Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3

In two previous posts, I have discussed many of the problems facing the theory of evolution.
Today, I would like to mention what I call the “design signature”.
Back in 2006, a team of biologist reported that “…the core machinery for initiating DNA replication is the same for all three domains of life – Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.”
Their contention; since all life shares a common DNA, it must have evolved from the same starting point.
I contend that it’s because we all share a common creator and we are seeing His design signature.
What is a design signature, you may ask? It is the common mode of design built into something by it’s designer. For example, in engineering, we can often tell who designed a device by seeing how he/she arrived at his/her solution and implemented it. This engineer will typically carry some common design features from one design to another. I call this the “design signature”.
As one studies how living plants and creatures are “made”, it is not difficult to see the “design signature” of a common designer. When one part “worked”, we can see where it was used over and over again in other designs.
Now you might say “What a bunch of hooey”. I would ask you though; how is my example any less believable than the claims made by evolutionist?
They want us to believe that we all came from a pool of warm goo (primordial soup) and that everything is still evolving. If this is true, where are the intermediate forms? They would be happening as we speak, and yet out of all the thousands of different types of animals in the world today, there is not one example of a creature evolving into a completely different creature. The fossil record should hold thousands of examples of the intermediate forms, yet to date, no one has found even one.
The evolutionist “cherry pick” the available data, find one thing that can possibly be presented as “proof” of evolution and trumpet that the debate is over. They are so panicked to find just one shred of evidence to support their position that they will accept any fossil evidence. So far, all of the “missing link” fossils have proven to be mistakes or even worse, frauds. The most recent fraud was a dinosaur with feathers. This “fossil” from China was an elaborate hoax made by using actual dinosaur bone fossils and mixing them with newer bird bone fossils. It was even presented as the feature article in the National Geographic Magazine before the hoax was uncovered.
Over the course of these three post I have made, it should have become very apparent to most everyone that the theory of evolution is grievously flawed at best or an outright lie at worse.
Until the evolutionist come up with some hard data to support their theory, then they have no right to shut down discussion and debate on intelligent design and creation.

Evolution Fraud.

Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 2.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 5.

5 Responses to “Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3”

  1. 666 devil says:

    I contend that it’s because we all share a common creator and we are seeing His design signature.

    LOL im so dum and i can still notice that thats a crappy argument. its like trying to prove a part of an idea with another part of the same idea.

  2. HackThis says:

    More sense.

    He’s dumb and he can work that out.

    Its like trying to prove the bible with the bible.

  3. Steve says:

    The “design signature” idea is mine. I believe that most designers leave a “piece” of themselves in their work, much like an artist does. It’s not an argument, it’s my personal observation.

  4. Starprizm says:

    This is one of those two way things. DNA can’t prove anything, because we can explain it in both ways. Wether all animals have it because they developed from the same starting point or because it is the signature of God.

    Either way, if we find ET life that doesn’t have DNA it doesn’t prove but it is an argument for evolution, same as if we find ET life that DOES have DNA it doesn’t prove but it is an argument for creation.

  5. Steve says:

    Thanks for the good comment.
    Like I said, the “design signature” is my thought about it.
    You are correct that the presence or absence of DNA doesn’t prove it either way.

Leave a Reply