- From Sea to Shining Sea, Federal Land Control?
- “You Will Own Nothing, And You Will Love It”-- Says The Fascist, Klaus Schwab And His Globalist “World Economic Forum” - Part 2
- The Morgan and Timmons Firey Faceoff in SC’s 4th Congressional District Race
- Is US Rep. William Timmons Bloating His Voting Record with Out-of-State Proxies?
- “You Will Own Nothing, And You Will Love It”-- Says The Fascist, Klaus Schwab And His Globalist “World Economic Forum” - Part 1
- Fourth District Republican Club Hosts British Consul General
- Audacy Announces All-Star Lineup on 98.9 WORD
- Tucker Carlson Interview of Vladimir Putin - Part 5
- 2024 Election Interference
- Tucker Carlson Interview of Vladimir Putin - Part 7
- Tucker Carlson Interview of Vladimir Putin - Part 6
- Are We Living In Taylor Caldwell’s “Honoria”? It Appears We Are!
- Satan’s War On People Of Faith Is Still Raging!
- Mr. Howell Clyborne of Integral Leaders in Health will be First Monday's Speaker April 8th at 12 noon at the Poinsett Club
- Biden Administration Crushes Religious Freedom and the 1st Amendment by Banning Religious Symbols and Religious Themes at Annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House on Monday
Abiogenesis is Untestable
- By Press Release
If abiogenesis did occur on Earth, it can never be tested. It would be a one-of-a-kind event with no one present to observe and would not have occurred under conditions or on a scale that would leave a fossil record. Furthermore, even if all of the evidence proved beyond even an irrational doubt that abiogenesis did not occur on Earth, it could just be moved to Mars or some other planet. Once again, the ultimate rescue of abiogenesis would be that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. All this shows that abiogenesis is an untestable hypothesis and therefore does not qualify as science.
- Hits: 87
Abiogenesis is Unrepeatable
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Abiogenesis is ultimately unrepeatable even if it did occur, the best origin of life researchers could ever do is demonstrate that life could be produced under laboratory conditions. Not only would this require a lot of intelligence and deliberate manipulation of all the components involved, but as such it would not prove that such an event could actually happen in nature. The creation of life in a lab would only demonstrate that intelligence can produce life, it would not be repeating true abiogenesis. Also, the origin of life on Earth, whatever its source, is something that happened in the past and can't be repeated.
- Hits: 146
Abiogenesis is Contrary to Actual Observation
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The main reason that abiogenesis is contrary to observation is that life has only been observed to come from life. It has never been observed to come into existence from dead matter spontaneously. The simple fact is that the line between life and non-life spontaneously only goes one way, that is a living thing dies such that life becomes non-life. We do not see corpses spontaneously come back to life such that anyone seeing a dead person come back to life would rationally conclude that it was an act of God. Not only are there no examples of abiogenesis being observed, but everything we observe says it cannot happen.
- Hits: 161
Abiogenesis is Unobservable
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
There are several reasons why abiogenesis is unobservable. The first is that if it did happen, it happened in a place and time beyond our observation. The second reason is that if abiogenesis happens current ideas of it happen to take too long to be observable. Finally, any observation of a new life where it had previously not been seen, could have numerous other explanations other than abiogenesis. They could include simply missing it before, contamination by our own actions or presents, the life that we find could simply come from another location, and there are many more possibilities. All of this adds up to abiogenesis being unobservable.
Because observation is a major aspect of science, this means that abiogenesis cannot legitimately be considered science since it is completely unobservable. The entire idea is nothing but a result of the presupposition of atheistic naturalistic materialism, not science.
- Hits: 168
Thermodynamics is a Problem for Abiogenesis
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Before starting on about the second law of thermodynamics, I am not using the second law of thermodynamics nor am I saying that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible. What I am saying is that it does have thermodynamic issues.
First of all, the energy applied to any prebiotic soup is going to be more likely to break down the organic compounds that produce them. This problem gets worse the more complex those organic compounds become.
Second, many aspects of a living cell do not result from chemical necessity. The arrangement of the nucleotides in DNA is a perfect example of this problem. The arrangement of the nucleotides in DNA is not compelled by chemistry but it is based on the information that it holds. The DNA can be arranged as needed to hold that information. The point is that there are many aspects of a cell necessary for life that cannot simply be produced by chemical processes but are easily broken down by thermodynamic processes.
- Hits: 190
The Only Evidence for Abiogenesis is the Assumption that It Had to Have Happened
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The simple fact is but there is no real evidence for abiogenesis actually occurring. The reason why this would be is that even if it did occur such chemical processes do not leave fossils. However, this still means but there is a lack of actual evidence.
- Hits: 216
No Alternative to Abiogenesis is Allowed
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
For something to be considered scientific you know it has to be the possibility of it being false but for this to be the case you have to allow for other possibilities to be considered. Because abiogenesis is the only naturalistic possibility by definition as long as naturalism rules the research no other possibilities such as an intelligent designer will even be allowed no matter how much the evidence points to it.
- Hits: 278
Abiogenesis Is a Necessity of a Naturalistic Origin
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Abiogenesis is not a specific theory of the origin of life but rather by definition abiogenesis is the idea of the naturalistic origin of life. That is, it is the general concept of a naturalistic origin of life. It is a 100% philosophical concept based on complete atheistic naturalistic materialism.
It is ultimately a necessity of insisting on a totally naturalistic origin to life, the universe, and everything. Abiogenesis is not necessitated by science, or even implied by science. It simply results from an insistence on a naturalistic origin.
- Hits: 198
Abiogenesis is an Atheistic Presupposition
- By Press Release
Abiogenesis is by definition a totally naturalistic concept of the origin of life. Rather than being created by God as indicated in the Bible, the entire concept is one of the light laws of chemistry just working together to spontaneously produce life given the right conditions. Not only does the notion of abiogenesis exclude God but it does so deliberately and before even considering a single bit of evidence.
Its connection to atheism goes beyond this, but it is a needed necessary presupposition of atheism and philosophical naturalism. While there are scientific reasons for life having a beginning, there are no scientific reasons requiring that it be by way of abiogenesis. Even ignoring God as a possible answer, there is no reason to not simply conclude that we do not know and cannot know the answer. After all the origin of life took place in the past, and there are many details of the past that simply cannot be reconstructed. This is particularly true in one-off events for which there were no humans around to observe and record.
- Hits: 336
Reasons Abiogenesis cannot be Considered Science
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
This is not a statement against abiogenesis itself. It is not saying that it is impossible or even wrong. It is just that it cannot be considered scientific. The following articles are reasons why it cannot be considered a scientific concept. As a result, abiogenesis has no place in a public-school science class. Not because it runs afoul of any religious beliefs but simply because it does not qualify as science. This series will address 10 Pacific reasons for abiogenesis cannot be considered science.
- Hits: 256
Which is more believable, Genesis or the Big Bang Theory?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The one that you will find more believable between Genesis and the Big Bang Theory depends upon your philosophical starting assumptions. If you look at the evidence from a theistic creation perspective, you will find Genesis to be the most believable. If on the other hand you look at the evidence from an atheistic, naturalistic materialistic perspective, then you will be forced to accept the basic Big Bang to man story regardless of what the evidence actually is.
- Hits: 248
A Biblical Perspective on Unintelligent on Other Planets
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
This article is related to the previous one. However, there are those addressing the idea of intelligent life from another planet; however, this article addresses unintelligent life. Unlike the concept of intelligent life on other planets, unintelligent life in no way raises any questions concerning any biblical doctrines. However, if it is ever discovered it needs to be seen from day one from a biblical perspective because it would used to attack the Bible.
- Hits: 250
A Biblical Perspective on Aliens on Other Planets
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The notion of aliens on other planets is a very popular part of science fiction. The notion has become part of popular culture with many science fiction movies and books based on the concept. This particular discussion is primarily about intelligent aliens, not bacteria or even animal life as they are a different discussion. Two things we have to realize are that to date there is no evidence for such beings and that it is not a Biblical concept.
The first thing that needs to be noted about the idea of feeling some other planets is that not only is it an entirely evolutionary idea, but it is also founded purely on atheistic naturalistic materialistic thinking. The reason for this is that the idea is that if we came about by pure chance surely given the billions of stars in the universe and billions of more planets that there must be some of those must be inhabitable, you're also inhabited. Consequently, the idea that alien life exists is primarily founded on an atheistic worldview.
- Hits: 314
Is There Any Evidence for Biblical Creation? - Part 7
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
This represents just a small sample the evidence for Biblical Creation. As this column proceeds more and more examples will be made available. The problem is that the people who claim that there is no evidence simply reject the evidence that exists. They do so in part because those that they see as experts do not accept it, and they are convinced that those “experts” are correct and also that they are objective. They often claim that if the evidence was there, it would be accepted. The problem is that the way these so-called experts handle evidence presented contrary to their standard views, they react in a way that shows a lack of objectivity.
- Hits: 368
Is There Any Evidence for Biblical Creation - Part 6?
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
According to the Bible, the human race started with two people Adam and Eve, we were then reduced to the descendants of one man his three sons, and their three wives during the flood. If this were indeed the case, we would expect to find evidence in our genetics mitochondrial DNA goes back to a single woman and our Y chromosome DNA goes back to a single man. If we had evolved from a population of the ancestral apes our mitochondrial DNA nation archaebacteria single woman and our why chromosome DNA should not go back to a single man.
- Hits: 404
Is There Any Evidence for Biblical Creation Part 5
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One strong piece of evidence for Biblical creation that came out of the RATE project. Part of this project involved testing a very important assumption of radiometric dating. The assumption tested was that atomic decay rates are constant for each isotope. This is an important experiment because if nuclear decay rates were greatly accelerated at any time in the past radiometric dating would be completely invalid.
The research started with radioactive uranium isotopes and their decay products measured in the zircon crystals found in granite. The key to testing The assumption of radiometric dating is the diffusion rate of helium out of zircon crystals based on the amount a radiometric decay that has been estimated to have occurred in the subsequent helium produced over the amount of time that the crystals have existed. The scientists doing this research created models based on both time periods. One was a uniform rate of decay over the approximately 1 1/2 billion years that zircons were dated to. The other was 2 periods of accelerated nuclear decay during the Biblical time scale. These two events would have been during the creation week and the genesis flood.
- Hits: 347