Is this like turtles all the way down? There's a designer for the designer for the designer for the designer. . . If everything "designed" needs a designer, who designed God?
You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea,
This is not proposed by evolutionists.
lizards leaping into the air and hten later developing wings because of the ‘need’ to feed in an environment other than the ground etc etc.
Again, not proposed by evolutionists. Evolution does not come about because of need. It is the result of multiple small changes occurring by chance and being selected for because they are useful, although they might not have the same use millions of years down the road.
[Is this like turtles all the way down? There’s a designer for the designer for the designer for the designer. . . If everything “designed” needs a designer, who designed God?]
Who designed the Eternal God? Think about it. God is eternal- that is what makes Him God. Suggesting that someone or something must have designed Him suggests that eternity is not a reality. It suggest there must have been a ‘starting point’, and a ‘starting point’ before that, and a starting point before that etc etc etc. See where that is going? There would need to be infinate ‘starting points’- in other words, an eternal existence in which the ‘starters’ began their/it’s ‘starting points’
[You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea,
This is not proposed by evolutionists.]
The sea mamals are said to come from land animals much like wolves.
[Again, not proposed by evolutionists. Evolution does not come about because of need.]
‘Environmental pressures’ don’t constitute ‘need’? One of the tenents of evolution is that natural selection ‘evolves’ creatures because environmental pressures cause a need. For isntance, hummingbirds with shorter beaks all of a sudden find that the shallow flowers they were feeding on have died off, but there are other deeper flowers, but only the longer beaked birds can feed- the shorter beaked birds get weeded out, while the longer beaked birds survive and pass along their long-beak genes- pretty soon only long beaked birds are present. Need shaped the bird.
We are told that lizards couldn’t compete with bigger lizards for ground food, and that the smaller lizards leapt into the air to catch flies, and over millions of years, a miraculous morphological change took place with many many mutations all working together to create wings- don’t you watch the National geographic channel? lol
I agree with you that this is not how sceicne states evolution is proposed to happens, however, the discovery channel, national geographic, and even some supposedly reputable scientific publications propose that this is how it happend. They even go to great lengths to show this by trotting out the Mexican flat lizards that all congregate at water falls and leap into the air to catch blackflies.
I agree with what you said- however, there is one major problem with what you/science says [It is the result of multiple small changes occurring by chance and being selected for because they are useful,] There is no proof that the many steps needed for systems were ‘useful’ as all the components of the systems gathered in the species awaiting final assembly, and so, each piece of the final complex systems would have been useless until fully assembled.
Science can make a weak, shaky case for perhaps some individual pieces of perhaps a few systems being useful, but my gosh, the rest takes an amount of faith to beleive because there simply is no physical proof that the many varied systems that are unique to certain species evolved. We can’t show through the fossil records that these systems slowly evolved. Even when there is some scant evidences that APPEAR to be evolving are present, it still takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe- as in the case of the supposed ear hearing system evolution- there are huge gaps and when the case is being made, there is much that is left out like the fact that more direct relatives showed not a progression of the evolution, but a regression- these facts are left out of hte equasion and not brought to our attention, because it isn’t conducive to the hypothesis
You are describing microevolution pretty well. This is another canard constantly thrown out there by the darwinists, i.e. talk about provable microevolution evidence, and then make the jump to macroevolution with no evidence at all, except for the fact that a designer seems absurd to them.