Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


Evolutionists have tried to figure out what conditions were needed to produce the first living creatures out of sand and seawater. What they are not telling you is that they have discovered is that the necessary conditions have never existed. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Primitive Environment: 1

The Evolutionists' Conundrum: Where did all the animals and plants come from?
The Error of Spontaneous Generation: Evolutionary theory is based on a debunked error
Chemical Compounds: 10 reasons why living forms could not come into existence by themselves
Proteins and Other Substances: 4 more reasons why life could not self-originate

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.


Where do all the animals come from? Well, they come from their parents. But, way back in the beginning, where did the first frogs, ducks, and chickens come from?

They came from God.

They did not make themselves. —Yet that is exactly what the humanist theories teach! The evolutionists declare that dirty seawater made itself into creatures—which made themselves into still other creatures.

Yet, as we shall find in this and other pages in this Encyclopedia, there is no evidence that this ever happened.

Just now, let us consider what the evolutionists call "the primitive environment." That is what our world was supposed to have been like when seawater was supposed to have changed itself into living creatures.

According to the theory, warm water, sloshing around one day, made itself into some creatures in the ocean. That is how the evolutionists tell us that life on our planet began. That is the "origin of the species."

But there is an abundance of scientific facts that such an idea is fantastic, and could not possibly happen.

Our world teems with life forms—plants and animals of all types. Yet evolutionists cannot explain how even one of them could have come into existence. Here are some of the reasons why it is impossible for nonliving things, such as dirt, sand, or water to make itself into living plants or animals:

Although we are here talking about "the origin of the species"—the basic issue in evolutionary theory—yet Charles Darwin never touched on that point in his book by that name. Later, he wrote a letter in which he expressed a wish that somehow it might have happened in a "warm little pond" somewhere. But the truth is that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily explain how even one life form came into existence, much less millions of them.

A fantastic yarn about a supposedly "primitive environment," which could have enabled living things to pop into existence, has been dreamed up, in the hope that it might explain how dirt or minerals in water might somehow have changed into a living creature.

Let us look at this theory. We will discover that, scientifically, it could not have produced life out of nonlife.


Evolutionary theory is based on a debunked error.

Out of the Dark Ages. One of the superstitious beliefs of the Dark Ages was the theory of "spontaneous generation." That was the idea that if you threw a bunch of clothes in a corner, after a time it would turn into mice. If you kept some old flour for a time, it would change into worms.

Of course, that superstition was not true. Yet it is actually the basis of modern "scientific evolution"!

We all know that everything alive ultimately had to come from something else that was alive. Parents have babies, and they grow up and have more babies. Mice make nests in clothes, and insects lay eggs in grain.

But way back in the beginning, something got this life-from-life process started. There is only one answer: It began when God designed and made our first parents. All of the complicated and carefully interrelated details in your body systems—were designed by a Person with super intelligence and immense power.

However, in order to deny the existence of God, atheists say that the first mice, men, and microbes sprang forth from sand and seawater! That is impossible, and knowledgeable chemists declare the idea to be utter foolishness.

In the last century, Louis Pasteur and other scientists conclusively proved that "life comes only from life." The scientific name for that fact is "biogenesis."

Here are several reasons why it would be impossible for even a small creature to arise from rain water on a dirt pile or from seawater in an ocean:

Instant success necessary. In order for life to arise from nonlife, there would have to be immediate and total success. All the complicated body parts, enzymes, etc., would have to be there instantly at the very beginning—or the next instant that life form would be dead.—p. 15.

Immediate reproduction needed. As soon as the first life form existed, even though it be a small microbe, it would have to be able to divide and make copies of itself, or reproduce and bear young.—p. 15.


10 reasons why living forms could not come into existence by themself.

1: Chemical compounds and laboratories. The only place you will find the immense variety of chemical compounds, found in a living organism, is in a million-dollar chemical laboratory. You will not find it in a dirt pile or in seawater.

Interestingly enough, those laboratories which are well-enough equipped to consider "making life"—still cannot do it! Even when the chemicals and lab equipment are in hand, life can never be made from nonlife. A dead animal is full of the right chemical compounds, but it is no longer alive. A trained scientist can make nonliving amino acids, but he cannot make them come to life. Only God can do that.—pp. 15-16.

2: Chemical compounds and the law of mass action. According to the law of mass action, even if a life form could be made in seawater, it would immediately disintegrate back into chemicals.

This is because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration.

For example, even if an amino acid (a building block of protein) could be made in seawater, the next instant, the law of mass action would eliminate it. The amino acid would hydrolyze with the abundant water—and return back into separate chemicals!

Because this law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible, it applies to all life compounds.—p. 15.

3: Chemical compounds and concentrations. Evolutionists recognize that there is only one possible place where life could have originated by itself—and that is in warm seawater.

Yet we never find the rich concentrations of chemicals, in seawater, that would be needed.—p. 14.

Seawater does indeed contain all the elements, but in extremely small amounts. Seawater is far too diluted to be useful. In addition, it does not have the remarkable number of chemical compounds found in a living organism.—p. 16.

4: Chemical compounds and precipitates. Even if the chemical compounds, needed to produce a living creature, could make themselves—the next instant they would start to precipitate; that is, they would start uniting with still other chemical compounds. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid), chlorophyll, and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.

Oddly enough, many of the compounds in your body have to be kept separate—or they will mutually destroy one another! An example would be sugars and amino acids, when brought together.—p. 17.

5: Chemical compounds and fluid condensation. Certain compounds can only exist when the water is carefully drained off. This would include fats, sugars, nucleic acids, and proteins. So they could not be made in any kind of water.—p. 17.

6: Chemical compounds and water. Lab technicians do most of their work with fluids other than water. They do not use seawater or even tap or distilled water to make amino acids. And the amino acids they make are always dead; no one ever makes life or puts life into anything.—p. 17.

7: Chemical compounds and energy. There would have to be an energy source in the task of making life. In desperation, evolutionists speculate that perhaps a lightning bolt supplied it! Now, really! Lightning kills; it does not impart life!

By the way, once lightning has passed through an object, no energy remains. Yet living creatures must have ongoing energy sources within themselves.—p. 17.

8: Chemical compounds and oxygen. A major obstacle to producing life from nonlife is the presence of oxygen. The chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.

When the chemical compounds within the life form are opened to the presence of oxygen, those compounds decompose. They oxidize. That is another reason a living creature could not be invented by ocean water; there is oxygen there.—pp. 17, 19.

9: Chemical compounds and supply. There has never been enough of the needed chemicals available to make the needed compounds found in living things.

For example, there is not enough concentration of nitrogen in air or water for amino acids to form by themselves. The same holds true for phosphorus, yet it is a vital component of DNA and other high-energy compounds.

None other than *Carl Sagan, a leading evolutionist, declared that adenosine triphosphate (high energy phosphate) could not possibly form by itself.—p. 19.

10: Chemical compounds and rich mixtures. Evolutionists have searched the globe for places where rich mixtures of chemicals might be found—rich enough to be suitable for making life compounds. But there are no such places. They just do not exist.—p. 19.


4 more reasons why life could not self-originate.

1: Protein synthesis. Without protein, there can be no life. Protein, a basic constituent of all life forms, is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids. None of them can produce any of the others or change them at all.

Mathematically, even if they were all together in a rich mixture, it would not be possible for all the necessary chemicals to make even the simplest amino acid (glycine).—p. 19.

2: Proteins and hydrolysis. Even if one of these amino acids could have formed, it would immediately hydrolyze; that is, it would reconnect with other chemicals and self-destruct.—pp. 19-20.

3: Fatty acid synthesis. Scientists are not able to even guess how fatty acids could originally have come into existence. Yet they are an important part of living things.—p. 20.

4: Other syntheses. What about enzymes and other substances? No one has any idea how to make them from inorganic materials.—p. 20.


To the NEXT PAGE to conclude what you are now reading (Primitive Environment: Part 2 of 2)