There are 3 bedrock assumptions that evolutionists have given for our origins have all been shown to be on shaky ground.
Spontaneous Generation
How did we get the conditions on planet earth that brought us our first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For man years, evolution explained our origins by "spontaneous generation". Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life.
This idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it, but it was hallmark of evolution for decades. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned."
''In other words, if it cannot be observed, repeated, verified or subject to experimentation, then it is not scientific. ''
Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
