Why Evolution is Impossible --one reason

"Here is just one reason why an evolutionary origin of life is impossible" --by Duane Gish, 2007

"All forms of raw energy are destructive. The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightining) and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller (Science 117:528) succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here evolutionists face two problems. first, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D.E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possiblity of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time.....The physical chemist guided by the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."

The Hull quote is from an article by him in Nature 186:693

Just happened to have this on my computer desk --from Institute for Creation Research.

Evolution unlikely

Of course, scientists have historically been open to discovery and trial and error research --but now we have closed-minded evolutionists who don't want to hear the interpretations of their professional fellow scientists suggesting that life's basic components are too interdependent to have survived in an evolutionary sequence without each other co-existing --whereas evolution says the cells became more complex --when, in fact, the creationists say that's not possible. They started out complex and become more simple with natural selection. Creationists DO believe in natural selection --just don't believe it accounts for all species evolving from one celled amoeba.

Evolutionists defend with the equivalent of religious fervor the orthodox Darwininan interp of fossils, etc.

It was interesting to watch the history channel on Atlantis the other night and hear the researcher say that there probably WAS a great flood since it is mentioned in the oldest writings and mythologies of various groups around the globe. Of course, creationists attribute many of the geology findings to flood strata and other catastrophes rather than the great ages and years of erosion of Darwin's defenders.
e.g. Darwin concluded deep canyons were eroded for millions of years by rivers (he needed millions of years or more for his theory of atheistic origins)--whereas creationist geologists surmise that the canyons were formed quickly, more likely by floods and earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. and the waters were channeled into the resulting crevices. They claim mt. St. helens demonstrates their theory.

Here's the beginning of an article by a creationist on why evolutionary origin of life is impossible:

"It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. EVolutionists persistently claim that the intial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicationg molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist. The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected bype of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines sugars, and phosoporic acids. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA . To form a protein in a lab the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). the energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H20. This only happens in a chem lab or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky."