About Gregg

Posts by Gregg:


Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 1 of 15

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Question #1. How did life originate?

British born Darwinist and Arizona State University Professor Paul Davies, Ph. D., is a theoretical physicist who works, today, in a field he has coined “astrobiology.” In 2003, when Professor Davies taught at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology in Sydney , he admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. [New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003]”

As recently as 2004, evangelical Darwinist Andrew Knoll, Ph. D., Harvard Professor of biology, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet. [PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. ]” He followed this remark with several remarks about how we “think” life began via purely natural and undirected processes, e.g.: Darwinism. However, only his above statement is entirely factual, and not personal opinion.

The truth is that a minimal cell needs several hundred proteins in order to survive. The vast majority of non-parasitical or symbiotic organisms require nearly a thousand proteins in order to survive.

The truth is that even if every atom in the entire universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration given the supposed evolutionary age of the universe (according to Darwinists timeframe), not even one average-sized functional protein could possibly form.

It is, in a word, impossible.

It only moves from utterly impossible to extremely unlikely when we change the assumptions of the equation. Say, for instance, we are given an age of the universe that is billions of TIMES longer than the supposed 15 billion years, or the laws of the universe and nature can be suspended, or a theoretical creature of such incredible simplicity is hypothesized as to all equal (guess what?) an impossibility in one or more of the assumptions.

The truth is that it has been shown, time and time again, to be utterly impossible.

Not unlikely. Not rare. Not improbable.


Period. End of discussion.

With that in mind, question number one from the Creation.Com “15 Questions” campaigns is:
How did life — with hundreds of proteins and strictly by chemistry without any intelligent design or intelligent agent — originate?

While this is a question that Darwinists cannot answer, it is a question for which believers in the Biblical account of creation can very easily answer.

The Truth

The truth is there is a reason that Darwinists never seem to want to discuss the origin of life. They prefer to keep the argument in the area of life as we presently observe it, providing a naturalistic (materialistic) answer for how life exists and replicates. Given that you accept this very cherry-picked premise for the argument, you are meant to somehow infer that life also sprang into existence by entirely naturalistic (materialistic) means — without evidence, plausible explanation, reasonable precedent — and therefore accept the notion based entirely on faith in undirected random processes.

Even Charles Darwin in his racist diatribe entitled, “On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races” did not actually ever address origins. He filled the book with mahaps and supposes and if it were the cases and pointedly avoided the subject, assuming an inference based on an entirely materialistic worldview. This is not evidence and very, very far from proof.


Biblical Account of Creation

The truth is that every assumption should have a solid foundation if it is to be held as cogent. After even a simplistic amount of objective study on the subject, one can safely conclude that the entire Darwinist argument is already full of holes the size of the Lincoln Tunnel. But by far and away the most enormous, the gaping chasm larger than the Grand Canyon, is at its foundation. The truth is there is simply no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

By my way of thinking, if there were a divine, supernatural, eternal, all powerful, all knowing, majestic, and holy being who we can call “God” who had the power to create everything including life via a supernatural act, then it is reasonable that God would do so. It is made more reasonable by the fact that knowledge of this act of creation has been revealed to mankind and evidences of it abound.

By my way of thinking, it is not reasonable to reject the possibility of a supernatural act and blather on in an endless argument from ignorance about how “it MUST have happened” via purely naturalistic means. This strikes me as unreasonable, that I must put my faith in dirt and rocks randomly deciding to form a living cell in any given timeframe. After all, such an argument from ignorance lacks grace, logic, balance, and evidence.

To sum up, believers in the Biblical account such as myself, put our faith in the divine, supernatural, eternal, all powerful, all knowing, majestic, and holy being we call God which Darwinists say demonstrates a lack of reason on our part. Darwinists put their faith in magical dirt and rocks which I (in my most self-righteous moments) would have to strictly define as simple idolatry of the variety that has been around for thousands of years.

I encourage readers to ponder the first question and reach your own conclusions.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — Introduction

The good folks over at Creation Ministries have developed and launched a new campaign involving 15 questions to ask “evolutionists.”

Pin It

Creation: Is Darwinism a Religion?

on Aug 14, 2011 in Blog Stuff

The truth is that Darwinism is a WORLD VIEW with philosophical assumptions that any other religious world view relies upon. In the fanatical extremes — Dennet, Dawkins, etc. — it is clearly a dogmatic and fundamentalist religion and rather exclusive in nature.


Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XIX

The fallacy of the question-begging epithet is committed when an arguer tries to evoke an emotional response that is meant to persuade others of a point that is logically questionable.

Pin It

Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XVIII

In this post, I will discuss the Fallacy of Begging the Question. Begging the Question introduces irrelevancy into the argument because it does not introduce any new information. Begging the Question merely reasserts the existing position (suppositions/assumptions) of the debater.

Pin It

Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XVII

In this post, I will discuss the Fallacy of the Complex Question. The Fallacy of the Complex Question uses biased language in place of reasoned, rational, logical argumentation.

Pin It

Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XVI

In this post, I will discuss the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Pin It

Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XV

In this post, I will discuss the Fallacy of Bifurcation, also called the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy, the Fallacy of the False Dilemma, or the Either-Or Fallacy.

Pin It

Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XIV

In this post, I will discuss the Straw Man Fallacy.

Pin It

Creation: Mutations Refutations Part IV

Darwinists must somehow explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions (information) for feathers, life preserving secretions, highly specific and specifically complex symbiotic relationships, instinctual migration patterns, and other wonders that never existed in more ‘simple’ forms of life.

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It

Copyright © 2009-2019 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2019 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.