Just Accidental?

[Jose Fly]

Yep...that is usually my response to your posts.

Another dodge. Obviously that's your preferred method of dealing with conflict, in this case the absurdity of you saying that your religious beliefs prevent you from ever compromising on evolution and that your religious beliefs govern your views on it, followed by your declaration that you are the one willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

All I'm wondering now is whether you even see that as a conflict, or if you're just trying to close your eyes and make it go away.

Perhaps it would be helpful to define what "supernatural" actually means.....

Definition...."(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If you don't understand that the one who can create nature can also manipulate it at his own will and discretion, then why are you arguing about something that is basically beyond your ability or will to acknowledge or to demonstrate?

And that's precisely why God is untestable, and therefore cannot be part of science. No matter what you discover or what explanation you come up with, it's always possible that God supernaturally manipulated everything to make it seem different than it actually is.

Dodge.....this is a ploy designed to discredit the message.

No, it's not a dodge to point out that in response to my describing one of your behaviors, you respond by repeating that very behavior.

How do you explain the orchid wasp and its relationship to the orchid without resorting to supposition? How do creatures so perfectly camouflage themselves, as the pictures illustrate, without intelligent design?

We've been over this, remember? I told you that the evolution of symbiosis is not something I've ever looked into, nor is it my area of expertise.

Since life has been on earth for over 3 billion years and humans have only been around for 0.000000006% of that time, it's hardly surprising that there are parts of life's history that we haven't figured out. That's why we have science, right? To answer unsolved questions, right?

So why you think pointing out gaps in our current knowledge is at all meaningful is something you'll have to explain.

Clearly science is your god.

How is science my "god"? Please explain.

The simple things are the ones you find the hardest to explain. The Creator, OTOH makes everything simple enough for a child to understand it. No ego stroking or chest puffing required.

I certainly agree that creationism is much, much, much more simplistic than science, and that that's appealing to certain types of people.

You are pretty good at that yourself.

You're still dodging. Sometimes you declare that scientists have no evidence, but other times you say you disagree with their interpretations of the evidence. Both can't be true. So which is it?

"Data"....."facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis."

Evolutionary science has lots of "data"

So now you agree that evolutionary biologists do indeed have lots of evidence/data. Then why have you also been declaring that they have no evidence?

If what they collect and analyze is based on suggestion rather than factual interpretation of their "evidence", then what have they accumulated as "data"? Lots of supposition.....nothing more.

You're all over the map here. If scientists collect data, that data exists. So I have no idea what you mean by it being "based on suggestion". How can a data point be "based on suggestion"?

Dodge. This has been addressed several time......go back through the thread and see.

I have....another dodge. Just answer the questions.

Now you're lying again. You have not given a definition for "kind". If you had, you could have easily repeated it here or you could have linked to the post where you defined it. Instead you chose to play that dishonest creationist game where you dodge a simple question until enough time has passed, and then you lie and say "I already answered".

The fact that you have to resort to such dishonesty speaks volumes about the inherent dishonesty behind creationism.

In the way that science sees them do it in a lab. This is adaptation....small cosmetic changes that ensure survival.

Then your argument of "that's adaptation not evolution" makes no sense at all. As shown by the lab experiments I've posted, the mechanism that generates new genetic sequences is mutation and the mechanism that causes them to spread through the population is natural selection. And those are two of the primary mechanisms in evolutionary theory.

OTOH macro-evolution takes adaptation into the realms of fantasy as if they are one and the same thing, only on a larger scale.....they are not.

What other primary mechanisms do you think scientists have proposed for macroevolution, besides mutation and selection?

If we take creatures that do use metamorphosis, like caterpillars becoming butterflies as an example.

Except that's a single individual going through its life history, which is nothing like populations evolving over time.

I know this is probably unlikely to happen (because your religion won't allow it), but you should really try and learn a subject before attempting to debate it.

Adaptation never takes a species outside of its kind.

Completely meaningless since you won't say what a "kind" is. And if you're going to try and say you've already defined the term, then go ahead and repost the definition and/or link to the post where you gave it.

Land animals do not become whales....sea creatures designed to live in the oceans do not become land dwellers and turn themselves into dinosaurs. Science has no actual evidence that this ever took place outside of their fertile imagination, and you know it. What they have is speculation about what the fossils are telling them and then interpreting evidence to fit their theory. The fossils have their own voice if you let them speak. So does biology and genetics. You don't want to listen.

Now you're contradicting yourself again, by saying that scientists don't have any evidence. But just above you admitted that they have lots. Not only that, but you mention fossils, which are data/evidence according to the definition you gave above.

It looks to me like you are only capable of mindlessly repeating the same talking points TWS has given you, without any independent thought or comprehension at all. That certainly explains your repeated self-contradiction and dodging of simple questions.

Finally, did you notice anything? I asked you to compare and contrast "evolution" and "adaptation". And once again you didn't do it. Apparently TWS didn't give you anything on that, so you can't answer.

Care to try this time?

 

[Deeje]

Romans 1:20-23.....
"For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles."

Imagine the power behind the magnitude of this creation? Then imagine puny humans denying that power and saying that it all just appeared out of nowhere.....? All "just accidental".

Those claiming that they were wise "became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles."

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Bible predicted that humans would see themselves as smarter than their Maker....attributing to the creation what rightfully belongs to the Creator.

 

[ArtieE]

Imagine the power behind the magnitude of this creation?

And it is of course ridiculous to claim that such a god would only be able to create one universe. Obviously he created an infinite number of universes.

 

[Deeje]

And it is of course ridiculous to claim that such a god would only be able to create one universe. Obviously he created an infinite number of universes.

Since the Creator hasn't told us about this possibility, then all scientists can do is what they always do...speculate....form a hypothesis....make up a theory and then produce really good computer graphics to make it look like reality. Its called marketing.

God does tell us in Genesis that "the heavens and the earth" were "created" by him. It mentions nothing about multiple universes. What would happen if it were true? What difference would it make to us here on planet earth? What problem would it solve? What problems would it produce?

 

[Deeje]

The Wonder Element.....Carbon.

Carbon—The Wonder Element

From AWAKE! NO. 5 2016
The Wonder Element
Carbon atoms “No element is more essential to life than carbon,” says the book Nature’s Building Blocks. The unique characteristics of carbon enable it to bond with itself and many other chemical elements, thus forming millions of compounds, more of which are constantly being discovered or synthesized. As the examples here show, carbon atoms can also combine to form various shapes, including chains, pyramids, rings, sheets, and tubes. Carbon truly is a wonder element!
DIAMOND A diamond Carbon atoms form pyramids, called tetrahedrons, making the structure extremely rigid and making diamond the hardest naturally occurring substance known. A perfect diamond is essentially a single molecule of carbon atoms.
GRAPHITE A lead pencil Tightly bonded carbon atoms are set out in loosely bonded layers that can slide away from one another like sheets of paper on a stack. Because of these characteristics, graphite is both a fine lubricant and a key compound in lead pencils. *
GRAPHENE A pencil trace This refers to a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal mesh, or lattice. Graphene has a tensile strength many times that of steel. A pencil trace may have small amounts of graphene in single or multiple layers.
FULLERENES These hollow molecules of carbon come in shapes that include microscopic balls and tubes called nanotubes. They are measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter.
LIVING ORGANISMS Living cells that contain carbon The many cells that make up plants, animals, and humans are built on a framework of carbon—an element found in carbohydrates, fats, and amino acids.

“[God’s] invisible qualities . . . are perceived by the things made.”—Romans 1:20.

A star Carbon—A Product of Ultrafine Tuning in the Stars
Carbon is formed by the fusion of three helium nuclei, which scientists believe occurs inside stars called red giants. For the helium to combine, however, certain conditions must be exactly right. “Change just a few of the settings [of physical laws] even an infinitesimal amount,” wrote physicist Paul Davies, and “we’d have no universe, no life and certainly no humans.” How can we account for such ultrafine tuning? Some say it just happened. Others see it as evidence of a wise Creator. Which view do you consider more reasonable?

 

[Deeje]

The Mathematical Ability of Plants

PLANTS use a complex process called photosynthesis to extract energy from sunlight to create food. Studies on certain species have revealed that they perform yet another feat—they calculate the optimum rate at which to absorb that food overnight.

Consider: By day, plants convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into starch and sugars. During the night, many species consume the starch stored during the day, thus avoiding starvation and maintaining plant productivity, including growth. Moreover, they process the stored starch at just the right rate—not too quickly and not too slowly—so that they use about 95 percent of it by dawn, when they start making more.

The findings were based on experiments on a plant of the mustard family called Arabidopsis thaliana. Researchers found that this plant carefully rations its food reserves according to the length of the night, no matter whether 8, 12, or 16 hours remained until dawn. Evidently, the plant divides the amount of starch available by the length of time remaining until dawn, thus determining the optimal rate of consumption.

How do plants ascertain their starch reserves? How do they measure time? And what mechanism enables them to do math? Further research may shed light on these questions.

What do you think? Did the mathematical ability of plants come about by evolution? Or was it designed?

 

[metis]

Plants have had hundreds of millions of years to change and adapt, and small incremental changes do add up. Those plants that had greater abilities to change and adapt would have advantages over plants that had lesser abilities, and we see this same exact process at work today.

 

[Deeje]

Plants have had hundreds of millions of years to change and adapt, and small incremental changes do add up. Those plants that had greater abilities to change and adapt would have advantages over plants that had lesser abilities, and we see this same exact process at work today.

Adaptation is an amazing ability......and yes it is still at work today because environments are constantly changing, thanks to man's mismanagement of the Eco-sysyem.....but the plants remained plants through the whole process. Can I just emphasize that adaptation is not macro-evolution. Science likes to pretend that they are one and the same, but one does not prove the other.

Just because species have ability to make minor changes to adapt to a changing environment, doesn't mean that they can ultimately change from an amoeba to a dinosaur, no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.....science wants to make that leap, but it has no real evidence that it ever took place. It has assumptions and it makes guesses and predictions.....but ultimately, it cannot "join the dots" because there is nothing between two species to prove that they evolved from one another. There is just as much evidence to suggest that the fossil species were separate creations by the same Creator, using the same basic genetic material.

 

[Darkstorn]

^^ I laughed. I think that's all i need to say about this matter. You can't keep shouting at a wall and expecting a different result.

 

[metis]

Can I just emphasize that adaptation is not macro-evolution.

It can and has.

Science likes to pretend that they are one and the same, but one does not prove the other.

Actually it does because there is no real line between "micro-" and "macro-" in this case. When it comes to speciation, we know with absolute certainty that it has occurred, so let me recommend you google the term and check out the scientific links.

Just because species have ability to make minor changes to adapt to a changing environment, doesn't mean that they can ultimately change from an amoeba to a dinosaur, no matter how many millions of years you throw at it

You make this as a statement of fact, now please provide the evidence that this cannot or could not happen? We as scientists don't jump to such conclusions like you have.

There is just as much evidence to suggest that the fossil species were separate creations by the same Creator, using the same basic genetic material.

In the Genesis accounts, "creation" ended at the end of the 6th day. And if you say that He created after that, please provide us with scientific evidence that He did as such.

See, with the above, all you are doing is jumping from one conclusion to another minus any objective evidence whatsoever. There is not one shred of evidence that you can put forth to support your claims. You are using your denomination's teachings as a set of blinders, blindly accepting what there simply is no evidence for and rejecting what there's ample evidence for.

 

[Jose Fly]

^^ I laughed. I think that's all i need to say about this matter. You can't keep shouting at a wall and expecting a different result.

All Deeje can do is repeat the same phrases and talking points TWS has taught her. Trying to get her to do anything more is clearly a waste of time.

 

[Deeje]

It can and has.

Please provide evidence that an amoeba can transform into a dinosaur over millions of years. Not speculation that it can.....but hard evidence. You know that the whole theory is based on unprovable supposition, not provable facts. Science has as much "real" evidence for their position as we do.

Actually it does because there is no real line between "micro-" and "macro-" in this case.

"In this case"? Again please provide evidence that a plant can evolve into a sentient, animate creature. Plants are a "kind" and their reproductive ability does not extend beyond their kind. When we check out the evolution of a horse for example.....

What does science present as the ancestor of the modern horse? Is it a plant? Could it ever be a plant? Or a fish or an amoeba? Where is the evidence that these are not separate species created individually at different time periods? Where will I find the intermediate species connecting these creatures? If it can be proven that they exist, lets see the evidence.

When it comes to speciation, we know with absolute certainty that it has occurred, so let me recommend you google the term and check out the scientific links.
You make this as a statement of fact, now please provide the evidence that this cannot or could not happen? We as scientists don't jump to such conclusions like you have.

Oh, but science jumps to lots of conclusions for which they have absolutely no proof whatsoever.
If I go to Wiki's entry (for us common folk) on "speciation", what do I find?

When do these flies stop being flies and change into some other "kind" of creature?

Here are some other examples.....

Top: wild teosinte; middle: maize-teosinte hybrid; bottom: maize

Ancestral wild cabbage Domesticated cauliflower


Ancestral Prussian carp Domestic goldfish
Ancestral mouflon Domestic sheep
Speciation - Wikipedia

At what point in any example of speciation do we find any one of them becoming a creature that is outside of their "kind"?

"Kinds" have within their definition, many species, but they do not deviate from their basic structure. So insinuating that an amoeba can become a dinosaur, if enough time is thrown at it, with no evidence apart from speculative thinking, is an insult to anyone's intelligence.

Anything outside of what can be demonstrated by experimentation is pure supposition......not fact.

In the Genesis accounts, "creation" ended at the end of the 6th day. And if you say that He created after that, please provide us with scientific evidence that He did as such.

You don't seem to be getting the point here metis. "In the beginning God created" all the various "kinds" of creatures. Genesis details the order, and the prepared habitat into which they were placed. The Creator did not go into detail about how many species were included in a "kind", (he left that for humans to discover as they progressed in knowledge) but the basic principle is quite simple. Nature itself demonstrates that all reproduction takes place within their kind. Can you tell me where this is not true? Adaptation is a programmed ability within all kinds.....but it never takes them outside of it. That is what is still being observed to this day.

See, with the above, all you are doing is jumping from one conclusion to another minus any objective evidence whatsoever.

You think science presents 'objective' evidence? All I see is science interpreting evidence to fit their theory. I see no objectivity. But I see hostility when the speculations of the 'science god' are challenged.....yet there is an absence of any real evidence to support what is only a man-made theory. It is based more on imagination than any real evidence.

There is not one shred of evidence that you can put forth to support your claims. You are using your denomination's teachings as a set of blinders, blindly accepting what there simply is no evidence for and rejecting what there's ample evidence for.

I am using nature itself to demonstrate that it tells only one story. The design in nature is testimony enough for its Intelligent Designer.

Here is another small example....


An article from

WAS IT DESIGNED?

The Landing Strategy of the Honeybee

HONEYBEES can safely land at virtually any angle without problems. How do they do it?

Consider: A safe landing requires that the honeybee reduce its approach speed to nearly zero before contact. One logical way to do this would be to measure two factors—flight speed and the distance to the target—and then reduce speed accordingly. However, that method would be difficult for most insects because they have close-set, fixed-focus eyes that cannot directly measure distance.

The vision of honeybees is very different from that of humans who use binocular vision. Honeybees seem to use the simple fact that an object appears to get bigger as they approach it. The closer they get to an object, the faster it seems to increase in size. Experiments conducted at the Australian National University indicate that the honeybee decreases its flight speed so that the rate of apparent enlargement of an object remains constant. By the time the honeybee reaches its target, its speed has decreased to almost zero, allowing it to land safely.

The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports: “The simplicity and generality of this landing strategy . . . [make] it ideal for implementation in the guidance systems of flying robots.”

What do you think? Did the honeybee’s landing strategy evolve? Or was it designed?

The Landing Strategy of the Honeybee | Was It Designed?

I can give you hundreds of examples where design is clearly demonstrated in living things and in their place in the eco-system designed for them. You can brush all that aside if you like.....but I cannot.

 

[Deeje]

All Deeje can do is repeat the same phrases and talking points TWS has taught her. Trying to get her to do anything more is clearly a waste of time.

And all you can do is throw tantrums and regurgitate what science had led you to believe.

What gives you the superior position? Science isn't my god or my master. The one who is the creator of science is the one I believe. He demonstrates his existence even in microscopic life.

Even those who once believed and taught evolution, have changed their minds on examining the evidence.


From this 2016

Excerpts from an INTERVIEW with YAN-DER HSUUW

An Embryologist Explains His Faith

PROFESSOR Yan-Der Hsuuw is the director of embryo research at Taiwan’s National Pingtung University of Science and Technology. He once believed in evolution, but after becoming a research scientist, he changed his mind. He explained his reasons to Awake!

Please tell us a little about your background.


I was born in 1966 and grew up in Taiwan. My parents’ religion was based on both Taoism and Buddhism. Although we worshipped our ancestors and prayed to images, we never entertained the concept of a personal Creator.

Why did you study biology?

As a child, I liked caring for pets, and I wanted to learn how to relieve animals and people of suffering. For a time, I studied veterinary medicine, and later I studied embryology—a field that I hoped would also shed light on the origin of life.

You believed in evolution at the time. Can you tell us why?

The university professors taught evolution, claiming that evidence supports it. I believed them......

What convinced you that God created life?

A goal of scientific research is to find the truth, not to support preconceived ideas. My study of embryo development led me to change my view—that is, I concluded that life was created. To illustrate, engineers design assembly lines so that the right parts are fitted together in the right order and in the right way. Embryo development is somewhat similar but vastly more complex.

The process all starts with a single fertilized cell, doesn’t it?

Yes. That microscopic cell then divides, starting the process of cell division. For a time, the number of cells doubles every 12 to 24 hours. Early in this process, cells called stem cells form. 2 Stem cells can produce almost any of the 200 or so different cell types needed for a fully formed baby, such as blood cells, bone cells, nerve cells, and so on.

My study of embryo development led me to conclude that life was created

The right cells must be produced in the right order and at the right places. First they assemble into tissues that will in turn assemble themselves into organs and limbs. What engineer even dreams of writing instructions for such a process? Yet, the instructions for embryo development are superbly written in DNA. When I consider the beauty of it all, I’m convinced that life was designed by God.

An Embryologist Explains His Faith

 

[Deeje]

You can't keep shouting at a wall and expecting a different result.

Yeah, I know......

Evolution is dead......long live the Creator.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Or perhaps it indicates a genius whose passion for beauty, variety and design know no bounds such as is evident in limited human creativity. Do we not admire ingenuity when humans exhibit it? But we ignore it in creation.



Those who believe in an intelligent designer know that the design evident in anything we use is purposeful. In order to serve a purpose, a designer has to be aware of what is required to enable something to be useful, or how to modify something to make it even more useful.
"Accidents" or random chance do not produce purposeful improvements to anything, nor do they commonly produce anything that enhances functionality.

Accidents result in damage, not enhancement.

How many amazing "flukes" does it take to produce the wonders of nature.....all completely wasted if humankind did not have the mental capacity to see and appreciate and study what is around them. When was the last time you saw a cow admiring the sunset or complementing a farmer on the quality of the grass in his paddock?

Evolutionists simply play with the numbers and shroud their silly theory in jargon so that people will naturally assume that they have proof for what they believe. They think that by adding billions of years to their "theory" they will make all the possibilities become reality. Sorry...there is no more proof for that theory than there is for an all powerful intelligent designer who is probably laughing at the audacity of the 'fleas' on this 'dog' to suggest that there is no proof of his existence.....it's all around us. Just open your eyes.

"Evolutionists simply play with the numbers and shroud their silly theory in jargon so that people will naturally assume that they have proof for what they believe."

This is a quote from someone who has been told by others what evolutionist play with numbers and shroud their silly theory in jargon. Anyone who has actually taken the time to study and understand evolution knows that what you claim is not true. I suggest you actually study the evidence for yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it... your posts would be far less ignorant if you did.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And all you can do is throw tantrums and regurgitate what science had led you to believe.

What gives you the superior position? Science isn't my god or my master. The one who is the creator of science is the one I believe. He demonstrates his existence even in microscopic life.

Even those who once believed and taught evolution, have changed their minds on examining the evidence.


From this 2016

Excerpts from an INTERVIEW with YAN-DER HSUUW

An Embryologist Explains His Faith

PROFESSOR Yan-Der Hsuuw is the director of embryo research at Taiwan’s National Pingtung University of Science and Technology. He once believed in evolution, but after becoming a research scientist, he changed his mind. He explained his reasons to Awake!

Please tell us a little about your background.


I was born in 1966 and grew up in Taiwan. My parents’ religion was based on both Taoism and Buddhism. Although we worshipped our ancestors and prayed to images, we never entertained the concept of a personal Creator.

Why did you study biology?

As a child, I liked caring for pets, and I wanted to learn how to relieve animals and people of suffering. For a time, I studied veterinary medicine, and later I studied embryology—a field that I hoped would also shed light on the origin of life.

You believed in evolution at the time. Can you tell us why?

The university professors taught evolution, claiming that evidence supports it. I believed them......

What convinced you that God created life?

A goal of scientific research is to find the truth, not to support preconceived ideas. My study of embryo development led me to change my view—that is, I concluded that life was created. To illustrate, engineers design assembly lines so that the right parts are fitted together in the right order and in the right way. Embryo development is somewhat similar but vastly more complex.

The process all starts with a single fertilized cell, doesn’t it?

Yes. That microscopic cell then divides, starting the process of cell division. For a time, the number of cells doubles every 12 to 24 hours. Early in this process, cells called stem cells form. 2 Stem cells can produce almost any of the 200 or so different cell types needed for a fully formed baby, such as blood cells, bone cells, nerve cells, and so on.

My study of embryo development led me to conclude that life was created

The right cells must be produced in the right order and at the right places. First they assemble into tissues that will in turn assemble themselves into organs and limbs. What engineer even dreams of writing instructions for such a process? Yet, the instructions for embryo development are superbly written in DNA. When I consider the beauty of it all, I’m convinced that life was designed by God.

An Embryologist Explains His Faith

"And all you can do is throw tantrums and regurgitate what science had led you to believe."

It amazes me how some people think they get to pick and choose what parts of science they'll accept and what parts they can just ignore. Someone using a computer to post their thoughts clearly accepts the scientific method when used to determine how to harness electrons in this manner. Yet when the exact same scientific method is used in other areas they suddenly claim that science is a fraud and that scientists are just making stuff up.

But I guess it shouldn't be terribly surprising. After all, these are usually the same people who pick and choose what parts of their religious texts are valid and which parts can simply be ignored. How sad.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yeah, I know......

Evolution is dead......long live the Creator.

I was referring to you, dumdum. You're a wall. Except walls typically don't think of themselves as sentient beings.

 

[Jose Fly]

And all you can do is throw tantrums and regurgitate what science had led you to believe.

So your complaint is that in a discussion of science, I stick to science. Fascinating.

What gives you the superior position? Science isn't my god or my master. The one who is the creator of science is the one I believe. He demonstrates his existence even in microscopic life.

Again it's interesting to see you associate an understanding of science as being a religious position, thereby further confirming that this is a religious issue for you.

Even those who once believed and taught evolution, have changed their minds on examining the evidence.

I look forward to seeing Dr. Yan-Der Hsuuw's revolutionary paper where he overturns evolutionary theory. And thanks again for illustrating my point about you only being able to copy from TWS.

 

[gnostic]

But I guess it shouldn't be terribly surprising. After all, these are usually the same people who pick and choose what parts of their religious texts are valid and which parts can simply be ignored. How sad.

Yes, tragically true.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Still trying to undermine the discussion with personal observation Jose Fly? Is that all you have?

Its getting old.
If you want to play "shoot the messenger" I have to tell you I am wearing a bullet proof vest. Water off a duck's back.

You say these things as if I have an axe hanging over my head forcing me to believe in creation, as if the evidence science produces is remotely convincing......you've got to be kidding.

I wouldn't swap your fairy tale for mine for the simple reason that mine makes more sense....and even a child can comprehend it. No science degrees are necessary because all they do is impress other humans. God doesn't need to impress anyone....but his works impress me immensely.

Yes, I did notice them, that is why I posted them. You think evolution is the only explanation, but these various species of apes could just as easily have been created as separate specimens or as variations within a family. The Creator is not some kind of a magician.....he crafts his creation over time until he is satisfied with what he has produced. This is why he could say at the end of each creative period, that "everything was good". After the creation of his final masterpiece, man, (the only creation made in the image of his Maker) only then did God say that everything was "very good". He was supremely satisfied with the finished product, having endowed humans with his unique attributes. What happened next, has nothing to do with creation, but it sure answers a lot of questions.



Then stop trying to imply that it is a fact, when it clearly isn't. Stop teaching it in schools and universities as fact, as if there is no other viable explanation. It's a theory......unproven and unsubstantiated with anything but supposition and biased interpretation of evidnece to support it....so teach the kids the real truth about evolution......ID could be just as true with more than enough "evidence" to support it. Giving kids the impression that they are nothing but animals has produced an attitude that they can pretty much do as they please.....have you got teens or grandkids growing up in this world? Do you like the world they have inherited from the contributions of science? I don't....and if I didn't have the hope that the Bible holds out for the future, I am not sure I could tolerate the injustice, the violence, the corruption and the greed that seems to prop up the whole thing. How does man solve the problems, when man IS the problem?

"he crafts his creation over time until he is satisfied with what he has produced." Gee, it sounds like you just said that God chose to use the method of evolution to create human beings. Which happens to be the exact same stance that the Catholic church and the majority of other Christian denominations take on the matter. It sounds like you don't dispute evolution either. Perhaps you're under the false impression that evolution even addresses the question of how life began. It ONLY deals with how less advanced lifeforms developed into more advanced lifeforms over time. You know, just like you claim the transitional species between apes and humans were just God's attempts to produce a creation He was satisfied with.