Are we simply an accident of dirt, chance and time?  Did the DNA manual write itself?  If not, who wrote it?  Below you will newly discovered facts and videos.
HOW WAS THE FIRST LIVING CELL CREATED?   

• Was the first living cell really created from of a random combination of chemicals floating in an ancient primordial soup?
• Or was it the purposeful creation of an immense intelligence?  Whether it was God, highly advanced aliens or the natural result of dirt plus chance plus time, these are really the only plausible options.  

The fact is that scores of our most brilliant scientists; (Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Frederick Hoyle, to name but a few), have posited that we were ceded with life by aliens.  Why? Because of the impossibly, improbable odds of life originating as a result of random chance. Also see "Bankruptcy of Origin of Life Theory"

https://allsolutionsnetwork.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi/[PERSONALID]/whowrotethemanual.htm 

Twitter	Parler	Gab!	Webtalk
Linkedin	Reddit	FaceBook	Telegram
Whatsapp	Instagram	Pinterest	TikTok

If you find this article interesting or helpful please share!

Furthermore, try as they might even the world's top top researchers have found no reasonable naturalistic chemical pathway for creating life and its attendant amazing molecular machines from non living matter i.e. no way to go from dust to man.  To be sure we have a morass of hypothesis replete with conjecture and wishful thinking, but little more.  It was either some type a random undirected natural process or it wasn't.  If it's the latter all that's left is a purposeful process; and purpose infers intelligence.. The real question is "Who's purpose... Who's intelligence"?  

THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Even if one believes that the first living cell, with its accompanying, mind numbing complexity was created by a fantastically improbable chance combination of random chemicals, dirt and water (see short videos below), is it a reasonable belief?  Does it really make sense?  Assuming that against all odds, there was a first naturalistically created first  living cell...  What happened when it died, as all cells do... That would be the end of life!  There would be nothing to even begin any type of "evolutionary" process from which all life forms supposedly evolved, unless, in addition to it's own life "accidentally" coming into being... it also randomly created within itself the DNA coding to replicate itself!  Is that a reasonable assumption?

Think about it, this dirt plus time, plus chance equals a living cell, scenario is unlikely enough on it's own... but when you add to it the fact that it must have had internal instructions, within itself, to perpetuate itself... Is it reasonable to believe that the random building of such an internal  mechanism was even plausibly, the result of continuous chance rolls of the chemical dice? 

• It is this very problem that prompted one committed materialist who is also one of the world's top researchers, Eugene Koonin, to conclude: "The problem is so stark, that the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system is unlikely, to the extent of being, "EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE".  For more details see "Bankruptcy of Origin of Life Theory"

Personally I think it's a bridge too far.  However, many assert that this naturalistic scenario is not only plausible but a certainty. Regardless of the facts and evidence, in their mind it remains the only possibility.  Why? Do they know something no one else does?  Are they in the middle of a ground breaking study?  No.  The reason is simple... If it was not a "natural" process, it was a "Super Natural" process and that of course has potential theistic implications.  For a die hard naturalist, that is simply an intolerable position.  Unfortunately, science has taken a turn, in which, all hypothesis are possible... Anything but God.

DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
As noted above, the problem is so much more than just the origin of the first living cell.  Who, how or what created the internal biological machinery and the necessary DNA instructions and translation systems for dividing then building the many components of these new cells?  Where did the programing for self-replication originate?

There are only 3 possibilities.

• Random Chance- i.e. Luck of the draw.  That it happened by random chance is, literally, less likely than taking 10 million die, casting them into the air and having each of them land, showing the number one.  (Virtually no one any longer believes in random chance)
• Chemical Necessity- The idea that Chemical affinities and attractive forces make it inevitable that the chemical makeup of cells and DNA are such that they are "destined" to be attracted so that they compelled to join together in a manner that creates life and information rich DNA.  The number one expert in this field "Dean Kenyon" wrote the almost universally used advanced University Biology Text Book "Biological Predestination", teaching this theory.  Due to the newest discoveries of the intricacies of the cell and the information within DNA, even he no longer believes in this theory, of which, he was the number one proponent!   Most biologists assert this must be the case (to believe otherwise has theistic implications), but the fact is that there is no real evidence of this being the case; only speculation and conjecture).  What's left?
• Purposefully Designed- The fact is that the origin and continuation of life is dependent on the information within DNA.   Where did the information required to accomplish all this originate?

One of the biggest questions of biology; one that is constantly, vehemently debated, revolves around the fact that it is hard to see how any random accidental combination of chemicals and lifeless matter could possibly create even the simplest living cell.  The more we learn, the LESS likely it seems...  

So unlikely, in fact, that some of our greatest minds, Richard Dawkins, Sir Frederick Hoyle, Francis Crick, among countless others have actually posited that life originated in outer space.  Why?  Because, they see no way it could have happened here!   All attempts to show that life originated naturally have failed miserably (PZ Meyers aside, a strident, brilliant, but closed minded naturalist).
see  http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/what-if-the-facts-are-wrong-facts-that-destroyed-faith

All Naturalistic theories on the origin of life and the original informational content of DNA and RNA have hit brick walls.  There seems to be an insurmountable chicken and egg problem on two distinct levels.

• Proteins can not be created without DNA.
• DNA is constructed by DNA.
  • Could they have been accidentally created by a random accident at the same time in lockstep unison?... could they have been accidentally created together along with the biological machinery to then recreate more of themselves?  There is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence of this ever happening... yet here we are.

• DNA can not exist except within the cell.
• A living functioning cell is built via the instructions contained in the DNA.
• Without DNA you can't create a cell and without a cell, you can't have functioning DNA.  You can't have one without the other.

Neither can come first.  They can exist, survive and multiply only if they arose simultaneously.  Could they have arisen together, all internal machinery, locked together, functioning like a well-tuned engine?  No one actually believes that happened.  So, what did happen?

DIRT, PLUS CHANCE, PLUS TIME EQUALS EINSTEIN?
This is one of the countless problems of the naturalistic dogma that effectively asserts dirt, plus chance, plus time, equals Einstein.  The living cell can't be created without DNA and DNA can't exist outside the cell.  One without the other is impossibility.  And absolutely no biologist, chemist or mathematician believes it is even conceivably the result of a random chance assembly of inanimate chemicals combining to accidentally to create an existing living cell.  If it wasn't chance... what was it?

ANYTHING BUT GOD-  In the non stop pursuit of explanations that have no possible theistic implications, theory after theory is propounded by the atheistic scientists.  Following are a few:

Self Organization
One theory is that the first living cell was the result of the self-organizing of physical or chemical properties.  The idea is that just as when water is subject to low temperatures, its physical structure changes and becomes ice or if in a storm it turns into beautifully complicated snowflakes.   However, this attempted hypothesis is sadly lacking.  We have found absolutely no evidence of chemical affinities of a nature that could have created the type of information that is in every cell.  Those who propose self-organizing theories, acknowledge they haven't even come close to answering the fundamental question.

The Clay Hypothesis:
Along the same idea of the self organization concept is the hypothesis that certain types of clay have the ability to self-assemble into what are similar to empty cell membranes which can then adhere together, much like growing living cells.  From there they "evolved" more and more complexity until they were the first living cell.  This sounds plausible, but still begs the question that is central to the debate... Where did the information come from?  Without the "manual" i.e. the internal DNA that creates the internal machinery needed to code for the creation and self-replication of for even the simplest cell... all you can ever have is clay bubbles filled with "stuff".

The RNA World:
The past champion of naturalistic origin of live hypothesis.  Years ago, it was discovered that RNA had limited self replicating properties.  As such, if an RNA molecule could be created on it's own from purely chance naturalistic processes, it would have the "potential" to get around the chicken and egg problem that has forever plagued the origin of life theories.  However, it suffers from a number of problems.

1. There is absolutely no evidence that the early earth was ever in a condition (masses of "chemical soup") sufficient to contain the probabilistic resources to allow for the chance assembly of RNA as a viable option.  Again, most of it's support is the result conjecture and wishful thinking... Anything that doesn't have a possible theistic implication.
2. Assuming the resources were there, the "RNA World" hypothesis, continues to suffer from the inability identify the origin of the necessary informational properties that could create and continue life.  It still comes down to how did the Information originate.

WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM?
Naysayers, try to down play the problem of DNA complexity, because they rightly assert that complexity is a rampant part of nature. However, the question has never been, "can incredibly unlikely complex patterns happen in nature without an intelligent intervention".  They can.  It happens all the time.  The individual pattern of Snow flakes, the specific arrangement of the pebbles on the beach, the sequence of dice randomly tossed 20 times.  Whatever the resulting pattern, arrangement or sequence of dice... the end result is always an incredibly unlikely outcome... but that's irrelevant... because the resulting patterns are not information. They not code or manuals, just complex chaos.

It wasn't information... in each of the above situations; they were simple random chance outcomes that conveyed no meaning, information or instructions.   The issue is so much bigger than complexity.  The burning question is not and never was, simply about complexity or the unlikely patterns created.  It's about organized, meaningful complicated, unlikely patterns in nature that actually convey information i.e. actual instructions!... Calling it information does not do justice to the problem.

DNA contains complicated computer coding that is more intricate than the most advanced Microsoft computer program.  This fact is acknowledged by even the most ardent atheists and even Bill Gates, himself.

Realize, DNA/RNA is more than organized information; each cell contains the precise equivalent of INSTRUCTION MANUALS for the building of proteins that are then instructed to create biological machines and cellular manufacturing plants, complete with transport systems, self assembling and dissembling internal highways, power plants, defense mechanisms, laborers... In short each cell contains feats of engineering that are 100's of times more complex and sophisticated than anything built by GM.

 

https://allsolutionsnetwork.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi/[PERSONALID]/whowrotethemanual.htm 

Twitter	Parler	Gab!	Webtalk
Linkedin	Reddit	FaceBook	Telegram
Whatsapp	Instagram	Pinterest	TikTok

If you find this article interesting or helpful please share!

 

Our business philosophy is simple: "You can get anything in life you want.... by helping enough other people get what they want!" The Solutions Network.... a unique company that is always free to join and always free to earn.   Click Here to join now.... for free!