proving evolution as just a "theory"

[sfs]

Theory in scientific knowledge means proven via experiment.

No, it really doesn't. There is no single standard use of "theory" in science.

There is the sudden arrival in only 50 million years of almost all phyla during the Cambrian era circa 550 million years ago. The Darwinian inference is orders of magnitude more gradual.

Really? Why? Please show your calculations.

We have new body plans formed through epigenetic information not found in the DNA and not subject to the same random mutation.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Further random mutation destroys information not the other way around.

Mutation destroys, creates, and changes information.

So we have some significant barriers to evolution due to the destructive nature of the vast majority of variations producing devolution (current figures demonstrate over 10000 to 1 random negative impacts to positive impacts).

The fraction of beneficial changes can range from zero to something like ten percent, depending on the situation. Why would deleterious mutations produce "devolution", though? Do you understand natural selection?

Numerous complex specified machines in the cells,

In what sense of "complex specified"? If you mean by Dembski's definition, good luck supporting your claim.

Sudden arrival of information-rich DNA?

Assertions of uncertain meaning couched as questions? What sudden arrival of information-rich DNA?

Origin of life barriers at both the early Earth as well as the universe levels all are part of the discussion.

They're not part of the discussion of evolution.

But it is weeks and months worth of discussions. Filled with controversial findings. The scientific community is in some ways deeply divided about the causal story and at the same time rallying the wagons against the special creation folks.

The scientific community is in no way divided about the reality of common descent.

 

[sfs]

There is not enough time in many populations to produce enough positive survivable traits to account for the major moves in speciation. No problem with small organisms that reproduce quickly such as bacteria. But significant problems with more complex creatures such as mammals that reproduce a handful of times in a lifetime.

This is news to me, and to geneticists in general. Citations, please.

 

[xianghua]

Very different from modern humans. Much smaller brains, among other things.

and still human.

The prediction I've been very specific about. The one we're talking about, and for which you just offered an attempt at a creationist explanation. The prediction that interspecies genetic differences would show the same pattern of differences as intraspecies differences.

as i said: we already know that the difference between species can be the result of neutral mutations. but it doesnt prove any common descent. so your evidence for a common descent isn't realy evidence for a common descent. we also know that a natural process cant explain the existence of complex systems so we know that natural evolution is false either way:

VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase

 

[sfs]

as i said: we already know that the difference between species can be the result of neutral mutations. but it doesnt prove any common descent. so your evidence for a common descent isn't realy evidence for a common descent. we also know that a natural process cant explain complex systems so we know that natural evolution is false either way.

As seems to happen pretty often, your response has nothing at all to do with the evidence I presented.

 

[xianghua]

As seems to happen pretty often, your response has nothing at all to do with the evidence I presented.

if you say so. i have not seen any evidence so far.

 

[sfs]

if you say so. i have not seen any evidence so far.

Fortunately, scientists have seen the evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

if you say so. i have not seen any evidence so far.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Speedwell]

Science in general. It doesn't mean one person is at fault. What the fraudulent part is about is the utter dismissal of anything that is contrary to the theory. We see that all the time is science. Particularly in the evolutionary sciences.

How many times have I heard the "he's a creationist" dismissal. Meaning someone believes in creation and is therefore not a real scientist. There is evidence such as horses that existed at the time of the eohippus which show that eohippus cannot be used as real evidence of evolution. But that is dismissed. Why I wonder. Could it be that evolution science will not allow it? That is evidence that evolution is not real science but a deeply held belief system. These folks believe it to their bones. Just as I believe in creation to mine. It is taught in every single educational system that it is a fact. .Why would anyone believe otherwise if you're in the educational system? Evolutionists know they cannot prove evolution using common scientific methods. They can't test it, reproduce it or observe it in action. But they can certainly assume it to be true.

I think you are exaggerating just a little. My impression is that evolutionary biologists are no more dismissive of creationism than science generally is with proponents of other failed theories. How would you expect thermodynamicists treat proponents of the phlogiston theory of heat, for example? It is true that scientists, like everyone else, are resistant to change, but even a controversial new proposal, if it is supported by the evidence, will eventually be accepted. The work of Wegener stands out as a prime example, or Margulis. The problem with creationism as science is that it has been and gone--and nobody promotes it but those with a religious or a political agenda.

You could prove me wrong, though. Tell me more about the fossils of modern horses from the time of eohippus.

 

[Kylie]

Once again assumption and supposition. Have we ever witnessed a "burst of evolution" that sudden appearances of a large group of creatures took place? Of course not. There really is no evidence that this could take place.

Cambrian explosion.

If evolution from a common ancestor took place where do all these various creatures come from suddenly? It supposedly takes millions of years for evolution to take place yet we don't see anywhere this occuring in the slow evolving of one thing into another on a massive scale where one thing slowly evolved into another then offspring evolves into something else and something else and so on. All we have ever seen or found is very large groups all over the planet existing at the same time and many of them complex organisms instead of simple ones. Evolution only assumes and supposes how these things happened. There is no real evidence that it did.

The Cambrian Explosion lasted for about 25 million years.

I strongly advise you to actually LEARN about the things you are trying to discredit.

 

[xianghua]

Fortunately, scientists have seen the evidence.

good for them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I shall take some time to reply to the bulk of your post as it takes awhile to interpret your idiosyncratic English. I don't mean that as an insult. I admire anyone who is capable of conducting a technical discussion in a foreign language.

It is not a pun, rather it is meant to say that it is more like a person waging a bet, something like that.

Humour loses its value when it has to be explained, but here goes. Someone who advises others on the likely outcome of sporting events, on which one might bet, is a pundit. Not a pundent. A pun-dent, as I suggested, sounds like an example of paranomasia (a pun) making an impression (a dent).

 

[The Times]

Of course, that musty be why I disagree with you, I'm just NOT THINKING!!!!!

I did not say that you are not thinking, rather your bias prevents you from looking intuitively to intellegence behind complicated order. Your bias is towards order from chaos and you are unwilling to consider that the complicated path towards order, through consistent and interconnected patterns are authored by intellegencia.

What are the probabilities anyway?

To you, it appears 0%. Why?

You have not shown that your ideas are any different to my ideas in where they come from. You are just saying that your ideas are special without justifying why they are special.

No, that is not true!
I am saying that your claim negates intellegence and that you never apply the consistent and repeated paths taken towards order as having an intellegence. This one intelligence has left signiture marks everywhere. I am saying that it is not OK for you to ignore intellegence. You need to atleast consider intellegence in your deductive reasoning, otherwise you appear to me as a religious person holding onto dogma.

Evolution does not describe where matter came from.

You see. You sound like a religious person to me!

Why does it mean this? Shouldn't we see only the best and most efficient paths to the solution? Any organism which takes a non-efficient path will lose out to those organisms which can reach the same goal more efficiently.

Apparently the Evolution theory is solely based on the most inefficient paths, before A PATH is found. Now if there is A Path to Evolution, then why is the signiture fibonnici pattern showing up every, from the finite to the infinite.

Are you claiming that the fibonnici pattern is the most efficient path that could be taken?

If so, then that flies in the face of evolution theory, because where is the randomness or the multitude of chaotic
Paths taken?

If you cannot find evidence for evolution theory in nature, then it fails to meet evolutionist doctrinal dogma.

You see, in Evolution there would be organisms that reach a goal more efficiently in an environment, yet the same organism in time and space may be superseeded by another, which is more efficient. Those organisms have taken different paths to reach order of efficiency in their time, so show us the evidence of embedded algorithmic paths that are numerous and found qualifiably and quantifiably throughout nature?

Please do not tell me that only one efficient embedded algorithm exists across the board and throughout time and space.

Yeah, but the real world isn't an abstract of numbers. If you had to hire an engineer and you had two people, and the first could get the right result in five minutes, but the second person took a week, who would you hire?

Again, you fail to see that over time the path taken that was efficient then, may not be efficient now. This means that another intelligence, like the example of the first and second engineer would establish two paths, one more efficient than the other. As a result two signature patterns exist which inform us of a more than one embedded algorithmic path taken towards the solution/order.

So you presented two intelligence agents, the first and second engineer. Why can you not see that only one single embedded algorithmic path is found in our material universe, that is unaffected by time and space and remains consistent?

Does this not highlight to you a single intelligencia, or a single Engineer who has used the same path consistently throughout time and space?

Are you saying that only ONE efficient embedded algorithmic path exists?

That would dicredit the evolution theory.

Or are you saying that there is no random and no chaotic paths taken, because there is only one efficient path that could have been taken?

In this case, evolution theory is done for, because there should not have been millions of millions of misses before a hit.

If it took such a long time for an efficient path to order to be realised, then we should see an infinite array of embedded algirithmic paths taken throughout nature. But why is only one path scientifically observable and measurable?

Because the other inefficient paths taken million of million of years to find in establishing order did NOT exist. Therefore the religion of evolution is busted.

Begging the question again!

On the contrary!

No there isn't.

Yes, there is!

Please tell me how that could ever be taken in a non-condescending way.

Because it is truth. You know as the saying goes, "can you handle the truth?".

Sometimes truth needs to be delivered with a conviction that may appear to be condescending, but deep down in the heart it is for strengthening and edifying that individual. I guarantee you that you have my utmost respect.

You have claimed that I am wrong, but offer no actual evidence to back up your claims. You are not

Are you serious! How can you say that?

Evidence is the consistent embedded algorithmic path found in matter and throughout the universe, that is the Fibonacci signiture.

Are you saying that the Fibonacci path, is the only efficient path to order?

Hmmmmm...........I am waiting for a sincere reply and not a dogmatic one.

Would you like me to explain how my example actually accomplishes the sorting? Okay.

As the box is randomly jostled, the different stones all move around. As they move, holes will open up. Each hole starts off as small, but can increase in size. Since 100% of all holes start of small but only a small amount of the holes will get large, there will be many more small holes than large holes. This means that the smaller a particle is, the more likely a hole will open up for it to fall through. And since few holes will open up to a large size, there won't be many holes for the large stones to fall through. Thus, the smallest stones will fall more than the larger stones, and so the smaller stones will end up at the bottom while the larger stones will remain at the top.

If you were to consider the same process over time, would you see the exact same path taken to sift the smaller ones amongst themselves and the larger ones amongst themselves.

I hope that you would say that there would be a multiple paths to the same order. No particulate is the same shape or size and if you look at it microscopically you would find different arrangements amongst the smaller ones, everytime you did the test.

What does this mean?

It means that you failed to exactly replicate the first test, resulting in multiple paths, which would suggest different attempt.

Now when we consider the Fibonacci signiture pattern found in DNA, not only is it the same across the board in all sprectrum of life, but it is consistently reproduced every time new life comes into being.

Now if you being a very intelligent person is unable to replicate the attempts of obtaining the exact same path taken for the layering of particulates, then how can you discount an intellegencia that does this exactly to the DNA finite matter everytime and without fail?

Your example further illustrates that there must exist an intelligence exhibiting the same consistent path over and over again.

If our DNA did not have the Fibonacci pattern consistently every time, then we may or may not be walking and breathing prototypes and that no living entity would exhibit the human that has stayed consistent throughout time and space.

Do we have a Creator?

If you say No, then I would not be uncharitable to look upon you as a religious person who is holding onto evolution doctrinal dogma.

Evolution theory is just a religious dogmatic book that is all!

You can see it inside every box of breakfast cereal or chips (crisps for those in the USA). You always get the little broken bits at the bottom, doncha? That's because the contents of the package have been sorted exactly the way I described.

Which further supports intelligencia as described above.

Did I know that sorting results in big and small grains are sorted?

Well, yeah, this is like asking if I understand that wetting somet

You would not be able to sort the same small particulates the same way on every attempt without fail. Every attempt will be different and if this was so with DNA, atomic arrangements and chemical molecule ratios, then every attempt would yield a prototype and that no prototypes are the same in matter.

If you infinitesimally changed the Fibonacci pattern in DNA, we would not be humans.

Ah, you mean the one you said didn't apply to my example?

We are talking about Fibonacci pattern found in paths leading to consistently repeated and sustained life.

This is not a sifting through sand grains, but is a configuration and creation of life. You can throw sand in a box all you like, the result is still sand. The Fibonacci pattern is what leads to a consistent and repeated path for the conversion of matter to life and there is a big difference between what I have been discussing and your throwing sand in a box or cereal in a box experiment.

So? No two snowflakes form under exactly the same conditions, and no two grains of sand are weathered of a larger rock the same way. What's your point?

So when ever you attempted this exercise you would yield a different pattern and a different path. If Fibonacci sequence and ratios found in DNA were infinitesimally changed then you would not yield a human being consistently.

This pattern plays a role in the conversion of matter to a lifeform. If you can find over attempts then show us those patterns.

Now in the Christian Bible it says repeatedly the following......

Everything that God (Intellegencia) made was perfect from the beginning.

If a claim exists like this before humanity was technologically converse then now as a technologically converse society, we have proven that that claim to be scientifically true, because life only shows one efficient embedded algorithmic path for the conversion of matter to life forms.

Wow, dude, if you can use just one single algorithm to describe everything in the universe, write a paper and go collect your Nobel Prize!

I like your humour!

So what?

Are you saying that everyone must find their own unique path or it's fake?

Everything has a path to order and must be scientifically observed and measured, quantifiably and qualifiably.

I dunno, are you claiming to be God? If the answer to that is no, then my answer to your question is that it doesn't matter.

I would like to think that I am an ordered individual like yourself.

Order comes from intelligence friend, everytime and without fail.

Whilst you have demonstrated order with the sand particulates, you failed to understand that the conversion of matter to life is not a random and chance phenomena, otherwise everytime an attempt is made, there would be a change in the embedded signiture pattern and in this regard we see no change. One Fibonacci signitured pattern which is seen from the finite to the infinite

Is God ordered or is God disordered? I can't make it any more simple than this. If the question is still confusing to you, I would suggest that it is because you do not have a sufficient understanding of the topic to be involved in a discussion about it.

God is Perfect.
God is NOT ordered! God IS Order!
God is NOT loving! God IS Love!

The source is never the action, just like the bulb that transmits light is NOT the action of light itself.

God is NOT enlightened! God IS Light!
God is NOT living! God IS Life!

Think of source, not the action which comes from the source.

So you are saying that in a class of twenty students, if they are assigned a problem, then it is highly unlikely that any two of the students will reach the conclusion by the same method?

Okay then. I will give you a sample engineering question:

You are a civil engineer who is responsible for building a new road. As a part of the road-building project, you must construct a concrete intersection where the new road will cross an existing road. Concrete can be made by mixing cement, sand, and gravel in the ratio 3:6:8. How much gravel is needed to make 850 cubic meters of concrete?
Please describe twenty different ways to solve this problem. The problem is from THIS page. If you don't like this question, I will be happy to give you a different question

No two intersections are the same. Yet civil engineers go of engineering drawings of the same copy of the intersection. The final product has different paths, depending on the lead civil engineer.

Yet our DNA make-up has the same Engineer! So go figure.

No. You have not provided anything scientific or logical. You have simply made claims and asserted them to be true. You have given no evidence to back them up.

I took time to reply to you. I have only good feedback for you and that is that your heart's conviction will lead you to the truth of the matter, for I have only laid the seed, for you to scrutinise what you have been taught and told.

Good Luck with that!

 

[HitchSlap]

I did not say that you are not thinking, rather your bias prevents you from looking intuitively to intellegence behind complicated order. Your bias is towards order from chaos and you are unwilling to consider that the complicated path towards order, through consistent and interconnected patterns are authored by intellegencia.

What are the probabilities anyway?

To you, it appears 0%. Why?



No, that is not true!
I am saying that your claim negates intellegence and that you never apply the consistent and repeated paths taken towards order as having an intellegence. This one intelligence has left signiture marks everywhere. I am saying that it is not OK for you to ignore intellegence. You need to atleast consider intellegence in your deductive reasoning, otherwise you appear to me as a religious person holding onto dogma.



You see. You sound like a religious person to me!



Apparently the Evolution theory is solely based on the most inefficient paths, before A PATH is found. Now if there is A Path to Evolution, then why is the signiture fibonnici pattern showing up every, from the finite to the infinite.

Are you claiming that the fibonnici pattern is the most efficient path that could be taken?

If so, then that flies in the face of evolution theory, because where is the randomness or the multitude of chaotic
Paths taken?

If you cannot find evidence for evolution theory in nature, then it fails to meet evolutionist doctrinal dogma.

You see, in Evolution there would be organisms that reach a goal more efficiently in an environment, yet the same organism in time and space may be superseeded by another, which is more efficient. Those organisms have taken different paths to reach order of efficiency in their time, so show us the evidence of embedded algorithmic paths that are numerous and found qualifiably and quantifiably throughout nature?

Please do not tell me that only one efficient embedded algorithm exists across the board and throughout time and space.



Again, you fail to see that over time the path taken that was efficient then, may not be efficient now. This means that another intelligence, like the example of the first and second engineer would establish two paths, one more efficient than the other. As a result two signature patterns exist which inform us of a more than one embedded algorithmic path taken towards the solution/order.

So you presented two intelligence agents, the first and second engineer. Why can you not see that only one single embedded algorithmic path is found in our material universe, that is unaffected by time and space and remains consistent?

Does this not highlight to you a single intelligencia, or a single Engineer who has used the same path consistently throughout time and space?

Are you saying that only ONE efficient embedded algorithmic path exists?

That would dicredit the evolution theory.

Or are you saying that there is no random and no chaotic paths taken, because there is only one efficient path that could have been taken?

In this case, evolution theory is done for, because there should not have been millions of millions of misses before a hit.

If it took such a long time for an efficient path to order to be realised, then we should see an infinite array of embedded algirithmic paths taken throughout nature. But why is only one path scientifically observable and measurable?

Because the other inefficient paths taken million of million of years to find in establishing order did NOT exist. Therefore the religion of evolution is busted.



On the contrary!



Yes, there is!



Because it is truth. You know as the saying goes, "can you handle the truth?".

Sometimes truth needs to be delivered with a conviction that may appear to be condescending, but deep down in the heart it is for strengthening and edifying that individual. I guarantee you that you have my utmost respect.



Are you serious! How can you say that?

Evidence is the consistent embedded algorithmic path found in matter and throughout the universe, that is the Fibonacci signiture.

Are you saying that the Fibonacci path, is the only efficient path to order?

Hmmmmm...........I am waiting for a sincere reply and not a dogmatic one.



If you were to consider the same process over time, would you see the exact same path taken to sift the smaller ones amongst themselves and the larger ones amongst themselves.

I hope that you would say that there would be a multiple paths to the same order. No particulate is the same shape or size and if you look at it microscopically you would find different arrangements amongst the smaller ones, everytime you did the test.

What does this mean?

It means that you failed to exactly replicate the first test, resulting in multiple paths, which would suggest different attempt.

Now when we consider the Fibonacci signiture pattern found in DNA, not only is it the same across the board in all sprectrum of life, but it is consistently reproduced every time new life comes into being.

Now if you being a very intelligent person is unable to replicate the attempts of obtaining the exact same path taken for the layering of particulates, then how can you discount an intellegencia that does this exactly to the DNA finite matter everytime and without fail?

Your example further illustrates that there must exist an intelligence exhibiting the same consistent path over and over again.

If our DNA did not have the Fibonacci pattern consistently every time, then we may or may not be walking and breathing prototypes and that no living entity would exhibit the human that has stayed consistent throughout time and space.

Do we have a Creator?

If you say No, then I would not be uncharitable to look upon you as a religious person who is holding onto evolution doctrinal dogma.

Evolution theory is just a religious dogmatic book that is all!



Which further supports intelligencia as described above.



You would not be able to sort the same small particulates the same way on every attempt without fail. Every attempt will be different and if this was so with DNA, atomic arrangements and chemical molecule ratios, then every attempt would yield a prototype and that no prototypes are the same in matter.

If you infinitesimally changed the Fibonacci pattern in DNA, we would not be humans.



We are talking about Fibonacci pattern found in paths leading to consistently repeated and sustained life.

This is not a sifting through sand grains, but is a configuration and creation of life. You can throw sand in a box all you like, the result is still sand. The Fibonacci pattern is what leads to a consistent and repeated path for the conversion of matter to life and there is a big difference between what I have been discussing and your throwing sand in a box or cereal in a box experiment.



So when ever you attempted this exercise you would yield a different pattern and a different path. If Fibonacci sequence and ratios found in DNA were infinitesimally changed then you would not yield a human being consistently.

This pattern plays a role in the conversion of matter to a lifeform. If you can find over attempts then show us those patterns.

Now in the Christian Bible it says repeatedly the following......

Everything that God (Intellegencia) made was perfect from the beginning.

If a claim exists like this before humanity was technologically converse then now as a technologically converse society, we have proven that that claim to be scientifically true, because life only shows one efficient embedded algorithmic path for the conversion of matter to life forms.



I like your humour!



Everything has a path to order and must be scientifically observed and measured, quantifiably and qualifiably.



I would like to think that I am an ordered individual like yourself.

Order comes from intelligence friend, everytime and without fail.

Whilst you have demonstrated order with the sand particulates, you failed to understand that the conversion of matter to life is not a random and chance phenomena, otherwise everytime an attempt is made, there would be a change in the embedded signiture pattern and in this regard we see no change. One Fibonacci signitured pattern which is seen from the finite to the infinite



God is Perfect.
God is NOT ordered! God IS Order!
God is NOT loving! God IS Love!

The source is never the action, just like the bulb that transmits light is NOT the action of light itself.

God is NOT enlightened! God IS Light!
God is NOT living! God IS Life!

Think of source, not the action which comes from the source.



No two intersections are the same. Yet civil engineers go of engineering drawings of the same copy of the intersection. The final product has different paths, depending on the lead civil engineer.

Yet our DNA make-up has the same Engineer! So go figure.



I took time to reply to you. I have only good feedback for you and that is that your heart's conviction will lead you to the truth of the matter, for I have only laid the seed, for you to scrutinise what you have been taught and told.

Good Luck with that!

ToE is fact: Get over it.

 

[The Times]

I shall take some time to reply to the bulk of your post as it takes awhile to interpret your idiosyncratic English. I don't mean that as an insult. I admire anyone who is capable of conducting a technical discussion in a foreign language. Humour loses its value when it has to be explained, but here goes. Someone who advises others on the likely outcome of sporting events, on which one might bet, is a pundit. Not a pundent. A pun-dent, as I suggested, sounds like an example of paranomasia (a pun) making an impression (a dent).

Thanks for correcting me on the pun-dent and pundit. Could I have unintentionally used both subconsciously, so to grab your attention?

Maybe!

Having said that, I have come to understand that the Pundits of Evolution Theory are no different to the Pundits of Flat Earther Theory or other conspiracy theories for that matter.

The Flat Earthers have a conspiracy against NASA and government, whilst the Evolutionist have a conspiracy against the Single Intelligencia.

Either way, it highlights to me a cognitive dissonance that is being exhibited on the part of Evolutionists, because they dogmatically hold to a 100% conviction in discounting order from an Intelligence source, when facts to the contrary present a single signature pattern like the Fibonacci pattern, that is evidenced throughout all matter from the finite to the infinite.

It seems much like the Flat Earthers they have a tendency to reject what does not line up with their religious conviction. For the Flat Earthers they find nuggets of facts and concoct them to support their narrative and they feel justified because they give life to what they think is taught in the Bible. The Evolutionists on the other hand tend to stay in their bubble of cognitive dissonance by supporting their narrative that God does not exist and many of them are low and behold Atheists who have a conspiracy against a Single Intelligencia.

So go figure!

 

[The Times]

ToE is fact: Get over it.

Saved by science is your descriptor.

As a general comment not personally directed to you. I like to have a go at interpreting it like....

Saved by chance maybe in case of Evolution Theory?

It may also be saved by Chaos, if that makes sense at all!

 

[Speedwell]

Either way, it highlights to me a cognitive dissonance that is being exhibited on the part of Evolutionists, because they dogmatically hold to a 100% conviction in discounting order from an Intelligence source, when facts to the contrary present a single signature pattern like the Fibonacci pattern, that is evidenced throughout all matter from the finite to the infinite.

What about "evolutionists" who are theists? Who believe that all order is ultimately the creation of God?

 

[HitchSlap]

Saved by science is your descriptor.

As a general comment not personally directed to you. I like to have a go at interpreting it like....

Saved by chance maybe in case of Evolution Theory?

It may also be saved by Chaos, if that makes sense at all!

Yeah, people who don't understand ToE use similar terms as you.

 

[pitabread]

What about "evolutionists" who are theists? Who believe that all order is ultimately the creation of God?

Like many creationists, they seem to be using "evolutionists" and a synonym for atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

What about "evolutionists" who are theists? Who believe that all order is ultimately the creation of God?

C'mon... that's not a thing.

 

[Speedwell]

C'mon... that's not a thing.

LOL!