Evolution, as we all know, is a conspiracy theory created by the Marxist Darwin gang. But few people know how to fight it other than asking questions such as:
How did life come from non-life?
Perhaps the better question is, how did nature evolve only a single, simple, insect to have a system we would call gears? Why don't primates? Why don't humans? Aren't we the "most evolved"?
Of course not. We were fearfully and wonderfully made by the God of the universe. And God seems to enjoy leaving Easter eggs in the fabric of reality.
Not only do we have geared insects, we have Trump-hair moths and octopi, blue lobsters, and bacteria that can break down plastic, even though they were not designed to.
Everything has a purpose. Perhaps this is further proof that we are here, not to engage in dubious conversation, but to wake up the sleeping masses from their dreams and awaken them to a brighter future.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, for everything there is a purpose, a time appointed under heaven. Isn't that coming into harmony with things today? Everything is falling into place for a wild Awakening!
I will reconsider evolution being real if someone can spontaneously create life from non living matter. If it happened once it should be repeatable. Unfortunately I think you would have as much luck spontaneously creating a porche
even the transcription and translation process involving dna,rna,protein etc needs all mechanisms present at once.
Every single evloutinist can never explain how fully functional things slowly evolved into what they are. The theory of evolution is basically just that there are slow small beneficial genetic mutations over time. This cannot explain things like wings and eyes. These things are only beneficial when they are fully formed. They all require multiple intricate parts to spontaneously exist at the same time in order to be of any benefit. A half formed wing is just a limb that doesn't do anything, a true waste of calories. A half formed eye doesn't work and is of literally no use, just a soft spot, a weakness. You could say that wings evolved from hands and arms and other limbs, but thats not showing inbetween the arm and wing when the limb can't function as either. That fact that wings look kind of like elongated hands and arms and fingers just shows me that the designer was the same.
Thank you for the compliment! What really got me on this concept was learning about how proteins and cells function. When they describe it as "its like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747" its actually further off than that.
Evolution and Dinosaurs Debunked - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtCIp9sgiE0&
I'm not an evolutionist, but eyes and wings do not have to be fully developed to be useful.
Look at all the gliding reptiles, mammals, and marsupials. None of them have fully formed wings, yet find that the excess skin and supporting limbs very useful.
As for eyes, a single cell can be photoreceptive...
Right, they're useful. They're not wings. They're not a half-formed wing. They're a fully formed feature.
I think you're underestimating the complexity behind optics, and the complexity behind a single cell as well.
You're going to need to be more specific in your definitions of 'life's and 'spontaneously create'.
They've already created a few synthetic lifeforms.
Life is a notoriously difficult thing to define as people still debate whether viruses are life. But let's just go with what we intuitively understand life to be and not something with the word synthetic in front of it. Top definition of synthetic on google: made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product. Here is a video of a scientist talking about the impossibility/complexity of producing a single cell organism, which confronts our primordial ooz theory.
https://youtu.be/gK-Fn3u_u4k
https://www.builtwithbiology.com/read/synthetic-life-made-from-scratch
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211129155020.htm
The Theory of Evolution does not cover Abiogenesis. You would know that if you weren't so fucking ignorant.
Unhelpful and presumptuous.
Ah yes. OP is not presumptuous at all.
Countless scientists over many decades just got it wrong. They cannot explain this thing that has nothing to do with the topic and I'm the one who figured it out
Yes. This thread is sub par. But your argument seems to consist of name calling, and making baseless claims.
Calm your tits.
Lmao, I'm ignorant because I don't know a fictional subject that 99.9% of people have never heard of... Abiogenesis even stole part of its name from the Bible because it requires just as much faith