Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible - Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. (online at CRSQ)

I would usually post an article like this on my other blog (Thinking About Creation) but I've placed it here because so many college educated Christians still maintain a firm belief in the veracity of Darwinism. (Or; evolutionary theory) It's my firm conviction that evolution is impossible (in its ordinary, macro sense) because abiogenesis is impossible.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.'

2. 'The view of how life originally developed from non-life to an organism capable of independent life and reproduction presented by the mass media is very similar to the following widely publicized account:
" Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began''

- Materialists have no right to speak of the 'miracle' of life. (Why is it they do this over and over ad nauseum? It's almost as if they were testifying to the Creator despite themselves.) I may be putting too much into this but I think there's something important going on here. We see here the split personality of the materialist. On the one hand his theory tells him that the emergence' of 'life' is no big deal; that it's in fact inevitable... but on the other hand he can't help but feeling it's an awesome miracle... to incredible to have happened by accident. So what word does he use to describe the supposed event of natural emergence of the first living form? He has no word; and as such must borrow one from Christianity.

3. ' Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process currently accepted by Darwinists:
"Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. "

- the 'miracle' of evolution is that anyone believes mutation can lead molecules to 'evolve' into men. This is the worst (most fallacious) idea in the entire body of knowledge called science. It is totally impossible.

4. 'The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial.

5. "Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator." - R. Dawkins (or; as I call him, Richard Squawkins.)

- if no one knows how it happened... how do they know it happened at all? And how can they talk about the process? This makes no sense. Dawkins calls this 'informed speculation' (which of course is defined as speculation by a materialist :=) but it's really just daydreaming... the equivalent of a dream of wish fulfillment. This isn't science; it's make believe.

Notes;
1. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, March 2000
2. Miracle; n.
'An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed. (W/1913)
3. It's been my sad experience, that few people defend Darwinism as fervently, and belligerently, as seminary professors, and the Christian clergy. (School teachers come in a close second.)

A critique of multiverses - audio lecture by George Ellis (online at Faraday Institute)

Quotes and comments;

1. I didn't think a lot of the lecture, but if you want to keep up with modern cosmological musings you have to at least get an idea on what is being said on this subject.

2. A multiverse is described as many (as much as an infinite I gather) universes, or many 'separate' domains within one whole. (i.e. so separated as to be unknown.)

3. Some cosmologists claim the universe could be infinite.
- to which I would say rubbish. Infinite can only be an idea, never a reality.

4. He tells us that some mulitverse thinkers respond to criticism by saying, "why would you want to believe in a multiverse? It's the inevitable result of the big bang..."

- Obviously... isn't everything? If the BB were true, everything... even this Bill Frisell CD I'm listening to, would have to have been caused by the big bang.

5. Ellis doesn't think the multiverse does away with God. "Who said god only likes one universe?" he says with a laugh.

- Here we have Christianity reduced to a joke. I suppose there are an infinite number of christs out there. Why people spend their time on such drivel is a great question I guess.

6. "Does a MV exist?' he asks, 'well I have no idea... I think you can believe what you want to ... what do you find aesthetic, what do you like? what gives you comfort?...''

- when Christians abandon the bible as the word of God this is the nonsense they end up spouting.

7. Ellis tells he thinks its a certainty that 100,000's of thousands of planets have intelligent life on them.

- The fact he gives any number here gives him away; as there is NO way to do this.... so this is merely something he wants to believe. (Why? I have no idea.) One wonders what happens to jesus christ under such an absurd (sf) scenario. I guess he has to be left behind as the figment of deluded primitives. (Oh yes; the glories of 'liberal' theology.)
- the way he escapes the fact we don't see any of Carl Sagan's aliens is that the universe is just too big to see them... or see evidence of them. Well; that's not science is it? Let's use it as an argument for God's existence; i.e. the reason we don't see God is that the universe is just too big. (Hmm... I wonder if I convinced anyone?)

Notes;
1. 2/5
2. If you allow multiverses I don't know how you can deny the possibility of heaven.
3. If you allow the idea of multiverses I don't know how you can deny that there might be a Creator out there. (i.e. a Being who created both our universe and ourselves.)
4. It's interesting to wonder if the idea of the multiverse has some connection to the multiversity. (A phrase coined by Clark Kerr I believe.) In other words, not long after the Christian university became obsolete (i.e. as the home of an integrated intellectual world view) and Christian civilization became a collection of shattered fragments and shards... we lose the idea of a single universe... and get the idea of a multiverse. (I hear the old Dylan song in my head, 'Everything is broken')
5. Wikipedia on Multiverse;