Which evolved first, tendons or bones

[shunyadragon]

And at each stage of evolution, all parts are in harmony. Each stage has a fully developed species that is adapted to its environment.

I will question the above bold. Fully developed species is a bit hypothetical. Species can only be recognized in given frame of time, and may be in transition from other species in the past and future. The picture is more involved when we consider subspecies and varieties within a given species. The boundaries are indeed a bit fuzzy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will question the above bold. Fully developed species is a bit hypothetical. Species can only be recognized in given frame of time, and may be in transition from other species in the past and future. The picture is more involved when we consider subspecies and varieties within a given species. The boundaries are indeed a bit fuzzy.

The problem with the term "fully developed" is that it is bogus. I would like to use stronger language but the site will probably not allow it. All species are "fully developed". It is worthless and dishonest terminology. It appears to assume that the person using the term thinks that the present species was a goal. Of course as we all know there are no goals in evolution. Merely results. So our ancient ancestors, whether hominid, early mammal, tetrapod, or even fish, would be "fully developed". It is a term that should not be used and one that an honest creationist, if there is such an animal, would never use.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Statements of opinion concerning the claim of a theory are not science.

I think we agree then !


as Mark Twain said "[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact"


Nobody saw the creator of the Rosetta stone, or could decipher the information, yet we can deduce intelligent agency right off the bat, from specific fingerprints unique to that phenomena- call it science, logic, supernatural, religious, whatever you like, the labels make no difference. The most scientifically verifiable phenomena are those that do not require an academic scientist to pin any such labels on!

Likewise, as just one example of many- the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Few scientists dispute this these days. We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems, and it ain't blind luck, or anything that imposes arbitrary ideological restrictions on intelligent design. Darwinism is a Victorian age theory, facing 21st C science and understanding of information systems Darwin could never imagine.

That's not to say your belief of a purely unguided naturalistic mechanism is entirely lost, and I have nothing against it- it may even be proven true one day (but don't bet the farm on it!)

We just don't have the same level of scientific validation for that phenomena. And most people prefer evidence over academic opinion- you can hardly blame them given their track record., if the theory is ever to gain major traction, that's what it is going to take

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we agree then !


as Mark Twain said "[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact"


Nobody saw the creator of the Rosetta stone, or could decipher the information, yet we can deduce intelligent agency right off the bat, from specific fingerprints unique to that phenomena- call it science, logic, supernatural, religious, whatever you like, the labels make no difference. The most scientifically verifiable phenomena are those that do not require an academic scientist to pin any such labels on!

Likewise, as just one example of many- the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Few scientists dispute this these days. We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems, and it ain't blind luck, or anything that imposes arbitrary ideological restrictions on intelligent design. Darwinism is a Victorian age theory, facing 21st C science and understanding of information systems Darwin could never imagine.

That's not to say your belief of a purely unguided naturalistic mechanism is entirely lost, and I have nothing against it- it may even be proven true one day (but don't bet the farm on it!)

We just don't have the same level of scientific validation for that phenomena. And most people prefer evidence over academic opinion- you can hardly blame them given their track record., if the theory is ever to gain major traction, that's what it is going to take

I know that some scientists use machine code as an analogy. I do not know of any that claim the similarity of DNA is "uncannily computer-like". In fact if you got some real coders and geneticists together the differences would probably be almost without number. But please, support your claim by using actual scientists that have done the work and not by using mere commentators.

And evolution is far from "blind luck". Where did you get that idea from? I have only seen dishonest creationist sources make that terrible error.

By the way, the theory of evolution has been "proven". It is as well or better supported than just about any scientific theory that one would care to name. If one goes by the legal criterion of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then you are wrong. The Earth is "guilty" of having life that is the product of evolution. It is the only concept out there that has any valid supporting evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think we agree then !

No, you have throwing around opinions like mule turds in a barn yard fight.

as Mark Twain said "[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact"

Amusing, but I do not rely on Mark Twain's "opinions" for science. More manure slinging "opinions."

Nobody saw the creator of the Rosetta stone, or could decipher the information, yet we can deduce intelligent agency right off the bat, from specific fingerprints unique to that phenomena- call it science, logic, supernatural, religious, whatever you like, the labels make no difference. The most scientifically verifiable phenomena are those that do not require an academic scientist to pin any such labels on!

More foolishness and "opinions," and not remotely relevant to the science of Methodological Naturalism.

Likewise, as just one example of many- the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Few scientists dispute this these days. We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems, and it ain't blind luck, or anything that imposes arbitrary ideological restrictions on intelligent design. Darwinism is a Victorian age theory, facing 21st C science and understanding of information systems Darwin could never imagine.

Bold Unethical citing of an anecdotal statement by Richard Dawkins, and does not reflect the science Richard Dawkins.

You have failed to back up "We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems," We have absolutely NO scientifically verified origin of information,

Please provide a scientific reference to verify this absurd assertion.

Still waiting . . .

Please stop misrepresenting Richard Dawkins and abusing Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin does not represent the present state of the science of evolution.

That's not to say your belief of a purely unguided naturalistic mechanism is entirely lost, and I have nothing against it- it may even be proven true one day (but don't bet the farm on it!)

\
I have never made the claim that our physical existence is 'unguided.' I have clearly stated that there is no scientific evidence for 'Intelligent Design.'

So far you have misrepresented Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and I in one post. Woussers!

We just don't have the same level of scientific validation for that phenomena. And most people prefer evidence over academic opinion- you can hardly blame them given their track record., if the theory is ever to gain major traction, that's what it is going to take

Your absurd outrageous opinion without any academic science background for what it is. More mule turds.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, you have throwing around opinions like mule turds in a barn yard fight.



Amusing, but I do not rely on Mark Twain's "opinions" for science. More manure slinging "opinions."



More foolishness and "opinions," and not remotely relevant to the science of Methodological Naturalism.



Bold Unethical citing of an anecdotal statement by Richard Dawkins, and does not reflect the science Richard Dawkins.

You have failed to back up "We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems," We have absolutely NO scientifically verified origin of information,

Please provide a scientific reference to verify this absurd assertion.

Still waiting . . .

Please stop misrepresenting Richard Dawkins and abusing Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin does not represent the present state of the science of evolution.


\
I have never made the claim that our physical existence is 'unguided.' I have clearly stated that there is no scientific evidence for 'Intelligent Design.'

So far you have misrepresented Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and I in one post. Woussers!



Your absurd outrageous opinion without any academic science background for what it is. More mule turds.

if insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, this forum is like shooting fish in a barrel

But any substantive responses would be more interesting, anything at all?


"the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" Richard Dawkins

Bold Unethical citing of an anecdotal statement by Richard Dawkins, and does not reflect the science Richard Dawkins.

Yes, yes I know, what he really meant was, the machine code of the genes is NOT AT ALL computer like, right? quoting him directly is a devious 'out of context' creationist trick!!

Sorry to tease, you've actually been a good sport compared with some

 

[shunyadragon]

if insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, this forum is like shooting fish in a barrel.

You have to provide something substantial in terms of science to get yourself out of the barrel of pickled Herring. You have made numerous unsupported statements,

But any substantive responses would be more interesting, anything at all?

the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like

Yes, yes I know, what he really meant was, the machine code of the genes is NOT AT ALL computer like, right? quoting him directly is a devious 'out of context' creationist trick!!

Sorry to tease, you've actually been a good sport compared with some
[/QUOTE]

This misrepresents Dawkins with an anecdotal quote, which Dawkins believes the uncanny computer code is Natural Laws, and absolutely nothing beyond that. Dawkins is an atheist. Yes it is a . . . not devious (not good enough). . . but a dumb dumb creationist trick.

The problem is, like FearGod, is that neither of you have presented any science to back up your argument.

Off the wall quotes by Mark Twain, misrepresenting Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and I is not ethical. Where is the science?

You have failed to back up "We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems," We have absolutely NO scientifically verified origin of information,

Please provide a scientific reference to verify this absurd assertion.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have to provide something substantial in terms of science to get yourself out of the barrel of pickled Herring. You have made numerous unsupported statements,

But any substantive responses would be more interesting, anything at all?

the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like

Yes, yes I know, what he really meant was, the machine code of the genes is NOT AT ALL computer like, right? quoting him directly is a devious 'out of context' creationist trick!!

Sorry to tease, you've actually been a good sport compared with some


This misrepresents Dawkins with an anecdotal quote, which Dawkins believes the uncanny computer code is Natural Laws, and absolutely nothing beyond that. Dawkins is an atheist. Yes it is a . . . not devious (not good enough). . . but a dumb dumb creationist trick.

The problem is, like FearGod, is that neither of you have presented any science to back up your argument.

Off the wall quotes by Mark Twain, misrepresenting Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and I is not ethical. Where is the science?

You have failed to back up "We only have one scientifically verifiable origin for such information systems," We have absolutely NO scientifically verified origin of information,

Please provide a scientific reference to verify this absurd assertion.

Still waiting . . .

Here is Dawkins' quote in larger context if it helps. I'm still genuinely fascinated to know how you interpret this as meaning he 'scientifically' thinks gene machine code is NOT computer like, can you expand on this for us?


"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal" Richard Dawkins

So in case you didn't realize, you are using a scientifically verified, intelligently originated, hierarchical digital information system... right now Dragon, That's as empirical as it gets. Or are these words magically appearing by random mutation of the machine code? the magical powers of Methodological Naturalism?

it's not impossible of course, neither is a single cell morphing into a human by accidental mutations- but which is less improbable is our question.


Once again not to say that your naturalist theory cannot also create one... but we'd need some evidence for that assertion, extraordinary claims.. as they say

After decades of working in software engineering I personally don't believe it can, you may well have far more experience in software architecture than I do, but none of this changes the fact; that your assertion has yet to be scientifically validated

I don't think you are 'dumb' or 'absurd' or 'dishonest' or any of the names you have thrown here, we all believe in something, we come to different conclusions and that's okay. It doesn't make me feel 'intellectually superior' I just disagree

I also used to believe very much as you do now, so the name calling is water off a pirate's back I'm afraid!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is always dishonest to use a quote from the other side without linking to the original source. If one cannot get to the original source it is hard to check the context of the quote. For example the Bible says at least twelve times "there is no God". Of course that quote is simply taken out of context in each and ever case. The same applies to this most recent bit of dishonesty. " Here is a link to the source of that quote, it is on page 17:

http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Richard_Dawkins_River_Out_of_Eden.pdf

Please note that if you read further you will see that that was used to point out that vitalism, a fairly creationist idea, was dead. Now that creationists have lost one battle they are dishonestly taking a quote out of context to try to apply in another way.

The problem with creationists is that they have no evidence for their beliefs. They do not even seem to understand the concept.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here is Dawkins' quote in larger context if it helps. I'm still genuinely fascinated to know how you interpret this as meaning he 'scientifically' thinks gene machine code is NOT computer like, can you expand on this for us?
"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal" Richard Dawkins

You have to put this in context of Dawkins scientific and philosophical beliefs. He makes no mention of genetics. He believes Natural physical laws underlie all of our physical existence, that is all there is according to Dawkins, and he is an atheist. @Subduction Zone put the quote in more complete context and revealed your dishonest out of context citation. Repeating this quote over and over and over again does not help your case,

So in case you didn't realize, you are using a scientifically verified, intelligently originated, hierarchical digital information system... right now Dragon, That's as empirical as it gets. Or are these words magically appearing by random mutation of the machine code? the magical powers of Methodological Naturalism?

No I am not, There is absolutely no evidence of an 'intelligently originated' as far as the nature of our physical existence, There is no observed randomness in the cause and effect relationships of natural events in the macro world. You can not equate the underlying nature of our physical existence with human technology and engineering.

Still waiting . . .

it's not impossible of course, neither is a single cell morphing into a human by accidental mutations- but which is less improbable is our question.

Once again not to say that your naturalist theory cannot also create one... but we'd need some evidence for that assertion, extraordinary claims.. as they say

Misuse of probability concerning the nature of natural events involved in evolution and genetics.

Accidental does not describe the nature of mutations in genetics. Natural Laws do not 'create.'

From - accident definition - Google Search
Accident -

1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
   "he had an accident at the factory"
   synonyms: mishap, misadventure, unfortunate incident, mischance, misfortune, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, calamity;
   technicalcasualty
   "an accident at work"
2. 2.
   an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
   "the pregnancy was an accident"
   synonyms: (mere) chance, coincidence, twist of fate, freak

After decades of working in software engineering I personally don't believe it can, you may well have far more experience in software architecture than I do, but none of this changes the fact; that your assertion has yet to be scientifically validated.

Software engineering does not remotely qualify you for making 'opinions' concerning the natural sciences. So far you have brought nothing to the table concerning the science behind the science of evolution.

I don't think you are 'dumb' or 'absurd' or 'dishonest' or any of the names you have thrown here, we all believe in something, we come to different conclusions and that's okay. It doesn't make me feel 'intellectually superior' I just disagree.

Still waiting for the science behind your assertions. You have the bad habit of citing 'opinions,' creationist websites, and out of context references to the science of evolution, and not providing science based academic arguments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't see that any facts were cited that would reduce the improbabilities of the series of concurrent accidental genetic mutations responsible for the coding of proteins that led to bone, tendons and the neuronal structures that make bones and tendons functional.

How does one assess that probability? It might well be the case that given the conditions on earth and billions of years, that life would inevitably evolve to an amazing level of complexity. The chances of finding functioning neuromusculoskeletal systems under such circumstances could vary to nearly impossible to nearly inevitable.

I am not at all convinced that we are currently aware of all of the forces that are involved in the development and selection of highly complex biological organisms.

That's a good attitude. For the skeptic, belief should be tentative, commensurate with the quantity and quality of available evidence, and amenable to revision if new evidence makes the belief more or less likely.

There may well be more to it than we see, including the involvement of a god or gods. But I don't know how to use that understanding.

I'm quite skeptical of the repeated confluence of such extraordinary accidents.

Hopefully, we all find the reality around us amazing. It's a great feeling.

The question is, what is the proper philosophical stance to take about it? What are we justified in believing? Is there an underlying intelligence involved? Maybe, but shouldn't we remain agnostic about such things until we have something more than our sense of awe and mystery to guide us?

Incidentally, for me, when accompanied by a sense of connection to that reality and a sense of gratitude to be a participant in it, that sense of awe and mystery constitutes the authentic spiritual experience - a pleasant and compelling psychological state. A belief in gods can have a place there, but none are needed.

In the meantime, how shall we live our lives? Should we live as if such an overarching intelligent presence exists, or not?

We can be uncommitted philosophically, but not behaviorally. We must either live like those that say that such a thing exists, or like those that say the opposite, even if we find neither belief justified.

I choose the latter, and have the impression from your previous posting that you do as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

why not discard the ideological bias altogether and just follow the evidence, wherever it leads?

Following evidence using valid reasoning and arriving at sound conclusions is an ideological bias, one which has been demonstrated repeatedly to be rational and valuable.

A bias is just a preference for one alternative over another. Many biases are valid, such as that reason applied to evidence is a more sound path to truth than belief by faith, by which I mean belief not supported by the existing evidence.

It's only irrational biases that are a problem, since they are probably wrong. Aren't you biased against pedophilia and drunk driving? If so, you you consider such biases rational? Is calling them a bias grounds for then suggesting that they be thrown out?

So intelligent design = supernatural, supernatural = impossible, thus intelligent design = impossible...?

That's not the claim.

Intelligent design = a hypothesis which method has been determined to be pseudoscience and for which there is inadequate empirical support

Supernatural = a word with no clear meaning and which at present is a concept that is not needed in any scientific theory

Therefore intelligent design = an idea without sufficient empirical support not needed in any scientific theory, therefore, one that should not be accepted as fact.

Can you address that? Do you find fault with any of those claims?

as Mark Twain said "[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact"

Twain misrepresents the impact of science and the magnitude of the undertaking - at least as we know it today. Twain died in 1910, so he might have seen electric lights and automobiles, but he wouldn't be aware of most of what we call the miracles of science, nor been aware of what it has become today.

We can revise Twain accordingly: The return of science has been its stunning array of achievements that have improved the human condition, and the investment has been a centuries-long program of careful investigation and testing consuming significant human and material resources.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Darwinism is a Victorian age theory, facing 21st C science and understanding of information systems Darwin could never imagine.

That is the march of scientific progress.

You seem to think that the theory is threatened or in crisis because of these more modern discoveries. Modern genetics has given Darwin's theory additional empirical support.

The theory is doing very well. In fact, so well, that the only thing that could replace it given the evidence we have is a deceptive intelligent designer hypothesis, one that went to great pains to seed the geological strata with fossils arranged in way suggesting evolution and constructed with radioisotope ratios misleadingly suggesting deeper fossils are older, and to insert assorted taxonomical, anatomical, physiological, biochemical, embryological, and genetic nested hierarchies into the tree of life.

What most creationists fail to realize is that even if you could falsify Darwin's theory with a precambrian rabbit, for example, the existing evidence wouldn't disappear. It would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the new finding, which still wouldn't support the Christian belief in a god that wants to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped, and to be viewed as man's divine creator.

Such a god would not have designed our planet this way.

Furthermore, it still wouldn't allow us to conclude that a god exists. High tech extraterrestrials could fill that role.

it's not impossible of course, neither is a single cell morphing into a human by accidental mutations- but which is less improbable is our question.

Probability arguments work against god hypotheses. If one looks at some aspect of observable reality and says that it is unlikely to exist undesigned and uncreated, and therefore requires a god to account for it, he has made a special pleading argument. He is positing something orders of magnitude less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than a cell or the genetic code, and assuming that the existence of such a thing needs no analogous creator.

I understand that the creationist doesn't normally have a problem making that claim, but the rationalist does. If probability is your guide, it argues most strongly against the existence of what would have to be the least likely thing imaginable to exist without help - an omniscient, omnipotent god

Once again not to say that your naturalist theory cannot also create one... but we'd need some evidence for that assertion, extraordinary claims.. as they say

The claim is (or ought to be) that life may have arisen and evolved naturalistically. That remains a possibility until somebody can demonstrate that it it is impossible. And as long as that remains a possibility, it should be explored, which is what many life scientists are doing. Abiogenesis research is making progress every year.

Likewise, the intelligent design hypothesis remains possible until it can be shown to be impossible. Mainstream science has determined that that avenue of research is sterile and chooses not to commit scarce resources to it, but islands of scientists who are also creationists are investigating that possibility. If they find supporting evidence, then we will have to take it into consideration. We're still waiting for the first observation the explanation for which requires an intelligent designer older than the intelligent life on earth capable of designing and creating.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't just hide your face, let's see some actual science to support your assertions. The same goes for @Guy Threepwood.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Following evidence using valid reasoning and arriving at sound conclusions is an ideological bias, one which has been demonstrated repeatedly to be rational and valuable.

A bias is just a preference for one alternative over another. Many biases are valid, such as that reason applied to evidence is a more sound path to truth than belief by faith, by which I mean belief not supported by the existing evidence.

It's only irrational biases that are a problem, since they are probably wrong. Aren't you biased against pedophilia and drunk driving? If so, you you consider such biases rational? Is calling them a bias grounds for then suggesting that they be thrown out?

I agree, And I have a bias towards using the scientific method over academic consensus for example, because of the vastly superior track record of the former.

But we have no precedent to reference for how universes, and biological systems are usually created. Certainly the information systems they boil down to closely resemble the products of intelligent design

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" Richard Dawkins

But to be fair I don't think even this should bias our judgement, without precedent we should remove the bias either way, don't you agree?

Intelligent design = a hypothesis which method has been determined to be pseudoscience and for which there is inadequate empirical support

Once again, almost exactly what Hoyle said about the primeval atom- it's an entirely subjective label for a theory which usually translates as 'I don't like it'

So with that rationale, if you unearthed the Rosetta Stone, you would rule out intelligent design as a cause?

Supernatural = a word with no clear meaning and which at present is a concept that is not needed in any scientific theory

we agree again entirely, my point was that it is used countless times as an argument here, 'intelligent agency is supernatural hence incorrect'- completely circular and void of substance

Therefore intelligent design = an idea without sufficient empirical support not needed in any scientific theory, therefore, one that should not be accepted as fact.

again that's the circular argument we are debunking.

If you deduce intelligent agency for the Rosetta stone, is that supernatural? religious? pseudoscience? none of the above?

Twain misrepresents the impact of science and the magnitude of the undertaking - at least as we know it today. Twain died in 1910, so he might have seen electric lights and automobiles, but he wouldn't be aware of most of what we call the miracles of science, nor been aware of what it has become today.

We can revise Twain accordingly: The return of science has been its stunning array of achievements that have improved the human condition, and the investment has been a centuries-long program of careful investigation and testing consuming significant human and material resources.

He was talking about the conjecture of scientists, and we still have plenty of that- as opposed to the myriad practical results of the method

Edison was home schooled, the Wright brothers high school dropouts, Bill Gates flunked college, most of the miracles of science we actually use and enjoy today have nothing to do with the conjecture of 'professional' scientists- and in fact many were held back by them. They were too busy working on ideas like phrenology, canals on Mars, steady state, darwinism, global cooling/warming etc etc

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree, And I have a bias towards using the scientific method over academic consensus for example, because of the vastly superior track record of the former.

Odd, in science, particularly the science of evolution, there is no bias towards nor between the scientific method and academic consensus. In fact 99% of all scientists support the science of evolution without reservation including Niles Eldredge.

But we have no precedent to reference for how universes, and biological systems are usually created. Certainly the information systems they boil down to closely resemble the products of intelligent design.

No there is proposed theory nor hypothesis supporting Intelligent Design successfully tested.

If you deduce intelligent agency for the Rosetta stone, is that supernatural? religious? pseudoscience? none of the above?

We do not have a testable hypothesis that the Rosetta stone has anything other than a natural origin carved by humans. .




He was talking about the conjecture of scientists, and we still have plenty of that- as opposed to the myriad practical results of the method

Edison was home schooled, the Wright brothers high school dropouts, Bill Gates flunked college, most of the miracles of science we actually use and enjoy today have nothing to do with the conjecture of 'professional' scientists- and in fact many were held back by them. They were too busy working on ideas like phrenology, canals on Mars, steady state, darwinism, global cooling/warming etc etc[/QUOTE]

 

[Sapiens]

The Rosetta Stone argument can be easily dismissed on the basis that it is not self reproducing.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you deduce intelligent agency for the Rosetta stone, is that supernatural? religious? pseudoscience? none of the above?

Do humans count as "intelligent agency?"

Darwinism is a Victorian age theory, facing 21st C science and understanding of information systems Darwin could never imagine.

It's still newer than your precious creationism. How did your ancient goat herders imagine it'd be at this day and age?

I mean other than the armageddon or whatever.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Knowing that God created a thing doesn't mean we don't need to study it, but that doesn't mean we can do what God did,
you'll never let the sun rises from the west, that is how the system worked, we know it but we can't change it

But the true problem is that no matter how much studying you might do, or how much this study/investigation might reveal evidence, ideas and questions that obscure your current "God" concept, or put into question your notions of "creation", you will STILL simply cling to your insistence that God did it. Scientists alter theories or discard them entirely, based on new information that "breaks" the old theory... always looking toward possible falsification. You, on the other hand, are NEVER willing to abandon your basic theory ("God"), and only ever make apologies or blatant excuses in order to assimilate new information. And when pressed it is entirely too convenient that the very nature of "God", as you describe Him, allows you to simply cite "magic" as the method for anything conflicting or that you can't come up with a credible explanation for. This kind of thing should frustrate even YOU, but you seem to actively enjoy it.

 

[dfnj]

An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. An omnipotent could have created the Universe use a moment ago with all your fake memories intact just before you read this post.

I think anyone who tries to argue against the science of evolution is displaying an incredible lack of faith in their own belief in an omnipotent God. Once you declare God is omnipotent, the origin debate is over. Saying anything bad about evolution is like the old Japanese saying, "The first person to raise their voice in an argument, loses." Have faith in God and ignore evolution is the answer.

That said, everything I've ever studied about evolution makes me conclude it is closer to science fact and not just a plain old theory.

However, recent results from experiments in quantum mechanisms seem to support idealism over materialism. These results tend to favor God is running the Universe and not some clockwork computer that is easily represented by simple expressions in the language of mathematics. Here's a video discussing why:

There seems to be an equal set of evidence supporting both sides. So in the end you just have to choose which belief you prefer.