.
by Max Power on March 8th, 2005
This is not faith - it is rational logic. Well done in describing a possibility.
by frankied on March 24th, 2005
How is God most likely to be behind it? Creation "Science" I suppose.
by thintaonga on April 24th, 2005
Too many people accept evolution as truth when it is just a theory. Creation is just as plausible a theory as evolution.
by Masquerade on May 25th, 2005
Readers always research "real” science before accepting Creation sham science
by Scottie on June 7th, 2005
1. Miller shows one step is possible. 2. RNA comes first. 3. you can change most amino acids in a protein without changing it
by Quirkie on June 20th, 2005
Just too much is incorrect in this.
by lynnenorth on October 12th, 2005
Classically poor reasoning - if A is incorrect, then B must be correct is just plain poor logic.
by GeriDoc on December 14th, 2005
Poor reasoning. And I'm not sure that the atmosphere was always oxidising - read up about Banded Iron Formations...
by Leezee on January 3rd, 2006
Correct! God made everything.
by Answers101 on March 17th, 2006
Check out drdino.com. Dr. Hovind has a lot more to say about this.
by lefty33 on April 19th, 2006
Dr Hovind has more loose screws than a hardware store.
by scubabob on April 19th, 2006
One man once said something like this: "For every house there is a builder, and for every painting there is a painter." You see, a painting doesn't arise out of no where, and neither does a house.
by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on May 19th, 2007