How did life — with hundreds of proteins and strictly by chemistry without any intelligent design or intelligent agent — originate? While this is a question that Darwinists cannot answer, it is a question for which believers in the Biblical account of creation can very easily answer.
Pin ItTag: Natural selection
The good folks over at Creation Ministries have developed and launched a new campaign involving 15 questions to ask “evolutionists.”
Pin ItDarwinists must somehow explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions (information) for feathers, life preserving secretions, highly specific and specifically complex symbiotic relationships, instinctual migration patterns, and other wonders that never existed in more ‘simple’ forms of life.
Pin ItWith hundreds of millions of years for constant mutations to build up and natural selection to occur, even the most ardent Darwinists should reasonably expect tremendous differences in the organism’s appearance by now.
Pin ItMust evolutionary science, from time to time, simply fake evidence, commit fraud, perpetrate hoaxes — lie? Why is that? Why stage so-called evidence when none exists? Why fill in the blanks of all of the unknowns with pure speculation? Why lie? Why perpetrate fraud? Why commit hoaxes?
Pin ItVestigial structures are probably the best example of Darwinian reliance upon circular reasoning to “prove” their alleged point, that point being that Darwinian evolution is “true.” Vestigial organs are also a very good example of intentional and continuing fraud perpetrated by Darwinists.
Pin ItBefore I wade into the morass of macro-evolution, I felt it was important to reflect upon the basic formal argument for Darwinism as a religious belief.
Pin ItIn plain English, micro-evolution is what happens when, say for example, corn pollinates and makes slightly different corn in the next generation of … corn. Or when dogs interbreed and make a different breed of dog. Or when human beings have human babies. In other words, it isn’t even evolution. It is simply modification within kind, also called change within kind, also called variation within kind.
Pin ItDarwinists scrambled for “engines” that would “drive” Darwinian evolution. This is admittedly an attempt to skew the odds to make their idiotic theory somewhat plausible by compensating for finite time and matter in the universe.
Even supposing the universe is 15 billion years old, that is a finite amount of seconds in which an infinite amount of changes must occur for Darwinism to be true. Even supposing the earth is 4 billion or so years old, a single cell has to assemble itself from dirt and rocks and such by an undirected, unguided, random process –and for that simple single cell to appear, a nearly infinite number of random occurrences must take place in order, without error. The best estimates put it at a greater than 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power chance.
Pin ItLamarckism, the notion of “inheritance of acquired characteristics” while utterly disproven over a century ago, continues today as the unstated philosophical basis of all Darwinian evolutionary biology. While admittedly lacking in either proof or reason, Lamarckism nevertheless excuses Darwinists from contemplating the possibility that nature espouses implications outside of Methodological Naturalism.
Pin It