The Origins debate is getting boring

While the origins debate is a hobby of mine (that doesn't feel like the right word) I confess that's what's a lot more interesting than ideas about evolution or creation are the living organisms themselves. I think we get too wrapped up in metaphysical debate and ignore the wonders of the world; that's where the real amazing action is going on.

Forget the stories Darwinists invent to account for the development their theory requires and concentrate on the biosphere itself. Speculations about creation, evolution, design, diversity, etc. are incredibly boring when set beside the miracles of creation. The data are a thousand times more interesting (astounding, amazing) than the 'theories' about it. I'll even admit that Darwinists are correct when they say that (generic) creation is a boring idea... though I don't think it's as boring and vapid as cosmic evolution.

Take a look at the cell; it's about a billion times more interesting than any story about how it came to exist. A book on birds is a thousand, thousand times more interesting than a story on how they came to find themselves in the sky. An Octopus is a million times more interesting than a textbook account of its supposed evolution.

Most people would do far better to concentrate on living, breathing organisms than fossils and dead bones. Cosmic evolution and cosmic creation are more of a philosophical and religious issue than they are about science, than they are about the world we are fortunate enough to live in, (on, and about).

I believe the discoveries being made, and the ones that we all assume will be made, will eventually speak for themselves, that the evidence for intelligent design will one day be so overpowering that no one will deny it. Creation scientists speak about being a tiny minority who are matched up against an overwhelming opponent, but the ironic thing is that while most scientists consider themselves evolutionists (M2M) every real discovery they make about biological creatures is stockpiling evidence for creation. With every passing year the evidence for creation mounts. Every day atheists, skeptics and agnostics are out working to prove the truth of creation whether they know it or not.

My new year's resolution is to take a year off from brothers Dembski and Dawkins and concentrate on studying animals, birds, insects, fishes and all the other kinds of living miracles that populate this spinning world. I'm going to let the debaters go on without me. (That at least is the plan.)

Notes;
1. I find it (sadly) amusing to hear atheists dismiss the doctrine of creation as ''all you're saying is that God did it.'' That's all? That's all? There's something very wrong with a human heart that sees nothing important in the fact God made the created order we call the world. What I assume they mean is that this 'tidbit' of information has no relevance to the grand experiment called science, or to how I conduct myself in my research. i.e. it has no cash value if you prefer.

I believe this is a serious mistake in thinking, as I believe the truth of creation has an enormous implication for scientific studies, formulations, theories, ideas, etc. I believe the idea of c.e. has led scientists horribly astray and led them to go down a thousand wrong roads, looking for things they will never find, theorizing about things that never existed, formulating hundreds of mistaken theories, leading to endless confusion.

People who imagine the 'idea' of a creator is meaningless to science can only imagine this because they have convinced themselves there is no creator. They're spiritually blind.

The creation itself (not creationists) will destroy all materialist stories about Origins. The best defense of creation are the biological organisms we are blessed with. No in depth study of them can lead to anything but awe. Materialism is not only stupid and impossible, it's a horrific (and sinful) insult to the creator. It's man at his worst. Materialism is the greatest joke on earth.

The best antidote to the idiocy of materialism is a study of (not science, but) creation. Unless a person has been so deadened by a life of sin, the study of creation will provoke awe within them for their Creator.
2. An example of the above;
'Farming and gardening are said by evolutionists to be very advanced activities. They say that primitive humans did not do these things, and that gardening developed only recently in human history. But if there is a Creator, we would expect that He would have taught many kinds of creatures to care for plants or even trees.
Guess what? There are even ants who garden. There is a particular type of fierce ant that cares for the South American bull's horn acacia tree. While the ants don't need the tree for their survival, they do eat portions of it. But they never eat enough to cause damage to the tree. In fact, the ants protect their tree - they snip off vines or other growth that comes too close to the tree, maintaining plenty of growing room for their tree. The ants are aggressive enough to keep other insects or even birds or larger animals away from their tree.
In studying this amazing relationship, researchers have removed the ants from some of these trees. Within two to fifteen months the tree is dead. Without the ants' care, animals eat off all the leaves and surrounding plants overrun it.
- Paul Bartz; Ants who garden
3. YouTube video; Bull-Horn Acacia Ants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_tdhxMs90
4. 'Computer scientists have learned that before one single image is ever sent to your brain, each cell of your retina must perform a huge number of calculations. Each second every cell of your retina performs 10 billion calculations! And you thought you couldn't do math!
What's more, these are not simple calculations. Dr. Joseph Calkins, professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University, estimates that the fastest computer in the world would require many hundreds of hours to do what the cells in your retina do each second!
- The eye's computer - by Paul Bartz

I ask you; what's more interesting; this new discovery or the claim by Richard (blind man) Dawkins that the eye is badly designed?