Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Thanks to you RickJB and to Bluegenes for being some of the more pleasant cambatants that I have to deal with here (there are a few others).I'm so used to being accused of deliberately lying my mouth just drops open to hear something pleasant for a change -it's a thankless job being snipered at in foreign turf - but somebody has to do it or you'd all be bored too death agreeing with one another!

Well from the complexity and diversity of biological organisms from the Cambrian onwards without any evidence that anything of note led up to those organisms, it would seem that He designed ex nihilo and perfect first time. Everything that appears, appears fully formed and functional without any half baked ideas. Since we have no idea how to make life even despite knowing a certain amount about how things operate, I'd say the creator must be somewhat brighter and more capable than any of us by a long shot.
It is only philosophy that allows people to believe that no creator is necessary to make living things alive.

Well it certainly seems that those are the only ideas on the table -like I've said before, irrespective of who the creator is or what the alternative mechanism of evolution might be, either things were created or they created themselves -those are our two major options. Like I've mentioned before, the complexity of living systems IS the main evidence for creation. The lack of evidence for evolution and it's supposed mechanism, and the evidence against evolution having occurred is also evidence for creation.

Actually evolution doesn't even begin to pass the scientific method test since all they have is minor variations in things like finch beaks and peppered moths and intelligent breeding of dogs and a lot of hypothetical philisophically-based extrapolation of what is actually observed on their side. Decades of experimentation with rapid turnover in things like bacteria and fruit flies only produce mutants and in the best scenario, more bacteria and more fruit flies, nothing original there.
It's all about history and what they imagine must have happened -in the absence of God, of course.

What about the impossibility of converting things like reptiles to birds by considering the known rate of mutations, the general pathological changes that mostly result from mutations; the fact that the mutations have to be in the reproductive cells and the fact that those mutations have to be in the lucky reproductive cell that passes onto the next generation, the mutations can't just be neutral but have to cause morphological change that preferably doesn't contribute to the demise of the offspring. You have to have lots and lots of these hypothetical positive mutations that all just have to happen in a concerted way to produce entirely new systems like a whole new respiratory system (without killing the hypothetical bird-like creature)- lets face it, you really just have to have faith that evolution of the sort that evolutionists believe in actually has any possibility at all of happening.And you think we have a problem with our methods...

Well my very point -only in your faithful evolutionary perspective did it actually happen. Remember we only have minor variations as our evidence in the here and now - add to that potentially unwarranted extrapolations and a fossil record with a dirth
of evidence of intermediates and you only really have wishful thinking creating a four-chambered heart out of a three-chambered one. I need to see the creatures (plenty of them with a portion of the fourth chamber, the three and a half chambered intermediate heart working before i'll believe that.) I'm pretty sure that if you look at the mechanics of the situation, you'll find that to change one circulatory system to another without killing off the intermediates with your random mutations is quite a trick.

Well tell me, how's evolution doing with replicating their positive evidence -you first (and minor variation doesn't count.) Remember negative evidence for transitional forms (like 'we can't find them')is not evidence for evolution either.If we can't fill those gaps with goddidit then you can't fill them with, 'they were there, we just can't find them' (so many billions of intermediates that should be there to truelly record the transition}.
Evidence was thin on the ground in Darwin's day (at least he admittedto his reservations)and so many many fossils later, it really doesn't look any better.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Perhaps this is a mutant variant like the 4-winged fruitfly and not designed to be quite so ugly? Perhaps that is just how he's supposed to look...I think he's pretty cute.

Well I must say I printed your article and took my pencil out before reading the article in order to underline all the iffy words like "we might guess" "probably" "suggests" "may have". The whole point is that just because you believe it (and the author does), that does not mean that it happened. It only means that those who believe it can paint a picture of how they think it happened because they 'know' it did. There's your philisophical assumption right there.
What the evidence of mutations actually shows is that mutations are copy mistakes. Mutations are mostly harmful, sometimes neutral and very occasionally beneficial in cases where for example, bugs that no longer have wings may survive better on an island where wind blows them into the sea when they fly. Of course that's a loss of information that would cause such a change, not a gain. For evolution of the type you imagine to be true to happen, we need evidence of many many beneficial mutations that need to happen not just morphologically but also biochemically, neurally etc and all these changes have to arrive timeously to create an overall beneficial and coordinated situation such that the 'evolved' creature can survive.Chances seem to indicate that any beneficial mutations that might theoretically arrive would be more than compensated for by the many negative mutations that would be far more probable according to the actual evidence.
Making up a story doesn't make it true though I can see how you would believe it -that's philosophy not evidence-based science.
Now for me, I can't believe it because of the evidence produced by the study of genetics and mutations.

So in other words, the fact that evolution has no real good evidence (apart from minor variations) to support it and the fact that the evidence against evolution is becoming rather overwhelming,this is not enough to remove 'evolution as a fact' from the world's imagination.We have to first produce a better story before it is possible to unseat the pretender.
That's like saying that you are guilty of a crime you have not committed until you produce the one that actually did it.How about we go for intelligent indecision about what actually happened and teach the controversy in the meantime?

Well I don't know -that's like saying that to convert a four chambered heart to a three chambered one, all you have to do is get rid of the septum -but that on it's own would definately kill you in the wild -it's just not that simple -a whole lot of other things have to change in order for it to work -and the changes have to be perfectly co-ordinated to keep you alive along the way.
What evolutionists do is convert their philisophical prejudice into a sequence or story line that most likely never happened and then just wave their magic wand over it to baptize it as fact. Actually it's more about the fact that's there's no scientific evidence to back up the assertion so I'd rather tend towards incredulity until the evidence is there.The opposite of personal incredulity would be "gullibility" I'd think.

You really sound like a Dawkins clone here. I repeat, the fossil evidence for evolution is not convincing in the slightest. Are you forgetting the Cambrian explosion? The sudden appearance of fully formed fish? The sudden jumps between this and that with no evidence of intermediates? You really have to look at the big picture and ask yourself whether evolution makes sense.

The evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian, if they ever did exist, have never been found anywhere where Cambrian fossils are found.As paleontologist Chen says "Very unexpectedly, our research is convincing us that major phyla are starting down below at the beginning of the Cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows."
(Doesn't sound much like the 'tree' of life, does it.)Gould and Eldredge came up with "punctuated equilibrium" for a reason -I wonder what that reason was? Of course it does in a sense solve the problem of the lack of fossil intermediates.Though ultimately all it does is draw attention to the problem."The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.." (Gould)How did the coelocanth disappear from the fossil record for some 65 million years only to reappear off the coast of africa in the 1930's. Disappearance from the fossil record is supposed to signify extinction isn't it ?-millions of years of it? Wollemi pines were supposed to be extinct since the age of the dinosaurs -how have they also reappeared? Why have people drawn dinosaurs on cave walls? -Because they were extinct 65 million years ago??? Why are there historical accounts of dragons and pictures of them (dinosaurs) in the history books but they were supposedly extinct millions of years before the people that drew them and spoke of them -historical insanity?This is not the place for this discussion but it does tell me one thing -dating methods have got to be flawed (plenty of evidence for that) and 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.
I have a better idea -what if all the different kinds of creatures were created???

My point is to say that the idea of adding a septum is too simplistic a solution -much like turning a dinosaur into a bird -do you know how many systems you have to change to make that happen?And pretty much all we have to show for the conversion is the very questionable archeopteryx as a show case transitional.Evolutionists have a tendency to be far too credulous because they 'believe' that evolution has happened -that it did is not even a question for them. How it happened is the only sort of question they ask -it's about their philosophy, their preconceived beliefs, it all goes without saying. Where's our evidence that it did happen? Well it certainly seems to be programmed into the croc, doesn't it. Much like the caterpillar turning into a butterfly - certain things are programmed into their genetic code -does that prove that a 3-chambered heart of one animal changed via mutations and natural selection into the four chambered heart of other creatures???If I make copying errors in 'Paint' on my computer -it is feasible that after millions of years of copying errors and selection of the ones that work best, I'm going to end up with 'Photoshop?'
Mistakes are mistakes -genetic errors don't bring about biological integrated complexity -there is no evidence for it, only the belief that it must have happened. I repeat, give me your evidence... And personal credulity therefore relates to knowledge... or philosophy?? So should imagination take the place of evidence? In your credulous imagination perhaps... Is the fact tht evolution for the most part runs totally contrary to the evidence any help in understanding my rejection thereof?
Rejection of evolution cannot under any circumstances be equated to rejection of science -I'm all for the repeatable, experimental, factual stuff.It's the forensic imaginary stuff I have no time for. To put the two together is just ludicrous.

I wouldn't be so sure about that -billions of rapidly fossilized dead things preserved in rock layers all over the earth -couldn't be! Evolutionists flailing around blindly in the light failing to see design in biological systems, they fail to see the evidence for the flood because that is the last thing they want to see. They'll see evidence of a past flood on dry old Mars long before they'll acknowledge a flood on a planet largely covered by water. Prophecy is about the future. Watch Israel and when Iran, Russia and various middle east countries attack her, watch them go down.Sept 2001 was the beginning of a new Jewish 7-year period; this Sept begins a new 7-year cycle. We know what's due to happen, we watch the seasons (Jewish holidays and cycles) -we don't know exactly when but we know who, why and where.
Iran and Russia have never been bedfellows before, but they are now. Students of Biblical prophecy saw a Iran-Russia merger a very long time ago when it didn't seem vaguely probable.When Israel became a state in 1948, Christians celebrated because every single end time prophecy revolves around Israel - which made life kind of difficult if Israel didn't exist.The Jews are waiting for the messiah, the Muslims are waiting for the Mahdi,their messiah (but they can only usher him in with chaos and destruction -which is why Ahmadinejad is so willing) and the Christians have all of this written in their prophecies and they await the return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, at the end of a 7-year period of tragedy and bloodshed on the earth that begins with a 7-year peace treaty with Israel being signed by someone we call the antichrist.We watch as Israel negotiates a peace treaty with her enemies; we watch as Iran gets close to Russia (and the other Arab nations mentioned in prophecy); we watch the general breakdown of society brought about largely by the philosophy that matter is all that exists (materialism) and God is dead - while evolutionists carry on blithely unaware of momentous historical events unfolding in front of their blinded eyes.Design? We can't see design! There's design that looks like design and there's real design and you have to be able to see the difference, you see. Just because biological organisms look designed is no reason to believe that they are!Human beings are just mutated apes so if we behave like apes then it should be expected. The Bible's out the window so there is no right or wrong and there we have relativism -if you kill somebody for a reason you can justify, then killing is right; if you steal for any number of justifiable reasons then stealing is right.No more standards of right or wrong and every human is capable of justifying everything that they do wrong.We have imagination, you see -we are not designed -our interconnected body systems fell together by pure chance; copy mistakes and selection of the best ones caused our existance -as if random errors in the rewriting of 'Goldilocks'(written by nobody, of course) could ultimately give rise to 'War and Peace.'You may feel vaguely sad and just a large part irritated about our 'delusion' about God, but it's nothing compared to the pain we feel for you.