If you think you might have a new theory that is better than evolution and would like to start testing it against some facts to see how well it holds water (Jon Perry)
I asked you earlier on this forum how a tube could grow from one point to another and still hold water (blood, oil, food, urine, or air). I don’t remember an answer ‘anywhere’ from an evolutionist, or you.
Your ‘theory’ is still; since things 'look alike' it proves things evolved. Yet it is PROVEN OVERWHELMINGLY everyday that
zillions of things that 'look alike' exist with no evolution whatsoever. They exist because they were made, and designed using a ‘mind’.
It is absolutely bewildering to hear that matter can develop itself, and thus because things look alike it ‘proves’ we evolved, rather than being designed. Even in manufacturing designs ‘appear’ to evolve, but this is only the observation, inside the manufacturer things are being redeveloped, thought through, and retooled with minds, it only appears to evolve. Without actual praxis nothing happens. And Evolutionists have no answer to why something would ‘want’ to evolve ‘itself’. Matter has no ‘reason’ to ‘want’ to live longer or better. Only minds have the reason or 'want' to survive, or develop themselves. The fact that some things reproduce themselves must come from something outside of themselves that wanted them to reproduce or improve the design (toasters, lightbulbs and trees don’t improve ‘themselves’ or have any desire to do so)
Again, things look like they are related because they have a common design.
'The fact is that thousands of observable things are related... All living things on earth are related' (your video)
Designs are related because they have the 'same designer'. This is not news to scripture or Theists: 'Everything after its kind' (Genesis 1). A builder uses the best ideas in ‘whatever’ he builds, no matter if it is a boat ‘or’ an airplane. If a propeller works with one, it works well on another. Just because boats and planes both have propellers, fins and wings, that all technically do the same thing, does not mean one developed into the other. All it means is that the design is used for a similar function. A switch opens and closes, so does a door, there a million varieties of switches, did they evolve?? No, what we have was designed and designers were involved; otherwise we would not have switches. They all fit their purpose, yet no one would believe that since switches are in everything, this proves that products have evolved.
If you have any concerns related to whale evolution specifically I can probably address them right away.
I read a short essay called ‘The problem of size’ it points out the fact that you don’t just triple or quadruple the size of something and expect the design to remain the same, huge differences in material structure and physics come into play when making an object heavier, or lighter. Notice the thickness of an elephant and rhinos legs compared to a dog. The heart and everything else has to be redesigned to work in a larger animal, heating, cooling, reproduction, it is all different physics involved, you don’t just inflate the same design.
Tomorrow I meet with a woman who studies bat evolution which I know next to nothing about. If you have any questions about bats I'll run them by her.
Ask her to fold you a paper airplane, and let me know how she does. No offense to this specific lady, but again, science does not design. A scientist could design, but then you have a scientist who ‘also’ designs or engineers, there is a 'difference'. I know scientists that cannot change the taillight bulb on their car, and couldn’t fashion a door to go through and close behind them if their life depended on it. Being a scientist does not mean they even have a clue as to what it means to design and construct something as simple as a mouse trap, let alone build a working mouse. The sonar, like millions of other designs that nature has, involves incredible design and forethought, adjusting to speed, sound, distance, etc. Getting a mammal, or anything to fly is as complex as, well as complex as building an airplane. An airplane that designs itself, guides itself, fuels itself, reproduces itself, and has a ‘purpose’ and ‘reason’ for developing and existing as itself, is unheard of. Reason would tell us that there must be ‘something’ outside of creation that 'wanted' bats to exist. Life and survival come from a conscious desire to do so, matter has no concept of this. Survival and reproducing are also a part of great design, movable type, and the model T being forerunners of this 'idea' of reproduction. The ability to adapt, and quality are all a part of good manufacturing and design.
