Where have all the Creationists gone? Come back, we want to fight some more!!

I've been extremely busy.Most evo topics are closed to me due to my own dogmatic speculations in this truly metaphysical arena.Neither camp seems to be accurately employing science without perversely speculating. Admittedly I'm guilty of that.But take an example or 2 to illustrate: I've always maintained that ...1) Raw beneficial mutation(s) never have existed. Sure there are citings of "mutations" that are really just APRIORI forms of NS within organisms. Only a mad-scientist really could accept raw beneficial mutations, period. Thus, mega-evolutionism is madness.2) Your name, "Gzus", manifests a perverted contempt of anything redemptive within scientifically observed data and/or metaphysical realities. Who wants to seriously argue with you?3) Radiometric dating, with all it dexterously spun out paradigms, manifests a real contempt for what light and time really is, stuff that is very elusive to say the least. Would you (or anyone) care to explain quantum mechanics as it relates to special relativity at the beginning of the moment of the big bang/creation, and then how our Newtonian conceptions of orbital time now predominate? No, didn't think so. Throw out your radiometric dating then.4) One prominent and truly brilliant Evo here maintained that all proteins were enzymes. Understand the madness and confusion going on in men's brains, including yours and (especially) mine?Thus these perverse incredulities of Evo-scientists makes me not even want to discuss at length with them on scientific and/or metaphysical levels. These 4 evo-abominations I mentioned are too easily hand-waveable. Shame on myself and others who purport these or support these as science.

Nice English Rrhain. Thanks for another adhoc solution. At least you're original.Yet you just don't see it. To argue succinctly and dogmatically for these 4 abominations of science manifests (to myself and others) a shameless bias. You need a little shame, humility, honesty, etc., in all your dogmatic speculations to appear more credible, methinks. (I may be wrong)'Don't think anyone here will agree with your last few sentences, accept with emotional kadoos.Rrhain, I've fought long and hard on these 4 points over and over for months and you just handwaved them like a crude ork from the talk-origins archives. You're going to believe what you want to believe no matter how you dress it up with your science-falsely-so-called.What do you (or any of you others out there) really speculate about existential vs. past space-time continuums and/or how they compare now in orbital vs. atomic time? Why not make an honest hypothesis that makes some sense?What do you (or anyone) really know vs. speculate about:
(1) A PRIORI mutations,
(2) raw mutations,
(3) NS and
(4) gene-regulated mutations?You (all) need to find some better proof of (2) raw mutations (vs mere NS) to support YOUR outlandish mega-ToEs. I don't really see any evidence whatsoever of beneficial raw mutations having ever even existed in any life-form. This evo-science-magic (to me) fails on all taxa levels.

CF. Time constrains you and I to debate at length in any real coherent manner. Whatever you are getting at; I for one do not dismiss God and Creation as non-scientific material.I fully encourage any semblence of a scientific method that exploits to approach God and Truth. I hope I did not discourage that via my poor english. (Note. I've already posted at length already on the hypothetical science of a Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead as evidenced by natural data)Albeit, many metaphysical events seem well beyond a materialistic and/or an existentialist grasp. (E.g., how can the clay fully know the Potter, etc.) In my dogmatic stance, metaphysical and Gospel inquiries take great priority over materialistic science studies. What do you think?

Why not let it drag on just a little longer? We're speaking generalized statements and attempting to regroup in the coffee house arena, still.(Just a thought)Philip