[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

What’s sad is that to be an evolutionists, you basically have to believe that inanimate objects and non-sentient animals are capable of performing magic tricks.

[GunRunner]

What’s sad is that to be an evolutionists, you basically have to believe that inanimate objects and non-sentient animals are capable of performing magic tricks.

I'm sure the more emotionally soothing answer from our creationist friends is "Poof! God did it". Now that's a magic trick.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

What’s sad is that to be an evolutionists, you basically have to believe that inanimate objects and non-sentient animals are capable of performing magic tricks.

Nah, what's sad about being an evolutionist (aside from being called an "evolutionist," as though a scientific theory is an "ism") is that creationists constantly describe some cartoon version of evolution and then tell you that's what you believe.

[Pale]

Though I do not accept your premise, I must ask: Do you, as a believer, think “non-sentient” animals are incapable of miracles?

Today’s roboticists, with the most sophisticated engineering in the world, cannot come anywhere close to creating an autonomous robot that can perform the simple task of walking quickly through an unknown environment and negotiating obstacles or stairs with any reliability. Using high-performance computers capable of performing literally trillions of operations per second, they still cannot design a system to process all the variables of locomotion and balance.

Meanwhile horses, within minutes of birth, can walk. Within hours, they can run.

What is that, if not a miracle?

[qam1]

What’s sad is that to be an evolutionists, you basically have to believe that inanimate objects and non-sentient animals are capable of performing magic tricks.

Which side is the one who believes in talking snakes and donkeys again?