I am always amused when people think God and science can be separated. Who invented science? Who is the one who demonstrated what an incredible scientists he really is? Everything in creation is a product of science and principles that humans are only really beginning to comprehend.
In the branch of science known as biomimetics, intelligent men and women have examined the incredible things in nature and have sought to copy them. Velcro was based on a gecko's feet....jet propulsion on the way squid and octopi propel themselves through water. The wings of birds were the basis of aircraft design.....and if they can duplicate the tensile strength of a spider's web, they could bring down a jumbo jet in mid flight.
Now, if it takes intelligent humans to mimic the constructions and designs evident in nature, what makes you think that the originals had no intelligent designer? Can all those things just be fortunate accidents with no intelligence directing them?
Humans have only discovered what already was. They taught themselves by trial and error to identify the systems that are already in place....so who put them there? Mr Nobody?
Actually that is one of my favorite examples....whale evolution......(from Berkeley.ed Whale Evolution)
"Whales that evolved after Ambulocetus (Kutchicetus, etc.) show even higher levels of saltwater oxygen isotopes, indicating that they lived in nearshore marine habitats and were able to drink saltwater as today's whales can. These animals evolved nostrils positioned further and further back along the snout. This trend has continued into living whales, which have a "blowhole" (nostrils) located on top of the head above the eyes."
You read the script then look at the diagram...what do you see?
You see the skulls of creatures millions of years apart and a suggestion that there is a progressive process of evolution going on.......based on what? Similarity of the shape of a skull?...and nostrils supposedly heading up to the top of the skull where we find those of dolphins today.
The first creature is a land dweller and the second one supposedly 11 million years later, had taken to the water.
It says previous to this...with these images...
"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."
That anyone can see any relationship of whales to those land dwelling animals is beyond my imagination, but not beyond science's apparently. And they are not averse to fudging a few facts to get their lame duck dinosaur across the line.
Whale evolution fraud - creation.com
Have you ever even considered that evolution might be one gigantic fairytale?
Who made those classifications and on what basis? Its not hard to play by the rules if you wrote them.
I cannot see any "morphology" that is not suggested. Suggestions are not facts. Evolution is not taught as a suggestion, it is taught as absolute truth....ask any student. They never see the guesses in the text and yet they are always there.
What do I make of it? I see a whole lot of people jumping on a popular bandwagon, making a Creator 'go away' so that they can basically do whatever they want now because there is no one higher than themselves to answer to. It caters to a heart's desire and also uses the repelling effect of not wanting to appear 'unintelligent'.
The sheer consistency of the results is not surprising since all are looking for things to fit neatly inside one box....the one that doesn't require an Intelligent Designer.
And "evidence" examined by those who have a clear agenda to support a pet theory, will always find ways to make sure that the evidence supports evolution....their interpretation of that evidence will guarantee it.
Who is going to argue?
Its only 'baseless waffle' to those who have no spiritual connection to the Creator or his creation. They will fawn all over "Mother Nature" but deny the existence of her 'husband'...."Father God". Together these two are the perfect couple. They passed "life" onto other beings and gave them a perfect home, which man is trying to destroy, despite all his clever scientific knowledge.....
Thank you...my sentiments exactly.... "arguing honestly and transparently and without bias from examinable evidence" is exactly what we need to do. The problem is that bias creeps in and distorts what should be honest and transparent. Interpretation is everything and I believe scientists rely more on their own interpretation than they do on what nature is actually telling them.
How can you delete "prove" when human existence is at stake. If you can't prove something then it is not a fact. You have a belief...just like we do. Our belief leads somewhere...where does your unbelief lead you?
Science can't prove anything with regard to macro-evolution. It must rely then on supposition and assumptions as we saw in my quote from Berkeley ed.
They interpret the evidence to fit their theory but can't prove that it is true.....so what does their theory stand on? Nothing concrete. It is an elaborate castle built on toothpicks IMO. No building can stand without solid foundations....it will ultimately collapse.
He is not any gender in a physical sense, but refers to himself that way so that we humans will understand his position as head of his 'household'. He portrays himself as a Father. The Bible has very little to say about who and what dwells in the spirit realm, but suffice it to say, there is enough to allow us to see spirit beings as mighty powerful creatures, which is what the word "god" means essentially.
The monotheistic God of the Bible is head over all such creatures "the God of gods" so to speak, because he is their Creator too. That makes him THE God who is over everything. He does not need to prove himself to unbelievers, but certainly demonstrates his existence to those who humbly search for him and appreciate his creation on more than an intellectual level.
I am glad that you omitted to address the quote from Berkeley in post #141, because your silence speaks louder than your words. I can show you many such quotes that prove that there are no real foundations to the evolutionary theory. Its all just smoke and mirrors as far as I can see. It isn't as proven as they would have us believe, but when egos, accolades and grants are involved, you can't really expect integrity.
Last edited:
