wrote:
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different"!

Well, the Miller Experiement was worthless. When it can be proven that
aboigenesis can be reproduced in a laboratory experiment, or that Big Bang
could have had a beginning without a Beginner; I am done with Intelligent
Design. Untill then, the athiest approach of "it was all a random
fluke" just does not seem scientific enough.


Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.

Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the appearance of
Man. And why aren't new life forms appearing all the time out of
inorganic material today? We have plenty of inorganic material left on this
planet. Maybe some athiests should stare at the concrete foundation of my
house for a few months with camera in hand, waiting for life to evolve from
that too.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!