This is exciting. I’m rather an old person who is being technologically advanced because I’m actually writing a blog. I do think that God is mad at us (hence, the name of my blog). Just pay attention to what is happening in the world. Half of Japan (I exaggerate) is earthquaked or washed away; we had record breaking snow levels; our rivers are overflowing and drowning whole towns; volcanoes erupting and tornadoes ripping up everything in their paths. Why? Because we neither praise nor give thanks to our Creator. We are promoting or accepting or supporting ideas, activities, theories and behaviors which are TOTALLY against God’s will. As my blog continues I will bring up some of these ideas, activities, theories and behaviors but let’s start with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is being taught in our school’s as fact – not as a theory. Here is an excerpt from my brother’s paper written on the subject:
Darwin’s Warm Little Pond
Charles Darwin at first did not extend his theories to the origin of life and publicly identified himself with a belief in Creation. The very last sentence of The Origin of the Species reads:
“ There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst the planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
“From so simple a beginning” is one of the greatest misconceptions in the history of science. Scientists have found the cell to be hopelessly complex and the chance assembly of its trillion atoms beyond the limits of all time and space. Fred Hoyle, the former head of The Cambridge University Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, said, “Belief in chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless atoms is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.”
However, later in life, Darwin could not resist the temptation of thinking that life could emerge from the lifeless atoms of a warm little pond. In 1871, Darwin wrote to Hooker: “But if (and oh! what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.” This quote is often reproduced in texts and the media on the origin of life. It is remarkably current today, which is a tribute to our complete lack of progress.
Upon hearing the myth of the warm little pond, the skeptic, in the form of an organic chemist, is rolling on the floor with laughter and shouting, “coals to Newcastle.”
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, recounts his laboratory course when working with an organic compound: “But any trace of moisture would ruin the reaction. No breath, no touch of saliva, no common whiff of laboratory air was permitted within the apparatus lest the procedure be ruined.”
We can now understand the organic chemist’s laughter. Transporting coal to the Newcastle Region of England, with it’s overabundance of coal, is undesirable but not fatal. Bringing water to an organic bond at the moment it must release a water molecule is fatal. The opposite of bonding takes place. “It pries nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA) apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds and severs bases from sugars”, writes Shapiro. Water continually opposes the assembly of proteins, DNA, RNA, and large biomolecules and attacks those that have successfully formed.
Water is indeed important in the cell for many functions, but the cell has extraordinary defense mechanisms to keep water out of the regions where biomolecules are forming. The first primeval cell must form before it can function to protect itself. It can never form in the presence of water.
Although many Darwinists may privately snicker when hearing the hackneyed tale about life forming in water, they put up with it because it is congenial with their agenda. Since scientific “peer review” panels are always stacked with Darwinists, empirically-sound objections to evolution are always rejected. Thank goodness that Einstein did not have to submit his papers for peer review, because originally most physicists disagreed with his ideas. So one should expect to see Darwin’s trite, warm little pond, swarming with the biomolecules of life, in text books and the popular media well into the future.
More to come on this subject soon -on the Fossil Horses.