Just Accidental?

[Jose Fly]

It depends on where these ice crystals were, stretching between the stratosphere and mesosphere; or maybe it was in gaseous form, somewhere from the mesopause into the thermosphere? Temperatures in that region are certainly hot enough to hold water as steam (vapor).

Well which is it, ice crystals or vapor? This is important.

How are clouds able to hold tons of hail up in their billows?

By rising air. But clouds are very, very different than a 200 foot thick layer of water covering the entire earth.

As a liquid, extreme pressure would result probably (depends on where it was). But suspended as a gas, or as sparse crystals, atmospheric pressure wouldn't be a problem.

Incorrect. If the canopy is within the atmosphere it contributes to atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of the earth is simply the weight of a column of the atmosphere directly above that spot. So if there was 200 feet of water above, the atmospheric pressure at sea level would be 1 atmosphere (normal pressure) plus the weight of the vapor canopy. One atmosphere corresponds to about 10m of water, which means a 200 foot thick layer of water would produce an atmospheric pressure of about 7 atmospheres at the surface (200 ft = ~60m/10 = 6 atmospheres + 1 atmosphere = 7 atmospheres).

Seven atmospheres is about 103 psi, and 103 psi is outside the livable range for humans. Somewhere between 2 and 24 hours at that pressure is all a person can tolerate.

 

[Deeje]

What comparison? I was telling you that most Christians will tell you that the theory of evolution is correct, and gave you the official positions of several large Christian institutions. I don't know what your answer has to do with that.

Since Jesus himself indicated that "many" would acknowledge him as "Lord" but that in itself was no guarantee that he would acknowledge them as his disciples, we see a picture emerging. (Matthew 7:21-23)
"Most Christians" might not be so accepted by the Master himself.

What else did Jesus indicate that will shed light on this issue of true and false "Christians"? What better way to hide a tree than to plant a forest of fakes? Who would want to do that?

In one of his parables, Jesus mentioned the planting of "wheat" and "weeds" in the same field. He identified the "wheat" as "the sons of the kingdom" (or the first Christians.) But then, an enemy (satan the devil) oversowed the same "field" (the world) with "weeds" or fake Christians. The workers asked if they should remove the weeds, but the Master said, 'no, lest you accidentally uproot the real wheat with the weeds. Let them both grow together because at the harvest time, you will clearly see a difference between the two. The "weeds" (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43)

Jesus also gave the illustration of the two roads.....one leading to life and the other to certain death. He said that "few" were on the road to life because the going was tough on this cramped and narrow path. The other road was buzzing with traffic, all blindly heading to their death on an easy road, with little demanded of them. (Matthew 7:13-14) This road leads to a deep precipice around a blind corner...the warning signs are up, but no one is taking any notice.

Then we have the "sheep and the goats" (Matthew 25:31-46) Again, one group lives...the other perishes. We choose what group we want to belong to. (emphasis on the "wanting" which comes from the heart)

So Jesus gives us a clear delineation between those who think they are on the right track and those who actually are. He is the judge however, so we cannot point fingers at individuals as if we can judge them as unworthy of life....Jesus decides that. He uses the story of Noah and the flood to give us the heads up.....nothing is as it appears in a world ruled by God's adversary. (1 John 5:19)

We can only imagine the confidence of the people who chose to ridicule Noah and his family, turning to absolute horror and despair when they realized that what Noah had been telling them for decades was actually true and that there was now, no way to change course.

So, you think that your fellow Christians that say that they accept evolution have sold out to science? How did they sell out to science? Science doesn't want anything from them or you. Aren't they still going to heaven?

I do not believe that "Christendom" represents true Christianity because they fail to uphold everything that Jesus taught.
The defection of the "weeds" began at the close of the first century and the conduct of the "church" began to decline very rapidly, with men enacting heinous punishments for disagreeing with the church and introducing all manner of traditions, (based on the adoption of pagan teachings) and going down the exact same path as Judaism had done before them.

Science has so propagandized the population to believe everything they are told, that anyone who disagrees is ostracized and humiliated (as the video in my previous post demonstrated.) 'Just be quiet and don't rock the boat' is recommended if you want to maintain your employment in your chosen field. If science has to attack religion instead of backing up their claims with hard evidence, then that is a sure fire sign that the evidence is weak, but made to appear to be strong. The power of suggestion is used in every avenue to sell products and ideas...evolution is no exception.

Modern science is built on big egos and accolades and large grants....that is a recipe for corruption. Christendom is also built on this foundation. People can see for themselves how far they have strayed from the teachings of Christ if they just read their Bible.

Most people can't see the forest for the trees. The Bible is full of examples of those who thought they could take on the Creator and win......how many of them did?....and where are they now?

Like I said...believe it or not....

 

[Deeje]

That is why an omniscient, omnipotent god has no use for physical laws and fine tund constants like the laws of planetary motion or the gravitational constant. In a world with a such a god, the planets just simply obey the "word of God." Physical laws imply a self-operating universe.

Are you telling God how to manage his universe now? You are funny

It is obvious to all that God has put laws in place so that the universe and everything it it is "self-operating" or self-sustaining. You don't know the Creator at all, do you?

I see a different world than you do:.....
And I think to myself what a wonderful world

Ah, the rose colored glasses

.....it IS a wonderful world (planet)....but the greedy people who live in it are trashing the place. You obviously see the world through the eyes of someone who has not really done it tough, if you can say that. I look at the homeless situation in many countries and the victims of war, famine and violence....and wonder how anyone can see the world at present as "wonderful" in any way.

God's servants don't have a very good track record with their warnings. We have been told since New Testament days that these are the end times, that the end of the world is coming soon. Several of God's servants were happy to provide us with a precise date that came and went.

Seeing as how Jesus told us that "no one knows the day or the hour" (Matthew 24:37-39) there is no point in guessing. I know we have tried to and it doesn't work. Though Jesus did tell us to "keep on the watch" for the "sign" that he gave in these last days. In Jerusalem, the 'watchmen' would often see something on the horizon and sound an alarm, only to find that there was no threat. They were just doing their job. And once it was discerned that it was a false alarm, everything went back to normal.

God has his own schedule and the end will come when he determines that it should. Noah was not told when the end of his world would come either, until a week before God shut the door. (Genesis 7:4-5)

 

[Deeje]

You Deeje are such an invaluable asset to atheists everywhere. I think we should make you an honorary atheist. The damage you do to the credibility of Bible believers everywhere is invaluable. Christendom is a fractured fiasco. Please give us as many derogatory statements you can about your fellow Bible believers. It helps the atheist cause no end.

Funny you should say that ArtieE.....we have an assignment to tell the truth. That Christendom is a "fractured fiasco" was foretold by Jesus and his apostles......we did not invent the notion, nor do we pretend to be "Christians" along with those who teach lies about the God we worship.

We will expose their hypocrisy.

There are not many versions of the truth....there is just one and we are the ones who must search for it like hidden treasure....(Proverbs 2:4-5)

Human nature basically never changes......people will believe whatever they want to believe and they will follow the lead of those who appear to have the knowledge they are seeking. Do you think you are any different to the rest of humanity?

We all make the same choices and they will have the outcomes given in the Bible. You can believe them or not. People are making choices every day because we are all given free will....to either use it wisely or to abuse it selfishly.
I believe that we will all stand before the same judge. Pretending he is not there, does not make him go away.

 

[Deeje]

Incorrect. If the canopy is within the atmosphere it contributes to atmospheric pressure.

The Bible says it was "above" the expanse or atmosphere.

 

[Valjean]

What happens to scientists who dare to speak about Intelligent Design? They lose their job?

I found this documentary on YouTube.

You do realize that this is a propaganda video, that's been debunked numerous times?
Watch this one:

How scientifically verifiable is macro-evolution really if you can't even mention Intelligent Design without risking your scientific career?

You're fine with mentioning it, but if you try to propose it you'll be required to present and defend your evidence.
A professor of medicine teaching humorism or an astronomer teaching an Earth centered solar system would rightly be removed from their positions.
ID/Creationism is supernaturalism, it's an assertion of magical creation, ex nihil, by an invisible entity.
It won't fly either.

 

[Deeje]

You do realize that this is a propaganda video, that's been debunked numerous times?

Debunked by whom? Where is the evidence that this guy is telling the truth? I didn't see him present anything more impressive than the man in the first video.

You're fine with mentioning it, but if you try to propose it you'll be required to present and defend your evidence.

"Evidence".....now there's a novel commodity. I have not seen a single shred of actual evidence that evolution ever took place except in the fertile imagination of men like Darwin.

ID/Creationism is supernaturalism, it's an assertion of magical creation, ex nihil, by an invisible entity.
It won't fly either.

You do realize that there are proponets of ID who are not religious at all don't you? They do not believe in the supernatural.

Here are some examples.....

Lynn Margulis
A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and once the wife of Carl Sagan, biologist Lynn Margulis (1938–2011) is not the first person one might expect to critique neo- Darwinian theory vocally. But that’s exactly what she did. In an interview shortly before her death, Margulis explained, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Echoing the arguments of many ID proponents, Margulis maintains that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” (Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, “UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory,” Brattleboro Reformer February 3, 2006.)

In a 2003 book co-authored with Dorion Sagan (the son of Carl), she elaborates:

"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement….Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation." (From Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan)

Some Darwin defenders have cited Lynnn Margulis’s eminence as evidence that critics have freedom to express their views. Margulis doesn’t agree, noting that “anyone who is overtly critical of the foundations of his science is persona non grata.” Other atheists who challenge Darwin have made similar observations.

Like Lynn Margulis, Thomas Nagel recognizes that critics of materialist thinking face harsh reactions: “I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture…by the defenders of intelligent design….The problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.” In his view, “the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude.”

Nagel is a well-known atheist is also a longtime critic of neo-Darwinian evolution and supporter of ID. In a 2008 article titled, “Public Education and Intelligent Design,” Nagel argued that teaching ID in public schools is “constitutionally defensible.”

His 2012 book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, he elaborates his critiques of Darwinism: “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected [by mainstream biologists] to abandon this naïve response [critiquing standard materialist explanations of life’s origins], not in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by example. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true.”

Jerry Fodor is a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Rutgers University. In his 2010 book, What Darwin Got Wrong, coauthored with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, the two profess being “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists,” but nonetheless contend “there is something wrong—quite possibly fatally wrong—with the theory of natural selection.”

Like Margulis, they too faced a backlash from peers who felt that they were betraying science: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute.”

Nonetheless, Fodor isn’t afraid to challenge the consensus. Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,” he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed…there’s a crack in the foundations.”

Random mutation and natural selection alone are unable to find the extremely rare DNA sequences that yield solutions to complex biological problems.....the challenge for gradualist adaptationism is to explain how mutations capable of producing full wings can have accumulated silently over a long evolutionary time in the absence of any adaptive advantage.”

And how a certain wasp injects a series of carefully orchestrated stings into a cockroach to make the bug “zombified.” This allows the wasp to “manipulate the cockroach’s antennae, or literally ride on top of it,” leading the brain-dead cockroach to become food for the wasp’s young. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini call this a “complex, sequential, rigidly pre-programmed” system, which won’t work unless all components are present, thereby challenging Darwinism.

http://www.equip.org/article/non-re...nian-evolution-proponents-intelligent-design/

You guys act like no one in the scientific community has anything to present against the theory of evolution. There are many who don't even believe in God but still reject the common consensus.

I don't often use material from the CRI but this was useful in countering the point you made.

 

[Valjean]

 

[Jose Fly]

The Bible says it was "above" the expanse or atmosphere.

If it was outside the atmosphere, why didn't it dissipate off into space?

 

[Jose Fly]

You do realize that this is a propaganda video, that's been debunked numerous times?

She doesn't care. Earlier she posted a Ray Comfort video, dared everyone to watch it, and challenged us to explain why the people in it couldn't give evidence for evolution. But once it was shown that it was dishonestly edited by a known liar, she just went away for a couple of days, waited until it got buried in the thread, and now she's back posting another creationist video as if nothing had ever happened.

Wash, rinse, repeat......

 

[Sapiens]

She doesn't care. Earlier she posted a Ray Comfort video, dared everyone to watch it, and challenged us to explain why the people in it couldn't give evidence for evolution. But once it was shown that it was dishonestly edited by a known liar, she just went away for a couple of days, waited until it got buried in the thread, and now she's back posting another creationist video as if nothing had ever happened.

Wash, rinse, repeat......

Interesting, that is exactly how Trump behaves.

 

[Deeje]

If it was outside the atmosphere, why didn't it dissipate off into space?

What a silly question! You need a human inspired scientific reason for God to place a protective canopy of H2o around the globe?
The apostle Peter said it was there "by the word of God".....I suggest you ask God how he kept it there since it was his creation.

 

[Deeje]

No answer to that huh? You said...."ID/Creationism is supernaturalism, it's an assertion of magical creation, ex nihil, by an invisible entity. It won't fly either."

I showed you that those scientists who do not believe in supernatural creation still question the validity of the theory of evolution. There are dissenters in the scientific ranks. They experienced the backlash of fellow scientists who treated them as 'persona non grata' for daring to question it.

Are you sure that you know what you're talking about? I think the hostility towards those who reject the unprovable ToE is an indication that the hostile ones have no real evidence for what they believe.

 

[metis]

I showed you that those scientists who do not believe in supernatural creation still question the validity of the theory of evolution.

Not the basic fact that life has evolved as no serious scientist questions that most basic fact. Yes, we can argue over some of the details, but don't confuse that questioning with the fact that there has been an evolution of species that has been going on now for roughly 3 billion years.

What we cannot assume, and therefore we don't, is that "supernatural creation" is true.

 

[Jose Fly]

What a silly question! You need a human inspired scientific reason for God to place a protective canopy of H2o around the globe?
The apostle Peter said it was there "by the word of God".....I suggest you ask God how he kept it there since it was his creation.

Oh, well if the vapor canopy thing only works with miracles, then we've stepped outside the realm of science and there's no need for you to try and argue that the science supports it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you sure that you know what you're talking about? I think the hostility towards those who reject the unprovable ToE is an indication that the hostile ones have no real evidence for what they believe.

Yeah, I hear flat-earthers get treated pretty poorly in the geography world too. Imagine that.....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Since Jesus himself indicated that "many" would acknowledge him as "Lord" but that in itself was no guarantee that he would acknowledge them as his disciples, we see a picture emerging. (Matthew 7:21-23)
"Most Christians" might not be so accepted by the Master himself.

What else did Jesus indicate that will shed light on this issue of true and false "Christians"? What better way to hide a tree than to plant a forest of fakes? Who would want to do that?

In one of his parables, Jesus mentioned the planting of "wheat" and "weeds" in the same field. He identified the "wheat" as "the sons of the kingdom" (or the first Christians.) But then, an enemy (satan the devil) oversowed the same "field" (the world) with "weeds" or fake Christians. The workers asked if they should remove the weeds, but the Master said, 'no, lest you accidentally uproot the real wheat with the weeds. Let them both grow together because at the harvest time, you will clearly see a difference between the two. The "weeds" (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43)

Jesus also gave the illustration of the two roads.....one leading to life and the other to certain death. He said that "few" were on the road to life because the going was tough on this cramped and narrow path. The other road was buzzing with traffic, all blindly heading to their death on an easy road, with little demanded of them. (Matthew 7:13-14) This road leads to a deep precipice around a blind corner...the warning signs are up, but no one is taking any notice.

Then we have the "sheep and the goats" (Matthew 25:31-46) Again, one group lives...the other perishes. We choose what group we want to belong to. (emphasis on the "wanting" which comes from the heart)

So Jesus gives us a clear delineation between those who think they are on the right track and those who actually are. He is the judge however, so we cannot point fingers at individuals as if we can judge them as unworthy of life....Jesus decides that. He uses the story of Noah and the flood to give us the heads up.....nothing is as it appears in a world ruled by God's adversary. (1 John 5:19)

We can only imagine the confidence of the people who chose to ridicule Noah and his family, turning to absolute horror and despair when they realized that what Noah had been telling them for decades was actually true and that there was now, no way to change course.

I view your scripture the way we both view Muslim scripture. You might want to try to keep that in mind when you recite it to others as if it is authoritative.

I do not believe that "Christendom" represents true Christianity because they fail to uphold everything that Jesus taught.

By your definition, there is no true Christians at all.

My definition of true Christianity is actual or real Christianity - what one can actually experience.

Science has so propagandized the population to believe everything they are told, that anyone who disagrees is ostracized and humiliated (as the video in my previous post demonstrated.) 'Just be quiet and don't rock the boat' is recommended if you want to maintain your employment in your chosen field. If science has to attack religion instead of backing up their claims with hard evidence, then that is a sure fire sign that the evidence is weak, but made to appear to be strong. The power of suggestion is used in every avenue to sell products and ideas...evolution is no exception.

Modern science is built on big egos and accolades and large grants....that is a recipe for corruption. Christendom is also built on this foundation. People can see for themselves how far they have strayed from the teachings of Christ if they just read their Bible.

Most people can't see the forest for the trees. The Bible is full of examples of those who thought they could take on the Creator and win......how many of them did?....and where are they now?

Like I said...believe it or not....

Scientists don't care what you or I believe.

And creationist scientists are free to open their own labs and do whatever they like. Nobody is stopping them. If they think that they can do science better than the present scientific community, let them go for it like the ID people. That research has been pretty sterile and a huge waste of money, but that's not an issue since its private dollars that never would have gone to science anyway, and we never expected anything from them.

Most of us are pretty satisfied with the paradigm of mainstream science and its results.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you telling God how to manage his universe now?

You still don't seem to understand what an atheist is.

It is obvious to all that God has put laws in place so that the universe and everything it it is "self-operating" or self-sustaining. You don't know the Creator at all, do you?

Most people reject the idea of your god, "God,"so it's not quite as obvious as you think.

Why does this god ALWAYS do what would be done if no god existed? It perfectly imitates a non-existent god.

"The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike" - Delos B. McKown

Ah, the rose colored glasses .....it IS a wonderful world (planet)....but the greedy people who live in it are trashing the place. You obviously see the world through the eyes of someone who has not really done it tough, if you can say that. I look at the homeless situation in many countries and the victims of war, famine and violence....and wonder how anyone can see the world at present as "wonderful" in any way.

Of course you do (look at the worst of the human condition). But that's what you see. You described a horrible world, not just a world that is horrible for some.

Most people I know and have known have and have had pretty good lives. Secular humanists see the world differently from zealous Christians. For the latter, the sky is always falling. It's always the end of days. The world is always a cesspool to them. For them, man has no redeeming qualities.

I don't want to live under that cloud, and I don't.

You're not American, but you might know anyway that a similar affliction has beset American conservatives. They tell me over and over how the country is going to hell even though their days are easy. They get up, perhaps have a cup of coffee over the computer, drive off to work in an air conditioned car, come home and enjoy a dinner with loved ones perhaps followed by TV and bed, but not before getting on the Internet to tell the world that America is going to hell. Ask them what's so bad about their lives, and they can't tell you,or they'll tell you about a national debt that they aren't being billed for, or Hillary's emails, or abortions that can't possibly be affecting their lives.

It's pure indoctrination.

Incidentally, most of those who you call "the greedy people trashing the world" call themselves Christians.

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior

 

[gnostic]

She doesn't care. Earlier she posted a Ray Comfort video, dared everyone to watch it, and challenged us to explain why the people in it couldn't give evidence for evolution. But once it was shown that it was dishonestly edited by a known liar, she just went away for a couple of days, waited until it got buried in the thread, and now she's back posting another creationist video as if nothing had ever happened.

Wash, rinse, repeat......

That's true... about her tactics.

When she fails to make impressions the first time, she will bring up the same thing at later date.

I don't like watching YouTube videos. Although it is possible to find something, every now and then, but there are tonnes of rubbish and propaganda.

Creationists and ID adherents' videos are often one-sided, and they are never science. And people posting them up at RF threads, don't bother to check the sources, like if it had already been debunked or not, or if they are outdated, or misleading.

Anyway, I personally think Ray Comfort is an idiot. I remembered there was a guy who love Comfort, posting thread after thread about Comfort's works, quoting him incessantly. Not at this forum, but one of the other forums that I was a member of, before coming here. Comfort don't have any science background whatsoever, let alone higher education, so he has no authority to say what is or isn't science.

I don't like Comfort back then, and I still don't like him. And I don't think this video Deeje have posted up would change my mind about Comfort being an idiot. Trust Deeje to post video of Comfort, a person whom I have have disregards for.

That's why I seldom watch them, and I rarely use them myself.

I don't even watch videos that are pro-evolution or pro-science. I'd suppose that despite being a computer science major, I still preferred to learn science through classrooms or lectures, doing labs and reading textbooks...so I guess that I am still "old-school".

 

[Deeje]

Not the basic fact that life has evolved as no serious scientist questions that most basic fact. Yes, we can argue over some of the details, but don't confuse that questioning with the fact that there has been an evolution of species that has been going on now for roughly 3 billion years.

What we cannot assume, and therefore we don't, is that "supernatural creation" is true.

That is not what those scientists said metis.....as previously posted.....

From Lynn Margulis....."In an interview shortly before her death, Margulis explained, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Echoing the arguments of many ID proponents, Margulis maintains that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

From Thomas Nagel....His 2012 book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, he elaborates his critiques of Darwinism: “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected [by mainstream biologists] to abandon this naïve response [critiquing standard materialist explanations of life’s origins], not in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by example. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true.”

Jerry Fodor.....Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,” he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed…there’s a crack in the foundations.”

Random mutation and natural selection alone are unable to find the extremely rare DNA sequences that yield solutions to complex biological problems.....the challenge for gradualist adaptationism is to explain how mutations capable of producing full wings can have accumulated silently over a long evolutionary time in the absence of any adaptive advantage.”

And how a certain wasp injects a series of carefully orchestrated stings into a cockroach to make the bug “zombified.” This allows the wasp to “manipulate the cockroach’s antennae, or literally ride on top of it,” leading the brain-dead cockroach to become food for the wasp’s young. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini call this a “complex, sequential, rigidly pre-programmed” system, which won’t work unless all components are present, thereby challenging Darwinism."

This is unbelieving scientists themselves claiming that evolution has no evidence....and is a completely flawed explanation of how life came to be the way it is. They see design in nature but they don't believe in the same designer that we do.