Read Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution for Free Online

suggest that ancient RNA molecules might have acted as a starting point for the origin of life. The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life seems a significant improvement over the protein hypothesis, and has been the subject of considerable discussion.
     
    His article concludes with:
    The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life requires implausible events at each step in the sequence outlined. Small molecules are highly unlikely to have been available in any plausible model of a primordial earth. Even if small molecules were present, they would be highly unlikely to produce the large protein and nucleic-acid molecules useful for life. Even if the large molecules were present, there isno known mechanism whereby they might be organized into functional cellular or subcellular units. The “RNA World” hypothesis suffers from many of the same problems as the protein hypothesis, and has additional problems of its own. Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator.” 16
     

C HAPTER F OUR

I NTELLECTUAL
D EGRADATION
     
    A S WE HAVE seen, man
cannot
create a grain of sand from nothing, let alone a living, breathing entity. He can manipulate, engineer, influence, or maneuver, but he cannot create a green pea, sheep, chickens, a pig, a tree, or even a flea, from nothing. Again, we know that with all of his genius, man cannot create anything from nothing, so how intellectually preposterous is it to actually believe that in the beginning nothing created everything? Atheism is off the charts of human folly. By contrast, the flat-earther is a real genius.
    The moon has a lot of silica on its surface, which is a very reflective mineral, ideal for reflecting the sun. The moon turns at exactly the same speed it orbits, so we never see the other side. The sun and the moon govern the tides, the moon more than the sun since it is closer to earth. When the moon is close to earth the tides will be high in that region, since the gravitational pull of the moon pulls the water on earth towards it. The moon causes tides, which cause waves to break along shores (also waves at sea). This tumbling effect brings oxygen into the water, which keeps sea life alive. If the moon were larger or closer the tides would be devastating;if it were smaller or farther away the tides would fail to oxygenate the water and most sea life would die.
    The moon governs our entire tidal system. Yet atheists, in the name of science, mock the thought that the moon can “rule the night” (see Genesis 1:16). Perhaps in time science will discover that the moon has a relationship to the night. Sadly, atheism has done to science what hypocrisy has done to Christianity.
    When a man (or woman) professes atheism, he immediately disqualifies himself to speak as a representative of science because his premise is a violation of the fundamental rule of science.
    Some evolutionists seem to think that I’m a monk and I live in some sort of monastery. But I’m not locked away from the real world. I go out for meals, follow the news, and read books. I also love science. In case you didn’t know, “science” is God allowing man to discover the secret workings of His incredible creation. Many of our greatest scientists loved God—Galileo, Newton, Francis Bacon, Nicholas Copernicus, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, and Kepler, just to name a few. Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a
personal
God), rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
    Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world... I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.
     
    My Christian friends also love science. Without it they would be blind, as Einstein said. But look what he said about those who leave God out of the equation. They are lame. But