“How can life start from random combinations?”
Not arguing the whole evolution/creation thing on this thread but can it really be considered random combinations or is it causality, i.e. entities acting according to their nature?
And where does their “nature” come from?
If mankind cannot create anything like life (other than copying via cloning), then how could a blind process create such immense complexity?
Wind, rain, lightening in junk yards don’t create new a new ferrari, no matter how much we would like it to.
Again, if we set out to create something that has the properties of for example a butterfly, we could not do it. With all the accumulated wisdom of mankind.
To believe that blind chance could do what our intelligence cannot is a profound statement.....and yet evolutionists believe this exactly.
So our intelligence is less than that of blind chance, accumulated over time?
What guides the process? The ONLY viable candidate is Natural Selection — but if you don’t have a advantage (due to natural selection) then the information randomly gained via mutation cannot be passed on reliably to the next generation. Then comes the problem of complex structures, for example, many functions of life of very complex, and if any of the parts were different, the whole would be functionless (and not have an advantage).
From an information theory perspective, classic evolution through the survival of the fittest may (and can) explain adaptation (which exists and we can observe) but CANNOT explain the genesis of species and more importantly life.
We can prove adaptation, and observe it. The fossil record does not prove/show formation of life. It only shows it appeared, quite suddenly. Also change occurs very rapidly, not gradually like was proposed by the slow process of natural selection — thus the formation of the “punctuated equalibrium” model of evolution. BTW, the punctuated model has the same problems with genesis (formation) as well.
Darwin was a racist.
His book was entitled
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
Which, by the way implied that “black man” was closest to the monkey, and the “white” races were superior. I dismiss this theory as racist at it’s core, and a lie as well.