Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[ADigitalArtist]

Technically, I did not say that intelligence must have been designed -but that intelligence exists by design. A more complex or capable intelligence would be of a more complex and capable design -similar to how more powerful computer chips are more complex arrangements of the same simple logic gates, etc. -simple logic gates being similar to simple intelligence, and more complex arrangements being similar to more complex intelligence. Computers use on and off states to represent basic code -but anything could technically be or represent data.

That is why it seems logical to me that intelligence and design initially increased together.

"but that intelligence exists by design" is not something I feel is evidenced. I understand that with increasing complex intelligence comes increasingly complex design, but not that intelligence itself is a product of design.

 

[Etritonakin]

"but that intelligence exists by design" is not something I feel is evidenced. I understand that with increasing complex intelligence comes increasingly complex design, but not that intelligence itself is a product of design.

Perhaps I am not expressing it correctly...

A complex intelligence is a complex design -is of a complex design -regardless of whether or not it was designed.

I do believe it is evident that human intelligence was the product of design which was the product of intelligence -but even if evolution alone is credited, evolution is a designer -and our intelligence is the product of design.
It could even be said that evolution is an intelligent designer -but one which is not self-aware.
It is essentially a design program.

An original intelligence could not have been designed by another intelligence. It's intelligence and design would initially be one in the same as it became more complex.

To (hopefully) clarify a bit more.... I am considering what might have or must have existed before the big bang. The big bang singularity would essentially be a compressed or packaged universe.
I am considering what might have packaged and executed that singularity.
I am considering a sort of intelligence singularity preceding the big bang -but different in that it would not have been packaged and executed.
It would be that which could become everything -the building blocks of everything -much more simple than elements -as simple as possible -which was or became a simple design/intelligence increasingly more complex in design and intelligence -similar to the evolution of element-based life, but that which would eventually deliberately design the elements and initiate the universe and element-based life.

Some believe our intelligence can be traced back to some stirred elemental primordial soup -but it can actually be traced back as far as possible. It seems logical to me that there must have been an intelligence based on pre-elemental stuff -perhaps from the thinnest possible primordial "broth" -before environments, bodies, etc. could have been designed.

To state it another way.... our individual beginning/conception as humans might actually be far more complex than the beginning state of "God".

I'm not saying these things are true -but they seem logical to me at this point.

(God is quoted as saying "I AM THAT I AM" -but God changes state, so that would not mean the same thing at a different point. If we consider our own ability to literally speak the words "I AM" and understand them somewhat, we see that we existed -we were -before that point.
The God described in the bible is obviously increasable -but at what point was God irreducible?)

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps I am not expressing it correctly...

A complex intelligence is a complex design.

If I may suggest, "A complex intelligence has a complex design." Puts it in the same category as a snowflake. Help?




.

 

[NoorNoor]

Science limits stop at the big bang singularity simply because the laws of physics itself that control every thing in our universe don't apply before the big bang. Meaning whatever is before or caused the big bang to happen can't be explained or understood using science laws as we understand it. Even time/space did not exist. The creator of the big bang is not subject to the limits of space, time or any physical laws as we understand it. An original intelligence singularity that is not designed by other intelligence and Totally free from the limits of time, space or only other limits that control our physical world.

The example of Man is like a cartoon character trying to extract evidence from within the cartoon to prove that the creator of the cartoon doesn't exist . In other words, if it's beyond the cartoon limits, then it doesn't exist.

The limits of science are the limits of man himself. If our knowledge stops at these barriers, Then we can not claim with any level of certainty that what beyond these barriers do not exist

 

[Etritonakin]

Our spacetime began with the big bang -but there may be something similar to spacetime external to the big bang.
A creator would have at least certainly modeled our spacetime in thought.
If we think of ourselves as within a cartoon or a program, then it may appear that everything began with the execution of that program.
However, that which now exists would be based on that which has always existed -and is an arrangement of that which has always existed.
We would not be able to say that our universe is the initial arrangement -only that we can see a point at which our universe was potentially arranged -and then began becoming arranged.
It may seem that spacetime did not exist before the big bang because we imagine a point of no interaction and complete compression.
That seems to me to indicate a stored potential -which makes me wonder how that potential became stored.
Also... If the big bang is similar to the negative charge, what is the positive?

 

[NoorNoor]

--(Etritonakin, Our spacetime began with the big bang -but there may be something similar to spacetime external to the big bang.)--

The problem is when you try to understand the limitless unknown based on the limited known which may not apply. It's only because the limit of what's known may not give you other choice. we can definitely understand that what is beyond our limits could be totally beyond our knowledge and totally different from any thing we experience in our physical world.

Our disparate trial to understand or encompass the limitless beyond our barriers in light of our knowledge is only a trial to impose limits on the limitless.

--(Etritonakin, A creator would have at least certainly modeled our spacetime in thought.
If we think of ourselves as within a cartoon or a program, then it may appear that everything began with the execution of that program.)--

Correct, every thing began with the execution of that program. Even the word before wouldn't apply to this point because it imply continuation of time further back beyond this point which is not true. Space/time and all physical limits started on this point. It limits/controls our physical world but has no relevance to the creator.

--(Etritonakin, However, that which now exists would be based on that which has always existed -) --

Correct but not accurate. That which now exists, came to existence because of that which has always existed.

--(Etritonakin, and is an arrangement of that which has always existed.)--

No, that would be again imposing limits on the limitless. You can not take the physical world further back in time/space beyond this point. All physical existence started at this point. That which now exists could be totally different from that which has always existed.

--(Etritonakin, We would not be able to say that our universe is the initial arrangement -only that we can see a point at which our universe was potentially arranged -and then began becoming arranged.)--

Correct, We can only see the beginning.

--(Etritonakin, It may seem that spacetime did not exist before the big bang because we imagine a point of no interaction and complete compression.
That seems to me to indicate a stored potential -which makes me wonder how that potential became stored.)--

Started not stored. We can't extend spacetime further back.

--(Etritonakin, Also... If the big bang is similar to the negative charge, what is the positive?)--

No clue. Maybe the collapse of the universe back to singularity after it stops expanding?

 

[Etritonakin]

--(Etritonakin, Our spacetime began with the big bang -but there may be something similar to spacetime external to the big bang.)--

The problem is when you try to understand the limitless unknown based on the limited known which may not apply. It's only because the limit of what's known may not give you other choice. we can definitely understand that what is beyond our limits could be totally beyond our knowledge and totally different from any thing we experience in our physical world.

Our disparate trial to understand or encompass the limitless beyond our barriers in light of our knowledge is only a trial to impose limits on the limitless.

--(Etritonakin, A creator would have at least certainly modeled our spacetime in thought.
If we think of ourselves as within a cartoon or a program, then it may appear that everything began with the execution of that program.)--

Correct, every thing began with the execution of that program. Even the word before wouldn't apply to this point because it imply continuation of time further back beyond this point which is not true. Space/time and all physical limits started on this point. It limits/controls our physical world but has no relevance to the creator.

--(Etritonakin, However, that which now exists would be based on that which has always existed -) --

Correct but not accurate. That which now exists, came to existence because of that which has always existed.

--(Etritonakin, and is an arrangement of that which has always existed.)--

No, that would be again imposing limits on the limitless. You can not take the physical world further back in time/space beyond this point. All physical existence started at this point. That which now exists could be totally different from that which has always existed.

--(Etritonakin, We would not be able to say that our universe is the initial arrangement -only that we can see a point at which our universe was potentially arranged -and then began becoming arranged.)--

Correct, We can only see the beginning.

--(Etritonakin, It may seem that spacetime did not exist before the big bang upon because we imagine a point of no interaction and complete compression.
That seems to me to indicate a stored potential -which makes me wonder how that potential became stored.)--

Started not stored. We can't extend spacetime further back.

--(Etritonakin, Also... If the big bang is similar to the negative charge, what is the positive?)--

No clue. Maybe the collapse of the universe back to singularity after it stops expanding?

I disagree with a few points.

I do not see that what I wrote is imposing limits on the limitless -but acknowledging that the limitless has been given definition.
(The God of the bible is limitless, but even he imposes limits upon himself as part of the creative process.)
We may have an infinite amount of time in the future, for example, and marking years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc. is not imposing limits -but giving definition.

We can't say there is nothing beyond or greater than minutes just because we are only thinking about minutes.

Every physical thing began to form with the start of the program -out of what already existed.
That which already existed was given definition -designation, etc.
Our physical universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang -but everything that would become arranged as our universe did. Nothing physical existed, but the pre-physical did exist.
The physical is the pre-physical with different rules applied.


That which now exists must be composed of the very same stuff that has always existed -but now in a different state. Everything is connected -even if we cannot presently see how it is connected.
(This idea is expressed in biblical scripture...
Heb 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." -or, in other words... The things which are seen are made of things which do not appear.)

We cannot extend the spacetime of the universe to before the singularity -but that has nothing to do with what may be external to the singularity.
It is simply an assumption that our universe is the sum total of everything.
For all we know it may be like one flower on a vine of many flowers -but even if there is only one, we are still only considering the one flower, and simply assuming it grew from nothing.
Physical spacetime as we know it may not have existed before the Big Bang, but something certainly did -and any sort of interrelationship is essentially similar to spacetime.

If we do not even allow ourselves to think beyond the spacetime of the universe, we certainly won't find anything there.

If it is similar to a program, why would we not consider how the program became programmed? Also -a program is very much a stored potential awaiting a signal to begin running in an environment. If the universe expanded, it likewise could be said to have expanded from a stored or compressed state.

If the universe expanded and is somehow elastic, then it could collapse, but it might also become a stable circuit of sorts.
Some scientists even believe that the physical universe has a foundation of sorts to which things flow from the physical universe -and vice versa.
Perhaps the physical things which formed with the universe break down again -and reform again elsewhere. That sort of cycle is pretty much everywhere within nature and the universe -so it would not be surprising if the universe itself was similar.

The Big Bang had far too much -and too extremely specific -potential for that potential to not have been itself caused somehow.

 

[Etritonakin]

Science limits stop at the big bang singularity simply because the laws of physics itself that control every thing in our universe don't apply before the big bang.

I believe it would be more correct to say that before the Big Bang, the laws of our universe were not yet applied to that which already existed.
The Big Bang is something which applied those laws to that which already existed -just as a potted seed applies laws to that which already existed before it grows into what it will be.
Different laws may have applied before the Big Bang -and may still apply outside our universe. The laws governing our universe may even apply to only a portion of everything which exists.

 

[NoorNoor]

--(Etritonakin, It may seem that spacetime did not exist before the big bang because we imagine a point of no interaction and complete compression.
That seems to me to indicate a stored potential -which makes me wonder how that potential became stored.)--

this in important point that need some elaboration. If we agree that spacetime is a must for any physical existence to happen and we agree that spacetime started at the big bang itself then every thing physical started to exist from this point on. No stored potential. Stored potential implies physical existence before the starting point which is not possible.

That would mean to me that the non existence exploded to existence at the big bang starting point. Which would be hard to imagine but imagine the example of opposing forces that meets at a point and cancel each other out to create an equilibrium. If some energy break these forces apart so they would no longer cancel each other, then you would create a dynamic system that continues to exist as long as the initial energy that separated the forces can continue the separation. Eventually the energy fades out, the forces collide to each other, all forces cease to exist and go back to equilibrium.

It can be imagined that in a similar sense, an initial totally independent force without any limits and different in nature than any physical force we understand caused the non existence to explode/decompose to create our physical world at the big bang. This physical world would eventually stop expanding then collides back to the point that every thing including spacetime ceases to exist. This initial unique force that brought our physical world to existence has to be the force of the creator who always existed beyond the boundary of spacetime.

 

[NoorNoor]

Etritonakin, you are a believer. Let me talk to you from that perspective or to be more accurate, from my perspective as a Muslim. Our understanding of God should always be in light of the fact that no thing in our physical world is like him. For example you exist and he exists but his existence is totally different than yours in a sense beyond our understanding. You exist within the confinement of spacetime but he exist external to that. Similarly all Gods attributes can be understood in light of nothing is like him.

God gave you an example of his power in your own kingdom which is your body. You want it done and it's done. You want your hand or legs to move and it precisely and instantly obeys. Similarly, God has this same control over every thing. If He wants it done, then it's done.

You create and God creates. But because of your limits, your creation has to be rearrangement of what's already existing but God brings his creation to existence from non existence. God doesn't need to start with existing stored potential to rearrange in different state. He simply brings what he wills to existence.

Non believers would have great difficulty understanding God's power but you would easily get my point.

 

[Etritonakin]

--(Etritonakin, It may seem that spacetime did not exist before the big bang because we imagine a point of no interaction and complete compression.
That seems to me to indicate a stored potential -which makes me wonder how that potential became stored.)--

this in important point that need some elaboration. If we agree that spacetime is a must for any physical existence to happen and we agree that spacetime started at the big bang itself then every thing physical started to exist from this point on. No stored potential. Stored potential implies physical existence before the starting point which is not possible.

That would mean to me that the non existence exploded to existence at the big bang starting point. Which would be hard to imagine but imagine the example of opposing forces that meets at a point and cancel each other out to create an equilibrium. If some energy break these forces apart so they would no longer cancel each other, then you would create a dynamic system that continues to exist as long as the initial energy that separated the forces can continue the separation. Eventually the energy fades out, the forces collide to each other, all forces cease to exist and go back to equilibrium.

It can be imagined that in a similar sense, an initial totally independent force without any limits and different in nature than any physical force we understand caused the non existence to explode/decompose to create our physical world at the big bang. This physical world would eventually stop expanding then collides back to the point that every thing including spacetime ceases to exist. This initial unique force that brought our physical world to existence has to be the force of the creator who always existed beyond the boundary of spacetime.

I agree that the spacetime of the universe began with the Big Bang. The physical existence of our universe began with the Big Bang.
I do not believe that the Big Bang was absolute nothingness that became the universe.

 

[Etritonakin]

Etritonakin, you are a believer. Let me talk to you from that perspective or to be more accurate, from my perspective as a Muslim. Our understanding of God should always be in light of the fact that no thing in our physical world is like him. For example you exist and he exists but his existence is totally different than yours in a sense beyond our understanding. You exist within the confinement of spacetime but he exist external to that. Similarly all Gods attributes can be understood in light of nothing is like him.

God gave you an example of his power in your own kingdom which is your body. You want it done and it's done. You want your hand or legs to move and it precisely and instantly obeys. Similarly, God has this same control over every thing. If He wants it done, then it's done.

You create and God creates. But because of your limits, your creation has to be rearrangement of what's already existing but God brings his creation to existence from non existence. God doesn't need to start with existing stored potential to rearrange in different state. He simply brings what he wills to existence.

Non believers would have great difficulty understanding God's power but you would easily get my point.

I believe in God, but I do not believe similarly.

I do not believe God and man -or the spiritual and physical -are totally different.

I do not believe God creates from nonexistence -but from his own existence -that he is the one by whom all things consist -that what we see -the universe -is a part of what God made of himself.

Biblical scripture not only teaches that God made man in the image and likeness of God, but that God created man to eventually become literally like God -to be given "glorious" bodies similar to the one by which all things were created (such as the one Moses saw the back parts of -though God is able to represent himself in any way)
God will still be in authority over all, but we will have greater and more direct creative power.
We will also be able to say "let there be..." and create with more power and ability than our human bodies allow (fortunately, our human bodies limit our ability to cause destruction in the universe now -but God is able to give us greater bodies, and plans to do so when we are not so destructive)
Of himself, God is essentially making more of himself.
It is written that God formed is for his own dwelling.
Christ Is also called "the firstborn of many brethren".

1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Phil 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

John 14:18-20 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

God does simply bring things into existence -but God also brings stored potentials into existence. For example... God created lightning -and lightning happens when enough of a potential -or charge of electrons -is gathered to overcome that which separates that potential from where the lightning strikes.

 

[Etritonakin]

Etritonakin, you are a believer. Let me talk to you from that perspective or to be more accurate, from my perspective as a Muslim. Our understanding of God should always be in light of the fact that no thing in our physical world is like him. For example you exist and he exists but his existence is totally different than yours in a sense beyond our understanding. You exist within the confinement of spacetime but he exist external to that. Similarly all Gods attributes can be understood in light of nothing is like him.

God gave you an example of his power in your own kingdom which is your body. You want it done and it's done. You want your hand or legs to move and it precisely and instantly obeys. Similarly, God has this same control over every thing. If He wants it done, then it's done.

You create and God creates. But because of your limits, your creation has to be rearrangement of what's already existing but God brings his creation to existence from non existence. God doesn't need to start with existing stored potential to rearrange in different state. He simply brings what he wills to existence.

Non believers would have great difficulty understanding God's power but you would easily get my point.

How God creates is presently beyond our knowledge and understanding -but that is not to say that it is inherently unknowable.

Here is an interesting direct quote from God in the bible.....

Job 3
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

It might be said that creation itself is the manipulation of potential.

If the universe could potentially collapse, then something is presently opposing that potential.

A bird has the potential to fall, but it creates an opposition to that potential.

When something is created, a potential -an imbalance -is created and applied to cause a new or sustained state of balance or motion.

God HAD the potential (ability) to create the universe -and apparently did so by CREATING a potential (positive and/or negative force).

Even the sudden initial expansion of the universe -and its slowing expansion -if that is what is happening -is indicative of a stored potential -and is not unlike the discharge of a capacitor through a resistance. A resistor would be a simple manipulator of the discharge of the potential -but different behavior of the expansion of the universe would indicate a different sort of manipulation of, or effect on, that potential.

 

[NoorNoor]

--(Etritonakin, I agree that the spacetime of the universe began with the Big Bang. The physical existence of our universe began with the Big Bang.
I do not believe that the Big Bang was absolute nothingness that became the universe.)--

The fact that creation is a rearrangement of what is existing. Is only a fact in our physical world, only after the beginning, only in existence of spacetime and laws of physics. Only within these barriers. But before the beginning all of that don't apply unless we insist that these limits/laws are still in effect before the beginning.

By definition, you can't take any thing back before its starting point unless you want to shift the starting point itself further back.

I am not saying that the big bang is self created. But I say that beyond the beginning, beyond the boundary of spacetime, no thing can be observed or understood based on physical laws that neither have existence nor relevance beyond his point.

My perspective as a believer in God, God is limitless in every way. He creates the physical existence. He doesn't need a physical existence to rearrange?

 

[McBell]

--(Etritonakin, I agree that the spacetime of the universe began with the Big Bang. The physical existence of our universe began with the Big Bang.
I do not believe that the Big Bang was absolute nothingness that became the universe.)--

The fact that creation is a rearrangement of what is existing. Is only a fact in our physical world, only after the beginning, only in existence of spacetime and laws of physics. Only within these barriers. But before the beginning all of that don't apply unless we insist that these limits/laws are still in effect before the beginning.

By definition, you can't take any thing back before its starting point unless you want to shift the starting point itself further back.

I am not saying that the big bang is self created. But I say that beyond the beginning, beyond the boundary of spacetime, no thing can be observed or understood based on physical laws that neither have existence nor relevance beyond his point.

My perspective as a believer in God, God is limitless in every way. He creates the physical existence. He doesn't need a physical existence to rearrange?

Yes, you have molded your god to fit your beliefs.
Nothing new or unusual about that.

 

[NoorNoor]

--(Mestemia, Yes, you have molded your god to fit your beliefs.
Nothing new or unusual about that.)--

In other words, you say I created God? If I didn't create myself, didn't create the universe, didn't start the big bang. I definitely didn't create God. Your only reason to deny God is because his existence is external to your limits. Simply don't see it, don't believe it (nothing unusual bout that) but its not that simple. Maybe to you. as humans we can do better than confining ourselves to this tight limits. In fact you molded your beliefs to fit your desires. It's your choice.

Humans are free beings. We are granted the freedom of choice/the freedom of belief but Your choice is not independent from you. You are your choice. your beliefs are reflections of your being. If you believe you are a monkey, maybe you are in one sense or another. If you believe you are a Godly being, maybe you are in one sense or another.

 

[McBell]

In other words, you say I created God?

I made no claim of you creating a god.
I said you mold your god to fit your beliefs.

If I didn't create myself, didn't create the universe, didn't start the big bang. I definitely didn't create God.

oh no, not another sermon...

Your only reason to deny God is because his existence is external to your limits.

You really should get your facts straight before running half cocked with your arse hanging out.
I do not deny god.
Any of them.
That you are unable to understand that fact is not my fault or problem.

That you try to dictate to me my beliefs and actions is your fault.
Especially when your dictations just make you look desperate.

Simply don't see it, don't believe it (nothing unusual bout that) but its not that simple. Maybe to you. as humans we can do better than confining ourselves to this tight limits. In fact you molded your beliefs to fit your desires. It's your choice.

"I know you are but what am I" is not an argument....

Humans are free beings. We are granted the freedom of choice/the freedom of belief but Your choice is not independent from you. You are your choice. your beliefs are reflections of your being. If you believe you are a monkey, maybe you are in one sense or another. If you believe you are a Godly being, maybe you are in one sense or another.

please wake me when the sermon is over....


I wonder, are you able to have an honest discussion or are you going to try dictating to me what I believe?

 

[NoorNoor]

--(Mestemia, I made no claim of you creating a god. I said you mold your god to fit your beliefs.)--

I apologize for the misunderstanding and the elongation. I thought you meant I created an imaginary God for myself (its a common claim that people created God not the opposite). I get now that you believe in God differently and think that my understanding of God is customized/distorted. I wonder, what makes you think this way? Which part of my belief that you don't agree with and Why?What is your understanding of God? A clarification would help.

Please don't take my earlier statements personal. it wouldn't even apply in your case.

 

[OurCreed]

Depends on the definitions. Evolution has been proven through science, so that can't be rejected unless a person wants to ignore evidence and follow their own personal beliefs.

Creationism is defined however a person defines it. In my eyes, evolution is simply a part of creationism.

 

[NoorNoor]

--(OurCreed, Depends on the definitions. Evolution has been proven through science, so that can't be rejected unless a person wants to ignore evidence and follow their own personal beliefs.)--

A theory is human trial to explain observation and data. The observations could be the same but the interpretation can be different by different people at different times. Similar to the case of Einstein and Newton. Same data, same observations but different interpretations. Genome analysis observations may be interpreted by an evolutionist as evidence of the evolved common ancestor or interpreted by a creationist as unity of design of products designed by same creator. The point is, To the contrary of observations and data, interpretations are product of human intellect that can be disputed.

I don't agree when you say "evolution has been proven". What aspect of the theory was proven? I don't believe the missing link for the ape like creature was ever found, let alone the long route (with no evidence) from the common ancestor (about 4 billion years ago) to the ape-man. The evolution stays a theory not a fact, with significant challenges and doubts by hundreds of scientists.


--(OurCreed, Creationism is defined however a person defines it. In my eyes, evolution is simply a part of creationism.)--

Creationism is simply a claim of intelligent design for every thing in existence including the entire universe. It's totally illogical when people claim that there no evidence for intelligent design. Let me ask you, what would be an evidence for intelligent design??? Simply ""intelligent design"" or in another word examples of intelligent design. Can we find examples of intelligent design in our universe? Absolutely yes. In fact every thing around us even the entire universe itself is an example of extremely perfect intelligent design. Scientific observations proved that our universe is an extremely accurate design to an extent that can't be imagined. What would be a logical interpretation of these observations??? Very simple, our entire world is an intelligent design by an extremely intelligent designer.

Science is claimed to dependent on observations and data but when it comes to intelligent design, all compelling examples and data are simply ignored for one reason or another.

I don' t see a contradiction with respect to the fact that an intelligent design is capable to adopt and evolve within specific limits. But if a creature is not equipped initially with what it needs to survive, it wouldn't have any chance of survival.

For example, I don't believe at all that a need to fly will ever give a flying capability or mechanism to a creature. Unless every aspect of this creature is initially designed intelligently to fly, it will never have a chance to fly. No matter how many times you jump off the cliff, you will never grow wings. You don't have a million year to grow it. only few seconds till you hit the ground and die every single time. Similarly, if creature is not designed to breath under water, will have no chance of survival under water. It wouldn't have a million year to evolve. Only few minutes and will definitely die.

An intelligent life design depends on an extremely complex/intelligent blueprint written in its genes in every single cell. The blue prints don't change during the life span of a creature and only passed to the offsprings. If mutation happen, you would expect a sudden change at time of birth not a gradual change over a long period.

Think about the example of whales and dolphins. Its entire life is under water but never evolved to breath under water and will never do. I wonder why? Simply because it's blueprint are not written this way.