Yes, evolutionism (molecules to man) is a belief system, dreamed up as a lame alternative to the obvious, self-evident truth of a Creator. We weren’t there, at the beginning, and from what I have read, those who attempt to recreate the formation of life are just fooling themselves—their experiments are necessarily tainted by the need for intelligent design, for one thing. (What I mean by this, is that the scientist is designing the experiment—thus, the conditions are not random.) For another thing, they can’t recreate “millions of years” of evolution; neither can man create something out of nothing.
I apologize for not posting for awhile; I had some work, school and especially family responsibilities to attend to.
Thanks again, everyone who has helped to answer these most important questions in life:
Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?
[[their experiments are necessarily tainted by the need for intelligent design, for one thing. (What I mean by this, is that the scientist is designing the experiment—thus, the conditions are not random.)]]
They absolutely had to intelligently design environments, and to introduce artificially things that woudl neve3r occure naturally in roder to get the experiments to be even partially ‘succesful- without hteir intelligently designed parameters, and without htem playing God by supernaturally controlling every aspect of the experiment,s they defeasted theiro wn goals right from the outset-
Same with hte weasel algorithims that they claimed showe that mutations could result in NEW “non species specific information” tm- their claim was false- the FACT is that the suppsoedly randomness of the program was anythign but random and was manipulated and carefully controlled in order to come to certain conclusions abotu hteir preconcieved ideas of evolution
I beleive it was ken miller or perhaps another prominent evolutionist that tried to ‘disprove’ behe’s claim that life is irreducibly complex- and his argument was in an actual trial and I went through that argument by the scientist, and it was chockerblock full of impossible supernatural conditions and carefulyl controlled environments and introduced foreign genes and mutations under aertificial conditions that he should have been laughed right out of court- but amazingly the biased judge in the case sided with miller’s rediculous argument while dissallowing Behe’s much more natural explanation for the complexity- I also read the judge’s closing remarks and foudn to my astonishement that it was a word for word exact copy of a pre-prepared ‘closing argument’ by the ACLU- and it was very clear that this judge had NO business sitting over such an important case when he was so ignorant of the basic facts- He even bragged after the trial about his remarks which made many in the evolutionist’s camp cringe because it was so rediculous- but he went about gloating about his apparent misplaced confidence in himself and his decision-
I’m not sure how much you’re into the evolution vs creation debates- but if you check out miller’s (maybe it was dawkin’s) Argument for how ‘irreducibly complex systems “Could have arisen naturally without hte ne3ed ofr an intelligent designer” You will clearly see what I describbed above- The lengths he had to go to prove that blood clotting mechanisms in advanced creatures coudl have ‘arisen naturally’ were so comical that again, he shoudl have been laughed out of court- or aqt least been removed from the case for gross incompetence as pertained to the subject-