Creation scientists

[Amo]

That is faith, not fact. If it were fact it would have resulted in a "proof" for creation which it has not been able to do.

That is one view, here is another -

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[Alan]

That is one view, here is another -

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

That may be proof to you but it's empty words to a non believer.

[Jaime]

Most times you can't fix stupid.

[seekingHiswisdom]

You admit that the physical world came from spiritual creation but deny that real science can lead to such a conclusion. What sense does that make. At least you admit in this confession that your science and God have nothing to do with each other. So be it.

Stop and think what you and others here are actually saying and then ask yourself this.

If the physical world came from spiritual creation. Which I absolutely believe is a correct statement...of things seen and unseen in the skies...n a distance so vast that man will never be able to reach into....

Why?

Why were we created in the first place? ARE WE GOD'S 2 legged version of an ant farm?

Hundreds and millions and billions and trillions of things beyond the surface of earth, yet there is only us?

WHY?

If you can grasp the immensity of this thought, even in a nano molecule of your mind, you would understand this extends well beyond science or faith.

We will never know why. We can never know why.

And the vastness of God's work is not confined to a mere 66 o 73 books of the bible. But those 66 or 73 books are the most important textbook we will ever have and read.

Why?

Because this book... was given to us. Not to original man when he came into being.

But it can be confusing in many areas.... Genesis not being the least of things because I believe in my heart of hearts that
the beginning of man walking on earth is not important. Therefore we have no need to know the specifics.

We just leave it up to science to give us an answer...

I mean... they have done such a fine job of explaining the myriad of health issues we all face, and many with no cure.









Why, in the vast scheme of the universes and cosmos, and solar systems...

[Amo]

Stop and think what you and others here are actually saying and then ask yourself this.

If the physical world came from spiritual creation. Which I absolutely believe is a correct statement...of things seen and unseen in the skies...n a distance so vast that man will never be able to reach into....

Why?

Why were we created in the first place? ARE WE GOD'S 2 legged version of an ant farm?

Hundreds and millions and billions and trillions of things beyond the surface of earth, yet there is only us?

WHY?

If you can grasp the immensity of this thought, even in a nano molecule of your mind, you would understand this extends well beyond science or faith.

We will never know why. We can never know why.

And the vastness of God's work is not confined to a mere 66 o 73 books of the bible. But those 66 or 73 books are the most important textbook we will ever have and read.

Why?

Because this book... was given to us. Not to original man when he came into being.

But it can be confusing in many areas.... Genesis not being the least of things because I believe in my heart of hearts that
the beginning of man walking on earth is not important. Therefore we have no need to know the specifics.

We just leave it up to science to give us an answer...

I mean... they have done such a fine job of explaining the myriad of health issues we all face, and many with no cure.









Why, in the vast scheme of the universes and cosmos, and solar systems...

There is not only us. There most certainly is more than that which is addressed in scripture, but none of it makes any part of scripture untrue, nor are we privy to that information. Scripture is certainly not open to make of it whatever any individual decides they want it to be. As you have just done in this post.
Scientists have been wrong over and over again, and are wrong no doubt about many things right now. If you wish to place your faith in them above the word of God concerning their testimony which contradicts the same, go ahead. This won't make what they say or what you accept from them the truth. God's word is truth.

[seekingHiswisdom]

That is faith, not fact. If it were fact it would have resulted in a "proof" for creation which it has not been able to do.

I disagree. It is not faith. Not on the creation end of things.

Fact is. We are.

We did not arrive on this planet because someone had faith we arrived because of whatever chain of events occured to allow that to happen.

This planet did not happen because of faith, it happened because of whatever chain of events occured to allow that to happen.

Now... there IS disagreement of what those chain of events might be.

YEers believe that i 6 literal days God sat with his modeling clay, Lincoln logs and tinker toys and voila... here we are debating if that
happened.

But an important question is.... Could it have happened?

I submit, more likely that way then by following the evolutionist mindset that also, CAN NOT truly be proven.

I do not care how many charts you provide about the "ingredients" that make up various life forms that are used to prove chocolate brownie evolved from a loaf of  a sourdough bread.

But whether it be big bang or the Word speaking things into being that is not faith.

We did not just materialize and neither did earth.

Divine design has nothing to do with faith.

And if you do not believe in divine design ... ie a creator/creation 

[The Barbarian]

All presumptions of an evolutionist, which could change at any time via new evidence, as so very much of evolutionary theory has and does.

It probably seems like cheating to a YE creationist.   As new evidence appears, evolutionary theory changes. 

Why did the articles I quoted speak of dinosaurs with differentiated teeth? Were they wrong? Expound. Define specialized teeth. So no dinosaurs had specialized teeth for dong what they did with their teeth?

As you learned differentiated teeth are found only in mammals and the mammal-like reptiles.   Here's  a good shot theropod teeth:

All one kind.   No molars, no canines, no premolars, no incisors.  Just one kind, ziphodont, in this case.   Some other theropods had other kinds, but they didn't have a combination of kinds.   Always one kind.   Just like this one.   Learn the details here:
https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000562013.pdf

[4WD]

Same old same old crap. You do not believe that what the bible simply states happened, could happen. You do not believe God could create this world in six days, therefore it is not true and must mean something else other than what it simply states.

That is simply not true.  I believe that God could have created the universe in six minutes, or six seconds.  He could have created the universe 10,000 years ago making it look as if it had taken billions of years.  He could have placed everything in its place just as we see it now.  And there is no way scientifically to prove that He didn't.  I just don't believe that He did.

At least you admit in this confession that your science and God have nothing to do with each other. So be it.

Again, that is not true.  I do not admit to any such thing.  In fact, I believe that the science is precisely as God created it. I believe that the natural laws controlling the universe and everything in it are exactly what God created. I believe that what we see today is the direct result of all that he put in place in the very beginning.

So please stop trying to interpret what I believe about creation through your own limited understanding of how things really are.

[4WD]

Science absolutely CAN admit a miraculous beginning and be correct and not step out of it's bounds but it won't.

Jaime, the assertion of the beginning as a "singularity" is the best that can be asserted scientifically, at least at this time.  That is basically a statement of ignorance.  A singularity is not a physical thing; rather it is an expression of something completely unknown.  It is simply a mathematical sign post.  There is no known science which can explain anything before Time=10^-43 seconds.

[Jaime]

So science admitting that and allowing for a miraculous creation should be no problem.

I know YOU and others here don't discount a miraculous creation, but scientist in general refuse to go there and even mock those that do. Yes, science needs to focus on what happens AFTER the first nanosecond, because intelligent design and creation is the most reasonable explanation of reality.

[Jaime]

Also, from my reading articles about this singularity, the last thing they want to convey is that it is an unknown or unknowable. Simple prefacing it as you did would be vastly more reasonable and sensible. Scientist tend to overstep in their arrogance sometimes, and I say that as an engineer/scientist. Scientists that are Christians are usually more reasonably.

[4WD]

So science admitting that and allowing for a miraculous creation should be no problem.

It seems to me that you are thinking of science as some strange anthropomorphic type of entity.  It isn't.  It really is nothing more than a field of study.  It doesn't make decisions.  It doesn't make declarations.  It doesn't establish thought processes.

[Jaime]

It seems to me scientists DO though. Science is devoid of idealogy, scientists are not. Its similar to reporting the news. News itself is amorphous, if only handled that way, but news people are not devoid of idealogical bias and a lot of times resort to using terms like consensus where there is informed opposition.

[4WD]

It seems to me scientists DO though. Science is devoid of idealogy, scientists are not. Its similar to reporting the news. News itself is amorphous, if only handled that way, but news people are not devoid of idealogical bias and a lot of times resort to using terms like consensus where there is informed opposition.

I don't think any of us here have denied what scientists, individually or as a group,  might think, believe or proclaim.  But that doesn't constitute science.

That is all the same as what theologians, individually or as a group, might think, believe or proclaim.  Science like theology is not an entity to make proclamations.  Science, like theology, is simply a field of study quite apart from those who study it. Neither science not theology is invented, rather it is discovered.  It always remains to be seen whether what is discovered is true.

[Jaime]

Except of course Climate Science.

[4WD]

That be true.

[The Barbarian]

It seems to me scientists DO though.

Yes.   Science can't say anything about the supernatural, but scientists can.

[Amo]

That may be proof to you but it's empty words to a non believer.

Those words were written and recorded for all of humanity, including and specifically non believers. They are not empty at all, but will most certainly come up before every creature in the judgment.

[Amo]

It probably seems like cheating to a YE creationist.   As new evidence appears, evolutionary theory changes. 

As you learned differentiated teeth are found only in mammals and the mammal-like reptiles.   Here's  a good shot theropod teeth:

All one kind.   No molars, no canines, no premolars, no incisors.  Just one kind, ziphodont, in this case.   Some other theropods had other kinds, but they didn't have a combination of kinds.   Always one kind.   Just like this one.   Learn the details here:
https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000562013.pdf

No, modifying theory according to increased evidence is certainly justifiable. Being adamantly rigid, staunchly self confident, and talking down to others concerning theories that do in fact undergo constant change as though said theories are set in concrete, is nonsensical. Your constant inference that others have learned from such nonsense as you suggest above, is a prime example of the same. If fossils are found tomorrow with differentiated teeth where you and yours claim they cannot be, you will simply modify your theory and move along as though you didn't act like a pompous ass concerning such previously. I thought I had provided examples which questioned your above assertion. Don't remember exactly now. I'll have to look back and further into the matter.

[Amo]

That is simply not true.  I believe that God could have created the universe in six minutes, or six seconds.  He could have created the universe 10,000 years ago making it look as if it had taken billions of years.  He could have placed everything in its place just as we see it now.  And there is no way scientifically to prove that He didn't.  I just don't believe that He did. Again, that is not true.  I do not admit to any such thing.  In fact, I believe that the science is precisely as God created it. I believe that the natural laws controlling the universe and everything in it are exactly what God created. I believe that what we see today is the direct result of all that he put in place in the very beginning.

So please stop trying to interpret what I believe about creation through your own limited understanding of how things really are.

And again, you simply do not believe what God's word simply states.

[Amo]

It seems to me that you are thinking of science as some strange anthropomorphic type of entity.  It isn't.  It really is nothing more than a field of study.  It doesn't make decisions.  It doesn't make declarations.  It doesn't establish thought processes.

Thank you for admitting that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with science. I thought you only believed this about Creation Scientists. Now I know you also believe there is no evolutionary science.

[Alan]

Those words were written and recorded for all of humanity, including and specifically non believers. They are not empty at all, but will most certainly come up before every creature in the judgment.

As true as that may be, it will never sway the minds of non-believers nor will it add to their studies and documentation of research.

[Amo]

As true as that may be, it will never sway the minds of non-believers nor will it add to their studies and documentation of research.

Nevertheless, it is God's word, and a testimony that must be given to them and the entire world.

[NorrinRadd]

...  In fact, I believe that the science is precisely as God created it. I believe that the natural laws controlling the universe and everything in it are exactly what God created. I believe that what we see today is the direct result of all that he put in place in the very beginning. ...

One of my favorite T-shirts:



Or in differential form,



Wow, stupidly big.  I don't know how to ensmallen them.

[NorrinRadd]

And again, you simply do not believe what God's word simply states.

What do you mean by "simply states"?

If you mean the so-called "plain reading," then by that standard Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 flatly contradict each other at various points.

YECs have an interpretation that attempts to deal with the inconsistencies.

TEs have a different interpretation that attempts to deal with the inconsistencies.

[Amo]

What do you mean by "simply states"?

If you mean the so-called "plain reading," then by that standard Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 flatly contradict each other at various points.

YECs have an interpretation that attempts to deal with the inconsistencies.

TEs have a different interpretation that attempts to deal with the inconsistencies.

No, God's word does not contradict itself. Your understanding of it apparently does. Repetition and enlargement adds details, but does not contradict.

[NorrinRadd]

No, God's word does not contradict itself. Your understanding of it apparently does. Repetition and enlargement adds details, but does not contradict.

Gen. 2:5-9, taken at face value, or in their "plain sense," contradict Gen. 1:11, 26 when taken in their "plain sense."

They do not repeat and enlarge, they contradict.  Now, there are various ways to interpret and harmonize them, but not by just taking them as verbatim factual and true.

[Amo]

Gen. 2:5-9, taken at face value, or in their "plain sense," contradict Gen. 1:11, 26 when taken in their "plain sense."

They do not repeat and enlarge, they contradict.  Now, there are various ways to interpret and harmonize them, but not by just taking them as verbatim factual and true.

Without even examining the scriptures you supplied I will state the obvious. Contradictions can be found and or created by anyone truly seeking to establish such. Those who trust God's word bring seeming contradictions to a logical conclusion based upon all the information the scriptures supply along such lines as the topic under examination. This is a far cry from denying the biblical creation account which is supported all throughout scripture as literal, because some think the world is much older than it states, or choose to believe the theories of the evolutionary faith. I will examine your suggested contradiction later and respond.

[Amo]

I found the following article from one of the evolutionary faith at the link provided below. I thought it would be interesting to address it here from a creationists perspective as time allows. The authors work will be in black, my comments in blue, and all other references or quotes posted and or linked as such. While all are of course free to comment, I will try to address the article itself before getting to entangled with others arguments regarding it and my comments.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Evolution: The Rise of Complexity

   By Christie Wilcox on January 16, 2012

Let's rewind time back about 3.5 billion years. Our beloved planet looks nothing like the lush home we know today - it is a turbulent place, still undergoing the process of formation. Land is a fluid concept, consisting of molten lava flows being created and destroyed by massive volcanoes. The air is thick with toxic gasses like methane and ammonia which spew from the eruptions. Over time, water vapor collects, creating our first weather events, though on this early Earth there is no such thing as a light drizzle. Boiling hot acid rain pours down on the barren land for millions of years, slowly forming bubbling oceans and seas. Yet in this unwelcoming, violent landscape, life begins.

Regardless of the detail and confidence expressed in the above statement, the people who wrote and believe the above fairy tale don't know what happened on this planet yesterday, let alone 3.5 billion years ago. They claim the biblical creation account untrue, but pass off their own supposed certain knowledge of what transpired 3.5 billion years ago as reliable truth, and countless people actually believe them.

The creatures which dared to arise are called cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. They were the pioneers of photosynthesis, transforming the toxic atmosphere by producing oxygen and eventually paving the way for the plants and animals of today. But what is even more incredible is that they were the first to do something extraordinary - they were the first cells to join forces and create multicellular life.

More fairy tale delusions about algae being creatures, and pioneers of photosynthesis who transformed the atmosphere of our planet for all life on it today. As though the extremely complex processes of photosynthesis not only just happened by random chance, but did so in an extremely hostile atmosphere. These creatures also did something even more extraordinary, they joined forces to create multicellular life. Who knew or even knows now that algae are thinking, reasoning, interacting creatures or beings with real live exact purpose and intent of mind to join together and form an environment conducive to life. Wooooooow. After that of course, the countless trillions of other cells did the same and made all the countless trillions of never ending changes unto all the creatures we see today. This is the theory which is supposedly superior to the biblical account of creation. The bible contests that a thinking, reasoning, extremely wise being called God created the world with exact intent and purpose. Evolutionists suggests algae and other cells did the same, and so of course did, whatever makes up algae and cells before that. All these creative creatures or thingies that dared to exist and evolve, simply amazing. The personification of cells and algae is apparently a big part of the evolutionary theory.

Then there is this -

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/434

Emphasis in the following quote is mine.

ORIGINS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS

We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004). There is suggestive evidence that photosynthetic organisms were present approximately 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago, in the form of stromatolites, layered structures similar to forms that are produced by some modern cyanobacteria, as well as numerous microfossils that have been interpreted as arising from phototrophs (Des Marais, 2000). In all these cases, phototrophs are not certain to have been the source of the fossils, but are inferred from the morphology or geological context. There is also isotopic evidence for autotrophic carbon fixation at 3.7 to 3.8 billion years ago, although there is nothing that indicates that these organisms were photosynthetic. All of these claims for early photosynthesis are highly controversial and have engendered a great deal of spirited discussion in the literature (Buick, 2008). Evidence for the timing of the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis and the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere is discussed below. The accumulated evidence suggests that photosynthesis began early in Earth's history, but was probably not one of the earliest metabolisms and that the earliest forms of photosynthesis were anoxygenic, with oxygenic forms arising significantly later.

Not exactly the same statement of confidence as that expressed by the author of the article under examination written obviously by a staunch member of the evolutionary faith.

It's a big step for evolution, going from a single cell focused solely on its own survival to a multicellular organism where cells coordinate and work together. Creationists often cite this jump as evidence of God's influence, because it seems impossible that creatures could make such a brazen leap unaided. But scientists have shown that multicellularity can arise in the lab, given strong enough selective pressure.

How about that, evolution was and is I suppose kind of like babies, it eventually learned to take its first steps too. Let's not forget the big boy steps of cells also, who were so focused upon their own survival that they eventually wrote a survival manual which they all followed unto cooperating, coordinating, and working together unto our creation. That is of course after they made the world a lab, where they created strong enough selective pressure to allow for such.

To be continued later.

[The Barbarian]

So science admitting that and allowing for a miraculous creation should be no problem.

Yes.   That's right.   Science doesn't (and can't) deny the supernatural.  It just can't affirm it, either.   Science is too weak a method for that.

I know YOU and others here don't discount a miraculous creation, but scientist in general refuse to go there and even mock those that do. Yes, science needs to focus on what happens AFTER the first nanosecond, because intelligent design and creation is the most reasonable explanation of reality.

Last time I looked, most scientists were believers of some kind, with more deists than in the general population.    The problem with "intelligent design" is twofold:

A. It turned out to be a scheme to get creationism into public schools.   It's why ID inventor Philip Johnson, called the Dover Trial a  "train wreck" for intelligent design; the plaintiffs were able to show the YE creationist ideology behind the facade. 

B. There is no sign of "design."   Indeed, IDer Michael Denton has attempted to save the concept by redefining the term to exclude YE creationism:

   It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

    In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

(my emphasis)

[The Barbarian]

No, modifying theory according to increased evidence is certainly justifiable.

Which is what science does.

Being adamantly rigid, staunchly self confident, and talking down to others concerning theories that do in fact undergo constant change as though said theories are set in concrete, is...

...the YE creationist idea of science.   But as you know, that's not how it works.   No theory is set in concrete.  As noted earlier, all theories are provisional on new evidence.  No doubt this is annoying to YE creationists, who must be adamantly rigid, staunchly self-confident in their man-made doctrines.

But science can only gather evidence and make inferences from that evidence.

Your constant inference that others have learned from such nonsense as you suggest above, is a prime example of the same.

You've changed your arguments to a considerable degree,which suggests learning.

If fossils are found tomorrow with differentiated teeth where you and yours claim they cannot be

No one says they cannot be.  The evidence merely indicates that they aren't.  At some point, reptiles developed differentiated teeth, and since the teeth of all vertebrates arise from several bones, the potential to become differentiated is there in all of them.   The evidence shows that it only happened in therapsids (the reptile line that gave rise to mammals.)

But if somewhere, there's a different line of reptiles in which that evolved, then there is.  We just note that only therapsids and their descendants have them.

It's possible that there might be an unknown clade of dinosaurs in which a second jaw joint formed, and the rear bones of the jaw became small and part of the ear.  Doesn't seem very likely, though. 

you will simply modify your theory and move along

That's how science works.   It has to be grounded in the real, not some man-made doctrine like YE creationism.

as though you didn't act like a pompous ass concerning such previously. I thought I had provided examples which questioned your above assertion. Don't remember exactly now. I'll have to look back and further into the matter.

It might help your presentation more effectively than name-calling.   See what you can find.

[Jaime]

No evidence of intelligent design? Really, that's your position?

[The Barbarian]

No evidence of intelligent design? Really, that's your position?

For creation.  Not for design.   "Design" is what limited creatures do.  This is why engineers, for very complex problems, have started copying nature and using evolutionary processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_algorithm_applications

This is why Micheal Denton, who firmly believes that there is a purpose behind the universe, considers it to be matter of "front-loading" where nature itself is made to produce all things by natural means.   

Which seems to be perceptive, given the usefulness of evolutionary processes for solving difficult problems.    Turns out, God knew best, after all.

[Amo]

Continued from reply #133. The authors work will be in black, my comments in blue, and all other references or quotes posted and or linked as such.

Just ask William Ratcliff and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota. In a PNAS paper published online this week, they show how multicellular yeast can arise in less than two months in the lab. To achieve this leap, they took brewer's yeast - a common, single celled lab organism - and grew them in a liquid medium. Once a day, they gently spun the yeast in the culture, starting the next batch with whichever cells ended up at the bottom of the tube. Because the force of spinning pulls larger things down first, clumps of cells were more likely to be at the bottom than single ones, thus setting up a strong selective pressure for multicellularity.

Shakespeare said all the world is a stage, but he was just a writer and entertainer, thanks to evolutionary scientists we now know that all the world was and is a lab. Fairy tale evolution though, has a lab technicians problem, there are none in their theory. Their lab which is the world, is run by only a single lab technician called random chance. In their fairy tale depictions, random chance can continually perform the duties of countless human lab techs with exact purpose and intent, and miraculously out perform all of them. How about that, random chance creating the perfect conditions for evolution over and again trillions of times. Why not, if your'e going to believe in fairy tales, you might as well go all the way.

All of their cultures went from single cells to snowflake-like clumps in less than 60 days. "Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years, we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions," write the authors. These clumps weren't just independent cells sticking together for the sake of it - they acted as rudimentary multicellular creatures. They were formed not by random cells attaching but by genetically identical cells not fully separating after division.

Ah yes, all those cultures random chance changed into snowflake-like clumps under the appropriate selective conditions it arranged while gently spinning them in a centrifuge. Of course none of the above even attempts to explain where any cells came from in the first place, which are themselves of an extremely complex design as it were.

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Complexity-of-the-Cell.pdf

Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."

[Alan]

Shakespeare said all the world is a stage, but he was just a writer and entertainer, thanks to evolutionary scientists we now know that all the world was and is a lab. Fairy tale evolution though, has a lab technicians problem, there are none in their theory. Their lab which is the world, is run by only a single lab technician called random chance. In their fairy tale depictions, random chance can continually perform the duties of countless human lab techs with exact purpose and intent, and miraculously out perform all of them. How about that, random chance creating the perfect conditions for evolution over and again trillions of times. Why not, if your'e going to believe in fairy tales, you might as well go all the way.

What the...   That's pretty much incoherent babbling and a stretch I might add, even for you.