Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Sounds like "or" (add) verses "and" (multiply).

Er ... no, I didn't. No wonder you don't understand what Kleinman says ... you don't even understand what I say!

Is an atheist Darwinist qualified to define "reality"? I have my doubts.

Comforting bedtime stories for atheists masquerading as science.

I thought you might find this interesting:Biology transcends the limits of computationPerry Marshall 1Affiliations expand• PMID: 33961842• DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.006 1Free articleFull text linksCiteAbstractCognition-sensing and responding to the environment-is the unifying principle behind the genetic code, origin of life, evolution, consciousness, artificial intelligence, and cancer. However, the conventional model of biology seems to mistake cause and effect. According to the reductionist view, the causal chain in biology is chemicals → code → cognition. Despite this prevailing view, there are no examples in the literature to show that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce codes, or that codes produce cognition. Chemicals are just the physical layer of any information system. In contrast, although examples of cognition generating codes and codes controlling chemicals are ubiquitous in biology and technology, cognition remains a mystery. Thus, the central question in biology is: What is the nature and origin of cognition? In order to elucidate this pivotal question, we must cultivate a deeper understanding of information flows. Through this lens, we see that biological cognition is volitional (i.e., deliberate, intentional, or knowing), and while technology is constrained by deductive logic, living things make choices and generate novel information using inductive logic. Information has been called "the hard problem of life’ and cannot be fully explained by known physical principles (Walker et al., 2017). The present paper uses information theory (the mathematical foundation of our digital age) and Turing machines (computers) to highlight inaccuracies in prevailing reductionist models of biology, and proposes that the correct causation sequence is cognition → code → chemicals.https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S0079610721000365

from the Darwinist Space Cadet Manual, 13th edition, 2022, p.1 "Evolutionary theory is now in a sea change (Baverstock, 2013). In 2013 Denis Noble said, “all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis” (Noble, 2013).
Despite detailed investigation of many evolutionary mechanisms, from niche construction to epigenetics to the hyper-speciation of cancer cells termed “The Cancer Cambrian” (Pienta 2020), our understanding of evolution is very incomplete. We only have a surface level comprehension of it."https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S0079610721000365

  Abiogenesis by natural means represents an obvious scientific impossibility. Surely only someone determined to deny their Creator could seriously entertain such anti-science nonsense. Indeed.I'm willing to accept the evidence that suggests the earth is billions of years old ... but as for when life on earth began, I'm not sure what to think.Is the claim that life on earth began billions of years ago a correct interpretation of the evidence? Dunno.Do scientists fudge the figures and bend the evidence (intentionally or unintentionally)
to accommodate evolution, which requires vast periods of time? Dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me ... considering how much delusion, fanaticism and deceit permeates the cult of evolution."Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths [re Darwinism]. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity
of their beliefs."Pierre-Paul Grasse, EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS, TRANS. FROM FRENCH (ACADEMIC PRESS: NEW YORK, NY, 1977) P.8 NOV 30 . 1977"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems."Pierre-Paul Grasse, "Evolution of living organisms: evidence for a new theory of transformation" by Pierre-Paul Grasse, Academic Press, (p. 7), 1977.Pierre-Paul Grasse (1895-1985) was a French zoologist, author of over 300 publications including the influential 52-volume Traité de Zoologie. A member of the French Academy of Sciences.

It is both sad and disturbing to see the noble pursuit of science embracing irrational absurdities. Who would have guessed that rank superstition would become enshrined in the realm of methodological naturalism?Bizarre stuff. Yep ... the Darwinian version of life's history is a product of atheism, not legitimate science. That's pretty obvious to anyone outside the cult.
Sign of the times, I'm afraid."Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." Romans 1:22-23

Agreed. Useful Darwinian facts evolved into useless Darwinian fantasies.

Ya got that right ... that stuff passes so far above my head I don't even see it! You're a very clever man.

Fascinating.

That's how it goes in cult ... anything or anyone that doesn't conform to their doctrines is attacked and banished to the outer darkness. They're just doing what any good and loyal Darwinists does.

[qs=Only to somebody who is totally ignorant of chemistry.[/qs] When confronted by the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis, atheists panick and slip into a state clinically delusional, then find a dark room and collapse into a fetal position until the fear and madness subside.

When confronted by the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis, atheists panick and slip into a state clinically delusional, then find a dark room and collapse into a fetal position until the fear and madness subside.

I have described myself as a bona fide "idiot", yes ... but I don't actually recall admitting to being a "fool" (although I have certainly been a fool at various times in my sad little life).Regardless, there are different sorts of fools. Some are fools due to their extremely low IQ (like me).
Others are fools by choice ... which are the most pitiable kind."The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" (Psalm 14.1)