Exactly- Further, when we objectively evaluate a system, any system, we’ve got to ask oursoeves when to draw the line- how many problems and impossible leaps does it take to render a system non functional? When the best that Macroeovlutionists can give is riddled with scientific impossibilities, and is completely lacking in experimental support, you have to seriously question just how viable the system really is.
The Macroevolution story, right from the very foundations itself, abiogenisis, is an impossible genetic scenario that needs to be propped up with hypothetical scenarios that simply do not exist in nature. Not only is it impossible for amino acids to Macroevolve into protiens, but hte very process of ‘creating’ amino acids takes a tremendous amount of energy, destructive energy that makes it impossible for amino acids to survive. While it is true that miller was able to create amino acids in the lab, it was under such stringent controlled experimentation that it showed quite conclusively that nature simply is incapable of such environmental controls. Miller had to isolate hte destructive nature of the energy from the Amino Acids in order to ‘artifically create’ some amino acids which incidently had to be further artifically isolated from the wrong amino acids, as mixing left hand and right hand amino acids destroys the acids altogether. Miller, (and indeed nature) simply can not create just the right amino acids, protect them long enough, for the process to even get beyond the most infant of stages, yet we’re told in our science books that these amino acids must have survived many millions of years o ntheir own while nature produced astonishing miracles of Macroevolution and evolved them into the next stage of life- protiens? Which again, must be pointed out, is an impossible leap.
While Macroevolutionists are busy trying to hypothesize a scenario where Amino acids could have survived the destructive forces of nature and energy, the process still faces yet another major impossibility- that of informaiton. Where did hte information come from? If everythign has a natural explanation, then surely the Macroevolutionist can explain the natural ‘creation’ of information and instructions, right? Nope- they can’t. These instructions are so vast in magnitude at even the ‘simplest’ life stages, that it woudl take encyclopedic volumes to fill, but we’re never told how these complex instructions ever got their start in a supposedly natural world devoid of intelligence.
Have scientific experiments ever ‘naturally caused’ information to arise from nothing? Nope- not even close- all they can manage is to show experimental manipulations of informaiton that is already present. They can’t even create new information with a set of information already at hteir beckon-call. One thing I want you to note here is that these experiments amount ot what? Yup, intelligent design. They are taking information that has already been provided them, and have attempted to intellgiently design experiments to manipulate instrucitons in order to prop up their hypothesis, yet they have failed to produce any NEW information.
In order to prop up the hypothesis of Macroevolution, the process needs LOTS of intelligent help to make even the mootest of progress that still can’t overcome much more serious problems down the road. The naturalist, in his attempt to throw out intelligent design, has only managed to show just how much intelligent design is really needed, and yet our feeble experiments can only manage the most basic and useless arrangements needed in order to attempt to overcome impossible scenarios.
There comes a time when the objective observer must conclude that “Time + mutations” simply is not a realistic scenario to overcome these biological impossibilities. and, if you’re thinking that Macroevolution is still a possbility after God ‘started the process’ by creating some basic building blocks first, and hten ‘letting nature run it’s course’, then I assure you that the further down the road you get from even the m ost impossible naturally induced simple building blocks, the m ore problems and impossiblties you wil l run into.
Don’t be wowed by claims by scientists that they have ‘produced’ some process of ‘Macroevolution’ in a lab test tube- examine the claims indepth and you will QUICKLY realize that there is a mountain of information they are NOT tellign you that directly refute their claims to fame, and hsow just how necessary Intelligent Design really is in nature. Examine carefully just how slight of hand their claims really are, and you will see that they have left out critical details that prove conclusively that their claims rely on assumptions that simply do NOT exist in nature, and could NEVER ever hope to arise through a process of RM+NS. The next time you reas that life has ‘been created’ in the lab, don’t just take it at face value- look into the claim carefully, read rebuttles from people who know what they are talking about, and who aren’t afraid of upsetting the apple cart by exposing the TRUTH behind the claims that directly refute what the shysters are claiming. It will quickly become quite evident that even at hte ‘simplest’ levels, the amount of intelligence needed to coordinate the system to create cooperation between infomations ALREADY present, is far m ore complex and irreducible than the claimers will reveal to you. It becomes quite evident to the true objective observer, (someone who isn’t already committed to a hypothesis that needs intellgient propping up in orde4r to even be slightly plausible) that even at hte ‘simplest’ stage of life, that intelligence and guidance with a predetermined purpose is an absolute must.
If even the simplest stages of the mythical process of Macroevlution runs into a show stopping roadblock, what makes us think that higher and higher complexities inherrent in higher life forms which require higher and higher instructional guidances could ever have a chance in hell of occuring? Time+RM+NS quite simply can not erase the impossible roadblocks on the course of the ill-fated Macroevolutionary process- regardless of the starting point- whether at abiogensis, or later after special creation. Those who claim Macroevolution is consistent with Belief in God simply either do not understand how serious the problems are with Macroevolution. These problems are not incidental- they are absolutely critical and self-defeating to the idea of Macroevolution.
Sonny- there is no “New way of looking” at this problem as you claim in your thesis. The only way you can claim that is by assigning miraculous characteristics to Nature, thus transfering that characteristic from God to a natural ‘entity’ that has absolutely NO hope of accomplishing the miracles of life that you have mistakenly thought it could. The only way one can concider a “New way of looking” at this issue is to deny the biolgical evidences that refute Macroevolution and insist that nature is somehow capable of the impossible, and capable of violating hte very fundamentals that Nature itself observes without fail.
I need to further elaborate a part of my last post- I said “Don’t be wowed by claims of “Macroevolution creation’ in the lab by scientists- their claims of Macroevolution, when examined in detail, are NOTHING more than MICROEvolutionary changes- Every last claim of Macroevolution by scientists has proven to be NOTHING more than MICROEvolution manipulation. MACROEvolution has NEVER been produced in a lab, and any scientist attempting to pass off MICROEvolution as MACROEvolution is being intellectually and scientifically DISHONEST with readers. The fact is that MACROEvolution has never been produced or witnessed, and is nothign but a hypothesis that lacks ANY evidence to support.
IF MACROEvolution could have EVER been shown, then the whole controversy over the issue would have long been dead, yet, the fact is that the impossibility of MACROEvolution has proven to be too incredible to overcome, and despite 150+ years of intense investigation and experimentation, science has completely failed to produce anythign close to MACROEvolution through intelligent manipulation of VAST amounts of information already provided to them. The greatest minds in hostory have tackled this problem, and none have managed to even come close to overcomming the fact that MACROEvolution is an impossibility. Those who claim there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ to support MACROEvolution are quite frankly lying to you. There is however mountains of evidence to support- pay close attention here, because htis is the concrete TRUTH of the matter- to support MICROEvolution- nothing more! Many top scientists have concluded that there simply is no evidence or hope for MACROEvolution, (Many top scientists concluded in a symposium to discuss the viability of MACROEvolution in the Chicago meeting not long ago, that MACROEvolution was simply biologically impossible) but sadly, we’re still being indoctrinated in our schools by Activist scientists and educators and judges, who have a clear agenda to spread a lie, a religious belief in a process that can’t be demonstrated in even the basic of cases, and information about a process that is simply not supported by the evidence. The simple FACT is that there are no ‘mountains of evidnece’ for MACROEvolution, there isn’t infact, a shred of evidnece for it, and hwen pressed by inquiring minds, this admission is quietly ceeded, but pushed under the rug so that it won’t be exposed, and so that people won’t get beyond mere acceptance of claims and investigate the issue in more depth and find out that the hypothesis is so riddled with impossibilities that it quite simply could never have happened.
When asked to produce MACROEvolution proof or evidence, EVERY SINGLE TIME, what is presented is NOT MACROEvolution, but is NOTHING MORE than MICROEVolution passed off as MACROEvolution. It’s a deceitful, intellectually dishonest trick that unfortunately has duped many unsuspecting people- folks who haven’t the time or experience to investigate the matter further, and anyone presentign matertial under such false pretenses with the express intent of decieving others should quite frankly be ashamed of themselves, but as I’ve learned over many years, apparently shame isn’t a word some scientific advocates understand or even care about if they do understand it.
Now Sonny, You came on htis forum accusing Christians of ignorance, and of being ‘uninformed’ and you made the claim that there is “Irrefutable Evidence” to back up MACROEvolution. I asked you for all this “Irrefutable evidence” and you have given us absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim. Having a differenceo f opinion is one hting, but coming here and accusing Christians of ignorance and of ‘being uninformed’ is a scurilous accusation, and you’ve been called on it to back up your claims of the mythical ‘Irrefutable evidneces’ to support MACROEvolution. You come here claiming that we ‘need a new way’ to think about evolution, yet you give absolutely NO evidence to suggest that we should drop all reasoanble investigations and conclusions and adopt a process that is completely lackign in scientific evidence to support it. You are askign htat we suspend intellect, and simply take at face value the claims that a biolgically impossible process happened, and not question the claims. Now, if your definition of stupid Christians includes the meaning that Christians are stupid for having hte intellect to question the claims of Macroevolutionists, then by golly, yup- we’re stupid. If intelligence to you is dropping critical investigations into claims, and simply unquestionably accepting a process that is biologically impossible, and a process with absolutely ZERO evidence to support, then again, I guess we’re all just ignant CHristians- but I tell you the truth, I’d rather be deemed stupid for investigating claims, and discoverign hteir claism to be WRONG, than to be thought of as intelligent, but never questioning a hypothesis so impossible that it boggles hte mind to htink anyone could insist it is true despite hte overwhelming evidences AGANST it.
yopu asked what I’ll do IF it is discovered nature ‘could have’ created life? I tell you honestly, I am simply NOT afraid of that EVER happening becausde the biolgical evidence is so overwhelming against it. I also recognize that all our efforts to produce MACROEvolution have led to failure, and have led to a very reasonable conclusion that intelligence is indeed NEEDED. The intelligence needed is FAR far superior and complex to anythign nature could EVER hope to accomplish. And again, I don’t fear any outcome that might condradict the idea of intelligence, because quite frankly, the biolgical evidence is solidly behind the idea of an imensely complex intelligence at every single system in species- from the MICROSystem al lthe way up the MACROSystem. Macroevolution is a dead hypothesis- it’;s just that it’;s advocates aren’;t willing to ceede that fact (Which is understandable concidering hte amount of energy and time that they’ve heavily invested in the dead end hypothesis-)