Hmm, I would be curious to hear what is factually wrong in the article? Yes the article was originally written over 4 years ago. I just put it up on a new blog to share.
Sure. Here are a few.
Evolutionists tell us that the complexity of life gets progressively simpler as we grow in our microbiological knowledge, and we will eventually reach a point where all the complexity dies down, and we have all of the building blocks of life discovered. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Whether we go deeper within the realm of microbiology, or stumble across more discoveries further out of our galaxy, we only find infinity.
It's hard to get a clear idea of what is being said here, but it sounds like the simplicity and understanding of the basic chemical processes at the base of biochemistry are a mystery - they aren't, they are largely understood, and atoms required for life are known, and limited to mostly C, H, O, P, S, N, Na, K, Fe and Ca.
Finding the “beginning” in the complexity of life that evolutionists need to find in order to prove this aspect of their theory is like looking for the smallest number math can have.
"evolutionists" don't have to prove anything about the beginning of life to show common descent (evolution). One could postulate that the first life is unexplained, or made by God, or whatever, and the evolution from there can be studied/accepted. In fact, this was the state of knowledge for most of the time since Darwin. Darwin had no idea at all about how life could arise, and pretty much no one else did until the late 1950s. For all that time, evolution was not dependent on the plausibility of the start of life, and was accepted, because the start of life isn't relevant to showing common descent.
For the engine (bacterial flagellum) to ever work, all of these hundreds of parts are needed simultaneously, in working condition, with power supplied with it, all at one point in time.
Simply false - the flagellum works without some of the parts, just not as fast or well. In fact, biologists have pointed out many different versions that lack many of the parts found in other species.
All of these mechanical parts have to be precision made, along with the 240 distinct proteins that the motor is composed of, not to mention all of the parts of the living cell itself that have to convert the substances that it eats into electrical energy to supply the motor with the needed electrical power to function and reproduce itself, are all living proof that this complicated assembly cannot evolve from “numerous, successive, slight modifications”.
This is a horrible multiple comma splice sentence that is actually at least 3 sentences. The evolution of the flagellum has been shown to be possible by slight variations for over 20 years. Here is a simple cartoon showing how it could have evolved.
Just because we can only see living cells through a microscope from the proportions of this world, that really doesn’t mean that it is any less complex than a human being. Life simply exists on different scales in size with no evidence for variation in complexity from one scale to another.
Um, no. The chemical and physical processes involved in life work only on certain scales due to the physics involved. One can act as if the planck length is irrelevant or that the wavelength of red light is "just relative". The sentence above makes it sound like the writer has no understanding of modern physics.
Meaning, if the human body were to be perfectly split in half, each side would be a mirror image of the other. .. Each one of these creatures is complete in its biological makeup; and that is proven in its perfectly symmetrical structure.
Hair patterns, testicles/penis, and internal organs (including the brain) are not symmetric in humans. many other animals are also not symetric, such as fiddler crabs, flounder, owl ears, and thousands more. The common, but not exclusive, appearance of symmetry is due to the simple mechanics of development, and especially the fact that animals move - the natural selection of running or swimming works much better if symmetry is maintained (imagine trying to run with one leg longer than the other)- that's why trees and shrubs are much less often symmetric.
Evolution is really composed of two parts. The Big Bang theory, which attempts to explain the beginning of our universe, and the theory of evolution itself,
What? "Evolution = Big Bang + Evolution"? That' doesn't make sense. Evolution is biology. The big bang is not biology. Evolution was proposed and understood long before anyone imagined a Big Bang.
The two theories are inseparable, because in order to explain the origins of our universe, there must be a theory of the beginning of living things, and a theory of what lead all living things to the state of their present day, otherwise the theory would be incomplete and it would therefore, be illogical to believe one without the other.
Wrong. As pointed out above, evolution existed just fine without the Big Bang for a long time. Secondly, understanding part of history in no way requires one to understand everything before it. Roman historians could talk about the Roman history perfectly well when they had no clue about mycenean or earlier mediterranean history.
To many of the greatest scientific minds in the world, the idea of an almighty, eternal being, is now considered to be nothing more than a fairy tale. ....and in the eyes of most of the greatest scientific minds in the world, creation appears to be the losing one.
This seems to imply that believing in literal 6 day creationism is required to believe in God, and that most scientists don't believe in God. Both are false.
There's plenty more, but this is already a lot, and I've spent too long on this for now. The whole blog post has factual errors and especially logical errors, where one thing doesn't follow at all from the other. So many places suggest a complete ignorance of the topic being discussed, and a blind copying of lines from creationist websites.
In Christ-
Papias
