When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.

This distraction—in order to be effective—must be so overwhelming in quantity so as to cause the one being deceived (the target) to completely forget the basic facts of the lie—the fundamentals. The target must be continuously distracted from the obvious fundamental truth because if they were allowed to think about it for enough time, they would realize how obvious it is that they are being lied to. Of course, this is much easier to accomplish if the target is a willing subject, in which case you only need to appeal to the predispositions of the victim, and these predispositions themselves can be shaped through youthful conditioning.

This tactic of "distraction" is what I call "magic" because it is the same tactic used my magicians.

Magicians (illusionists) make you look over "there" so you don't consider the obvious thing that must be going on over "here". They do this to create an illusion. The marketing of evolution uses this very tactic to promote it's wares for the ultimate profit of its promoters (covered in another thread).

With this in mind, let's reexamine is the fundamental truth in this entire discussion about evolution.

Here is the distraction:

We have been told about about butterflies and moths and cosmic molecules and signaling molecules and transitional forms and mutations over and over again, but the simple, fundamental problem with the logic behind both rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution is this:

Science—being at its core, the discovery of the rules of nature—has not discovered rules that would facilitate the formation of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines from known matter. In fact, science has not even begun to approach the level of discovery that would be required to facilitate even the smallest steps of evolution.

Let me give you an example and attempt to make this concept clear.

There are rules that exist in nature that consistently cause hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond. These rules are well-known and act very consistently. (See Hydrogen Bond)

They are relatively simple rules (to the chemist anyway) that cause many known reactions to occur between hydrogen and other compounds. These rules are so well known that it is possible to predict how hydrogen will react in a given chemical environment.

Now, we also know the resulting condition brought about by these rules, and that is—these rules that cause these simple bonds do not cause the formation of complex machines. We know this because our level of understanding of these rules—which is so thorough that it allows us to make accurate predictions about hydrogen bonding—understands what their limits are.

To attempt to simplify this concept even further, lets say you have a lego set, and in this set there are only 20 types of blocks. Now there are most certainly rules associated with each type of block that dictate how these blocks join together.

With these rules in place, there are many wonderful things that you can make, but you will never be able to make a book with turning pages and intelligible type on each page. It's impossible to do because you are limited by the rules that govern how each type of block can fit together, and by the block shape, size, and color itself.

Now, we have to bring this example into a more biological scope.

We would all agree that the pieces of matter that are the building blocks of a human body can be fit together to make a human body. We all would agree that this is so because we can see human bodies and we can see that they are made of of all these natural "lego" blocks.

But then, when we translate this example from the realm of the lego to the realm of biological life, we are no longer asking the question:

Can these building blocks be put together to create a human body?

Instead, we are asking the question:

What is the process that put these building blocks together?

And so, that is the subject of evolution: the process.

In our example about the lego blocks, there was clearly an intelligent being assembling the parts together and anyone who would see a small toy house built out of lego blocks would have to agree that this house did not form in the lego shipping container while the container was being delivered to someone's house. It was assembled by an external intelligence—an intelligence external to the house itself.

We would all agree that no matter how much the shipping container was shaken, even if it was shaken for decades, a beautiful toy house will never self-assemble.

Now, the really interesting part to consider is this following idea:

The rules that allow a house to assemble are already in place, they do exist.. In other words, we know that you can create a toy house from the parts, and we know this because the rules that allow the pieces to come together will allow this (we've tried it and seen the house we've built), but what we learn when we shake the shipping container for decades and never see a house form teaches us that these rules which cause the pieces to come together are simply not enough in-and-of-themselves to form the house. This process—shaking—just doesn't do it. There must be something more.

So we have to ask ourselves:

What kind of rules would have to exist in order for this shaking process (a "random" process) to form something complex, like a toy house?

Well, we might need to make legos that have some kind of special snapping hinge on them so that certain types of the 20 lego blocks only join together a certain way. Of course, this hinge would have to be perfectly designed to work and join and not break under the conditions of the shaking. There might also need to be another kind of connector on another kind of lego block that allows a different kind of block to join together a certain way, again, carefully designed so it will work in the particular environment it is in but without breaking.

Now this process of developing these hinges and connectors in just the right places and at just the right angles to allow lego blocks to join together to form a toy house when they are all put into a shipping container and shaken together would be a daunting task, in fact, it may be very nearly impossible because not only do the legos have to fit together the right way to make a house, with the random process of shaking their container, there is no guarantee that they will join in just the right places, in the right order, with the right force to form the toy house, and all this without breaking.

However, you say, with all these hinges and connectors, you would certainly end up with something that has some degree of complexity, and this is most certainly the case. You would likely end up with something that is agreeably complex to some degree, but you would virtually never end up with something that is complex and symmetrical. Yes, you may end up with 3 or 4 parts (simple) that join together in a symmetrical fashion, but the probability that the 5th or 6th part is going to join together in just the right fashion so as to make the resulting structure symmetrical diminishes exponentially with each new part.

Now, lets say we were really smart and wanted to join parts together using random processes (shaking) that would end up with a structure that would be able to reproduce new items just like itself. Well, this would be no easy task.

We should be able to see that one approach to solving this reproduction problem would be to build a toy house that contains a device that shakes a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house that contains a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house; and so on.

Now, using this demonstration using simple lego blocks that have a few associated rules, any intelligent person can see that accomplishing the task described above is virtually impossible. But even while we view the impossibility of this task, we have to consider one thing that was necessary to make this valiant effort possible:

We have to consider the fact that, throughout this entire process, there was an intelligence outside the device that was designing and then building the whole thing, and even with all this intelligence, this was a virtually impossible task.

At this point, an evolutionist would likely say that increasing the number of the types (or shapes) of lego blocks and increasing the number of hinges (rules governing processes) would increase the likelihood of producing a complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine.

The fundamental problem with this assumption is this:

Increasing the number of hinges actually decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now lego blocks can be joined at many more angles than before. This makes naturally-occurring symmetry far less likely.

But what if we increased the number and types of lego blocks that are in the shipping container. That would surely increase the likelihood of symmetry, right?

No. In fact, this also dramatically decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now there are even more chances that each block will be joined in a non-symmetrical way, and on top of this, each new block that is joined creates more opportunity for asymmetry (non-symmetry).

So, if you follow this example to the biological level and apply many types of elements and many type bonding rules for these small parts, the chance of symmetry occurring decreases exponentially and rapidly fades into oblivion.

The clear and simple conclusion is that it takes a very intelligent being to take building blocks that have numerous and flexible connection options to make complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

But now for the fun part: Magic.

The countless arguments that attempt to pull us away from these basic, fundamental truths—as contrived and inaccurate as so many of them are in reality—don't matter because of this simple premise of logic:

If it takes 3 steps to get from A to D (A->B, B->C, C->D) and if you can never take the first step (A->B), then all the other steps you dream about, wish for, or imagine don't matter one bit. The fact is, you're never going to get to B, much less D.

Because of the lack of bonding rules that support those that would be required for self-assembly, evolution could never even get off the ground. The only explanation is an intelligence that is external to the machine.

People who fall into the trap of evolutionary thinking are generally what are called emotionally-based—that is, they make a higher ratio of decisions based on emotions or emotional predispositions than do intellectually-based people. These emotionally-based people are just the kind of people who are able to be distracted by the magic of evolution's so-called details, and this causes them to forget the fundamentals.

Ironically, emotionalism knows no occupational boundaries. Scientists and doctors are just as likely to be influenced by emotional predisposition as are those of other occupations.

So the important point is:

Don't forget the fundamentals.

Now, there are so many other fundamental problems with evolution that people don't often talk about because they're caught up in the magic. One of them is transitional forms.

Fossils clearly show an abrupt appearance of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines. This is clear evidence of intelligent design.

If evolution is occurring, then all fossils are transitional forms, and if this is the case, and if symmetry formed over time, why is there an ominous lack of non-symmetrical complex animals. How on Earth can you explain all this amazing and abrupt symmetry.

You certainly cannot because there is no natural explanation. There is only extremely frail speculation by emotionally-based evolutionists who continue to attempt to drown themselves in the magic to help themselves forget about the logic and reason staring them bluntly in the face.


"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
—Luke 10:21


Children often see logic that evades the aged soul.