Where did life come from? There are only two main views: the Biblical
(Creationist) view and the natural view (Naturalism or Evolutionism). The
Biblical explanation describes just the bare bones of the event. God spoke
and life appeared. The naturalist explanation is a long-winded theory with
many variations, many assumptions, many leaps of faith, and absolutely no
It is universally agreed today by all mainstream scientists that life
comes only from life. It was once thought that flies were spontaneously
generated by dead meat, but observations soon proved that flies come only
from flies. This of course begs the question as to where the first flies
came from, but the naturalist leaps in here and says first life came from
non-living chemicals, and that eventually out of that flies formed millions
of years later. Just how this happened is never convincingly explained.
Francis Crick, an evolutionist who shared a Nobel prize for discovering
the structure of DNA could not believe in spontaneous generation of first
life on Earth, so he proposed that life came to Earth from outer space
but this only shifted the problem one step further away. How did first
life appear somewhere else? There is no known mechanism in chemistry
whereby non-living elements can form a living cell here on Earth, so why
should it be more likely elsewhere in the universe?
Despite the total lack of any evidence, or experiments which explain how
life came from non-life, many scientists persist in teaching evolution as if
it were a proven fact. But while with their heads they may assent to the
theory, with their hearts they contradict it. As Einstein said, scientists
feelings sometimes take the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of
natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that,
compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection.
Scientists once thought the cell was very simple, but now they have to
admit it is the most complex machine known in the universe. Discoveries
springing from living cells have stunned and bewildered those who have
searched, yet despite the obvious evidence that cells could never form by
accident many of these same scientists continue to repeat the puerile and
nonsensical dogma, that cells are an accident.
There is nothing living on Earth which did not come from previous life,
and since the origin of the first parents cannot be pushed back infinitely,
there had to be a beginning. Science tells us life is too complex to have
arisen by chance. We are left with only one conclusion that life is no
What evolutionists usually do is present some good science, and true
facts, but then add their philosophical interpretation of it, twisting what
seems to be a straightforward discovery, into a piece of propaganda. A good
case in point is the way a few bones which look like ape or human bones, are
interpreted to be those of a subhuman. The bones themselves are either those
of an ape or a human, but the interpretation is based on a preconceived
theory. Because many scientists believe humans evolved from apes, any bones
which look similar to either are immediately used to promote a biased
ideology. A creationist looks at the exact same bones and sees either ape or
human bones but never interprets them to prove a subhuman species. There
is no such thing as a subhuman hybrid ape/man. There never was, and there
never will be.
Imagine the evolution-believing scientist on a hike through the hills.
Each hill represents a major discovery in his scientific investigation, and
the further he travels, the more amazed he becomes by the complexity and
inherent design he finds. He is forced into the position of having to
aggressively defend evolution, because he strongly desires it to be correct,
yet all the evidence he finds points the other way. Finally he climbs the
last hill, and there at the end of the trail is a Bible, opened at Genesis
1:1. The origin of life, after all his years of toil is creation. Why didnt
he admit this when he was young?