a pair of atoms met with a few other atoms in just the right spot, at just the right time to just happen to make an all powerful invisible God that just happens to be able to create the whole Universe and magic “souls” out of nothing?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 3:30 AM

MB4,

It makes no sense for the creator, or the force which animates, and the intelligence which developed and programmed the information that tells things how to behave and what to do, and designed the order and scientific principles that the universe appears to follow to come AFTER the creation.

It makes sense that the designer-creator would exist BEFORE the creation, hence, the atoms would not accidentally “come together” to create the “creator,” or life force and animating force and consciousness and intelligence which exists, and which is vital for there to even be an “observer” to experience, to witness the Universe and all that is in it, and to also be aware of oneself.

William

William2006 on December 27, 2007 at 4:04 AM

Evolution can be observed.

1- Take some Petri dishes with a substrate and seed it with some bacteria.

2- When the colonies are strong in each dish, take an anti-biotic and treat each dish with a diluted solution.

3- Dispose of the colonies that die and transplant the strongest bacteria to several new Petri dishes.

4- Repeat step 2 with a stronger does of the anti-biotic.

5- Over time bacteria will evolve that are resistant to the anti-biotic.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Wow!

You made me a believer!!!!

Actually,

That is not evolution.

Also, you assume that there will be bacteria which survive, or “evolve” and become resistant to “new antibiotics.”

Problem. All the bacteria could be killed, leaving NO bacteria to “evolve,” and hence, your little experiment is a dud.

So, sorry, but that is not convincing.

The bacteria do not “evolve” into something else, such as a a creature which is part bacteria, part spider, part gorilla, and so on, or a mouse with wings who can recite the Vedas, solve complex mathematical problems, speak several languages, or fly like Mighty Mouse.

The bacteria do not “evolve” into some other form of creature.

They remain bacteria.

You also have to define what you mean by “strong bacteria,” for that is crucial when we are trying to support the belief in the survival of the fittest.

What constitutes strong bacteria?

Their ability to survive the antibiotic you give them?

Perhaps those who survive the antibiotic you give them will die if you gave them a different antibiotic, while the bacteria who died from the fist bacteria might survive if you used a different bacteria, while the survivors of the first bacteria might die from a different bacteria.

Often the fittest are the ones who die, while the least fit survive. This is really, quite often, not the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the luckiest.

It also depends upon who reproduces. The strongest are not always the ones who reproduce. Whoever reproduces will pass on their genetic material and traits, while those who don’t reproduce won’t pass on those qualities.

Once again, it is more the survival of the luckiest more than it is the survival of the fittest.

During the attack on 9/11/01, there were many victims who died who were much more fit that many who survived. Some pretty, curvaceous female in high heels who cannot run a marathon, has a high pule rate, cannot bench press her own body weight, and whose parents have cancer or heart disease, might have survived, while some other victims, with the strength of three men, can run the 100 meters in 10 seconds flat, can run the marathon and places in the top 100, can bench press 500 lbs, has an IQ of 150, can hold his breath underwater for three minutes, and whose parents are fit as fiddles and will live to be 113 and die a peaceful death without pain, or disease, that strong fit man might have died while the weaker, less fit female survived.

The female in the high heels without all that strength, speed, endurance intelligence, and so on, and who inherited some less health ensuring genetics from her parents, might go on to marry, have children, pass on her genes, so also her genetic material survives and carries on.

Survival of the luckiest.

William

William2006 on December 28, 2007 at 6:33 AM

windbag-

Why do we have five toes (vestigal fingers) when a simple folding duck foot flap would work as well?

…

Missing logic is a missing link, too.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM

We don’t have “vestigial fingers” for toes. We have toes for toes!

What makes you think that our toes are “vestigial fingers?”

Remember, it is you who assumes that toes are “vestigial.”

Why don’t you explain what you think?

Oh, wait! You already did.

You said ” … simple folding duck foot flap would work as well…”

So you prefer a different design, one of your choosing, which means that this is a rhetorical question, based on your belief that you could design a better foot, or come up with a different design.

That has nothing to do with origins, or the authenticity of Darwinism-evolutionism, and more to do with personal preference, imagination, what-ifs, and critiquing the way we are made.

Back to the assumption that our five toes are “vestigial.”

Who says that the ARE vestigial?

You do.

That must make it so.

Vestigial, when used by Darwinists-evolutionists is supposed to mean that something is left over, or a remnant, of some nebulous evolutionary ancestry. The fact that we have five toes on each foot has nothing to do with evolutionary ancestry, but it has everything to do with how we are made today.

You think they were originally fingers, as in “vestigial fingers,” and that they “evolved” into toes?

Prove it!

And, while you are at it, you can ponder this …

Those “toes” which are supposed to be vestigial fingers of some evolutionary ancestor are not an example of evolution, for evolution deals with increasing complexity and benefits.

If our original, prime evolutionary ancestor was a single celled organism from a rock soup, who “evolved” into trilobites, lizards, fish, and so on, then birds, wolves, rhinos, elephants, whales, dolphins, and so on, and eventually to ape like creatures, then eventually into human beings, all without a single witness to this occurrence, and no convincing evidence to support it, but lots of broken dreams as quite a few examples of the “supportive evidence” for Darwinism-evolutionism in regard to mankind’s evolutionary ancestry turned out to be no evidence at all, and in a number of cases, complete, unadulterated frauds.

If fingers on our feet were an advantage, an increase, an improvement in evolution, then the loss of fingers, turning instead into toes, is NOT evolution!

The loss of fingers on feet, which, by Darwinism-evolutionism’s philosophy were an evolutionary improvement, an increase. The transformation of fingers on our feet into toes is not evolution, but it is devolution, the loss of information, the loss of usage, and the loss of whatever “advantage” these appendages, these alleged “vestigial fingers” might have afforded us, or our “evolutionary ancestors.”

Regarding your suggestion that a webbed foot like a duck would be just as good a design, have you ever watched a duck try to run?

Not very graceful at it!

A webbed, duck like foot might give us an advantage in the Olympic swim competition though, don’t you think?

Missing logic is a missing link, too. – (profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM)

William

William2006 on December 28, 2007 at 7:59 AM

I’m mocking YOUR side with my “our lack of evidence” statement genius. (i.e. no one disputes microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution in the end your side always turns back to “well it can’t be observed because it takes millions of years”. This is the evolutionists magic wand that they wave and move on, as if it was scientific to do so… but in reality it’s done so that they can build more assumptions on the original, still unproven assumptions. My comment was a response to your “magic” accusation, when it is your side who regularly appeals to magic)

RightWinged on December 28, 2007 at 12:59 PM

RightWinged,

That was well said!

Notice,

Darwinists-evolutionists themselves contradict one another, disagree with one another about Evolution, mechanisms, transitional forms, and so on, hence it is not an exact science, or an established fact.

If Darwinism-evolutionism were an established fact, supported by irrefutable evidence, then, after Tiktalaak was “discovered” back in 2004, News media outlets and Darwinists-evolutionists and their supporters, would not have retroactively confessed that they really did not have enough “solid” evidence, so to speak, in support of gradualism, and gradual change – evolution – over time, and transitional forms in the fossil record, creating new kinds and species of organisms, novel organisms, never before seen, different from any already on the planet.

Nevertheless, knowing that they were blowing smoke all along, the media, and those who cling to Darwinism-evolutionism like a child with his security blanket, or a banker and his money, or and alcoholic with his booze, they did admit that they did not have the goods, but NOW they finally got it, the evidence, and those kwazee, wakawee Kwistyanz can now finally SHUT UP!!!!!

Yeah, it’s all about shutting up those stupid Christians who don’t know science, and who will bring us back into the dark ages, living in caves!

If you don’t swallow Darwinism-evolutionism, if you are not a true believer, if you are a heretic, then you MUST be a kwazee Kwistyan! You surely cannot be any other form of idiot. It did not help when I saw that most people I heard and read who swore their undying, unshakable belief and faith in Darwinism-evolutionism, turned out to be flat out undereducated and misinformed regarding many of the scientific facts. Those who do claim to be scientists often seem to be rather naive and undereducated, and have a strong personal bias. In fact, it appears that their egos require them to put themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are the GRAND ORACLE, and they need little people to talk down to.

No thanks. Some of us can think on our own and can see the fraud in this fantasy-ego boosting, quasi religion of Darwinism-evolutionism, which actually actively brings religion into the mix, rather than the other way around. They begin with the premise that there was not God, no Creator, no Purpose, no Intelligence, and no Designer involved in Creation, right from the start bringing God into the mix, and quickly trying to eliminate “God,” or a Creator, before they get started. They bring up God right away, and say “We will ignore “Creator,” “God” and all that stuff and just figure out how, without that consideration, all this could have taken place.”

These “geniuses” don’t even know their science history, in which a gazillion scientists who never believed in Darwinism-evolutionism, but DID believe in a Creator, and even in – heaven forbid, “GOD!” actually are instrumental in bringing about modern science, pioneered medical breakthroughs, helped crack the Genetic code, contributed to advances in electricity, nutrition, fighting diseases, and reaching into outer space, even helping to transport astronauts into the heavens! They claim that only Evolutionism contributed to modern science, whereas people who believe in God are backwards, hay seeds, straw chewing, hill billy dolts who don’t know nuttin’ and who still believe the earth is flat.

AS IF!

Nevertheless, please be careful with these Darwinists-evolutionists. They like to distort the position of any and all non believers, then attack the distortions that they, themselves, create.

Darwinists-evolutionists are also experts at the bait and switch.

They will tell you that they will prove to you that Evolution takes place before us, in plain sight, every day, then they will actually let “Intelligence” sneak in under the radar, and they don’t even know they are doing it, by citing examples of things, like controlled agricultural experiments, or dog breeding, or horse breeding, or controlled experiments in a lab, such as breeding bacteria, then trying out antibiotics on them, then breeding more, then so on and so on.

Here we see man’s hand and intelligent mind, and planning involvement in experiments and processes that are artificial, then we see the Darwinist-evolutionist claiming that it proves Evolution!

No, it does not prove evolution.

Their examples involved human intelligence, planning, and control of the process. It proves intelligent design!

Also, and this is one of the biggest frauds of Darwinism-evolutionism, is they choose to take something like reproduction, as in dog breeding, horse breeding, and even human reproduction, and say that we can see evolution at work in the process.

If you buy into their little scam, and say “Okay. I see! Yes, that IS evolution in progress,” then they’ve got you. They’ve baited you. Now they can pull the “switch.”

Then they can bring in the BIG CHEESE, the thing they REALLY want you to believe, and the thing that Evolution is really all about – not natural selection, and not offspring – that’s the misdirection. They want you to really swallow the claim that all of this “evolved” from a rock soup billions of years ago, with a single celled living organism being given life without God, without a Creator, without Intelligence, without Purpose, without Design, and that this single celled organism magically “evolved” into a larger microbe of some kind, (Which, being the first living organism, somehow, magically, had food to eat, by the way. Magic! See!) which eventually “evolved” into something else, then finally a fish, then crawled out of the water and this creature discovered that they like it on land, so, this land-sea fish-amphibian-land dweller (magic again, no mechanism, no explanation, no transitional forms, just believe it – take it on faith, or you are an idiot for not believing in Darwinism-evolutionism).

This “organism” now wants to live on land (Intelligence sneaks in again) and “nature” or the process of “evolution” knew which changes needed to be made and made them, over long periods of time. (How does “evolution” know what it wants to become if there is no Creator, no purpose, no intelligence, no design, no guidance? It is a contradiction they cannot weasel out of!)

Anyway, this fish-lizard-amphibian land dweller “evolved” or changed – as if by magic, into other things like turtles, shrew, macaques, Velaciraptor, crocodiles, hippopotamus, elephants, and so many other creatures.

This process kept going on and on until the Giraffe ended up with a long neck, the ancestors of apes and humans changed and split, till humans’ ancestors came down from trees and eventually human beings appeared, out of ape-like ancestors.

The eye, the heart, blood clotting processes, feet of geckos, and so many other creatures, with amazing construction, functions, and abilities, amazing design, are only the result of accidents which slowly “evolved” over billions of years.

This is the dogma of Darwinism-evolutionism.

They bait and switch by focusing on reproduction and passing on of genetic material, try to pass it off as “evolution” then pound their chest in pride as if they proved something! Then they turn and say “we evolved from a single celled organism which became all these other forms.”

If this is the game they want to play, and it IS the game they want to play, then they can, and will, call anything and everything they can fit “evolution,” when ultimately they really want you to think we all evolved from that silly single celled organism which magically appeared in the rock soup billions of years ago!

They’ve done that. They have shoehorned anything and everything they can into their fantasy land.

Steven Jay Gould is a good example. He realized that the evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record was lacking, so he admitted it and made up a new theory – Punctuated Equilibrium, in which, unlike Darwin’s belief that things developed slowly, in small increments, by accident, by mutation, etc., slowly over long periods of time, – gradualism, Gould, and others, assumed that, perhaps it wasn’t by gradual, slow changes over time – otherwise there should be millions and millions of slow transitional forms found, but there aren’t.

Instead Gould proposed that there are long periods of stagnation, so to speak, in which there is no change in a species, kind, family, kingdom, etc. Then, suddenly, there was a quick change, creating a new kind of creature, or a change, hence we don’t see any transitional forms!

Brilliant!

If you cannot find these transitional forms, them make up a new theory, as long as you have the bully pulpit of the Universities, publications, the media, and Hollywood locked up and in your pocket, just make it up as you go! Go ahead! You can get away with it!

This “stair step” system of “change” could replace the slow gradualism of Darwin’s model. It gives and excuse for not finding transitional forms, and it lets Darwin and Evolutionists off the hook. Only problem is, this is just conjecture, a “what if” or “imagine if …”

Can’t find the proof? Just say “it does not exist because it changed too quickly to leave any evidence!”

That’s kinda like stabbing someone with an ice cycle. The evidence melts away. Now you cannot find the murder weapon!

Okay, so evolution does not take place by slow, gradual, small changes through long periods of time, it takes place after long periods of stagnation and no change, then, pop! A stair step, a leap is taken, and the change occurs, and we now have that new species, new family, new kingdom. We just can’t back it up with evidence because the evidence isn’t there because it took place so quickly and did not leave any evidence. I know this because I have a lot of faith. I believe! Thus says the Darwiist-evolutionist.

RightWinged,

Have you paid attention to Darwinists-evolutionists’ “proof” or “examples” of transitional forms?

They don’t really have any!

It is laughable! It is pathetic!

I looked at what they are pushing off as transitional forms and find that they merely post a few items, maybe three, maybe four, maybe more, of different alleged creatures who don’t look alike, and ask the viewer to assume that this one animal could have somehow changed something, like its jaw line, to something shorter, and their fins a bit more crooked.

Then you have to look at the next creature and accept that, although it does not look like the first, and it does not live in the sea, but lives on the land, that this second creature COULD HAVE evolved from the first. Now, mind you, “we aren’t saying that this creature IS evolved from that other one. We are just saying, as an example, that this is how it “might have” happened, although we don’t know which one is associated with which.”

Then they have another creature and you are supposed to accept that somehow the second creature, which does not look like the first, sea faring creature who looks a lot like a whale, but is not supposed to be a whale, could have turned into the second creature, and now accept that this second creature somehow grows longer legs and a longer neck – we don’t know why or how, but just believe it, okay?”

Then you are supposed to believe that some creature which has a longer neck and longer legs, say a lama, or a horse, somehow “evolved” from this second creature.

Wow! All that “proof,” and all those solid “examples” that aren’t proof or examples, but the fantasy of someone who is trying to ask you to imagine that “it could have happened like this.”

Wow. You mean that, in reality, those animals did not really evolve one into the other, but you are just saying that an animal like number one could have changed to look like an animal that could walk like number two, then that could have changed into number three, and we are all now supposed to be sold on Evolution?

Our son has more intelligence, and more powerful reasoning that that, but then, again, although he is only seven years of age, he is extremely bright – possibly an exceptional genius. In fact our ten year old daughter and our four year old daughter are also quite bright and can figure this out as well!

Anyway, it turns out that they really don’t show any real “transitional forms,” and they only want you to think that it somehow happened, but they don’t have proof, but just believe we have proof, even though we don’t.

Did you get that?

So, bottom line, it is important to get these fantasy pimpin’ and often condescending and scientifically challenged “Darwinists-evolutionists” to strictly define, and put limited, clearly enclosed parameters on their definition of “evolution” is, because they sure do bait and switch a lot.

Does “Evolution” mean that we all “evolved” from a single celled organism which magically changed from that into a fish, into an amphibian, into a squirrel, monkeys, apes, etc., until it became a human being, or by “evolution” do they mean that if you cross a Quarter Horse with an Arabian you will get another horse, but the blood line will eventually be different from the pure bred Arabian, and the Quater horse?

In fact, that IS what they mean – evolution to them is both, but they mean the Big one, that is, the organism magically appears, develops into all life forms, all without intelligence, without purpose, without design, unguided, and all. The variation within the species is a red herring and also a bait and switch tactic to get everyone to buy into Evolutionism as the mechanism that changed molecules into mankind.

That’s all for now.

Take care.

William

William2006 on December 30, 2007 at 7:04 AM

Creationist have an answer for all things. Unfortunately it’s the same for all questions. Magic.

ronsfi on December 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Interesting quote there, “ronsfi.”

Creationists believe that the creation came about by the will of God, a Creative, living power, a living being with the power to create, like human beings, only before human beings, and had the power to even create human beings.

Evidence in living organisms does support this concept of an Ingelligence and Design involved in living systems.

Darwinists-evolutionists believe that creation came about by nothing, no power, no creativity, no intelligence, no living, intelligent designer or guidance, yet led to intelligent organisms who create things, like mathematics, computers, medicine, cars, music, etc.

Of the two, Darwinism-evolutionism is more far fetched, and, because they believe that water and rocks can become living human beings, giraffe, dolphins, birds, etc., with no life or intelligence involved, it appears that Darwinism-evolutionism is the mindset which believes in magic.

When a frog becomes a prince in a fairy tale, we call it “Magic.”

When a frog becomes a prince after billions of years, we call it Darwinism-evolution.

William

William2006 on January 1, 2008 at 9:47 AM