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


Here are more reasons why it would be impossible for living creatures to make themselves out sand and seawater. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Primitive Environment: 2

Primitive Atmosphere: 8 reasons why the primitive atmosphere could not support the sudden production of life
The Miller Experiment: Life cannot be made in a laboratory, or outside
More Problems: 4 more reasons why evolutionary origins of life are impossible
Conclusion: The conclusion of the matter

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.


8 reasons why the primitive atmosphere could not support the sudden production of life.

Atmosphere without oxygen. We earlier mentioned that the complex chemical compounds, found in living things, could not be made in the presence of oxygen. Yet there is no place in the world where they could be made—except within living cells. Each cell carefully organizes which parts will not have oxygen, so the compounds can be made there.

Could a non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on earth, so vital body compounds could be made outside the cell? Evolutionists theorize that it must have happened anciently when life forms first "made themselves." Yet there are immense problems to such a theory:

1: There is no evidence that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere.

2: There is no explanation of how oxygen could have been kept out of a worldwide atmosphere for long ages—and then suddenly injected into it.

3: Geologists have found that oxidized rocks (containing rusted iron) existed at the time that life was supposed to have formed and the atmosphere was supposed to have contained no oxygen.

4: It is known that there were oceans and seas back then. Indeed, evolutionists require seawater as the medium in which life must have been made. Yet water requires an oxygen atmosphere and is itself one-third oxygen.

5: As soon as a living creature existed, it would have had to have oxygen in order to survive even one minute!

6: An oxygen-free atmosphere would have deadly peroxides, which would kill life forms.

7: An atmosphere without oxygen would not have the protective ozone layer. Lacking it, living creatures would be killed by ultraviolet light from the sun.

8: An instant atmospheric change (from non-oxygen to oxygen) would be required at the moment that even one living creature was formed. Yet that would be a rank impossibility.

Thus spontaneous generation (which is what evolution teaches and requires for its theory that life forms originally made themselves out of inorganic materials) is a no-win situation. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen—or without it!—pp. 20-21.


Life cannot be made in a laboratory or outside of it.

What Miller actually did. In 1953, *Stanley Miller put together a complicated collection of glass tubes, chemicals, special non-water solvents, gases, and continuous spark discharges—and succeeded in changing some chemicals into a few random amino acids. But he had shown how life could have originated:

1: The newspapers said he had "created life." But that which he made was not alive!

2: The amino acids which were formed were not biologically useful, for the mixture was both left- and right-handed. This seemingly little problem is actually a major hurdle.

You see, all amino acids in animals are left-handed amino acids; none are right-handed. Yet, whenever amino acids are made in the laboratory, the result is always an equal amount of both types. An animal would die if any of its amino acids were right-handed.

(What is the difference between the two kinds of amino acids? The difference is one of shape, not chemicals. It is like two gloves, a right-and left-handed one. Both contain the same type of materials, but are shaped opposite from one another.)

3: Laboratory synthesis (such as Miller did) has never been able to produce exactly the right kind of amino acids (those 20 which are crucial to life). Most of those it makes are nonessential or totally useless.

4: Other experiments have also been carried out, in an effort to produce particles of dead flesh, but without true success. Yet those experiments all rely on very expensive laboratories, college-trained technicians, and a roomful of chemicals. But evolutionary theory is based on the idea that sand and seawater sloshed together and made living creatures! There are no expensive laboratories, trained technicians, and lots of chemical compounds present inside the ocean.

5: And what about life itself? The truth is that life cannot be made in seawater or even in million-dollar laboratories by university-trained men, working on the task for years.—pp. 22-24.


4 more reasons why evolutionary origins of life are impossible.

1: A scientific conclusion, known as "Life Niche Limits," requires that a large number of special factors and preconditions be present, in order for a living creature to be born and then live. Kicking sand at the seashore or sloshing in the water could not make some of the sand or water alive.

2: Each living creature would also have to have a mate. It would not do to just make one life form; its mate would have to be made at the same time.

3: In addition to oxygen, that living creature would immediately require food! Yet, when that first theoretical creature was made, there would be no organic food—anywhere on the planet.

4: It would need complete respiratory, digestive, and eliminative systems—and more besides.—pp. 25, 27.


The conclusion of the matter.

Reputable scientists will tell you that life cannot come from nonlife. Louis Pasteur and others have proven the fact. Yet every evolutionary theory of life origins is based on the error of spontaneous generation.

*Fred Hoyle and a research assistant concluded that the likelihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6 billion years in which to do it,—was one chance in 1040000! Yet all the atoms in the universe only total 1 in 1080.—pp. 25, 29.

The evolutionists' problem was how to explain away the fact that everything in nature exists. They have used theories, which they call cosmology, to explain how matter and stars could have come into existence.


To the next topic in this series: SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: The experts have not the slightest idea how it could have happened.