“A pair of Cambridge lectures examining the deepest challenges in origin-of-life research—from the chemistry of early Earth to the information systems inside every cell—and exploring why current prebiotic models fall short. Featuring Dr. James Tour and Dr. Stephen Meyer, this session highlights the scientific roadblocks, the role of information, and the implications for how life began.”
The cases of these two men continue to get stronger with time. I enjoyed these lectures and I hope you do as well.
CR
Wings of the Wind
Est. September, 2009 – ReEst. April, 2010
Recent Comments
Wings of the Wind 
“Prebiotic chemistry is the field of study involving the spontaneous chemical reactions which may have led to the formation of biomolecules and/or life on early Earth. In general, prebiotic chemistry includes all possible abiotic reaction pathways leading from inorganic substances to organic substances to biomolecules or bio-like molecules.
Evolutionists’ “prebiotic chemistry” experiments are not non-biased, for they start with preconceived notions, beliefs, and foregone conclusions: First, that life arose from inorganic matter; second, that they have a ballpark idea of the chemicals that were used to form the first simple prebiotic machines; and third, they have an understanding of the conditions that were present in the natural environment on the early Earth, about 4 billion years ago before the advent of life. Weather forecasts for the next day are often incorrect, but evolutionists know what the weather conditions were like four billion years ago.
Journalist Gregg Easterbrook has stated correctly the evolutionists’ non-understanding of the origins of life: “What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time.”
Evolutionists have attempted to test a few of their beliefs. So what did their tests prove? The most infamous prebiotic chemistry experiment in history was carried out by Miller and Urey at the University of Chicago in 1952. For all their effort and time, their experiment managed to create a flask of poisons, and was able to generate quite a bit of tar—a fine substance to pour into a crack in the road but not one that can form life. Simply put, prebiotic chemistry is a way to determine how processes that never happened, under conditions which never existed, during a time that never was, made it possible to create an organism that never lived, using a synthesis of materials brought into being by nothing. Its study should rightly be called baloney.
Education is the acquisition of true wisdom and true knowledge, so those who believe in the religion of evolutionism are not truly educated.”
From chapter 8 “Reindeer Don’t Fly Exploring the Evidence-Lacking Realm of Evolutionary Philosophy”
Also from chapter 5 of my book:
“The 1997 science fiction horror film The Relic was filled with good special effects, a frightening creature, an eerie museum, some bad language, and gore. It was definitely not a family-friendly film. Penelope Ann Miller played an evolutionary biologist (an oxymoronic term if there ever was one) named Dr. Margo Green. During one scene, a young boy asks her what an evolutionary biologist is. She replies: “Someone who is trying to find out where our tails went.” This, in reality, is exactly what evolutionists are attempting to understand, but the term “evolutionary biologist” and her reply as to what it is, is akin to asking how Santa’s reindeer fly. The assumption is that reindeer fly (evolutionists always assume people once had tails and evolution actually happened) and we must now do research to find out the reason why. Her answer highlights the irrationality of all evolutionary research. It would be analogous to having tens of thousands of scientists and researchers worldwide over the course of decades in an ongoing effort—doing countless hours of study—to investigate the cause and the reason why Santa’s reindeer have the ability to defy gravity and travel through the air at amazing speeds. There is no physical reason, no basis in science or physics that would give cause for a reindeer to fly. The only time reindeer flight might be possible is if one jumped off a cliff. It would then fly all the way down to the ground, where sudden deceleration forces would curtail its flight path and leave it much flatter and a great deal broader than its preflight condition. Of course, that would not be true flight, but what we call free-fall.
Reindeer don’t fly; therefore it would be lunacy and a sign of mental illness to pretend that they do and then, based on that evidence, do scientific research to find out how they fly. Evolution did not happen; therefore, it is insanity to try and find out how it happened!”
Thank you for your comment, eldermike. It’s obvious that you are not new to these subjects.
It is interesting to me that almost all evolutionists (Darwinian or others) will acknowledge that no one knows how even the simplest of cells could have spontaneously appeared. I try to know the latest in evolutionary thought, but I can’t keep up with it all. I am interested in the topic for sure. I am convinced that the Bible is historically correct on creation. In short, anyone who has read this blog long enough knows that I am a Biblical creationist (Young Earth creationist) so I realize that I am among a small percentage of people. Because of the times we live in I’m not surprised that all scientific textbooks in public education speak of evolution as it is a fact. I am also not surprised that the theory has more problems now than it has ever had.
That said, most scientists choose to keep Origin of Life research and Evolutionary research as two separate areas of study. I suppose I can understand that as it is quite different to try and discover how life began opposed to how it went from its beginnings to become the way life is today. I have been interested in watching Dr. Tour and Dr. Meyer for the past several years. Even though he is well known in his field, no Origin of Life scientist will debate Dr. Tour who says that no one has a clue as to how life began. He states that we aren’t even close to figuring out how the building blocks of life became what they are. The more I listen to Dr. Tour, the more convincing he is. In fact, I think it is difficult for even him to explain how difficult it would have been for life to spontaneously arise.
Thank you again for your comment.
Thanks for posting, Chris. I very much appreciated the lectures from Tour and Meyer. I have two reactions:
1) There are people in this world a lot smarter than me, but that is not a surprise.
2) The more we learn about microbiology, the less tenable the theory of life without the Creator becomes.
Amen to #1 (thinking of myself) and #2 equally, Tom. Thank you for listening. It is quite amazing how these two guys can wreck any theory of Origins of Life by chemical processes. (Is there any other way?)
I will respond to a few things you mentioned.
Yes, the Bible is historically correct on creation.
You state you are a Young Earth creationist. That is a real problem. The use of the term Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a misnomer, for the Earth is very ancient, 6,000–8,000 years old. Consequently, a precise term is essential; accordingly, I have coined the term, Ancient Creation Scripturalist (ACS).
I have written a short article on this issue (1,700 words), and why it’s very pertinent to this subject. Especially when we are discussing this issue with evolutionists. Just email me and I will attach the PDF.
“no one knows how even the simplest of cells could have spontaneously appeared.”
We all need to stop using phrases like simple cells, early life forms, prehistoric, etc. There are no simple cells. There is nothing simple about any living creature. All life is complex in the extreme, from a one cell amoeba, to a human being.
Evolution may be presented as a fact. But it’s not even a theory, but scientists just ignore that fact when discussing it.
In my book “Reindeer Don’t Fly” I deal with the issues you mention here, and so much more. You will enjoy reading my book (a lot of good reviews), you can find and order it online. Or, I can attach the PDF, and you can read it for free.
Blessings,
Elder Mike (Michael Earl Riemer)
Thank you for your reply, Elder Mike.
I’m glad we agree that the Bible is historically correct on creation. As you are aware, we are in the minority.
I don’t know how calling myself a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is a problem.
You may have noticed that I called myself a Biblical creationist first. I prefer that term. To most that would mean nothing, however. To some it might mean that life has existed for million or billions of years which somehow fits perfectly into the creation story in the Bible.
In the video above, Dr. Tour shares some interesting information beginning at 12:45. He shows that almost 38% of the general public believes that under simulations of Earth’s early atmosphere scientists have mixed molecules together in laboratories to produce complex life forms such as frogs.
He also shows that almost 68% of the general public thinks that under simulations of Earth’s early atmosphere scientists have mixed molecules together in laboratories to produce single-celled life forms such as bacteria.
This gives us a good indication about what the general public believes. Why they believe these things science isn’t even close to accomplishing is a story for another day.
These two numbers give us a good idea about how wrong the general public can be on something.
Headlines like this cross the world almost daily and people hardly notice anymore:
Majority Still Credits God for Humankind, but Not Creationism
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx
I call myself a Young Earth Creationist because that is how I am viewed even among those who know little about the subject. I don’t have to explain my 6,000 old views if I use the YEC term. I hope that some day I will be able to have a different and more accurate title that as easily explains my views. Until then, I will take the term we are called by those who believe in millions and billions of years.
I prefer Biblical creationist, and you like Ancient Creation Scripturalist (ACS). I kinda like your term and I think you are more than welcome to use it. At the same time, if the average person saw that term, what might they think?
Since nearly every week I see a news article talking about millions and billions of years, I would think many would take your term and think that “Ancient” lines up with the current most popular view.
Like you, my understanding of “ancient” fits very well with the 6,000-year view. When most people see “ancient” they revert to the headlines they see all the time and the things they have been taught by those in favor of today’s most popular paradigm.
I appreciate your offer and will take you up on getting your short article on this subject. I should have a request off to you tomorrow and thank you ahead of time.
You wrote:
“We all need to stop using phrases like simple cells, early life forms, prehistoric, etc. There are no simple cells. There is nothing simple about any living creature. All life is complex in the extreme, from a one cell amoeba, to a human being.”
Please go back and read what I wrote again. I wrote (and you copied what I wrote correctly):
“no one knows how even the simplest of cells could have spontaneously appeared.”
Like you I have come to understand how complex even the simplest cells are but when 2/3rds of the general public thinks that scientists have created cells in a lab, I would think my statement is a good beginning for someone who knows very little about the subject. I agree there are no “simple” cells.
Thank you for letting me know about your book. If (if is a possibility here) I finish the current book I am reading, I might purchase your book.
I’m slowly working my way through Johnathan D. Sarfati’s book called “The Genesis Account.”
Once again, thank you for your reply and I wish you
God’s blessings…
Lastly, I noticed your last name is Riemer. My last name is Reimers. Maybe one of or both of us have names that are the result of Ellis Island mix-ups.
Mike,
I just tried to request the article you told me about. I used eldermike547@yahoocom as I thought it was your email. It didn’t work for me. Please send the copy of your article to chrisreimers6@gmail.com
Thank you.
I haven’t read that book by Sarfati, but I have his book “Refuting Evolution.”
I’m not that far into it but so far it seems like a very worthwhile book to have. Some of it is above me but I glean what I can from it and am taking in in small bits. I hadn’t heard of “Refuting Evolution.” If or when I make it through “The Genesis Account” I may consider getting that one as well.
As I thought about willfully ignorant and stupid researchers exploring why current prebiotic models fall short. I had to make another comment.
This is from chapter 5 in another book of mine.
Life (abiogenesis) by Chance (chemical processes)—Not a Chance!
Before we start, some will say this information is neither valid nor applicable to the discussion, for evolution only deals with living creatures and how they evolve, not how life started. That is not true. There would be no evolution of living creatures or organisms, for without abiogenesis (the hypothesis life can come into being from non-living materials), there would be no evolution. As will be shown, there was no first step (rock to living creatures); thus, no evolution.
Every day for the last six thousand years, thousands upon thousands, probably millions of failed experiments and trials have taken place; whereby proving life does not come from non-living materials. Every day countless numbers of living creatures and organisms pass on and return to the dust from whence they came. Those now lifeless piles of chemicals and atoms, which all formerly worked together in seamless cooperation, were programmed to go about their daily tasks, to grow and reproduce, and even repair damage to the organism. However, at the moment of death, when that life force within vacates the organism, it decays, falls apart, and becomes disorganized; this process can never be reversed. [It is important to note, the death of living organisms occurs in every known kind of environment and condition that exists on Earth]. In that now dead organism, all the proper amounts of chemicals, nutrients, structures, wiring, programming, information, and components are still in existence, all arranged in the correct position, and formation. Manifestly, as demonstrated by science, a dead creature cannot be reanimated; for there is no force nor dynamism, process, or activity, which can violate the laws attending life.
For the creation of life, science fiction had Doctor Frankenstein. However, for those whose religion is Evolutionism, they do not start their tale with a cadaver or carcass. Their first living creature had to make itself—gather all the needed components, place them in the proper order, find the needed information and program it. There are no simple life forms, but all life, from a single cell amoeba or you, is vastly more complicated than a supercomputer. Yet, Evolutionism teaches a mindless nothing, with no means or ability to do so, gathered its own parts, assembled them (pulled itself up by its own bootstraps), created the information, and programmed it; then somehow, someway, created life.
No one can reanimate a dead creature in which everything is all set to go; but evolutionists expect people to believe rocks and dirt can assemble and build its own carcass (piecemeal, through many steps), before it is alive, then endow itself with life. All this does not even address where the resources came from, nor the origins of the materials Earth is composed of. Evolutionism says from out of nowhere … the big bang, and eventually the solar system and the Earth.
As a rebuttal to what I have written, there will always be deluded and gullible evolutionists claiming what I have written is riddled with errors. They will point to the most recent research from nuclear physics, science, chemists, and biologists, found on numerous links and sites,1 which they claim provides proof and evidence which shows how life could have arisen, and been created from the rocks of the early Earth, or assemble itself from parts of comets, meteorites or particles of space dust. Those sites present and display evolutionists devising and proposing experiments, tinkering with chemicals, the amounts and concentrations of the solutions, then watching the reactions and gauging and recording the results; clearly showing how it could be done or might have happened. Then, doing it all over, slightly differently, by improvising and extemporizing with different materials, minerals, and ingredients mixed, or irradiated, frozen, or fried, which somehow prove those materials came together, with no outside help or intelligence, and followed the required steps, using the suitable formula and technique needed to make itself in the beginning.
The only problem with all of this (which evolutionists never consider) is, an impressive amount of planning went into their experiments. They gathered the chemicals needed, used lab equipment engineered and produced by man. All their research and experiments never happened by chance or happenstance but were conducted, planned, and done by design, and with purpose. They used materials that were pure, refined, and processed; conducting experiments under carefully controlled laboratory conditions (were any of the materials used for their experiments raw, untouched, or unrefined, as found out in the field?). However, their procedures and dealings were all predicated upon speculations, ‘guesstimates,’ and using pure imagination, all based entirely upon a preconceived idea—once upon a time, life made itself. Notwithstanding, their efforts only prove it takes intelligence and planning, using man-made, manufactured materials to make a few of the numerous components a corpse is composed of. They have never come close to making even a small segment of needed components comprising a corpse, and that does not even consider the spirit of life which inhabits a living creature.
They believe, in the beginning, disorganized and unrefined piles of stuff found scattered upon the face of the entire Earth somehow violated the natural laws of decomposition and thermal dynamics which are well known, have been observed and recorded; and, unaccompanied by intelligence or reason or directing force or influence, was compelled for no reason to make itself! The first life fashioned itself (the cadaver created itself, and then endued itself with life), but unquestionably, only the ill-informed could swallow this—the most childish and silly fairy tale that has ever been devised!
You make some very good points here, Mike.
I agree with most of what you have written. I only have two questions:
1) Do you think the researchers you refer to at the top are “willfully ignorant and stupid researchers exploring why current prebiotic models fall short?”
2) Don’t you think you are halting any good conversation you are having with someone you disagree with when you call their current position “the most childish and silly fairy tale that has ever been devised?”
Number 1. Yes, I do believe many researchers are willingly ignorant. Not willing to even consider the evidence. Nevertheless, most are smart enough to realize, things do not make themselves. That is just plain silly.
Number 2. I wrote that in my book, and it’s true, but when I discuss this subject, face to face, I would not use that kind of language. Then again, its how you say things, the tone of your words, and your body language that makes or breaks the conversation between two people.
My whole book is full of the silly ideas believed by evolutionists, right to the point, and not beating around the bush.
Elijah was not worried about halting good conversation, as he mocked the priests of Baalim.
Some evolutionists are willing to listen, to those kind, the use of loving and kind words are warranted, to others, many are just evil, and mock God with their unbelief and evil ideas. Those, with their evil and wicked ideas are sending many to hell, harming many, I am not worrying about halting any conversations with them.
Thank you for your reply, ElderMike. Not beating around the bush is good and your point about Elijah is well taken. I try not to ever mock anyone but I’m not Elijah.
I used to spend hours in chat rooms of Evolution/Creation debate sites. I learned quite a bit from those many encounters. As I was trying to decide if what I was doing was worth the time, I asked those in the chats if they had ever experienced anyone changing their position on the Evolution/Creation subject. Most of these people had been at it a lot longer than I and I expected at least one change either way. Not one person could remember anyone having a change of position. That told me all that I needed to know and I have left that area of debate.
One thing I did notice was that as soon as the name calling started the real discussion was over. Both sides were guilty but so many times a group of atheists would gang up on someone like us who usually had fewer people in the chat. Many of those discussions turned into rants from either side and that’s usually when I dropped.
Face to face discussion is an entirely different ballgame. It is so true that, as you stated, “its how you say things, the tone of your words, and your body language that makes or breaks the conversation between two people.”
Thank you for your gift via email. I looks like you’ve spent a good amount of time thinking about these things. I will definitely read what you have sent.
Also, I want you to know that you are on my prayer list from a long time ago when you shared the health situation of both of your sons. I hope they are doing well.
I hope you have a great day and God’s blessings…
I had two friends from work, both evolutionists, who I spent many hours discussing creation vs evolution. And with one of them I spent, on a number of occasions, two whole days together, driving for hours to a place and staying overnight, and all day driving back. I hit both of them with all I had, every argument, every reason, the science, the best I had, etc. They listened, reasoned back, but went to their graves as evolutionists. We could kid around with each other and not get angry. And a number of times, when Ron knew he lost the argument, and wouldn’t admit it, I would say “Ron your entitled to your own opinion, even if you are wrong.” And he would laugh. I won the argument, but he lost his soul.
Even if Henry M. Morris or some other notable creationist, instead of me, would have been having the discussion with them, I don’t think it would have made any difference, it takes the Spirit of God to open blind eyes.
Thank you for your prayers. My son Nathan, with MS, has taken a bad turn, and he is not doing well. I think he will be seeing his step-mother, my wife Maribeth, who passed away four years ago, in heaven very soon.
The evolutionists that you were friends with, did they believe any Christian doctrine whatsoever? I think you’re right with the Henry Morris quote. At least you know you gave them all you had. You can’t do more than that. It’s nice that you were able to have civil discussions with them.
I have it written down that one of your sons has MS but now I know his name, which is nice. I’m sorry that he is not doing well. Your wife Maribeth had a beautiful name.
We did talk about other things concerning Christian teachings, Christ, the resurrection, the gospel, but strange as it seems, evolution vs creation was always the main issue.
Did I miss the boat, because I didn’t spend more time discussing the gospel?
I would like to send you one more book to read (about 45,000 words, less than an hour or so of reading). “7,000 Miles of Life Perspectives: A Memoir” Here are two comments:
What a wonderful piece this is! I just could not stop reading it. It has humor, a lot of fascinating description of the Philippines (which I had often wondered about) and their interesting customs, plus the really absorbing story of one man’s life realistically told and unvarnished. It is also a chronicle of a Christian marriage (how lovely a person Maribeth was!) This has a lot to say, says it beautifully and makes for honestly great reading.
– Patty Duigon
I was very touched by this story—moved to tears at times, and laughter (or at least chuckles!) at others. I also loved all of the beautiful photos!! I felt that I really ‘knew’ Maribeth and what a wonderful woman she was! Michael was indeed blessed to have met and married her—and she was very blessed to have had him for her husband, as well. God our Father moves in mysterious ways to bring to pass His plan for each of us. We should praise and honor Him and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ, all the days of our lives. Thank you for a beautiful story, Michael.
– Arnetta Jackson
If you discussed Christian teachings, Christ, the resurrection, and the gospel, it seems like the opportunity was there for them to ask questions about any of them. Did you miss the boat? That is a good question that I often ask myself about people I have known.
In your case, like many of my cases, I don’t know. At the same time, you spent time with these guys, and most people understand that as caring. And you talked with them about the most important topics. I feel I missed the boat, in my opinion, many times in my life. It is not a good feeling, I assure you.
This book you would like to send me sounds great. I looked on Amazon books to see if it was there, but I couldn’t find it. Because of its length, I didn’t expect to find it, but it never hurts to look. If you send it to me, I will read it before I read the others you have sent me. It sounds personal, and I usually enjoy those books.
Fascinating men