Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Adaptation is CAUSED by evolution.

Since you believe that adaptation is evolution that sentence should then read "evolution is CAUSED by evolution"....yep.

But we have seen that since.

No, you have seen science assume it since.

I've already provided you with multiple links to observed instances of speciation.

And I have shown you guys multiple times that speciation only results in variety within a taxonomic family. Darwin's finches were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises......none of them were in the process of 'morphing' into some other creature....and never would.

We have already observed speciation multiple times.

Speciation is adaptation, not proof of macro-evolution....is there an echo in here????

You are just regurgitating the same old stuff...all proven to be false already.

No, they say it happened because it's what has been observed to happen.

Macro-evolution has never been observed.....you do understand that?

Please note that "one organism evolving into a different kind of organism" is not a suitable answer, unless you can specifically define what constitutes a "different kind" and where exactly the barrier lies.

The barrier is demonstrated very clearly....cats didn't become dogs....dogs didn't become bears.....dinosaurs didn't become chickens....bananas didn't become humans.

Living things reproduce their own "kind"...show me where this is not true.

Honestly, your desperate scrabbling is quite childish. You honestly believe that pointing out that science uses inference is actually a crippling blow. But that's how logic works. That's how people formulate reasonable conclusions. You've even spent entire posts combing through scientific papers and highlighting uncertain clauses, as if to say "look- they aren't certain about it!". This is the way a child argues.

The last time I looked, inference was not fact....suggestion was not fact....supposition was not fact.
I pointed out those things because scientists aren't certain about any of it.....was it wrong to highlight that inconvenient truth?
"I think" is a very different position from "I know".

Is this what evolutionists do when they run out of argument?

admitting uncertainty is what reasonable and honest people do, and it's an indication that, unlike you, they are open-minded to the possibility of them being wrong. Yet you accuse scientists of preconception, ignorance and bias.

Admitting uncertainty *IS* what reasonable and honest people do when they have no proof that what they believe is true.....they don't present their assumptions as facts to children and an ignorant public....because that is bold faced lying.

This branch of science is the most dishonest of all because scientists will interpret their evidence to fit their theory. They never give the fossils an honest voice and their pre-conceived ideas will always be presented as facts when there are NO FACTS......

You have unprovable beliefs...just like we do....you just can't admit it.

You've not an ounce of honesty in you. You're not worth debating this with any more.

O please...the old 'dishonesty card'?.....I think we know who is dishonest.....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Speciation is adaptation, not proof of macro-evolution....is there an echo in here????

Note how you completely ignore the multiple references which state that "macro-evolution" is defined as "evolution above the species level", so what you are saying here is literally "macro-evolution is adaptation, not proof of macro-evolution".

You've also not met my challenge to define macro-evolution as we would observe it.

Like I said, you're not worth debating with any more. Your arguments are nothing but dishonesty and obfuscation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Proof are not fact, evidence are.

Proofs are mathematical equations, not evidences.

Mathematicians are the ones who "prove", and what they tried to prove is solving their equations.

Scientists "test" or "discover" evidence.

The Scientific Method is a process for testing and experimenting hypothesis, to see if his premise and prediction made, can be VERIFIED or REFUTED.

Any test must be repeatable. A scientist never performs just one test.

Conclusion is only reached if scientist has enough test data (by performing many tests) to examine if his hypothesis is (A) successful and correct, or (B) failed and incorrect.

Sure, there are logical proofs, like the proof of the Pythagorean theorem or any sound syllogism. But how about empiric proof? :

John's wife has been missing for five days. It's suspected that she's dead, but it hasn't been proven. Then her dead body is found.

I consider that proof, and suspect that you would agree.

 

[Deeje]

Note how you completely ignore the multiple references which state that "macro-evolution" is defined as "evolution above the species level", so what you are saying here is literally "macro-evolution is adaptation, not proof of macro-evolution".

This was discussed already. "evolution above the species level" is assumed, not proven.....not even provable. It is inferred by science attempting to make believe that it is fact. It isn't.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-uaccidental.191045/page-189#post-5222175

"OK, what do we know about evolution "above the species level"?

This explanation is from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

"The basic concept of evolution – change over time – can be examined in two different time frames. The first, which considers the time period covering a few generations for a population, is microevolution. There are many examples of microevolution that are handy for teaching, such as drug resistance (NESCent 2006a) and changes in beak size of finches in the Galapagos (NESCent 2006b). Macroevolution is the study of evolution over geologic time (thousands to millions of years). It tends to be a much more challenging idea to teach since it requires an awareness of geologic time, and relies on inferences from fossils and other records of historical events, complicated molecular analyses, and phylogenies. In general it is more difficult to grasp because it offers fewer tangible ideas. Examples of macroevolution are found in the organismal diversity all around us, but the process cannot be observed or experimentally manipulated due to the time frame involved. What scientists can do is compare the results of “natural experiments”, as seen in fossils and modern organisms, and make inferences from them.The applications of macroevolution in modern life tend to be less obvious than microevolution because of the extreme time scale. One application of macroevolution is in the development of conservation plans (NESCent 2006c) because macroevolution examines the generation of new species and the decline of species – key pieces of information for effective conservation efforts."

Read that definition and tell me where science does not use inference and suggestion to prop up their ideas? No one can go back millions of years and tell us with any accuracy what happened......only the Creator was around to tell us first hand how it went down.

I have no reason to disbelieve him."


Macro-evolution would be proven by seeing the intermediate links all through those millions of years where all this evolving was supposed to take place......finding a few fossils, millions of years apart with similarities, it is assumed that evolution happened. It is a "suggestion" about what those few bones "might be" telling them. The suggestion is based on a pre-conceived idea about what they want those bones to say.

You have nothing to substantiate your theory except a vivid imagination and a desperate attempt to make any possibility of an intelligent Creator disappear.

"Not worth debating"? Or "can't prove a thing"? You cannot admit that your belief system has no more real proof than mine. Your own cited articles are full of conjecture....not proof. They can make all the "suggestions" they like, but they cannot "prove a single thing except that all species on earth can adapt.

Confronting, isn't it?

 

[gnostic]

Sure, there are logical proofs, like the proof of the Pythagorean theorem or any sound syllogism. But how about empiric proof? :

John's wife has been missing for five days. It's suspected that she's dead, but it hasn't been proven. Then her dead body is found.

I consider that proof, and suspect that you would agree.

You know that the legal system - the court, lawyers, judges and jury, the police, etc, are not scientists, so they often use terms like "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably as if they were synonymous.

And though, forensic is science, they often worded in their reports so that non-scientific people can understand.

But you and I know, that scientists and mathematicians have different vocabularies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This explanation is from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

So is this one:

"Conclusion - The concept of macroevolution is scientifically solid, as is microevolution."

Did you get that far into the paper?

Macro-evolution would be proven by seeing the intermediate links all through those millions of years

Macroevolution, though proven by observation in the field and lab, doesn't need to be proven. It just needs to account for what is observed.

However, it is beyond being overturned. If the theory were ever falsified, say by finding that fabled precambrian rabbit, there would be no other possible interpretation of all of the evidence that came before the falsifying evidence that some god or high tech alien civilization went to the effort to see the earth with exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were the fact, but made a mistake somewhere that we found.

That wouldn't do any more good for Christianity that Darwin did. It would indicate that the god of the Christian Bible, the one that never lies or deceives, who wants to be known, believed, trusted, loved, and worshiped, was not involved.

You have nothing to substantiate your theory except a vivid imagination

And your link. And multiple examples of observed macroevolution. And a ton of fossils, genetic data, embryological data, biogeographical data. And 158 years of successful predictions never once falsified. And technological applications.

Creationism cannot compete with that at any level. It has no supporting evidence, it predicts nothing, and it has no practical application.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since you believe that adaptation is evolution that sentence should then read "evolution is CAUSED by evolution"....yep.

No, you have seen science assume it since.



And I have shown you guys multiple times that speciation only results in variety within a taxonomic family. Darwin's finches were all still finches....the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises......none of them were in the process of 'morphing' into some other creature....and never would.



Speciation is adaptation, not proof of macro-evolution....is there an echo in here????

You are just regurgitating the same old stuff...all proven to be false already.



Macro-evolution has never been observed.....you do understand that?

The barrier is demonstrated very clearly....cats didn't become dogs....dogs didn't become bears.....dinosaurs didn't become chickens....bananas didn't become humans.

Living things reproduce their own "kind"...show me where this is not true.



The last time I looked, inference was not fact....suggestion was not fact....supposition was not fact.
I pointed out those things because scientists aren't certain about any of it.....was it wrong to highlight that inconvenient truth?
"I think" is a very different position from "I know".

Is this what evolutionists do when they run out of argument?

Admitting uncertainty *IS* what reasonable and honest people do when they have no proof that what they believe is true.....they don't present their assumptions as facts to children and an ignorant public....because that is bold faced lying.

This branch of science is the most dishonest of all because scientists will interpret their evidence to fit their theory. They never give the fossils an honest voice and their pre-conceived ideas will always be presented as facts when there are NO FACTS......

You have unprovable beliefs...just like we do....you just can't admit it.



O please...the old 'dishonesty card'?.....I think we know who is dishonest.....

How many times do people have to point out to you that evolution does NOT say that any creature "morphs" into another or that cats turn into dogs, or that dogs give birth to bananas, before it sinks in? Good grief! It's baffling that you insist on believing falsehoods, when it comes to evolution.

 

[Looncall]

How many times do people have to point out to you that evolution does NOT say that any creature "morphs" into another or that cats turn into dogs, or that dogs give birth to bananas, before it sinks in? Good grief! It's baffling that you insist on believing falsehoods, when it comes to evolution.

It's easy to understand: he/she has been conned by convincing scoundrels

 

[Deeje]

So is this one:

"Conclusion - The concept of macroevolution is scientifically solid, as is microevolution."

Did you get that far into the paper?

Now that is just plain funny.

If you read the portion I quoted and then read what you quoted....you don't see a contradiction?
I'm not surprised. Macro-evolution is as solid as jello.

Macroevolution, though proven by observation in the field and lab, doesn't need to be proven. It just needs to account for what is observed.

But that is just the point....you can't prove macro-evolution from the evidence you have....all you can do is assume that it happened by filling in the very large gaps with imagination. The accounting is questionable to say the least.

However, it is beyond being overturned

Oh I wouldn't go that far.....I believe that there is a big overturning coming......wait for it.

That wouldn't do any more good for Christianity that Darwin did. It would indicate that the god of the Christian Bible, the one that never lies or deceives, who wants to be known, believed, trusted, loved, and worshiped, was not involved.

Who or what do you imagine the God of the Christian Bible to be? You obviously have in mind someone vastly different to me. Why do you dismiss the idea that the Creator could be an entity of immense power who dwells in another dimension? He is not human you know. His ability to manipulate matter on such an immense scale and to create life would make him worthy of our admiration and grateful for our existence....wouldn't it? If he has placed us here on this tiny speck in the Milky Way and has plans for the habitation of the rest of his universe, I for one would happy to be part of that. I believe that he is totally trustworthy, desires humans to get to know him, but has no desire to force any intelligent being to obey him. That has to be a willing act on our part. As Creator, he knows what is best for us....heaven knows we have not proven to be trustworthy custodians of our own planet by ignoring his directives. Thousands of years of human existence have proven that we are totally inept at governing ourselves independently.

And your link. And multiple examples of observed macroevolution. And a ton of fossils, genetic data, embryological data, biogeographical data. And 158 years of successful predictions never once falsified. And technological applications.

Who dares to raise their hand in the hallowed halls of ego-driven science? No one will attempt to falsify anything in evolutionary science because of how much has been invested into this theory.....those who dare....lose their reputation, their position and their chosen career and livlihood. Its a big price to pay for bucking the system....but then Christians are known for doing that.
We don't run with the crowd.....for a very good reason. Popular opinion is not always right.

Creationism cannot compete with that at any level. It has no supporting evidence, it predicts nothing, and it has no practical application.

On the contrary, it has as much, if not more, supporting evidence because we can make lots of suggestions too from considering the same "evidence". I can see when something is designed and when it is accidental.

Designed....

Accident.....

Its not hard to tell the difference.

The Creator predicts amazing things for the future and his wisdom has incredible practical application.....it all comes with the instruction manual. You should try reading it sometime.....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Now that is just plain funny.

If you read the portion I quoted and then read what you quoted....you don't see a contradiction?
I'm not surprised. Macro-evolution is as solid as jello.

So you offered as a reliable source a paper that you now say contradicts itself? How did that happen? Either you didn't read the whole paper, didn't understand the part that said, "Conclusion - The concept of macroevolution is scientifically solid, as is microevolution," (is that even possible? you seemed to understand it when I posted it), or don't understand or care about the standards of academia and scholarship including the idea that the words of an author that contradicts himself should not be used to endorse your position (I doubt that that is possible, either).

.you can't prove macro-evolution from the evidence you have.

Already done. It's been observed in the lab and field.

Your response has been to move the goalposts by expanding the required degree of change to the taxonomical level greater than a family as when you require that cats morph into dogs, and then claim that because we have not observed that degree of evolution directly, it didn't happen. Originally, macroevolution was speciation, which you called adaptation and dismissed. Later, you were referring to Darwin's finches "adapting" but remaining finches. Finches comprise a biological family. The radiation of the last common ancestral finch into an entire family called Fringillidae, the largest subfamily of which contains 183 species divided into 49 genera. That apparently has been disqualified as constituting macroevolution as well.

Such arguments are not only not persuasive, they undermine one's credibility and ethos, as when a speaker is neither trusted to be informed nor to argue in good faith.

Who or what do you imagine the God of the Christian Bible to be? You obviously have in mind someone vastly different to me.

I just told you: "... the god of the Christian Bible, the one that never lies or deceives, who wants to be known, believed, trusted, loved, and worshiped". Do you disagree with that description? Would your god set up the world to deceive man that the life on it had evolved, not created in the way that the Bible indicates, give him the power of reason, let him find that various types of evidence for evolution, and then punish him for being deceived?

Most Christians would say that that does not describe their god. If evolution were falsified, the only explanation remaining that could account for the mountains of evidence that had preceded the finding that falsified the theory would be the one I already provided and you chose to ignore: a very powerful deceiver or deceivers.

Incidentally, simply ignoring points like that one doesn't make them go away or constitute a draw. It's a concession. By evading an issue that rebuts a point you made, you send the same message as if you were to write, "I have no answer for that. I prefer to evade it and hope you forget that you made this point."

Faith doesn't make all of that evidence go away, either. Like the arguments you like to ignore, it's still out there and also still needs addressing - at least by those that value reasoning and evidence over faith based thought.

And unless you can offer an alternative scenario to account for all of that evidence at once: that which strongly suggests that evolution occurred and that which falsified it and showed that it didn't, only powerful deceiver scenarios remain. There are a handful possible - aliens or a god or gods built earth the way we find it, brain-in-a-vat or Matrix realities, etc., the point being that there is no longer a place for the Christian vision of reality whether evolution is falsified or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

They just designed themselves to be too irresistible to their women? Really? How did they do that? Did they imagine a design long enough for the outfit to materialize out of thin air?
The world's top designers would win awards for color co-ordination and fashion accessories like these.

It is foolish to propose that the diversity of life (ie duck species) would be a process of 'self-design.' Over time the different species of ducks developed unique colors to differentiate different species, and attract the appropriate mate of the same species. There is a distinct predictable pattern that males are more colorful than females. Females tend to have duller colors to blend in to the environment while nesting. This is true of bird species like the cardinal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's easy to understand: he/she has been conned by convincing scoundrels

I guess so. I mean, I don't really get it otherwise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now that is just plain funny.

If you read the portion I quoted and then read what you quoted....you don't see a contradiction?
I'm not surprised. Macro-evolution is as solid as jello.


But that is just the point....you can't prove macro-evolution from the evidence you have....all you can do is assume that it happened by filling in the very large gaps with imagination. The accounting is questionable to say the least.


Oh I wouldn't go that far.....I believe that there is a big overturning coming......wait for it.

Who or what do you imagine the God of the Christian Bible to be? You obviously have in mind someone vastly different to me. Why do you dismiss the idea that the Creator could be an entity of immense power who dwells in another dimension? He is not human you know. His ability to manipulate matter on such an immense scale and to create life would make him worthy of our admiration and grateful for our existence....wouldn't it? If he has placed us here on this tiny speck in the Milky Way and has plans for the habitation of the rest of his universe, I for one would happy to be part of that. I believe that he is totally trustworthy, desires humans to get to know him, but has no desire to force any intelligent being to obey him. That has to be a willing act on our part. As Creator, he knows what is best for us....heaven knows we have not proven to be trustworthy custodians of our own planet by ignoring his directives. Thousands of years of human existence have proven that we are totally inept at governing ourselves independently.



Who dares to raise their hand in the hallowed halls of ego-driven science? No one will attempt to falsify anything in evolutionary science because of how much has been invested into this theory.....those who dare....lose their reputation, their position and their chosen career and livlihood. Its a big price to pay for bucking the system....but then Christians are known for doing that.
We don't run with the crowd.....for a very good reason. Popular opinion is not always right.



On the contrary, it has as much, if not more, supporting evidence because we can make lots of suggestions too from considering the same "evidence". I can see when something is designed and when it is accidental.

Designed....

Accident.....

Its not hard to tell the difference.

The Creator predicts amazing things for the future and his wisdom has incredible practical application.....it all comes with the instruction manual. You should try reading it sometime.....

Quite the contrary, in fact. If someone could demonstrably falsify the theory of evolution they would become world famous and would most likely win a Nobel Prize. That kind of demonstration would turn biology (and most other fields of science) on its head. Something like that doesn't go unnoticed or ignored in the scientific community. It must be demonstrated though, not simply asserted. This is how science works. Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody has been able to falsify the theory of evolution over the last 158 years, if it's so obviously false. Thousands upon thousands of scientists who have been diligently studying and measuring the world around us for their entire lives have been duped, but Deeje on the Religious Forums board, who hasn't practiced a lick of science, has the real answers. Come on now.

I've pointed this out to you several times throughout this thread, when you've repeatedly made these conspiracy claims, so I'm wondering why you're still repeating it now. Science operates via demonstration and empirical evidence, not just "I look around and see that flowers and ducks are pretty so the specific god I believe in must have made it all." Thankfully, science is much more rigorous than you are.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe that there is a big overturning coming......wait for it.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

This is why I started the "Do creationists have anything new" thread. Obviously, they don't.

Who dares to raise their hand in the hallowed halls of ego-driven science? No one will attempt to falsify anything in evolutionary science because of how much has been invested into this theory.....those who dare....lose their reputation, their position and their chosen career and livlihood. Its a big price to pay for bucking the system....but then Christians are known for doing that.
We don't run with the crowd.....for a very good reason. Popular opinion is not always right.

It's funny how creationists have all sorts of money--hundreds of millions of dollars in fact-- and time for fake museums, theme parks, DVD's, books, speaking tours, and TV shows, but when it comes to doing actual science......suddenly they just can't seem to get around to it.

 

[Deeje]

It is foolish to propose that the diversity of life (ie duck species) would be a process of 'self-design.' Over time the different species of ducks developed unique colors to differentiate different species, and attract the appropriate mate of the same species. There is a distinct predictable pattern that males are more colorful than females. Females tend to have duller colors to blend in to the environment while nesting. This is true of bird species like the cardinal.

Let me get this straight......all of those varieties of ducks just accidentally had their color schemes and plumage designs chosen for them by "natural selection"....but only for the males? What about those poor dull little females? How did they fail to evolve any colorful plumage? Was it just accidental that the females should be camouflaged for safer nesting? The females evolved in a completely separate way to the males both internally and externally? It seems strange to me that in other species of birds, it is extremely difficult to tell males from females......I wonder why?
It's good that they obviously know the difference.....isn't it?

IMO, it is beauty by design, ensuring the reproduction and perpetuation of the species......it is camouflage by design for the same reason. It is purposed, not just a fluke of nature.....or millions of flukes as evolutionists would have us believe. And why do some birds not need a difference?

And I notice something very interesting about all those ducks in the OP.....all of them are still ducks. I see adaptation and variety within a species as proof of the Creator's creativity.....none of it is "accidental"....design requires an intelligent mind with a purpose for the design. What do you use in your everyday life that was not designed by someone for the purpose for which you use it?

 

[Deeje]

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

This is why I started the "Do creationists have anything new" thread. Obviously, they don't.

From what I have observed on this thread and others...neither do evolutionists. Suggestions and inference by the truckload....but no facts to back up any of it.

It's funny how creationists have all sorts of money--hundreds of millions of dollars in fact-- and time for fake museums, theme parks, DVD's, books, speaking tours, and TV shows, but when it comes to doing actual science......suddenly they just can't seem to get around to it.

I wouldn't know about that as I do not subscribe to their definition of creationism any more than I subscribe to your version of evolution.

I stand somewhere in the middle which means that I do not have to compromise on either the Bible or actual science.

I see adaptation very clearly within many species, creating lots of variety, but I do not see it carried over into macro-evolution for all the reasons I have already posted. It is assumed by science that the enormous gaps (we are talking millions of years,) are all still empty with no intermediate fossils to fill them......so much is suggested.....but none of it is provable.

I see purposeful design in nature that I cannot attribute to the blind forces of chance "beneficial" mutations and "natural selection".....none of which actually explains anything I see in the real world. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare and for the number required to explain all the varieties of life on this planet, I believe we would run out of zeros in the stats.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me get this straight......all of those varieties of ducks just accidentally had their color schemes and plumage designs chosen for them by "natural selection"....but only for the males?

No, it evolved through natural slection to be different for specie selection.

What about those poor dull little females? How did they fail to evolve any colorful plumage? Was it just accidental that the females should be camouflaged for safer nesting? The females evolved in a completely separate way to the males both internally and externally? It seems strange to me that in other species of birds, it is extremely difficult to tell males from females......I wonder why?

Strange maybe to you, because you have a creationist agenda to justify Intelligent Design (ID), but perfectly normal under natural evolution that the females needed camouflage to protect them when incubating, hatching the eggs, protecting the young. and by the way the young males lacked the colors for camoflage, and only developed them as they matured for the survival benefit of protection against predators

IMO, it is beauty by design, ensuring the reproduction and perpetuation of the species......it is camouflage by design for the same reason. It is purposed, not just a fluke of nature.....or millions of flukes as evolutionists would have us believe. And why do some birds not need a difference?

Your IMO does not represent a good argument. Many birds need the difference for camoflage and survival.

And I notice something very interesting about all those ducks in the OP.....all of them are still ducks. I see adaptation and variety within a species as proof of the Creator's creativity.....none of it is "accidental"....design requires an intelligent mind with a purpose for the design. What do you use in your everyday life that was not designed by someone for the purpose for which you use it?

Accidental is vary human construction and the problem among humans as we will have accidents, due to our fallible nature.

In nature nothing involving the survival of the species and the processes of the science of evolution is accidental by definition.

 

[Deeje]

I've pointed this out to you several times throughout this thread, when you've repeatedly made these conspiracy claims, so I'm wondering why you're still repeating it now. Science operates via demonstration and empirical evidence, not just "I look around and see that flowers and ducks are pretty so the specific god I believe in must have made it all." Thankfully, science is much more rigorous than you are.

Or science is just better at marketing a really silly idea, whilst using the threat of humiliation to silence its critics?

What science can demonstrate in real terms, and what it can suggest about what it can't prove, are two vastly different things. The power of suggestion is stronger than most people realize....the commercial world thrives on it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Or science is just better at marketing a really silly idea, whilst using the threat of humiliation to silence its critics?

What science can demonstrate in real terms, and what it can suggest about what it can't prove, are two vastly different things. The power of suggestion is stronger than most people realize....the commercial world thrives on it.

Your self-imposed ignorance of science is shared by other Creationist with a fundamental Christian agenda based on a mythical Book of Genesis.

Again , , , Science does not 'prove' anything, and the Methodological Naturalism and falsification by 99% pf all scientists has been successful for over 170 years supporting the science of evolution, a physical existence over 14 billion years old.

What have you to offer?

A fundamentalist view of a literal Genesis where all of existence was Created in 6 days and and a physical existence ~6,000 to ~10,000 years old based on a Babylonian mythical account in the tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Big hairy deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let me get this straight......all of those varieties of ducks just accidentally had their color schemes and plumage designs chosen for them by "natural selection"

How is it accidental if it is selected? Accident doesn't adequately describe the process. It is blind and has a random component, but also a non-random selection element. If I had a million dice and rolled them, I'd get about 166,000 sixes. If I selected these and sent the other 834,000 dice back to the random toss generator, a sixth of those would turn up heads. If we repeat this process over multiple generations of rolls, we will end up with mostly sixes. This is the type of process that you are calling an accident, and arguing that a god must be involved because of non-random nature of the result.

...but only for the males? What about those poor dull little females? How did they fail to evolve any colorful plumage? Was it just accidental that the females should be camouflaged for safer nesting? The females evolved in a completely separate way to the males both internally and externally?

Apparently.

Your implied argument is that nature could not do that without the help of an intelligent designer because you just can't see how it could be any other way. Hundreds of millions of us don't have that idea. It seems to come with faith in gods, but even then, in only a minority of those with that fate. Most Christians accept that life on earth evolves and has for billions of years. What you just can see happening, they have no trouble accepting as not only possible, but likely to near certain.

And I notice something very interesting about all those ducks in the OP.....all of them are still ducks.

They will be until they die. The coots will die as coots, the grebes as grebes, and so on. That's how nature works. Individuals don't change species in their lifetimes.

What do you use in your everyday life that was not designed by someone for the purpose for which you use it?

The water I drink, the air I breathe, much of the food I eat, and the l and I walk on come to mind. Much of that can be modified. The water might be filtered, the food artificially selected to generate the best corn possible, for example, and the land paved, but those are relatively modern developments. Our ancestors didn't have such things, yet they survived and even prospered.