Charles Darwin - On the Origin of Species 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 evolution supposedly required incredible amounts of time. The age of the earth was hugely important for Darwin and his fellow naturalists.** Naturalists popularized evolution theory in an attempt to undermine supernaturalism and they invented all kinds of additional theories, into one huge circular theory. Unprovable uniformitarianism stood at the base of the current belief in for example an old age of the earth. It is derived from unprovable naturalism. For example geology is explained based on Darwin's slow and gradual evolution theory and uniformitarianism, and later, with an old age of the earth established, they were able to fit radiometric dating methods to conform to this timeframe, calibrated against the rock layers. Thomas Henry Huxley, aka Darwin's Bulldog, said that Biology takes its time from Geology.** Time plays an essential role in their search for the philosopher's stone...

Carl Sagan - Cosmos 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.

Evolutionists are in the delusion that time can make miracles happen, but they forget that what is unthinkable in a hundred years is most likely also unthinkable in a hundred million years. Time is not a living powerful entity, like God, and does not perform miracles. Miracles do not happen naturally. If at all they happen, they happen supernaturally, but that explanation is of course not allowed for evolutionists. The only thing that's certain with time 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.* Evolutionists have a hard time accepting reality as it really is...

George Wald - The Origin of Life 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.

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, but evolutionists try to make you believe in fairy tales and science fiction involving dead matter miraculously turning into life. Thus they are forced to believe that "time itself performs the miracles", that time can somehow do the impossible.

Jerry Coyne - IDiots once again justify their name 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.*

Nobody is interested in doing that? This guy is a total joke...

Jerry Coyne - The biggest problem in selling evolution: how fast can selection create complexity? 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.*

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 from the observable world is that only intelligent agents are able to do that. Intentionally or not, Jerry Coyne somewhat admits this by saying that artificial selection is required. Artificial selection is intelligent intervention. But it has already been pointed out "a gazillion times" that natural or artificial selection don't add new specified complexity to a life form's original genetic makeup. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of microevolution, not macroevolution. These bacteria remained the kind of bacteria they always were. Because these fanatic evolutionists don't have anything to do with intelligence, they resort to the unscientific time argument...

Theodosius Dobzhansky - American Scientist 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.*

Intentionally or not, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky said that macroevolution is unscientific because it supposedly requires so much time that nobody could ever possibly do the required experiments to verify it. At least this evolutionist is fair enough to admit that the time argument just makes evolution theory more unscientific. 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 is summoned to supposedly make the impossible possible.

According to evolutionists:

Herbert S. Wilf, Warren J. Ewens - There's plenty of time for evolution ...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, invented by themselves, with assumptions tweakable by themselves. See also neo-Darwinism. In this article they boast that there supposedly is enough time for evolution. However...

Ewert, Dembski, Gauger, Marks II - Time and Information in Evolution 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, natural selection is a preventive or conservative mechanism, not a creative force. Not surprisingly, evolutionary scientists are looking for a new evolutionairy synthesis simply because neo-Darwinism is insufficient for explaining macroevolution.

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. Despite the fact that time itself is not a creative force, evolutionists try to make themselves and the world believe that time has creative powers and can perform miracles, like for example the creation of life from non-life. But creation requires a creator. Time has always played an important role in mythology. Father Time is the anthropomorphized depiction of time. Evolutionists do the same with natural selection which they give creative powers, like Mother Nature. But are mythological figures like Mother Nature and Father Time real? And can they conquer the universal law of entropy and make the scientifically impossible somehow possible? Evolution is the religion of the atheists.