That would be because something or someone was the cause of the accident.....no?
No as accidents are avoidable. That is what makes it an accident.
Cause and effect? In evolution, science removes the cause to concentrate only on the effect. How silly. The cause is way more important than the effect.
No evolution uses cause and effect. Those causes are the mechanics in the theory.
Actually it was pictorial evidence of what I was saying......no one thinks "accidents" are beneficial because human experience tells them otherwise.
Which is a horrible example as accidents in cars are not mechanics within nature.
But you know someone or something caused the accident....Yes?
By definition of the word accident.
What about the beneficial accidents....? Do you congratulate them? How often would you expect one to happen? How often have you patted someone on the back for a beneficial accident?
Again distorting accident and making an irrelevant comparison to people
Oh my goodness! My entire argument is undone by one mistake in terminology?
Yes.
Isn't "natural selection did it" science's substitute for "God did it"?
No as people can point to specifics in nature while "God did it" doesn't. People form models for prediction and test these. There is no model in "God did it"
Isn't speciation something only observed within a family or "kind" of creature?
No. It is observed in different species. Again injecting your terminology which is biblical not scientific.
Show us one species morphing into another completely different creature......actual evidence that doesn't rely on suggestion. Surely you have some?
That is not how speciation works so your question is irrelevant due to your ignorance of the subject.
Hmmmm...how do you "smear" science by telling the truth?
You are giving your opinion not a truth. An uneducated opinion.
If something is true, you should be able to convey it in simple language. But it seems as if every time someone tries, it just shows up the flaws because the jargon conveniently hides a multitude of supposition.
No you just change terms to mean what you want or reject anything that shows you are wrong. Nothing more.
Wait! You mean there was actual evidence and I missed it?
Drat!
Start reading the thread again if you missed it in your vain attempt at defending Creationism
Seems to me that I addressed most of the things presented to me.....please tell me what I ignored.
Not really as you distorted what is presented and claim victory which is merely pigeon chess.
Don't wanna play anymore eh? But you are wrong....I am interested in learning.....but evolutionary science has nothing to teach me.
You have no interest in learning, it is just a facade put forward by you. I have no internet in teaching someone not interested. If you want to actually learn you can enroll in a university which involved putting your money where you mouth is.
I am merely showing that the "science" is not really all that accurate. I am demonstrating that there is way more guesswork than there are facts.The videos posted above provide abundant evidence for special creation by a brilliant artisan.
No you just label it as guesswork as it fits your narrative.
Empty claim regarding special creation. Amusing you demand evidence upon evidence yet you make claims with zero evidence when it helps Creationism.
It wasn't hypothetical......it was a real occurrence that happened on my back porch only days ago. The lizard deliberately shed its tail and left it as a decoy so it could escape from my dog......you have no answer for that, do you?
It is an escape mechanism. So what?
Presenting established truth is loading terminology?
Again you mistake your uneducated opinion for truth.
Really? All those fortunate "accidents" that produced all life forms on this planet from an amoeba in the primordial soup, is me loading the terminology?
Yes as you distort complex mechanics down to a incorrect term. That is called a strawman and equivocation.
Perhaps we should call them flukes then?
Is a fluke more "scientific"?
And then you prove my point above.
The Creator is a great mechanic.
I can thoroughly recommend him. I don't know of any mechanical things that did not have a mechanical mind to design and manufacture them...do you?
Then it is not a Creator by definition. Your sloppy understanding of evolutionary mechanic and sloppy understanding of the concept of God caused you to make a mistake again.
Mechanical things are made. Mechanism within science does not mean mechanical nor machine. Again your sloppy language caused you to make another eror.
Yep, they just evolved wings because they wanted to learn how to fly.....are you hearing yourself?
Except I never said that. You are putting forward a strawman. I said learn to fly as in young birds being pushed out the nest by parents. However again since you have no education in the subject you made another mistake.
Ingenuity requires intellect
Which birds do have.
A purpose or goal of the bird nothing more
Instinct is what drives the animal kingdom......in case you haven't noticed, there are no creatures on earth who have more intelligence, ingenuity and creativity than humans....we do not operate by instinct.
Having more does not mean the rest do not have it at all. Yes humans do operate by instinct a lot. We still react to flight or fight responses. We still have natural drives such as our sex drive. We can counter our instincts with reason but that does not mean we never operate by instinct. Again another fine demonstrated of your lack of education in the subject
Ants plan. They build chambers for specific purposes like food storage, garbage, offspring.
I am not sure why you bring up Catholics at this point?
It refuted your claim that no one that believes in a Creator takes evolution serious. I showed otherwise.
I have no interest in Christendom or anything it teaches.
I will add that the list of things you have no interest in, right below science and evolution.
My doctrine, as well as my own experience in life prevents me from swallowing the belief that everything on this earth is the product of random chance.
That is a problem of your indoctrination then.
My "narrative" is not driven by anything
Yes it is, by your religion.
but common sense and great appreciation for the brilliant things I see in creation.
Common sense is unreliable in science, another thing you didn't know.
I see clever and innovative designs in nature on so many levels.
Opinion
...you see fortunate accidents or flukes as being responsible for what we can observe with our own eyes. I believe you have selective blindness.
No I accept models produced by science regarding evolution. I do not create those models as you do with your "I see stuff therefore I am right"
This is how I see scientists leading other scientists.....(Matthew 15:14)
Another opinion which is irrelevant.