Father Time... god of evolution
Time itself is not a creative or powerful entity. The universal law of entropy shows that time is not reversible and that it is not possible to travel through time. We are currently in the present, the past happened before the present, and the future comes after the present. Evolutionists use time in order to make it seem possible that dead matter turned into living matter and that the first life form morphed into all other unique life forms known today. To support this unscientific belief they invented the philosophy uniformitarianism which is based on their preconceived belief in very slow and gradual evolution as popularized by Darwin.
Circular reasoning
Charles Darwin said that Natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps. Darwin's slow and gradual macroevolution supposedly required incredible amounts of time. Cherry Lewis said that The age of the Earth was hugely important for people like Darwin who needed enormous amounts of time in which evolution could occur. Naturalists popularized evolution theory in an attempt to undermine supernaturalism and they invented all kinds of additional theories. Unprovable uniformitarianism stood at the base of the current belief in for example an old age of the earth. Uniformitarianism depends on evolution theory. The evolutionary explanation of geology depends on evolution theory and uniformitarianism. Thomas Henry Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog, said that Biology takes its time from Geology. It's one huge circular theory of theories that all depend on each other. Ultimately all of it is based on the unprovable philosophy naturalism.
Evolution delusion
Evolutionitwit Carl Sagan is in the delusion that time can make miracles happen. He once said It is all a matter of time scale. An event that would be unthinkable in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million. He forgets that what is unthinkable in a hundred years is most likely also unthinkable in a hundred million years. Time is not a living entity and does not perform miracles. Miracles do not happen naturally. If at all they happen, they happen supernaturally. The only thing that's certain with time in a natural world is entropy, the opposite of evolution. Ironically it was also Carl Sagan who said For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Now that's one hell of a delusion. He reminds me a bit of Captain Spock from Star Trek in which science fiction like time travel plays a role. Of course Carl is not the only evolutionitwit who has a hard time accepting reality as it really is...
The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough. ... Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Evolutiontit George Wald presents us with a perfect example of wishful thinking and delusion of the worst kind. The origin of first life is a complete mystery to science unlike hardnosed evolutionists try to make you believe in fairy tales and science fiction involving dead matter turning into life. Thus evolutionists are forced to believe that time can perform miracles like that despite the fact that everything in this world contradicts that belief and science has proven that life only comes from life. This man believes that time can make the impossible possible. How typical...
To change something like a cat into something like a dog through artificial selection involves modifying not just its morphology, but its physiology, its brain, its neurology, and its (hard-wired) behavior. That would take a gazillion generations of artificial selection. I have no doubt we could do this had we thousands or tens of thousands of years to do that kind of breeding, but a) we haven't because b) nobody's interested in doing that.
source screenshot
It is not so much that the process of natural selection is hard to understand, or that it could be responsible for "simple" adaptations like antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Rather, it is whether there has been enough time for such a process to create all the complex adaptations we see around us.
source screenshot
Fanatic evolutionist Jerry Coyne admits that macroevolution would require the creation and addition of incredible amounts of specified complexity. No naturalistic processes are known that could do that. All we know is that only intelligent agents are able to do that. Whether he wants it or not, Jerry Coyne admits this by saying that artificial selection is required. Artificial selection is intelligent intervention. But as many scientists have already pointed out "a gazillion times" Jerry, natural or artificial selection don't add specified complexity to a life form, they rather make sure that the better fit ones survive. For example non avian life forms don't evolve wings. It's as hardcore a fact of life as can be. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is part of microevolution, not macroevolution. These bacteria remained the kind of bacteria they always were. Because these fanatic evolutionists obviously don't want anything to do with intelligence they resort to the silly and unscientific time argument, time and again...
On the other hand, it is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fish-like ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. ... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
Whether he wanted it or not, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky said that macroevolution is unscientific because it supposedly requires so much time that nobody could ever possibly use experiments to verify it. So at least this evolutionist is fair enough to admit that the time argument just makes evolution theory more unscientific than it already is. Practically all evolutionists resort to the time argument in order to seemingly justify their unscientific belief. Time is one of the gods of evolution that supposedly makes the impossible possible.
Pseudoscience vs science
So, according to evolutionists...
...our conclusion is that when one takes account of the role of natural selection in a reasonable way, there has been ample time for the evolution that we observe to have taken place.
Because there is no evidence for macroevolution evolutionists resort to mathematical or theoretical theories which they invent themselves. See also neo-Darwinism. In this article they boast that there supposedly is enough time for evolution. However...
Wilf and Ewens also make unrealistic biological assumptions that, in effect, simplify the search. They assume no epistasis between beneficial mutations, no linkage between loci, and an unrealistic population size and base mutation rate, thus increasing the pool of beneficial mutations to be searched. ...they assume that each evolutionary "advance" requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together. Ignoring these biological realities infuses considerable active information into their model and eases the model's evolutionary process. ... Thus, just as Wilf and Ewens are wrong to assume that every intermediate phrase has meaning, so they are wrong to assume that every intermediate biological stage along some evolutionary pathway will be functional.
This example shows how evolutionists invent a theoretical model and then tweak the assumptions in such a way that they work out in favor of their belief. They simply work toward a desired outcome. Their biased conclusions are based on a preconceived worldview and wishful thinking. Again, as scientists already pointed out "a gazillion times" before, natural selection is a preventive or conservative mechanism, not a creative force. Therefore we also see that evolutionary scientists are looking for a new evolutionairy theory simply because neo-Darwinism is insufficient for explaining macroevolution. Another fact.
Father Time
Time has always played an important role in mythology. Father Time is the anthropomorphized depiction of time. Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. Evolutionists do the same with natural selection which they give creative powers. So they exalt a mindless natural phenomenon, with preventive qualities at best, to become a powerful creative force. Hence the likeness to Mother Nature, another mythical figure evoked by evolutionists. So can Father Time conquer the universal law of entropy and make the impossible possible somehow? Evolutionists would like to believe so by using time as an argument for the scientifically impossible. It is an essential part of their religion. But the reality is that time is not a creative force, Father Time is a myth. Everybody knows that. Macroevolution is a myth, entropy is a hardcore reality, not vice versa.