Evolutionist argument:
To use another example: We didn't start out with cars that had computer
systems, global positioning systems, fuel injection, etc.. The car started
out as a frame with wheels and a basic engine. Each function was added until
the system became so complex that it now takes the hand of a auto expert to
understand the system. We can now break down the system and it seems simple
to build such a machine. If you took a blueprint of this system and handed
it to someone from only a couple hundred years ago, they would be boggled
by the task of manufacturing such a system. You can still kill the function
of a car by removing one of its minute systems. For some it may be a
gradual breakdown, but the systems all interdepend. Evolution theory is
exactly the same but on a magnified scale.
My response:
Once again we get back to the argument of simplicity. Your defense actually
negates your argument. If one thing is missing breakdown occurs. Cars are
designed by intellegence. Even back to the beginning, it still required a
designer and intellegent planning. Steel is a tried and proven mixture of
different metals to provide strength and durability. Tires are produced
through refining of elements and manufacturing of those resources. Glass
doesn't form by itself, it is forged and refined to give shape and clarity.
Even the most simplistic design of a car requires planning, design and
manufacturing. Left alone a car breaks down and eventually decays. Entropy
is first law of thermodynamics - everything tends to go toward breakdown and
disarray(laymans terms). That is not a creation theory, it is a proven law
that even evolution researchers acknowledge. Not only will a car not fix
itself or evolve into a better design, but it will break down and decay.
You can't use an improving design backed by intellegent designers to prove
that life evolved without design. The two don't support each other.
Join the mailing list
Go to Home Page |
Sermons |
Feedback | Creation |
Humor
