If evolution is true why does science defy it?

Question

in the book Creation: Facts of Life

there is an article about the start of life, you can go there and read it but I'll post a little of it here.


 Evolutionists picture a time long ago when the earth might have been quite different. They imagine that fragments of DNA and fragments of protein are produced. These molecules are supposed to “do what comes naturally” over vast periods of time. What’s going to happen? Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?

You would think so right? wrong.
 The problem is that the properties of bases and acids produce the wrong relationship for living systems. Acid-base reactions would “scramble up” DNA and protein units in all sorts of “deadly” combinations. These reactions would prevent, not promote, the use of DNA to code protein production. Since use of DNA to code protein production is the basis of all life on earth, these acid-base reactions would prevent, not promote, the evolution of life by chemical processes based on the inherent properties of matter.

These wrong reactions have produced serious problems for Stanley Miller, Sidney Fox, and other scientists trying to do experiments to support chemical evolution. Almost all biology books have a picture of Miller’s famous spark chamber In it, Miller used simple raw materials and electric sparks to produce amino acids and other simple molecules—the so-called “building blocks of life.” Some newspapers reported that Miller had practically made “life in a test tube.”
Yet he didnt' for he left out oxygen and on purpose because he knew it would ruin his experiment.

Why do you evo's believe in it when science (SCIENCE) says it can't happen?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Perhaps a bigger problem to the evo's argument is that the bottle of prehistoric goup they set aside hundreds of years ago hasn't sprouted a living being yet, let alone a human.

tuyet n · Answer

You're still convulsing over amino acid experiments when we know of at least 70 different amino acids that exist in asteroids.

Critics of evolution abiogenesis and the big bang all have to keep one foot planted in the past or else they have no argument.

Blah blah blah "he left out oxygen". Guess what, he was right to do so because everything is pointing toward asteroids and comets as perfect sources of amino acids.

sweetjane · Answer

This book is filled with a logic-free lacuna of magical thinking driven by a hallucinogenic "Statement of Faith" that includes the following: 

BASICS ARTICLE 3: "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe." 

GENERAL ARTICLE 6: "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." 

This conceptual straightjacket routinely produces ludicrous results.

Gothic Shadow · Answer

Evolution has more to do with natural selection than the spontaneous generation of life.  While you present a worth while argument, I think you're questioning the wrong issue here.

Vincent K, Atheati Mad Scientist · Answer

Sorry, I'm a chemistry student, and that's sheer nonsense. And by the way, of COURSE they left oxygen out; it's been proven by other methods that primordial Earth had practically no free oxygen in its atmosphere, idiot. It wasn't until photosynthesising organisms came along that we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. So your point is moot and worthless. Bye bye now, thanks for playing.

Oh by the way, posting something out of a creationist book and calling it 'science'? Hilarious.

Ode: Cheers!

Bob: Uh, seriously, what kind of crack are YOU on?

Allie Q · Answer

Science doesn't say it can't happen. Science is very much in favor of evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. 

Creationism is not science, and most sources are adamantly opposed to true scientific fact, and operate under the agenda of discrediting anything that opposes their biased beliefs, so I would not readily believe anything a creationist book has to say on the matter.

novangelis · Answer

Who says there was DNA or protein?

Scientists do not dismiss Creationist lies without knowing why they are lies.  The only question is how many Creationists blindly parrot lies, and how man know they are lying.

⌡Machine Head⌠ · Answer

Ever hear of RNA?   Take your straw-man argument to Science and Mathematics (S&M) and see what happens.

Anonymous · Answer

Something doesn't become true because you voice it more often.

What a garbage question and garbage 'sources' you cite.

Also, he left out oxygen because there was no atmospheric Oxygen present on the young earth you RETARD.

Skepticat (UKB Operative) · Answer

There's little to no science in a creationist textbook. You FAIL.

Trending News

If evolution is true why does science defy it?

13 Answers