In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which proposed the theory of evolution. This book, along with others that followed, began the long debated dispute between evolutionist and creationist. Were we created by a supernatural Supreme Being, or did our creation occur purely by chance? First, lets look at the two conflicting theories. Common usage of the term evolution is that living things in our world have come into existence through unguided naturalistic processes beginning from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over 20 billion years go.
The idea of Creation comes from the first two chapters of Genesis which states that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six, twenty-four hour periods of time. Throughout this paper substantial scientific evidence will be presented to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution and prove that creation is the only logical explanation for our existence. In order for evolution to have occurred, we would have needed a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained. So lets begin with the atmosphere. Our current atmosphere consists of 21% Oxygen, and 78% Nitrogen.
The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primeval atmosphere presents a problem for self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, or sugars because oxygen reacts with these substances to produce carbon dioxide and water. So because it is impossible for life to have evolved with oxygen, evolutionist theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. Instead they propose an atmosphere consisting of free hydrogen. The problem with this theory involves the layer of ozone that protects the earth from the suns ultraviolet rays.
Without this layer any newly developing organic molecules would oon be broken down and eliminated, but if you have oxygen to begin with this prevents life from even starting. Therefore we have a catch-22 situation. Besides, there are geological evidences that confirm the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks, and the precipitation of limestone in great quantities. 1 Now, lets assume for a minute that the ideal environment for evolution to occur existed.
We would then need a means by which the basic building blocks of life could be constructed. Before you can assemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have a ready supply of basic organic molecules. Among these would be tons of sugars, amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines. Now assuming we had a vast primitive ocean full of these molecules there are still obstacles that would need to be overcome to have a suitable ocean. The first problem would be the diluting effect of the vast ocean. There would not be enough quantities of each basic molecule for molecular formation therefore insufficient quantities would result.
The second problem would e that in order for chemical bonds to form there would need to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately the same energy that creates these bonds is much more likely to destroy them. The last major obstacle to overcome would be the incompatibility of different molecules with each other. Some molecules, such as sugars and amino acids combine and destroy each other. These such molecules would need to be separated neatly from one another. In a vast ocean, how is this possible? 3 As with any theory of the origin of life we must also include the formation of complicated macro-molecules such as DNA, and RNA.
In addition there are other necessary components of life such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be formed and utilized to produce life. In order for these macro-molecules to form, and work together to produce life there are a number of obstacles to overcome. The first would be the chemical environment. Some of the necessary component chemicals react with one another in counter-productive ways. For example, phosphoric acid which would be necessary to form DNA, would form an insoluble salt with calcium, sink to the bottom of the ocean, and be unavailable to make DNA.
Another big problem is polymerization. Monomers never become polymers unless energy is supplied, they dont just spontaneously arise. Even in lab experiments, where chemists take very deliberate steps in molecular formation, they have not even come close to realistic life macro-molecules. Sequencing is the foremost problem with the origin of life theory. Even if there was a ready supply of molecular building blocks, how would you get the specific sequences necessary in proteins and DNA? For a each of these macro-molecules to perform a particular function a specific sequence is required.
The odds of this occurring by accident are estimated to be 10e130 to 1. 5 We must now go beyond proteins, DNA, and RNA and assemble them into a working biological system that is capable of self-maintenance and self-replication. One approach, Oparins Coacervate Theory, is to try and construct coacervates (large blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately this only holds together random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. Another scheme uses microspheres (Foxs Protienoid Microsphere Theory) by the pyrocindensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of mino acids that are inherently unstable.
There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating systems, ect. 6 A biological system is more than a bunch a molecules thrown together. They must be able to so something. They must be able to act a little machines with input and output related to some greater purpose in the cell. Finally, all of the molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells. All cells are tremendously complex. Even the smallest bacteria cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains ne-hundred billion atoms.
The biggest problem in the development of cells is either it all works or nothing works. So how do you get everything to work at once? In order to try and explain the evolution of the cell scientists such as Francis Crick use simpler cells called proto-cells. A proto-cell is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation in order to create new systems. The problem with this theory is that even small errors are known to cause devastating biological consequences. Now that we have looked at the main problems of the origin of life, e will examine other evidences that discredit the evolutionary theory.
First, there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. 7 The fossil record readily supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals. Next, natural selection is incapable of advancing an organism to a higher arder. Natural selection is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind into another basic kind.
Because all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded into the DNA of its parent this would be prohibited genetically. An organism can vary within its kind, but it cannot become anything more than what it is. Third, the supposed hominids bone and skull records used by evolutionist often consists of finds which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint.
Evolutionist reconstruct what the supposed hominid looked like, name it, and present it to the public as fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be the result of a pig, donkey, or even a hoax. While still other finds consist of assorted fragments found miles apart, and yet are made to look as they came from the same individual. Finally, the rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms over illions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. 0 In order for the formation of fossils to occur a large flood is necessary. Fossils need quick and tremendous pressure to form. Without this, a carcass could not form a fossil over time. It would be eaten by scavengers and decayed by bacteria. The circulating water of the flood along with gravity would cause the smaller organisms as well as fish to be buried lower within the strata, while larger more mobile organisms would be buried higher in the rock strata. A universal flood has been well documented as having occurred.
And although evolutionist have used fossils to prove that smaller organisms evolved first millions of years ago because they are lower in the rock strata, and larger organisms evolved later because they are higher in the rock strata, they ignore the rock strata were objects such as large trees are seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years. The goal of this paper was to present the major weaknesses of the evolutionary theory. So far there are only to theories for how we got here, evolution and creation.
If evolution has so many flaws and missing links hen that leaves one option, creation. In my opinion it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from nothing than to believe that God created us, and everything around us. When you step back and take a look at the complexity of the whole universe, not to mention we as humans, a Supreme Creator is the only logical explanation. C. S. Lewis once stated You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the would of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real originator of natural order?
