@Deeje , how many times have you derided "science" for using uncertain terminology? I mean, such as 'could have', might lead to' etc??
Yet with these gaping holes in your own "theory", you have no doubts at all?
I have no gaping holes in my own theory, and that is the point. The explanation given by the Bible leaves no gaps.
The explanation is not given in "scientific" terms so it is rejected by the learned elite as 'childish'. Imagine if the Creator had used his own descriptive scientific terminology for his creative efforts?......then it would be the scientists who feel childish. I imagine he is shaking his head at their ignorance. How can intelligent humans be so gullible?
Doesn't it all boil down to what we "want" to believe? That is true no matter which camp you are in. You have as much of a "belief system" as we do....you just can't admit it.
My position all along has been to expose evolution as the "invention" of men who want to describe creation within the scope of their own limited knowledge and self-taught experience of the material realm. To listen to some scientists, you would think that they know all there is to know about everything....and to use "religion" and "science" in the same sentence is somehow sacrilege.
The Creator exists as part of science, which he invented. I cannot separate God from science.
God did not create religion...men did. Confusing the Creator with the inventions of men is rather silly.
I have stated all through this thread that scientists have no more real evidence for the validity of their theory than we have for the existence of our Creator. I see scientists 'suggesting' all kinds of things, but I see no actual proof for any of it. Nice diagrams though.....for whatever they are worth.
Here's one....
Please note the timeframe between these species and the fact that there are no specimens between linking any of them, in any way to one another. The evolution of the horse is imagined. Who really knows what Echippus looked like 60,000,000 years ago? The bones, or what was left of them, wouldn't tell the story in that kind of detail.
This seems to tell more of the story.....
We can make 'suggestions' too and back them up with evidence of design for all living things, perfectly suited to the habitats that were created for them. We can use the same evidence as you do and arrive at a completely different conclusion. It is clear that science relies more on guesswork than on actual proof.
OK, I get it, @Jose Fly is right, you need to believe, nuff said.
I do not "need" to believe any more than you do....I know what I see with my own eyes and what natural science tell me about the ingenious designs we see in so many species on this planet, and in the wider universe itself. I see adaptive change in earthly creatures as part of that creative genius, but I see nothing that translates adaptation into macro-evolution except in men's imagination. ...nuff said?
Yes, exactly, you do have to believe it.
I believe it because I am a spiritual person who appreciates that all things designed have a purpose and purpose is the product of intelligence. If you can't see that, then perhaps it is you who "has" to believe what science suggests in spite of the fact that science has no facts.