Guess I'll play a round or two.

"Reality honestly does not give a damn what you can see or not... All this has been demonstrated in the lab and in the real world... drug resistance and the next flu virus pretty much disprove your world view..."

Demonstrated in a lab? If evolution was so well demonstrated as you claim, we wouldn't be having the whole Evo/ID debate. Again drug resistance hasn't been firmly linked to random mutation. It could just as well be explained by the bacteria developing defenses through some physiological process. The chances of an odd random mutation finding just the right combination to defend against an adverse condition (whether it be chemical, environmental, or biological) is pushing it, especially considering how the overwhelming majority of mutations lead to disability and/or death.

"So huge antlers are as energy efficient as possible? A Peacock's tail feathers are energy efficient? Evolution through random mutation leads to VERY inefficient use of energy... ALL that evolution selects for is the ability to reproduce most efficiently... Flood a community of bacteria with antibiotics and the ones with a random mutation that allows them to survive will become dominant- even if they were one in a million in the beginning..."

Huge antlers are shed at the end of the mating season. A peacock has very large tail feathers, but can only fly for short distances. If it's simply random mutation then why do subterranean fish or amphibians only have eye buds and not huge massive eyes? Why do they have paper thin transparent skin and not thick bony scales? Random mutation would dictate a wide variaty of traits, but in reality, all subterranian species from all parts of the world look very much alike. The lack of stimuli will cause a trait to wither and atrophy over the course of generations, whereas stimuli will cause a trait to become reinforced and more pronounced.

"Are you really that stupid? If you are in a stagnant environment and have spent eons evolving in that environment then mutations are likely to be detrimental- a stagnant unchanging environment discourages evolution... say an organism in a hot spring has a mutation that would let it thrive at a lower temperature- it does no good if the hot spring stays at a higher temperature- it may even be a detriment... but if the hot spring cools and that mutation arises then that mutation will become dominant... It really is quite simple."

Spastic name calling is the first sign of desperation....or mental illness. Again many random neutral mutations would still pop up over the course of time if they were the leading cause of evolution. Yet we do not see this in nature. A stagnant unchanging environment does indeed discourage evolution, but that is because once adaptation to that environment occurs there's no need to adapt any farther.

Again, reality does not give a damn about your opinion... the flaw with arguments like yours is that you really cannot comprehend how long a million years really is- how many generations a million years encompases, how many random mutations can happen in that time... and how a benificial mutation can dominate in a few generations...

There goes the cussing again. And I suppose you can comprehend how long a million years is? No wonder you're such a curmudgeon.