Imagining Evolution Proves it Can't be True

Let's take a moment and consider the plausibility of evolution. Let's think about the possibility of life developing slowly through a series of small, gradual, undirected, natural changes. To do this, we'll need to suspend disbelief and agree the Big Bang actually happened, in spite of the numerous, insurmountable obstacles that idea presents. Imagine that the early earth was a hot, molten rock that was subjected to millions of years of rain. Let’s pretend that this rain, in addition to ice from comets and outgassing from interior of the earth, created the oceans and the proverbial "primordial soup."

Now let's imagine that by some exponentially rare coincidence a few amino acids or other chemical components became trapped in a slime coated bubble of some kind forming a "primitive cell." Keep in mind, the more we learn about cells, the more we discover that they are exceedingly, mind-boggling, complex chemical factories. In fact, Nobel Bell Prize winning Biochemist Linnus Pauling once said, "Just one living cell in the human body is, more complex than New York City." There is nothing simple about any form of life, every living thing exhibits an astonishing degree of intricacy, and there are vastly greater requirements for “life” than a few trapped chemicals.

But we’ll forget about all that because we're pretending right now. So we have the very first single cell of "life" that formed by natural, undirected processes. So how long would we suspect this single, happenstance cell to "survive?” Well, colon cells die after 4 days, while red blood cells can often live over a year. So let's average that and say this very first cell lived (i.e. managed not to pop its bubble) for 6 months. Now that seems overly generous considering it was a chemical accident, but it helps prove my point.

So now this brand new "primitive" cell has a lot to do in 6 months. Most importantly of which is learning to perfectly and precisely reproduce itself. That is going to be incredibly difficult considering it doesn't have DNA yet, which of course contains all of the detailed chemical instructions needed to direct cellular reproduction.

Another important issue to seriously consider is that if this first cell was truly a random event, WHY would the cell need to reproduce itself. What naturalistic force would cause an accidental amalgamation of random chemicals to form an exact replica of itself? Reproduction inherently implies purpose. Why would this tiny little accidental blob have any purpose? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that it would just float there, continuing to be a random consolidation of chemicals until it’s coincidental encapsulation burst? But again, we’re pretending, so let’s just imagine that it happened.

Now, clearly this first inadvertent cell will need to move about to direct it's reproduction, and movement requires energy. You may know that mitochondria, which are the powerhouse of cells, are remarkably sophisticated structures. So already this first cell needs to develop a complex energy producing process in order to move around and get to work creating an elegant language system that will allow the cell to duplicate itself, all in 6 months, and without purpose.

But oddly enough, creating a nonexistent energy system is going to require energy, so this little blob of protoplasm is going to have to break the 1st law of Thermodynamics. (Isn’t it odd that there are so many laws in a world that was created from a random, cosmic explosion of nothing?) Of course, we’re just pretending, so let’s assume it figured out how to make energy.

Now, it needs to get going on that language-bearing molecule that will not only create instructions on how to reproduce itself, but will also have a process by which to read and understand that language, and then communicate those directions to the various parts of the cell involved in the duplication. Which, by the way, don't exist yet.

Remember, we have absolutely no observable evidence to suggest that information or language have ever arose without the presence of intelligence. What we do have is the passionate, desperate, wishful thinking of evolutionary scientists everywhere. I've never heard an evolutionist concede that they live by faith, so maybe it's just that I don’t have a good enough imagination?