I think your buried in magic here.

The core of the post is simple. There are no baseline rules that support the processes necessary for the development of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Why did I focus on symmetry?

I particularly focused on the symmetry because it's very easy to see and understand because symmetry is clearly visible.

Here is another example that may help illustrate.

You can grow crystals from salt that form 3 dimensionally symmetrical objects (cubes). This does not surprise us because we know and understand that the reason these crystals form is because there are bonding rules (processes) that support their formation.

Simple enough.

On the other hand, the bonding rules (processes) that we are aware of don't (even come close to) facilitate the formation of complex symmetry. They are simply absent, and this is therefore strong evidence that evolution cannot occur.

How is this strong evidence that evolution cannot occur?

In the same way (using the same logic) that if you get in your car and notice that the windshield is missing, based on what the everyday person know about physics, this would be strong evidence that the driver of the car would get wet while driving in the rain.

Simple.

It's all about rules. The whole universe is built on rules.

We have observed genetics on different levels for some time and know that information is lost or degraded in efficiency—not gained—through mutations. Therefore, it is simple to understand that "design" does not improve, it degrades.

An good example of this is racehorse breeding which spends enormous resources to make a better racehorse, yet there is still a decline in performance in the long-term.

Small changes over time... Yes.

Improvements in efficiency, increases in complexity, or new parts ... No.



OK, let me put it this way.

You are strolling along the beach. You watch the waves rolling up on the shore. All is well.

The next day, you visit the same beach and see an eloquent sandcastle in the sand. You know that it was not there yesterday.

Logic concludes that some intelligence outside the realm of the sand itself created this formation.

How do you know this?

You can logically conclude this because you understand how waves interact with sand on a beach.

To put it another way, you understand the consistent rules (processes) involving the interaction between the waves and the sand, and because you understand this interaction, you know that the waves are not capable of creating this type of formation.

Evolutionists may argue that give enough time—perhaps millions of years—this formation could form by itself, (but really, that is quite silly) but we'd probably agree that it surely could not form overnight.

Simple.

Does that make sense?

[color:"brown"]Yes, abrupt timing is everything.[/color]

Yes, even evolutionists understand this because they keep adding millions of years on the age of the Earth to facilitate the processes they claim occur.

It's all about timing.