David Rives
By David Rives
Look at the simple mousetrap. Designed to perform a specific function, the mousetrap is only made of a few basic components.
- A wooden base,
- a lever,
- a spring,
- a thin metal hammer,
- and a catch.
Definitely much simpler than, say, the eardrum, or the process of photosynthesis.
Then again, the function of catching a mouse is much more basic as well. But, were we to take away just one component of the mousetrap (say, the spring), the design would fail to function.
Many researchers have called this concept “irreducible complexity.”
Think about it…
Many of the processes we see in the human body have complex functions. Through research in biology, we are discovering more and more examples of this very concept.
Every element must be present at the same time, in the correct order and position, or the mechanism fails to function.
This begs us to ask the question: how could any lifeforms have slowly evolved a complex feature or organ when all elements must be there simultaneously to function in the desired way?
This cannot be explained through gradual mutation or adaptation, which once again leaves massive holes in the theories of chance evolution.
I’m David Rives…
Truly, The Heavens Declare the Glory of God.
LIKE David’s FB page here: http://www.facebook.com/DavidRivesMinistries
FOLLOW us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheDavidRives
VISIT our official website for tons of free information: http://www.davidrivesministries.org
David Rives MUSIC: http://www.davidrivesmusic.com
For the TBN show “Creation in the 21st Century”: http://www.creationinthe21stcentury.com
my name is gil and i study about the creation-evolution debate for years.
i read your article about id theory. i have a interesting claim about it:
scientist find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U
and we know that a motor is evidence for design. even if its very small and have a self replicat system or dna.
the evolutionist claim that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.
but there is no step wise from car to airplan
evolutionist claim that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar (self replicat) car are evolve from each other and not made by designer. and we even share 50% with banana!
check this site
http://creation.com/
what do you think about this? have a nice day