Is Nature or Intelligence Responsible for Eye Design? Can the processes of biology create an eye? Nature only has one known mechanism for creating new material or designs, that is random mutation. Natural selection would only become part of the creative process after mutations have either accidentally created something new or accidentally modified an existing sequence that has a positive or negative impact on the ability for an organism to survive. Since natural selection is often mistakenly thought to be
Tag Archives: Creation
How likely is it for chemical processes to build the molecules used by life and then change them into all the different forms we see? Do you think that enough time, 4 billion years perhaps, makes it probable, even inevitable? Is such a possibility based on an examination of the probabilities involved or is it just a feeling? Wouldn’t someone who wanted to prove that natural origins were probable within a 4 billion-year time span want to demonstrate it by
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Evolutionist will shy away from the topic of the origin of life when in mixed company and attempt to claim it’s a non issue. In spite of this denial it is part of most evolutionary storylines. Evolution was never accepted because scientific data demanded it. Its
Darwinists and those who philosophically stand with them considered themselves to be the wisest and most intelligent beings in the entire universe. By now most of us have seen the Darwin fish, the Christian fish symbol modified by putting Darwin’s name in the place of Jesus, and adding legs. What does it say about evolution and creation, what does it say about Biblical accuracy and what does it really say about the people who designed it and display it?