Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does anything exist at all? And why are our minds capable of understanding it, of formulating laws and equations that express basic cosmological relationships so elegantly? A US team reports in Science magazine how it built the entire DNA code of a common bacterium in the laboratory using blocks of genetic material. The group hopes eventually to use engineered genomes to make organisms that can produce clean fuels and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
The only problem here is the fact that all materials needed to construct living cells are already present.
- Search form.
- More Stumbling Blocks for Evolution | Evolution: An Objective Look!
- Forbidden To Live.
Scientists should be able to take living cells apart and reconstruct them into different living cells. That would, of course, be the easiest way to test if life can truly be constructed in the lab. Evillusionists hope that someday we will be able to synthetically construct living cells from laboratory-made DNA and other proteins required for life. They repeatedly say we are getting closer and closer. We are still light years away, and we most likely will never get there. It is truly amazing that we can now synthesize a genome.
But if we are trying to construct synthetic life, scientists should start with living cells that are already in existence, break them down, then rebuild. That would be much easier than trying to make life from scratch from synthesized biochemicals. But of course, the chance of that working is zero. The theory of recapitulation , also called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny , was a theory in biology which attempted to explain apparent similarities between humans and other animals.
First developed in by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, the theory has since been discredited. Otherwise put, each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history. Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species.
These found their ways into many biology textbooks, and into popular knowledge. For example, Haeckel believed that the human embryo with gill slits pharyngeal arches in the neck not only signified a fish-like ancestor but represented an adult fish-like developmental stage.
Embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function. They are the invaginations between the gill pouches or pharyngeal pouches, and they open the pharynx to the outside. Gill pouches appear in all tetrapod animal embryos. In a later stage, all gill slits close, with only the ear opening remaining open.
Stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors. And Haeckel theory was proved a fake, just as many other sub-theories and fossil finds have been. And, what about the gills? Gills are not even present in many fish this early in development.
Calling them gill-like structures is forcefully injecting evolution into embryonic development when none is there, a common trick of evo-illusion. The fine-tuning of the universe is the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of our universe. The astounding fine tuning is simply too amazing to have been the result of blind luck. And, the physical laws of nature are constant. In other words, the speed of light will not change over time. The force of gravity remains the same. If it could change, life could not depend on gravity.
And, with only minor changes, life could not exist. The perfect example of perfect balance is the four forces of nature: 1 Gravity 2 strong nuclear, which binds protons together in the nucleus of an atom, 3 weak nuclear and 4 electromagnetic which pulls magnets together as well as repels electrons of two items which are touching each other; your butt and the chair for example. In reality, atoms are If a hydrogen atom nucleus was the size of a tennis ball, its electron would travel in a 17, ft. Physicists have spent the better part of the twentieth century trying to unite the four forces into a single force, without success.
They are still trying. These forces are proportioned in an inconceivably perfect way which allows for the existence of life. Imagine a ruler that stretches across the entire universe and is broken into inches that would be billions of billions of billions of inches. The ruler represents the range of the four forces, with gravity being the weakest force at one inch.
The strong nuclear force is the strongest and would be represented by the entire length of the ruler. In other words, gravity could plausibly be as strong as the strong nuclear force, or anywhere in between. Species the size of humans would be crushed. Even insects would need thick legs to support themselves and no species could be much larger. A planet with a gravitational pull a thousand times that of the earth would only be forty feet in diameter. Of all of the possibilities, gravity is defined by the perfect amount of force for life to exist.
Further, if the strong nuclear force was 0. If it was 2. Either way, the universe would never be able to support life. Carbon is formed in significant quantities only because 12C has a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels of 4He and 8Be. The nuclear energy level of 16O is just right for converting some of the carbon to oxygen while ensuring that both elements are abundant. A slight change in the ratio of energy levels in either direction would make life impossible.
Another example of precisely tuned parameters is the mass ratio of the nucleons. The neutron is 0. This led to the formation of 1 neutron per 7 protons in the big bang. If this mass ratio was reduced by just 0. No normal stars would form, and life would be impossible. If the mass ratio was increased by 0. The Idea of Infinitely Existing Matter:. There are numerous ways scientists have for determining the age of the universe. Some think that matter and the universe existed forever in the past, and, of course, will do so in the future.
The first notion to get off the table is that matter and the universe existed for an infinitely long time. Many other absurdities would occur if you had an infinite number of anything. An infinite amount of marbles is a good example. Imagine that I gave you all of my marbles. I would have none. The formula would look like:. Imagine that I have an infinite number of marbles and you have none. Imagine that I gave you half of my marbles.
The result would be that we would have the same number of marbles; we would both together have an infinite number. The formula would be:. Or I could give you all the marbles except three, leaving me with three marbles. These illustrations show that the idea of an infinite amount of anything has contradictory results. In the first case infinity minus infinity equals zero. In the second case infinity minus infinity equals infinity.
And in the last case infinity minus infinity is three. These are completely contradictory results and make the use of an infinite number of anything mathematically not possible. Further, if you had an infinite number of marbles, would they fill the entire universe with marbles? Of course. And they would continue on forever past the edges of the universe. This might give you a better idea: you would need to fill an infinite number of universes solid with marbles. Or, actually, you could put one marble in each of an infinite number of universes, and you would get the same result: an infinite number of marbles.
But they describe impossible scenarios. The universe could not have an infinite past, thus it must have a finite past. The idea of infinity is just conceptual. If matter was infinitely old, one billion years from now the universe would be just as old as it is now. Here is the formula:. There could be no change.
Nothing would be able to age. So the universe must have a finite past. There must be a start to it. Astronomers call the beginning of the universe the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the start of all matter, energy, space, time. Everything in the universe was formed. Physics tells us that matter and energy are interchangeable, and cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang must break that rule. So we have discrepancies among the sciences.
STUMBLING BLOCKS OF EVOLUTION
The paradoxes continue and are amazing. Our Amazing Spaceship Earth. Ev-illusionists would have us believe that there is nothing special about Earth. That it is just a minor planet in an average galaxy. However, studies have shown that our planet is unique. The moon is also essential to the life on our planet. If the moon were more massive and in the same place the tides would be much too strong, which would create serious difficulties. A terrestrial planet must have a minimum mass to retain an atmosphere.
An oxygen-rich environment is necessary to support large-brained creatures like humans. And the planet has to be a minimum size to keep the heat from its interior from being lost too quickly. If the earth was a more massive and compact planet, the resulting higher surface gravity would cause flattening of the mountains.
The tendency would be toward creating a smooth sphere. We would be a water world. And a water world would not allow for specialized species like……. IQ and Natural Selection. Since random mutations and natural selection were responsible for assembling the human brain, I think it would be reasonable to assign them an IQ. Most things in nature were produced in hundreds of thousands of steps.
Inflight connectivity remains a stumbling block in CRJ evolution - Wandering Aramean
There has to be some value, considering they put together the most incredible systems imaginable, and natural selection made some pretty incredible choices. Could a two-year-old child, if he could remain constant, jump up and touch a ten-foot basketball rim? Could he assemble a computer if he had no idea what a computer was, like evolution assembled a heart when it had no idea what a pump was, and none existed for at least 30 trillion miles in any direction?
If he had hundreds of millions of years to accomplish these tasks, could he? A quote from Sir Isaac Newton…. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped, except in their bowels, and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes; and either two forelegs, or two wings, or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more?
Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivances of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them?
Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it? These, and such like considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is, therefore, to be feared. Brewster Volume 2 Pages Humans have 23 paired chromosomes, apes Anything and everything is evidence for evolutionauts.
A huge puzzle for evolution was the fact that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, the great apes have More than humans? This was a pretty indefensible fact and was a real conundrum for evolution to explain. Why would two human chromosomes fuse? Did they actually fuse, or do they just give the appearance of fusing?
Travel. More. Better.
Did the fusion occur in microsteps? On millionth of a fusion per generation? Or did they whip around and fuse in only one human, then the design caught on, and spread to other humans? Did the human with the fusion survive better than the ones without the fusion? One would think that there would be several types of humans, some with the fusion, others without.
Did the fusing chromosomes first stick together a little bit, next……. So evolution thinks they have the answer to one question, only to have more to answer for. One would think if more complexity occurs with time, and the genome gradually increases in size, we would have 25 pairs, not 23 with two fused. We should have more than apes. Why would the number increase, and when we come along, it went the other way? Strange, no matter which side you are on.
Of course, the huge thing here, is how did the information in the genome expand? The number of chromosomes? Evolutionauts stumble around and have no idea. Genetic material can change, but increasing in number is tough. Richard Dawkins was stumped trying to answer that question. See my page on Richard Dawkins being stumped. He still never has. But he gave a bunch of speeches berating the questioner, and never answering the question. The huge question is HOW did this huge gene modification occur. Most of the chromosomal differences among the four species involve inversions — localities on the chromosome that have been inverted, or swapped end for end.
This is a relatively common occurrence among many species and has been documented in humans Ref.
An inversion usually does not reduce fertility, as in the case I have referenced. Don Lindsay provides a diagram of the chromosome inversion between chimpanzees and humans scanned from ref. Note how all of the bands between the two chromosomes will line up perfectly if you flip the middle piece of either of the two chromosomes between the p I and q I marks. The similarity of the marks will include a match for position, number, and intensity depth of staining.
Similar rearrangements to this can explain all of the approximately non-heterochromatic bands observed among each of the four species for these three properties band position, number, and intensity. Other types of rearrangements include a few translocations parts swapped among the chromosomes , and the presence or absence of nucleolar organizers.
All of these differences are described in ref. The biggest single chromosomal rearrangement among the four species is the unique number of chromosomes 23 pairs found in humans as opposed to the apes 24 pairs. Examining this difference will allow us to see some of the differences expected between common ancestry as opposed to a common designer and address the second creationist objection listed above. There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers — either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes.
The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature due to common ancestry. The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes called the telomere have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred.
Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere the distinctive central part of the chromosome , we should see some evidence of two centromeres. Furthermore, there is a characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-telomeric region, the region just before the telomere.
When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences.
This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee ancestor 2p and 2q chromosomes and in precisely the expected location. The second prediction — remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.
Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case.
Refs 5 , 6 , and 7 document both the existence of such chromosomal number differences and the fact that differences do not always result in reduced fertility. But what CMI does is to encourage parents and help them instill the proper biblical worldview in their children. As part of this it is essential that we also teach children what to expect—that is—the opposing worldview they will encounter in the media and public education.
This is because the reality is that regardless of where our young ones are educated they will be exposed to the aforementioned mantra of millions of years and evolution. Parents only need to take a little time each week with their children to educate them in this crucial battleground of origins. Sometimes we receive messages from parents who have not been equipped, whose children are now doubting the faith in which they were brought up.
Sadly, our speakers hear this all the time. For example, Kevin B. Your support of CMI is essential to help us keep the life-changing information coming in its various forms via books, DVDs and our comprehensive website. Why not consider subscribing a child, grandchild or friend to our Creation magazine? You can now add a digital version and share it with family and friends on up to 5 separate devices. We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith.
But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control. Related Articles Did God create over billions of years? Age of the earth. Related Media. References and notes Cosner, L. Creation 35 1 —55, January Return to text. Author shares harsh campus realities, wnd. Return to text.
Helpful Resources. Evolution's Achilles' Heels.
- Mapping the Territory: Critical Approaches to Welsh Fiction in English.
- Evolution stumbling block to strong scientific education in US | Scitech | The Earth Times.
- Drummers Delight.
- Human Speech as a Stumbling Block for Darwinism — Distilled to Five Minutes;
- Eyes – Were a Stumbling Block to Evolutionary Theory, Until Now | END TIMES PROPHECY.
- Shop by category.
Exploring Geology with Mr Hibb. Hard cover. DVD Video. Joe S. US March 22nd, I always wondered why it was so much easier to believe Darwinism over creation. I used to think it was because creation required faith and Darwinism didn't, but thanks to Christian apologetics I now know that not only does Darwinism require faith, but more faith than creation!
The real reason why it's easier to believe Darwinism is because from day 1 that's all we've heard. I saw a comment on an article here on Creation. He noted that it's not a difference between two kinds of science, but between two completely separate disciplines - science and history. The two may overlap but they are still separate disciplines.
In a court case, the prosecution interprets the facts and constructs a narrative to explain how the crime was committed. In the same way scientists look at facts, interpret them, and construct a narrative to explain how things happened in the past. Darwinism is nothing more than a historical narrative. Science is used in constructing the narrative, but the narrative itself is not science. Creation is the same way. When you're brought up your entire life with only one viewpoint but never equipped with anything to defend that view, you'll abandon it as soon as you hear an alternative.
Unfortunately this is the case with so many people who were brought up Christian. On the other hand, if you're brought up only ever knowing one viewpoint but equipped with an arsenal to defend that view, you will cling to that view despite any evidence against it. This is the reason Darwinism has overrun our culture. Unless we recognize who we're facing and start using the same tactics they've been using for the past years or so, we'll only continue to see people fall from the faith.
Much thanks to CMI. Richard L.
Related STUMBLING BLOCKS OF EVOLUTION
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved