- The first and foremost flaw in abiogenesis is its mathematical absurdity. For abiogenesis to occur, every element of a simple cell (evolutionists assume that prokaryotes are the most primitive alive today) would have to form spontaneously in the right order, position, etc. This cell must be capable of absorption, digestion, respiration, biosynthesis, egestion, excretion, secretion, movement (at least internally), irritability, and reproduction, to name the most basic tasks. This is formidable, indeed. For abiogenesis to be true, all of the correct chemicals would have to be in the right places, states, and temperatures, and then receive the exact right energy to form into such a cell. Every phospholipid in the plasma membrane, every amino acid in every protein, every nucleotide base in the DNA, and every other chemical necessary for a cell to function would have to properly align and come together. In addition, since natural means cannot add genetic information to an organism, it would have to generate initially a massive amount of DNA. How much would it need? It would need more than enough to supply whatever organism on earth has the most DNA, since genetic information can only be lost or changed in nature. The chance of this is far less than the chance of monkeys typing out the works of Shakespeare on a computer without virus protection. Yet for some reason, atheists actually think that it happened.
Some claim that abiogenesis need not have created even a simple prokaryote, but a primitive life form with a cell structure even more basic than we have ever seen. There are two major problems with this theory. I actually first ran across the theory in a debate when my opponent referenced a video about it on YouTube. I have to admit that I was very impressed after watching the video. It was very creative, realistic, and brilliant. However, it has its flaws. (1) If the formation of such a simple life form was as easy as the video claims, then why has it not yet been experimentally validated or observed in nature? Remember that something is only science if it has roots in observation and experimentation. (2) The cell that the video explained was simple enough to form spontaneously in my opinion. That is actually the theory's weakness. Genetics in modern cells is the basis for evolution, which supposedly takes over after abiogenesis. The cell in the video was far too simple to undergo any processes of modern genetics, and thus could not evolve as atheists presume. How then, pray tell, could it ever become similar to, or even compatible with, a basic modern cell? There is no answer.
- Just like the basic complexity-from-chaos concept, science has never validated abiogenesis. If no one has observed it in nature or in experiment, we cannot consider it scientific. Since abiogenesis is the starting point for evolution, we can consider neither theory science. Oh, did I mention that the no one has ever disproven the earlier, well-validated principle of biogenesis (which states that life only comes from other life)? In fact, there has never been any evidence against it. It was simply thrown out when evolution rose to prominence.
Pages
▼