Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.

1. "The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech." ([11], p.102)
2. "The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order." ([22], p.15)
3. "...the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!" ([22], p.15)
4. "...research has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between organic and inorganic matter." ([4], p.373)
5. "The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption." ([22], p.14 5)
6. We find that the same elements that supposedly created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then produce life again? ([4], p.373)
7. The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells.
8. We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.
9. Life is more than the sum of its parts. This may be why, at least in part, science cannot define life. It can only give the characteristics of living things.
10. Darwin wrote, "The first appearance of new beings...is a mystery of mysteries."
11. All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing (and neither can common sense account for it) and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.
12. In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity. Therefore, those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply disseminate into space not draw together to form anything.
13. Morality is generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.
14. Famous evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and animals, "Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an "embarrassment, something to be explained away." ([15], p.22)
15. Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this argument (natural selection) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties." ([15], p.26)
16. Regarding people's intellectual powers and moral sense among other things, Wallace also asserted that these "could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and..., therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them." ([11], p.310) He also concluded, "...a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose." ([15], p.26)
17. Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded "Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special." ([15], p.26)
18. Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative." ([19], p.362)
19. We find human's dominance over animals as utter and complete making a common ancestry virtually impossible. Wallace and Broom asserted, "The whole purpose, the only raison d'etre (reason for being) of the world...was the development of the human spirit with the human body." ([15], p.26)
20. Broom asserted, "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in (and therefore)...the evolution of man must have been planned by some spiritual power." ([14], p.42)
21. Regarding the 99% similarity chemically to apes figure, why is our dominion over the apes so extensive if the 99% is so significant?
22. Perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory had he realized these three gaps in the order of living things. He stated, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." ([10], p.33)