Stand or learn how to walk?

Pop, you have it backwards.  Humans don't "learn" how to walk, we have that ability programed into our genes.  Have you ever seen a two moth old baby try to move around?  They automatically move their feet in an attempt to walk, their arms are held up,  away from the ground.  That's instinctive behavior. The only reason they can't walk right after birth is that their muscles are not strong enough to support their weight.  But that doesn't stop them from trying.

A baby learns to craw, something that is not instinctive behavior, by first first moving only their legs.  If you place a one or two month old baby face down, they kick their legs up and down in an attempt to walk. They don't move their arms and legs together, they only move their legs and they try to keep their arms out of the way. 

Once their feet get a purchase on the ground, which only takes a few minutes to achieve, they push and they slide on their chest.  It takes a few weeks, or even a month, for them to figure out that they need to use their arms as well as their legs when trying to crawl.  That's because crawling is a learned behavior. Once again the only reason they can't stand up walk is that their muscles aren't strong enough to support their weight. (Babies are VERY top heavy.)

Walking is an instinctive behavior, crawling is a learned behavior.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

The theory of evolution is very real with real science to support it.

Nothing in evolution happens overnight though extreme genetic mutations are possible they are usually caused by outside influences such as radiation.

A bird would simply have to born with a stronger beak than the others to be able to "peck" into soft wood trees or possibly ones eaten by termites. Your confusion is you are comparing the fully evolved wood pecker from the first bird that started it's evolution branch.

That is a lie about fossil records, there are clear records showing this. They have not been proven to be hoaxes. Watch the video. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

That exhibit traits from different species.

http://www.livescien...

Rolling the dice for a few QUADILLION years one might get this:

The so-called "bacterial
flagellum" is what propels a bacterium through its microscopic world.
The bacterial flagellum consists of about 40 different protein parts,
including a stator, rotor, drive shaft, U-joint, and propeller. Through
21st century magnification technology, we now understand that a simple
bacterium has a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come
into focus when magnified 50,000 times using electron micrographs.
These microscopic motors can run at 100,000 rpm. Nevertheless, they can
stop on a microscopic dime. In fact, it takes only a quarter turn for
them to stop, shift gears and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the other
direction! The flagellar motor is water-cooled and hardwired into a
sensory mechanism that allows the bacterium to get feedback from its
environment! 

I find it interesting that thousands of years later, Modern man heads still fit into those old helmets, worn by savages.

Why aren't there more real mutant X-men out there ?

Evolution is the basis for that comic book series.

FREEDOM

(D)

It is an impossibility.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

botg,

I know we have gone over this before, but what the heck - let's do it again.

If ID is used to explain the origin of the entire universe, then the intelligent designer operates outside the bounds of our physical universe and is supernatural.

If ID is used to explain the origin of life, then you have the problem of asking "where did the designer come from?"

If it isn't assumed to be a supernatural agent (since you say ID doesn't need those), then ID can then be seen as the search for evidence for the existence of advanced alien life forms (since suggesting it's a higher power would introduce a supernatural agent and you said ID doesn't need those).

But then it seems natural to ask where those alien life forms came from? Well, since organic life forms can't generate their own existence, the only option is a supernatural agent.

I know that ID attempts to be non-specific about what the designers is, but any way you look at it, it's going to be a supernatural agent of some sort - whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

RESTLESS 1,

Virtual particles are particles that come into existence for a short span of time out of the vacuum. Within Quantum Field Theory, they are the result of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (the version that involves energy and time).

Despite their transient existence, they interact with non-virtual (regular) particles and those interactions have long lasting affects - like how we perceive the magnitude of the charge of regular particles or via something like the Casimir Affect.

That aside, some have suggested that our universe can be something like a virtual particle - it comes into existence apparently from nowhere (sort of).

Although actual virtual particles only exist for a short time, QFT opens the door to the idea of a virtual universe that exists for as long as ours appears to have.

It's just an idea.

NC207,

I asked one of those guys about the distinction between Navy OC's and Midshipmen and he said there is a difference having to do with pay grade and active duty status. Besides, that's what they are called where they are, so that's what they call themselves. 

One of them is agnostic (like me). The other one I'm guessing is a theist, but he doesn't bring it up. I don't really think our educational system dictates what people end up being. From personal experience, I get the impression that a lot of teens and college age folks go through an anti-religion phase (I know I did) that I think has more to do with youthful rebellion and not so with what they hear in school (though I'm sure it isn't hindered by it).

I'm pretty sure that a person's theological view on life develops as a result of the sum total of their life experience, not simply because of what their teachers told them (or didn't tell them) in school. But hey, like I said, that's just my person opinion.

Regarding the virtual particle thing:

I was just suggesting a very very loose analogy. If our universe is a subsystem within a larger system and if universes (yes, multiple) come into existence in a way loosely analogous to the way virtual particles in our universe come into existence, then you have a naturalistic model for where our universe came from.

I wasn't suggesting that our universe is a virtual particle with the same characteristics that virtual particles in our universe have.

Of course, I can't really see how you would test such a theory.

You said:

I think there are other arguments that speak to the existence of a creator and an act of creation.

I wouldn't mind hearing what those are.