ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY 10

ONE HEARTBEAT 
AWAY  
   
PART 10
                                      (Mark Cahill's 
                                            Book)


The Origin of life

The first assertion of macroevolution is 
that living matter came from non-living 
matter. There is only one problem with 
that;  it  has been shown to be impossible.

The scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove  something, yet despite scientists' earnest attempts, and even baseless claims, they have never been able to create life from non-life. In 
fact, the opposite is the case.

Evolutionist Martin Moe admitted that
 "a century of  sensational discoveries in
the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life."   

Therefore it is unscientific and inaccurate for evolutionists to claim that spontaneous generation occurred - that is that  non-living chemicals produced living organisms, sometime in the distant past.

Louis Pasteur and others have shown the impossibilty of spontaneous generation and have proved the law of biogenesis. Life can arise only from pre-existing life and will perpetuate  only its own kind. 

Eminent evolutionist
 George Gaylord Simpson 
 and his colleagues noted;
      
"There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell."

Since the Law of Biogenesis dictates that life comes only from life, this should raise the question in our minds; Where did the first life in the universe come from?

If life always comes from life, the only logical conclusion is that life has always existed. Remember, there cannot be an effect without a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Therefore the only possibilty is that we came from an eternal, living Creator. 

Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick stated:

"The great majority of sequences (required for life) can never be synthesized at all, at any time .... an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

In addition to life rising only from life, the Law of Biogenesis also states that life only perpetuates its own kind. Each creature's genes are uniquely programmed to produce only within that same species. This explains why whales produce only whales, cows produce cows, ants produce ants, and humans produce humans - which leads to the next problem with evolution.

Transitional  Forms

The other claim of macroevolution is that one species gradually changes over time to form another species.

To prove macoevolution, scientists line up various creatures, point to the similarities, and tell us that they 're obviously descended  from a common evolutioary ancestor. I'm sure you've seen these charts in school textbooks  showing a progression from fish to reptiles to mammals.

But let's say  I lined up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size, from sub- compact to luxury car, and pointed out their similarities. Would you believe that they obviously descended from  a common evolutionary ancestor - or would you just use your common sense and think that they  had a common maker?

At best, the fossils used to create these charts demonstrate microevolution. Such as the variety within horses, but is there any proof  of one species changing to another?  No. In fact there is proof that they didn't, for if macroevolution were true, all species would have spent more time in transition than in completion. Thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms - creatures in the intermediate stages of evolution. No such fossils exist.

Next post tomorrow 25th July