Thursday, May 19, 2011

If Evolution is a Fact......

More Videos
In regards to RNA/DNA - could you please explain the problem of Chirality? Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments in 1952 - all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. * Dr. Charles McCombs, Ph.D. An Organic Chemist who holds 20 chemical patents says, "The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids (Miller-Urey) is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."

If we do not know how life originated - how can we say that an evolutionary process leading back to 'Origins' is FACT? "The short answer is, we don't really know how life originated on this planet...we have some ideas but we remain in substantial ignorance." Dr. Andrew Knoll - Professor, Biology - Harvard University, Author of LIFE ON A YOUNG PLANET.


Here is what we know about DNA
*DNA is the building block of all 2 million known species of life.
*EACH species has its own unique DNA "code." *We are now in the process of unlocking the complex 'language' of DNA and have discovered that indeed the DNA code has letters, syntax, sequences and purpose - in short, it meets all the definitions of a true 'language.'
*DNA language is the only true language known to exist that was not created by man. In other words -- all other languages exist as a result of "intelligence." In light of the above known facts...How did DNA get here? How did it originate in over 2 million unique ways? How does a 'language' with 'purpose' - randomly originate and WHY - when we have never observed the random, non-purposed origination of any other language known to man?
"DNA makes clear that [Homo erectus] was almost certainly a dead end and not our ancestor." Begley, S. 2007. Beyond Stones & Bones. Newsweek. 149 (12): 55

How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a "male and female" to reproduce? If evolution were true - doesn't it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn't they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? "Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems."
Dr. Graham Bell - In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality

Then how do we explain the uniqueness of man? Of over 2 million species of life on the planet - NOTHING even comes close to man's intelligence and dominion over all the other living things. It appears - according to the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE that everything has been placed here for man and man alone. If man were removed from the planet - the planet would survive just fine. However, if any one single other major element of earth were removed, it would eventually die. The closest animal to man in intelligence is reported to be the chimpanzee. Yet, chimps swing in trees and eat bananas. Man writes books, invents technology, flies through the air, travels to space, uses computers, drives in cars that he invented, makes fire, cooks his food, grows his foods, produces food for other animals, etc., etc. - you get the point. NOTHING compares to man - out of 2 million known forms of life. If evolution were true - how can this be?

Then how do you explain the origin of human language? Why do only humans possess language out of over 2 million total species of life? We know that other life forms have forms of rudimentary 'communication.' But NO OTHER LIFE FORM has a language system - defined by letters, alphabet, syntax, rules and purpose. Man is the only living thing to use this language to produce literature, art, media, mass communication and to develop technologies to transfer this mass communication. Man is the only living thing to pass on generational knowledge, amass libraries and produce systems to store generational knowledge. Doesn't it make sense that as over 2 million known forms of life were "evolving" that more than 1 in 2,000,000 would have developed some type of language meeting the above language requirement definitions? Why only man? How could it be that the complex system of human language randomly evolved and then just happens to be "learned" by ONLY the brain of a human child?

No comments:

Post a Comment