Science Fraud - Origin of Life Theory
The concept presented by science on the origin of life is a fraud based on a number of reasons, as presented below. The purpose of this fraud is simple: the need for science to become more important than religion and the belief in a God. The Origin of Life Theory and the Theory of Evolution are both dedicated to the elimination of God by replacing the Divine Intervention or Intelligent Design with accidents, a random collection of coincidences. Science has perpetuated this fraud by instituting these claims in textbooks and school doctrine, following the old adage that if you say it often enough and loud enough, then people will believe. But what if the theories presented by science are based on fraudulent claims?
Does anyone think that the book ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley is non-fiction? It tells a story of how a monster was created from parts and brought to life through some mystical power (the book relies on lightning). If everyone considers this story to be fiction, the question must be asked if this a parody of the scientific theory regarding the Origin of Life? All of the components are there: 1) parts come together, and 2) those parts are brought to life through some mystical ‘miracle’. They are the same theory: if you bring the parts together and connect everything then those parts can be brought to life. If no one considers Frankenstein to be reality, then how can anyone believe that the Origin of Life is feasible?
In summary, the current theory on the origin of life on Earth is very simple, but keeps changing as science realizes that the theory is not feasible. The original theory states that a bunch of amino acids randomly linked up and created the first DNA chain. The question is simple: Is this theory feasible? Science accepts the theory because to refuse it means that the only other option for life on Earth is Divine Intervention or Intelligent Design, however, the more time spent considering this theory, the more unlikely it becomes.
There are four primary reasons why this theory is not feasible: 1) medical science, 2) food source, 3) the process just stopped, and 4) there were no amino acids. To state the theory sarcastically: a bunch of amino acids decided to party in a hot tub, formed by a ocean vent, hooked up in conga line, created the first DNA chain, and then, since it was getting late, they wrapped themselves in a protein wrap and, presto, created the first DNA chain and living single cell life form. This is basically impossible, and science has committed fraud to increase their own prestige and enamor themselves with adoration for their brilliance.
The problem with science is that it is self-contradictory because it can’t keep the stories straight. One group is telling us that DNA is a logical and structured collection of amino acids in a strand that controls the life form. Then there is the life origin theory that claims the DNA strand is comprised of randomly joined amino acids. Now, however, they are claiming that it is not amino acids that created the strand; instead, this newly classified organic matter somehow comes together to form the DNA strand. These 'fake' organic materials are the very keys to life, however, they are not produced solely by an organism but they can be randomly produced by nature.
Part of the problem with science is the inability to stay in the same reality over time. Science gave us the Big Bang Theory, explaining the source of all matter in the universe. Let’s make one assumption: nothing was living in the big ball of matter at the heart of the Big Bang Theory so that means nothing was living in the universe during the first minute, year, or million years after the Big Bang Theory. On top of this, the theory is that Earth was formed in the solar system with the Sun at the center and during this period of formation and adjustment, Earth was bombarded by various debris from space – asteroids, comets, etc. Each of these impacts caused the core of the Earth to super heat the surface of the Earth so there is no basis for a Big Bang bacteria to survive to the moment that the first life form began. In other words, Earth was basically sterile of life, along with the rest of the Universe.
The next assumption is that the Earth reached a point where life could be supported because the outer space bombardments had slowed to a point where the surface of the Earth formed and stabilized. Now there is a chance for the first life form to survive. Consider, however, the condition of the Earth at this point in time, debris in the air and extremely high levels of carbon dioxide. Yes, this is speculation, however, the assumption supporting this claim is the bombardment of Earth by space debris and the burning and fires from this debris. Carbon dioxide is created from the burning and there was nothing to convert the carbon dioxide to starches and oxygen, there was no life including plants.
There could be speculation as to the first DNA strand, whether made with amino acids or not, but if the assumption is that there were no amino acids, then the problem is simple. If the first life form was created from a combination of ‘fake organic matter’ to form a DNA strand, how did the life form create the amino acids that were used in the DNA of future generations? In today's world, the single cell life form has DNA with amino acids, not random fake organic matter. This is the first of needed miracles that occur in science to skip over the parts that do not make any sense and sound implausible. Science throws out the ‘evolution’ theory to explain these jumps but this discussion proposes that the Theory of Evolution is a fraud as well. One of the theories claims that the ocean vents had something to do with the ‘miracle’ while other claims refer to a primordial soup. All of the cures for problems in theories come back to these ‘miracles’ to explain the gap or jump.
Ever watched those TV shows where there is a desperate race against time to get that harvested organ from the donor to the person receiving the organ? There is a race against time because medical science knows that once a biological cell dies it cannot be brought back to life. If the cells in the heart, lung or liver die before being connected back to a living life form, then the cells die and the organ will no longer work. It appears, based on the Origin of Life Theory, that medical science should just put all the parts to the organ in an ocean vent and it will come to life, perhaps medical science is based on reality instead of fantasy.
Medical science understands one basic rule – life begets life. In every situation of medical science where they want the final product to have life, they know they start with life. Consider the cloning of sheep: did science take a bunch of sheep parts and soak them in an ocean vent? Of course not. Science started with a living egg from the sheep and modified the DNA, fertilized the egg and created a living sheep zygote.
Based on the reality of medical science, the entire concept of taking parts and putting them together to bring non-living matter to life is fiction.
When most people want food, they go to the store and stock up but at the moment that science claims the first life form was created, there were no other life forms so there was no means of generating a food source. All of the food on the planet starts with the process of photosynthesis so let’s fix the scientific theory of amino acids. The first life form was a cross between a single cell creature and a plant that had mastered the process of photosynthesis. Just to come back to reality, modern science cannot duplicate the process of photosynthesis. Yes, we understand how it works but is any scientist selling his version of starches created with man-made photosynthesis?
The problem is that the entire concept of photosynthesis is another stumbling block in the theory of life because there is no logical explanation for the development other than another ‘evolution’ miracle. One scientist has claimed that the first life forms did not exist on organic starches; they converted the existing chemical compounds, but alas, there was another ‘miracle’ in evolution to convert this chemical based metabolism into a carbon based metabolism after these chemical based life forms had developed photosynthesis and stockpiled a food source. If this really happened, then we can assume that Intelligent Design has a hand in it. More important is the miracle of converting the metabolism process to carbon-based starches.
The real problem with this theory is the development of chlorophyll as part of the photosynthesis process. For those not familiar with the concept of photosynthesis, it is basically a solar cell and meth lab lumped together. The life form evolved in a single step the ability to capture photons and contain the electrical charge then use that charge to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen and combine it all together with carbon dioxide to form the starches while releasing the leftover oxygen because the final starch is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The very scientists that have documented the process cannot duplicate the process. But what happened next was another miracle.
What happened with the photosynthesis life form? The life form changed from a free-floating single cell life form into a life form that has roots, doesn’t move around, stays put because that mighty oak tree does not pick up and walk around. The important point here is the complete change in the nature of the life form on top of all the ‘evolving’ that occurred. Truly a miracle.
If we have learned one thing from nature, it is consistent. What happens today, under the same circumstances happened yesterday and will happen tomorrow. Processes don’t just start up, pop out results then stop.
Here’s the problem: the creation of life from free floating amino acids simply STOPPED. The first life form was created and then nature stopped doing what, in theory, comes naturally. The first life form, in theory, was the result of the linking of amino acids to form a DNA strand, but this is unnatural. Just as zombies are unnatural, so is the possibility that the amino acids linked up to form a DNA strand because the primary rule of nature is entropy, which is the natural process of breaking down complex into simple. On one hand, we have nature linking amino acids and on the other hand we have nature breaking down the linked together to return to the simple, another miracle. Perhaps the amino acids decided to do a spontaneous flash mob and linked up before nature could bring in the entropy gestapo.
Essentially, thanks to the principle of entropy, nature does not support the concept of building complex DNA structures and forming the first life form, this is not something nature would do. There are still problems with this theory.
If we look closely at the functions in nature and life forms, what can be identified is that life forms build complex structures and maintain those structures as well as they can while, on the flip side, nature breaks down the complex into the simple. This is the explanation for the existing source of amino acids in nature, the break down of organic matter into simple structures so the cell is broken down into the DNA strand and this is broken down further into amino acids but, an important but, amino acids are the results of organic matter so there none prior to the first life form and, if you use the fake organic matter theory, then there still are no amino acids.
If we go back to the history of Earth from the Big Bang through the moment in time where the first life form popped up, there were no organisms on Earth (there were no organic life forms in the universe since everything came from the Bing Bang) and, regrettably, amino acids are the results of organic life forms. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of the DNA structure and not the random creation of nature, at the party being held on a Saturday night for fun. So the real problem is simple: there were no amino acids to be used in the random linking to form the DNA strand, but there is another problem that is a result of the lack of prior organic life: there are no proteins floating around.
In order to form the first DNA strand, amino acids link up in a random pattern and then the entire result is wrapped up in a protein tortilla, then presto, life forms. On order to offer options, many scientists have developed a new class of material called organic material because there is a possibility that some of these materials could be the very keys of life. Sorry, but based on the concept of organic material that are sourced from organisms, this new class should be considered ‘fake’ organic material because there is no life form that is comprised of just these fake organic materials. Even if the first life form was comprised of fake organic material, at what point and through what miracle did the organism form amino acids? It appears that science has figured out it doesn't work so the best option is to throw out distractions.
The other problem with this claim is the random organization of the amino acids, medical science has declared that the DNA strand is a complex coded and organized set of data for the blueprint of life. A random collection of amino acids will not form a living organism, it will form a bunch of amino acids and fake organic material floating around. Science will throw out the possibility of ‘evolution’ to explain how this organism created the amino acids used in the DNA chain, but it seems unlikely, implausible and impossible. Consider, the organism created amino acids without an example to work from; it must be another miracle or Intelligent Design.
Science perpetrates a fraud every time they declare that all of the components of life are available so there must be a possibility for life. The components of life, amino acids and fake organic matter, are not the spark of life, they simply allow the spark of life to grow. Another basic fact is that science has no idea of where life comes from or how to start it, knowing they must start with living tissue to have living matter. Here is a very simple declaration – if you kill an earthworm and put it into a bottle of fluid filled with all of the various declared fake organic matter, the earthworm will not come back to life. All of the parts are there and it was alive before but you can’t create life simply by putting all of the right parts together. Medical science knows this but another dysfunctional relationship where a group of scientists prefer to perpetuate fiction instead of admitting that they have no idea where life came from.
Current life forms have proven that it is not nature that builds and maintains complex structures, it is a living life form. The DNA structure in the body is the result of the living form ‘reproducing’ the life form through the process of duplicating the DNA by building the required amino acids. When life ceases in a life form, nature does not build a bigger life form, but it begins the break-down of the molecular structure of the life form. This is an important point – it is the life form that builds and maintains the life form, not nature. The concept of nature ‘building’ a DNA strand from a bunch of fake organic matter is beyond silly, it is unscientific. The random linking of unrelated parts into anything is another desperate attempt to provide a pipedream by interspersing tidbits of reality. Once again, we see the old adage come true – if you say something often enough and loud enough, people will believe because they don’t want to be the only ones that are wrong.
One last perspective on the science that generates these lies: science has never created, they only document and develop theories. Isaac Newton did not create gravity, he observed and theorized but we are still incapable of controlling gravity or fully understanding gravity. The concept of God was replaced by the origin of life theory but, in truth, is not viable and probably impossible.
Just as with the origin of life theory, the purpose of the theory of evolution was to remove the belief in God and provide a means to explain the diversity of plant and animal life on Earth. There is a myriad of problems with the evolution theory with the first being the on/off switch. Nature is very consistent, if nothing else. What happens on one day with specific conditions will happen on another day with the same conditions. This is the problem with the theory of evolution: it doesn’t work all the time, just when the scientists need it to work to explain another gap.
Evolution implies that nature produces new species and life forms with the passage of time. The reasons for these changes are unknown other than science needed to fill the gap to explain something that does not make any sense, but the interesting thing is that the evolution stopped about the same time of Noah and the Ark. Per the theory of evolution, a new species should pop up every so often because it is the randomness of nature making new species and linking organic matter together to form life. When was the last time that a new species was discovered? Not a species that had been hidden in the jungle for a thousand years but a species that did not exist last week? The problem is that the evolution stopped working, just up and quit, and found other things to do with its time and energy. Or perhaps, the theory of evolution was the bastardization of a valid concept but science couldn’t let God enter the picture and invalidate all of the scientists and their declarations, awards, and prizes.
Step back for a second and consider where the theory of evolution came from. Darwin accomplished much the same as Newton, in that he observed and documented what happened and then drew a conclusion based on the observations. If you look at Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest, with today’s knowledge, the theory is very logical in explaining the change in traits within a species. Consider the intent of Darwin’s theory: if a particular member of a species has traits that provide a better opportunity to survive, then those surviving members will have the opportunity to pass those traits on to the next generation, and the member with bad traits will be dead. Over time the traits that exist in the surviving members will become dominant. The species is evolving to ensure the survival of the species by passing on the traits that contribute to a higher chance of survival. Science has also proven that the evolution of a species can be impacted by selective breeding in domestic environments, as proven by monks in working with pea pods.
There is no doubt that evolution does exist and will assist a species to adapt to the environment by selecting those traits that give the species the best chance to survive. This same concept is illustrated in herds of wild horses and rams where the strongest member of the herd establishes himself as the leader and then becomes the primary provider of sperm for the female members of the herd. The traits of the strongest member are passed on until another member of herd can best the leader in combat. Accepting the concept of survival of the fittest does not automatically commit someone to the giant step of accepting the theory of evolution, one is valid, the other is nonsense.
In the first place, the theory of evolution fails to take into account the changes in the DNA structures between species. Something caused these DNA changes, but what was it? A mutation perhaps? The next problem with the theory of evolution is the inability to procreate and maintain the unique traits and structure of a new species. In order to procreate, it is needed to have a male and a female. If either of the mating partners are of a different species, then the cross breeding will diminish the unique traits of the new species. Also, in some cases, cross breeding will result in sterile offspring. In order to maintain the unique traits of a new species, but the species must mate within the species but how did all of these other partners pop up and from where? It is almost as if science wants us to believe that the month of May resulted in half of the births resulted in a new species so this new species would have a means to exist. Imagine the surprise when the Toy Poodle gave birth to a pup lion, who is going to nurse this one?
In theory, if the species was the result of a single set of parents, then the variety of traits would be limited, they would all look the same. The same parents would have a very specific set of traits to choose from and the dominant traits would be already selected with only a small margin bringing the other traits to the surface. This is a important point, where did the parents come from – truly the old adage: which came first question of the chicken or the egg? If the parents were the mutated offspring of another species then the first question would be: Why were these mutations not killed when it was discovered they were different as often happens in animal families?
Just as there is no basis for the random collection of fake organic matter to spring to life, there is also no basis for a single cell life form to be the source for all species and life on Earth. The concept of all of the species coming from a single cell and then a fish walking out of the water is beyond ludicrous. This concept was developed in a desperate attempt to explain where the critters came from since they could not allow God to be the provider.
The question is why would science expect anyone to believe in the absurdity of evolution? The answer is simple, if you accept the nonsense of fake organic matter randomly coming together and forming life, then you will believe anything. It does not matter to science if it is true, it is just a matter of whether or not people will believe in the concept and thereby dismissing the belief in God thinking man does not need to rely on God, however, belief does not result in reality. Just to be clear, in the origin of life, there were no amino acids in existence because there had been no organic life forms, it was purely a belief in the random interaction of molecules – casting aside the known fact that life begets life.
Let’s go back to the Big Bang where it all started and all the matter in the universe was released from a single big ball of matter. No, it was not an explosion, it was a slipping of the hold on the matter as the ball was spinning and blobs of matter slipped away, carrying with it the momentum of the spin. Over time, the spinning of each blob forced the matter into a plate instead of a ball, and this plate structure provided the means for the development of planets and satellites around stars, massive collections of hydrogen that was burning with fusion due to the pressure of the matter brought together. Over time, the solar system laid itself out after considerable interaction between the various planets with asteroids and meteors.
Earth was finally formed, with a satellite, thanks to a collision with an asteroid. The Earth had reached the point where the destruction from bombardments by asteroids had diminished, the mantle of the Earth began to stabilize, and oceans were forming. Just an opinion as to the atmosphere, the Earth passed through a cloud of oxygen and trapped most of it around the planet thanks to the gravity and then at some point, passed through a cloud of hydrogen and a spark set off a really big explosion as the hydrogen and oxygen formed water. Another cloud provided an input of nitrogen and the atmosphere stabilized where it is now. Just an opinion, but consider the availability of hydrogen in the solar system / galaxy / universe. We can be considered lucky because if the hydrogen content had been higher then the balance of the oxygen after the water was formed would not be high enough to support life. It is speculated that, at one time, Uranus and Saturn were closer to the sun and may have passed very close to Earth and resulted in the gasses of these giants populating the Earth atmosphere.
The Earth is now at the point where there is a stable mantle, ocean water and an atmosphere but there are high levels of pollution thanks to the destruction from the asteroid impacts. If we leave the Earth alone for a couple thousand years, the natural cycle of the climate (evaporation, condensation, rain) would have purified the water as the particles settled out and the atmosphere is scrubbed by the rain, the problem is the high level of carbon dioxide due to the fires and damage from the asteroids. Time will clean the pollution problems so the next step is to correct the carbon dioxide problem.
Whether or not you want to believe in God is a personal choice but do not doubt that the random interaction of fake organic matter will never result in a life form because of the simple rule: Life begets life. So, the question is simple: where did the life come from? The answer is simple, it was a visitor from another universe or dimension. Another universe? Really? Think it through, the matter in the universe came from the big ball of matter and there was no life and life doesn’t pop up like a daisy so there is no source for life in the universe which leaves, yes, you are right, an outside source.
By the way, you may be wondering why any reputable scientist would generate a fraud of this nature and the answer is simple: Publish or perish. In the world of academia, any professor of standing is publishing articles to keep his name in fore front of thought because his salary and future increases depend on this exposure. What we have here are samples of putting something together that has no foundation but makes a good talking point and, at the same time, places the concept of Science above that of Religion. This probably goes back to the many times the Church interfered with science to keep the church at the center of the universe. Another example of what goes around comes around.