Skwim
Veteran Member
Recently it's been mentioned that evolution is necessarily linked to abiogenesis, the idea that life originated from non-living material (non-life). While most evolutionists do subscribe to it, the concept has absolutely nothing to with the science behind evolution. Perhaps evolution did get its jump-start through abiogenesis, or maybe panspermia wherein life first came to earth from outer space. Or, maybe god started it all. Thing is, it... just... doesn't... matter. And anyone in the least bit conversant with evolution would know this. Even those who hate the idea of evolution. However, many of these evolution-haters, creationists, find the subject too enticing to let lie, and use it time and again to create an evolutionary straw man to do battle with. Pretending that its part and parcel of the evolutionary theory, they then challenging evolutionists to defend it. It would be like asserting that all of Jesus' teachings came about because he was a homosexual, and it was up to the Christian to explain it away.
But none-Christians don't do this because it simply isn't cricket. Yet too many Christians don't think the rules of cricket matter, and go ahead and make asinine statements like the following:
(Just to note: While a couple of the following creationists don't specifically say abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory, the fact that they bring up abiogenesis in their creationist web sites is evidence enough they believe it's a crucial issue to raise. Just keep in mind, that in their work evolutionist don't give a rat's *** about abiogenesis.)
So, now that it's clear that those creationists who, through their web sites are either leaders in the creationist movement, or wanna-be leaders, have no compunctions about deceiving the public through lies, do they really deserve to call themselves Christians?
.
But none-Christians don't do this because it simply isn't cricket. Yet too many Christians don't think the rules of cricket matter, and go ahead and make asinine statements like the following:
(Just to note: While a couple of the following creationists don't specifically say abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory, the fact that they bring up abiogenesis in their creationist web sites is evidence enough they believe it's a crucial issue to raise. Just keep in mind, that in their work evolutionist don't give a rat's *** about abiogenesis.)
The lie of evolution and the stupidity of those believe it (Wisdom of god)
Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms, as if what is not alive can make itself alive, let alone form itself into an intricate cell or a complex body made up of many cells, and make these “alive”, whether suddenly, or even slowly, it is impossible, and this is what the evolutionists believe and also teach, which is “life randomly came to be on its own after millions of years”, which is nothing more than a fantasy, something that they themselves have never even witnessed under their microscopes, that elements and molecules that are not alive suddenly or very slowly formed into living organisms, yet they choose to believe this lie, and teach it to others as if it were the truth by calling it “fact”, because they do not want to believe that life came to be in the following way written long ago,
source ...With a nod of thanks to Nakosis for alerting me to the site.
[ nice run-on sentence, which is why I had to include it all
]
________________________________
The Unbelievers Plan to Rid the World of God (Answers in Genesis)
Yet neither Darwin nor his successors have through scientific observation shown how either abiogenesis or the evolution of biological complexity is possible.
Further, biological observation confirms that living things do not spring into existence through the random interaction of non-living components, despite evolutionary claims about abiogenesis.
source
______________________________
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis (Creation.com)
Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth. The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’ because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding’.
source
____________________________
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible (Creation Research Society)
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years
No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means. The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.
source
_________________________
The Improbability of Abiogenesis (creationscience.org)
According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
source
_________________________
Key Step in Origin of Life Declared (Creation evolution headlines)
Cornelius Hunter, an intelligent-design scientist with a PhD in biochemistry, was also charitable on his blog Darwin’s God, but had to state that abiogenesis is one of the “silliest of all the icons of evolution.”
source
__________________________
Abiogenesis, The First Cell (Greater Houston Creation Association)
The origin of the first cell is a major challenge for evolutionist.
source
____________________________
The Impossibility of Life's Evolutionary Beginnings (Institute for creation research)
The hypothetical naturalistic origin of life and its most basic biomolecules from non-living matter is called abiogenesis. This paradigm lies at the very foundation of biological evolution,
source
______________________________
More Arguments Against Evolution (Revolution against evolution)
According to evolution theory, the first step in life’s development was formation of life-like chemical molecules, which later combined into complex molecules like DNA. This presumably took place in the early oceans; it’s sometimes called “chemical evolution of life from a primordial soup.”
source
________________________________
Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks (True origin.org)
Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life.
source
______________________________
The Theory of Evolution (Biblical-science.net)
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life . . . .
source
________________________________
EVALUATING EVOLUTION: USING PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY AND PHYSICS (Twin Cities creation science association)
Let me begin with some definitions. By "evolution" I mean the notion that we and all living things come from non-living things, and have developed by completely natural means without any outside direction or power.
source
_______________________________
Evolution (Creationism.org)
ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life emerging from sterile non-life by believed automatic advanced chemical processes. This has also been called spontaneous generation or more recently abiogenesis.
source
Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms, as if what is not alive can make itself alive, let alone form itself into an intricate cell or a complex body made up of many cells, and make these “alive”, whether suddenly, or even slowly, it is impossible, and this is what the evolutionists believe and also teach, which is “life randomly came to be on its own after millions of years”, which is nothing more than a fantasy, something that they themselves have never even witnessed under their microscopes, that elements and molecules that are not alive suddenly or very slowly formed into living organisms, yet they choose to believe this lie, and teach it to others as if it were the truth by calling it “fact”, because they do not want to believe that life came to be in the following way written long ago,
source ...With a nod of thanks to Nakosis for alerting me to the site.
[ nice run-on sentence, which is why I had to include it all
]________________________________
The Unbelievers Plan to Rid the World of God (Answers in Genesis)
Yet neither Darwin nor his successors have through scientific observation shown how either abiogenesis or the evolution of biological complexity is possible.
Further, biological observation confirms that living things do not spring into existence through the random interaction of non-living components, despite evolutionary claims about abiogenesis.
source
______________________________
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis (Creation.com)
Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth. The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’ because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding’.
source
____________________________
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible (Creation Research Society)
If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years
No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means. The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.
source
_________________________
The Improbability of Abiogenesis (creationscience.org)
According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
source
_________________________
Key Step in Origin of Life Declared (Creation evolution headlines)
Cornelius Hunter, an intelligent-design scientist with a PhD in biochemistry, was also charitable on his blog Darwin’s God, but had to state that abiogenesis is one of the “silliest of all the icons of evolution.”
source
__________________________
Abiogenesis, The First Cell (Greater Houston Creation Association)
The origin of the first cell is a major challenge for evolutionist.
source
____________________________
The Impossibility of Life's Evolutionary Beginnings (Institute for creation research)
The hypothetical naturalistic origin of life and its most basic biomolecules from non-living matter is called abiogenesis. This paradigm lies at the very foundation of biological evolution,
source
______________________________
More Arguments Against Evolution (Revolution against evolution)
According to evolution theory, the first step in life’s development was formation of life-like chemical molecules, which later combined into complex molecules like DNA. This presumably took place in the early oceans; it’s sometimes called “chemical evolution of life from a primordial soup.”
source
________________________________
Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks (True origin.org)
Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life.
source
______________________________
The Theory of Evolution (Biblical-science.net)
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life . . . .
source
________________________________
EVALUATING EVOLUTION: USING PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY AND PHYSICS (Twin Cities creation science association)
Let me begin with some definitions. By "evolution" I mean the notion that we and all living things come from non-living things, and have developed by completely natural means without any outside direction or power.
source
_______________________________
Evolution (Creationism.org)
ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life emerging from sterile non-life by believed automatic advanced chemical processes. This has also been called spontaneous generation or more recently abiogenesis.
source
So, now that it's clear that those creationists who, through their web sites are either leaders in the creationist movement, or wanna-be leaders, have no compunctions about deceiving the public through lies, do they really deserve to call themselves Christians?
.
Last edited:
