Many People Hold Mistaken Ideas about the Origin of Life.

A commonly accepted explanation for the origin of life is organic evolution - the hypothesis that man evolved from "lower animals," which in turn came from simpler life forms, all the way back to the first microscopic life, which sprang accidentally from non-living matter. But this theory has major problems.
Where did the first living thing come from?

What caused life to begin where there had never been life before? Science has repeatedly demonstrated that life comes only from life. This is a law of science called the "Law of Biogenesis." The opposite of this law would be spontaneous generation - life beginning spontaneously from non-living matter. But science has repeatedly proved this cannot happen.

So every living thing must come from a previous living thing. You received life from your parents, who in turn received it from their parents, etc. The same is true for all living things.

But evolution requires that, when you go back far enough, non-living matter somehow came to life by chance where there was no life before. Evolution requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence. So evolution cannot explain even the origin of the very first form of life.
Where is the evidence that all modern kinds of living things came from an original kind?

Living things can adapt to their environment, but where is the proof they can develop into entirely different kinds of organisms such that all kinds came from one original kind? Years of human experience and scientific experimentation confirm that living things reproduce "after their own kind." The offspring of a fish is another fish, not a snake, bird, or man.

Scientists have searched for years for the "missing links" - fossils of organisms that were halfway between the kinds of plants or animals we have now. Millions of fossils have been found around the world. If evolution is true, there should be thousands of fossils of missing links, but there is no evidence of these remains anywhere. Why not?
Why is man so unique from animals?

If man evolved from animals and is really an animal but just slightly more complex, why do we have characteristics so vastly different from animals?

Why do people appreciate beauty in art, music, and poetry? Do animals create new paintings, sculptures, symphonies, and books of poetry that they and other animals can enjoy?

Why do men have a conscience and a sense of morals? Why do we feel guilty when we have done wrong, even when we have not been caught or punished? Do animals naturally possess these spiritual qualities? Why do only people wonder about such issues as where we came from? Do animals debate even such issues as creation vs. evolution?

Why do we possess rational thought so much higher than animals? We can find minute variations in degrees of "intelligence" among animals, but there is a vast gulf between any animal and man. Men build machines and tools to work for us, train animals, use fire, perform mathematic and scientific calculations, read and write, and pass our knowledge on to others.

If we developed from the animals, why are there no animals that possess these characteristics almost as much as we do? If we develop from the animals, why are we so different from them? Evolution is not an adequate explanation.