Just Accidental?

[Monk Of Reason]

I can't do "hopeless" and I cannot believe that the miracle of life is "just an accident". You are welcome to your position but it makes no logical sense to me.

No. You can't emotionally come to terms with it so you have to have a crutch. It isn't a logical but emotional based decision on your part. You said so yourself in the first sentence here. But the reality of our universe isn't subject to people's feelings.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you not see "no plant of the field was yet in the earth"?

There was no vegetation, during this time period, after the Earth was formed and before man was created.

It doesn't say 'birds were created, then vegetation'! You're reading things into the account that simply aren't there.

Besides, what would keep God from creating more of the same organisms, in the following creative days? Where does it say that?

Follow by creation of vegetation (2:9), including those in the Garden of Eden (2:8).

The account says God "planted a garden"; that's not creating! When botanists plant a garden, do they make the flowers in it? No. So there's no discrepancy, only to those who have an a priori view. Speaking of which.....

You have to be totally blind, to be not able to see the orders of creations are different. The contradictions are very apparent to me, without me fiddling them.

These words in Genesis have been around for millennia. Geniuses like Isaac Newton, John Milton, Keppler, Boyle, etc., who had read and studied the Bible (including Genesis 1 & 2), thought the Bible was God's Word. Why would discrepancies suddenly appear? If these so-called contradictions were there, how come these smart people never mentioned them?

(Although, some of them did not agree with a lot of church teachings, but that's not the same thing.)

 

[Deeje]

All modern knowledge was once a complete unknown, and we had no ability to measure or study it...
What are you talking about?

I was answering a question, and my answer is perfectly logical, given the question.

God is an unsubstantiated claim.

Organic evolution is unsubstantiated too. There is absolutely no solid verifiable evidence that it ever took place. All you have is "interpretation" of evidence that is made to fit a presupposed scenario. I have as much evidence based on our supposition.

This is false. A huge number of Scientists are personally religious. Only religious literalists have a problem with scientific discovery.

I really don't care how many scientists are "religious" or how many "religious literalists" there are. Science still doesn't have the kind of "evidence" that supports macro-evolution unequivocally. God did not create evolution....he created the vast variety of creatures as they are, individually and purposefully crafted. Many came and went before he decided which ones would share the planet with humans. Whatever use God had for the dinosaurs, they were well and truly gone by the time man arrived on the scene.

I don't believe that his guy

ever existed, except in the imagination of the evolutionists.

There is not a single shred of evidence that apes evolved into man as this well publicized illustration suggests. There is nothing to link them....not a single solitary thing that is provable.
The only thing holding this "chain" together is suggestion, and an agenda that must be supported if one is to claim any credibility in the scientific community.

Again, this is false.

Scientists and Belief

Evolutionary science requires more "faith" in unsubstantiated belief than believers in an Intelligent Designer do IMO.

You don't have to believe in Gorgon the Space Wizard. He doesn't force anyone to do that. But the evidence for his existence is all around us. If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

But Gordon the Space Wizard never claimed to be the Creator, nor did he leave a written record of his dealings with the human race in ages past, that has survived to the present against all odds.....so I guess its just a matter of wait and see eh?

It takes as much imagination to believe in these....

.....as it does to believe in God.

These are illustrations, not photographs.... These images came out of someone's head, not their camera.

 

[Deeje]

No. You can't emotionally come to terms with it so you have to have a crutch.

Hmmmm....so that is how you dismiss the whole issue? It must be a crutch because we can't come to terms with your hopeless view of life on this planet....? Really? It couldn't be that we have just adopted a belief system that makes more sense to us than yours?

Because we cannot accept your view, we must be just emotionally-charged morons? At least we have feelings. Being emotionally handicapped is a symptom of mental illness actually. Spirituality is inherent in humans down through all ages.....so how come we have reached a technologically advanced age in this 21st century, but we have lost many of the things that make us uniquely human? Our spirituality is not gone...it is just buried under a pile of useless junk.

It isn't a logical but emotional based decision on your part. You said so yourself in the first sentence here. But the reality of our universe isn't subject to people's feelings.

The reality of life is not just actions devoid of feelings. What motivates people's actions if not their feelings? When people seek a mate, is their relationship based on pure chemistry devoid of feelings?

What makes a ruler into a despot? What corrupts him, if not his feelings about the use of his own power?

You are kidding yourself if you believe that feelings play no part in human choices....you are demonstrating feelings right now.

 

[Deeje]

Let's take this one, since there is so much red in it and it's an area of research that I'm very familiar with.

You seem prone to look for keywords which you think support your idea that all scientific literature is nothing more than speculation. This hunt for phrasing that you do keeps your from being able to read properly and contextually. You're completely missing the point of the article because you're too busy looking for words that set you off...

Read that paragraph again with the knowledge that the first half of the paragraph explains previous hypotheses and assumptions about Enceladus, and the last half explains how some of those hypotheses and assumptions were confirmed. Try doing that without adding all of your baggage to what is being reported and see if you don't come away with a better understanding of the article.

I'll make it simpler for you:
(Hypothesize)
Giant geysers on an ice moon must mean something, right? They're erupting from the surface for some reason. What do you think that reason could be?
What do you personally think that they would indicate, if you had no other knowledge of the moon?
Your answer there would be the first half of that article.

(Test)
If you then sent a probe to skim the physical makeup of the ejecta from the geysers, and recorded the data - and you also performed a spectral analysis of the surface of the moon and recorded deep radio mapping of the interior, showing what surface cavities were filled with and confirming through direct capture and observations some of the makeup of those ejecta materials - you would begin to be able to piece together an accurate representation of the reality of the environment on Enceladus, wouldn't you?

(Conclude)
Were some of your original thoughts about Enceladus confirmed? Were some of them not supported by your observations? Did you learn anything new? Do you any other questions you could ask about the nature of the moon? Can you devise some more tests to answer those questions?

That's what the article, which you plastered with red lettering, was doing... Why you have a problem with that, I don't understand.

I understand exactly what the red lettering was saying. Do I need an interpreter perhaps? Funny I thought it was in English.

It is propping up a theory that it has no real way to test.
It acknowledges its speculation in everything it writes as "proof" of its own "suggestions". I don't buy it no matter how classy the writing style or how "scientific" it sounds. When you boil it all down, the red lettering says it all.....

"scientists have speculated where the geysers draw from—and whether that water source might be home to some form of life. The most intriguing idea was that the geysers indicated the presence of a subsurface ocean.....Now, new data has confirmed that Enceladus does indeed have an ocean, and it's buried beneath 25 miles of ice at the south pole. The ocean appears to be about six miles deep and may be as large or larger than Lake Superior."

This is just one paragraph presented to me as evidence for possible life in other parts of our solar system. Can you not see that something that is "speculated" "might be home to some form of life"...and its an "intriguing idea" that water buried on a moon orbiting Jupiter, though buried beneath 25 miles of ice, and is 6 miles deep, could possibly be home to anything living?

How is this not treated as the fantasy it really is?
You think this sounds credible? Is this real science....or just science fiction? You can choose to believe it if you like....I personally think it sounds like rubbish....but that is just me.
.

 

[Deeje]

Surely you jest? The problem is clear enough after 72 pages of posting surely? Blind belief that deludes reason and clouds one's perception. Deeje is suffering from a moderately severe version of it.

"Blind belief that deludes reason and clouds one's perception."

Well, I guess one of us is suffering from this condition....we will let the Creator decide who is deluded...shall we?

 

[gnostic]

New There was no vegetation, during this time period, after the Earth was formed and before man was created.

It doesn't say 'birds were created, then vegetation'! You're reading things into the account that simply aren't there.

Besides, what would keep God from creating more of the same organisms, in the following creative days? Where does it say that?

You are not reading my post.

I didn't write birds were created before vegetation. Where in the bloody 9 hells did you get that?

To summarise what I wrote:

Genesis 2 say that man (2:7) was created:

(A) before vegetation, (2:9)
and (B) before birds and land animals. ( 2:19)​

That's a different order to Genesis 1, where humans were created last.

I did not write birds were created before vegetation.

Do you not know to read?

 

[ArtieE]

It is propping up a theory that it has no real way to test.
It acknowledges its speculation in everything it writes as "proof" of its own "suggestions". I don't buy it no matter how classy the writing style or how "scientific" it sounds. When you boil it all down, the red lettering says it all.....

"scientists have speculated where the geysers draw from—and whether that water source might be home to some form of life. The most intriguing idea was that the geysers indicated the presence of a subsurface ocean.....Now, new data has confirmed that Enceladus does indeed have an ocean, and it's buried beneath 25 miles of ice at the south pole. The ocean appears to be about six miles deep and may be as large or larger than Lake Superior."

This is just one paragraph presented to me as evidence for possible life in other parts of our solar system.

In post number 1410 Deeje says and I quote: "There is certainly no water on any of the other planets in our solar system.....but that is more than likely because earth was specially prepared for habitation by living, breathing creatures of infinite variety." There is an ocean on Enceladus. Is it because Enceladus was specially prepared for habitation by living, breathing creatures?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I was answering a question, and my answer is perfectly logical, given the question.

I got here late, to be fair. So I'll concede that based on context.

Organic evolution is unsubstantiated too. There is absolutely no solid verifiable evidence that it ever took place. All you have is "interpretation" of evidence that is made to fit a presupposed scenario. I have as much evidence based on our supposition.

As an olive branch, I'll concede that Abiogenesis is unsubstantiated to this point, if that's what you're trying to say. But organic evolution certainly isn't. If I'm not mistaken you're one of the Creationists who believe that "microevolution" takes place, but you balk at the thought of going any further, correct? The fact that we can agree on the biological processes which shape organisms within their "kinds" is evidence enough of descent with modification (Evolution). You only need more study to realize that there is no biological mechanism which would limit such change.

I really don't care how many scientists are "religious" or how many "religious literalists" there are. Science still doesn't have the kind of "evidence" that supports macro-evolution unequivocally. God did not create evolution....he created the vast variety of creatures as they are, individually and purposefully crafted. Many came and went before he decided which ones would share the planet with humans. Whatever use God had for the dinosaurs, they were well and truly gone by the time man arrived on the scene.

Your original argument here was that scientists need to believe in the "fairy tale of evolution" so that they can look cool amongst their peers. I'm countering with the fact that biological understandings are only a threat to literal religious interpretations and that most of the religious and faithful members of the scientific community have no problem reconciling their faith with their research. What we now know about biology upsets your worldview for example - it doesn't make it any less accurate and well supported. (Also, the point is that there are LOTS of Christians who are scientists.)

There is not a single shred of evidence that apes evolved into man as this well publicized illustration suggests. There is nothing to link them....not a single solitary thing that is provable.
The only thing holding this "chain" together is suggestion, and an agenda that must be supported if one is to claim any credibility in the scientific community.

Yes - they're old illustrations. If you think the basis of biological understanding is founded on a textbook drawing, you're nuts.

And you're right about the lack of evidence too, so long as you throw out the Geologic chronology, Archaeological discoveries, genetic connections and morphological similarities...

Evolutionary science requires more "faith" in unsubstantiated belief than believers in an Intelligent Designer do IMO.

The science of evolutionary biology has been uncovered after decades of research and centuries of compiling data. There are studies being done to both substantiate and refute certain assumption, to this very day.

In contrast, religious explanations for existence have never evolved past the argument that "The sky sure is pretty! I bet an invisible magic man made it that way just for me!"

But Gordon the Space Wizard never claimed to be the Creator, nor did he leave a written record of his dealings with the human race in ages past, that has survived to the present against all odds.....so I guess its just a matter of wait and see eh?

If you choose to have faith in Gorgon the Space Wizard, you may live a life of eternal bliss and avoid being plunged into the pits of Endless Board Games after your death. There's really not much to loose, even if you're wrong. Choosing to disbelieve is a risk that not's worth taking, even if you're right.

It takes as much imagination to believe in these....

.....as it does to believe in God.

These are illustrations, not photographs.... These images came out of someone's head, not their camera.

These are drawings... That's a good observation.
The facial reconstructions that you're seeing, however, are based on actual discoveries and actual science.

The same process that is used to reform modern skulls with faces is applied here:
Forensic facial reconstruction - Wikipedia

It's an artful science, sure - but it's not as simple as "Hell, Tony. Just throw some clay on it and see what happens!"

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean science can't explain water? Why the ocean is salty is a silly question?
Why water freezes differently to all other liquids is not explainable?
Science knows the benefits, surely?

Were the questions too hard?

Your questions are oddly worded.

E.g. "Science can't explain water?"
What does that even mean?


E.g. "Why water freezes differently to all other liquids is not explainable?"
What does that even mean?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since science can study biological creatures and come to conclusions about their makeup, characteristics and environment, it is past all scientific methods to measure something they don't know and can't measure or study. Pretending God doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away. Science just cannot come to terms with him because they think it makes them look unintelligent to even contemplate the possibility of his existence. They would rather look smart to each other than acknowledge what is right in front of their noses.

You don't have to believe in him.....he doesn't force anyone to do that. But the evidence for his existence is all around us. If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

We were following the line of logic that followed from an assertion you made about complex things requiring designers. And again, you're avoiding it and choosing to deflect instead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, you and I know there are other evidences, but they're not willing to even consider them!

I'm so glad to have been taught the Truth by examining all the evidence together! I know you are, too.

What would those be? I have yet to see any actual evidence coming from your side of the discussion besides "look around at the pretty ducks" kind of stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

From your link.....what does this really say?

"Detection of sodium-salt-rich ice grains emitted from the plume of the Saturnian moon Enceladus suggests that the grains formed as frozen droplets from a liquid water reservoir that is, or has been, in contact with rock1, 2. Gravitational field measurements suggest a regional south polar subsurface ocean of about 10 kilometres thickness located beneath an ice crust 30 to 40 kilometres thick3. These findings imply rock–water interactions in regions surrounding the core of Enceladus. The resulting chemical ‘footprints’ are expected to be preserved in the liquid and subsequently transported upwards to the near-surface plume sources, where they eventually would be ejected and could be measured by a spacecraft4. Here we report an analysis of silicon-rich, nanometre-sized dust particles5, 6, 7, 8 (so-called stream particles) that stand out from the water-ice-dominated objects characteristic of Saturn. We interpret these grains as nanometre-sized SiO2 (silica) particles, initially embedded in icy grains emitted from Enceladus’ subsurface waters and released by sputter erosion in Saturn’s E ring. The composition and the limited size range (2 to 8 nanometres in radius) of stream particles indicate ongoing high-temperature (>90 °C) hydrothermal reactions associated with global-scale geothermal activity that quickly transports hydrothermal products from the ocean floor at a depth of at least 40 kilometres up to the plume of Enceladus."

And from your other link.....

"In 2005, the Cassini orbiter discovered huge, 125-mile-high geysers spraying from the south pole of Enceladus, a small and icy moon that orbits Saturn. Since then, scientists have speculated where the geysers draw from—and whether that water source might be home to some form of life. The most intriguing idea was that the geysers indicated the presence of a subsurface ocean.....Now, new data has confirmed that Enceladus does indeed have an ocean, and it's buried beneath 25 miles of ice at the south pole. The ocean appears to be about six miles deep and may be as large or larger than Lake Superior.

.....where there's water, there's lie. (interesting typo ) And the new study suggests that the ocean of Enceladus makes contact with the moon's rocky silicate core, which means that the water may soak up elements like sulfur and phosphorus that are important for life's complex chemical reactions.

"That silicate provides potentially some of the materials necessary for life," says Cornell University astronomer Jonathan Lunine, one of the study's authors. "So it makes, in fact, the interior of Enceladus a very attractive potential place to look for life."


Now how much of that is pure speculation? How much of it is scientific fact?


Realistically, what kind of "life" (or lie) are you going to find under 25 miles of ice?...providing that you could penetrate the surface of this moon to even find out? This is fairy tales masquerading as science. This kind of speculation requires more credulity than belief in an intelligent Creator IMO.


Perhaps you need to follow your own advice? You apparently read what you want it to say....I read what it really says.

Good questions. For your answers, check out the 52 scientific papers that the authors were kind enough to provide for you as references. That's what they're there for.

I am not averse to knowledge or science at all....It's accurate knowledge of true science that I am promoting. I am merely pointing out the difference between concocted speculation and verifiable facts. Supporters of evolutionary science seem to want to confuse the two....like suggesting that micro-evolution (which is only adaptation) provides a basis to believe that stretching adaptation to explain macro-evolution is a fact of science, when we can clearly see that it is just an unprovable belief.....like the existence of my Creator. We each rely on our own evidence and teachers to come to our conclusions. There is no solid "scientific" evidence for either camp. Will science ever admit this? Egos won't let them.

And that is the truth of it. Tantrums from the ToE camp will not make it otherwise.

Riiiight. You just deny all science that contradicts your religious dogma. Ego indeed.

Still waiting on your scientific paper that reveals this barrier from small changes into larger changes over long time periods that you keep claiming exists, yet still have not bothered to demonstrate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Made your choice? All things considered?.....good, then that is the way it should be. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

Creation give us reasons and hope....a reason for our existence, a purpose in life and an assurance that man is not our only hope for the future. If he is, then what do we have to look forward to? Look around you at this world and tell me where you see any hope?

Creation doesn't give me reason and hope. People do that. I see hope when I look into the eyes of my young niece and nephew. I see hope when I see human beings (and other animals too) supporting and helping each other. I see hope in people who try to make the world a better place.

Evolution explains nothing about the purpose of life and it gives us nothing to look forward to. I believe that humans have an inherent need for purpose and a collective expectation that life should be way better than man has been able to achieve on his own. We cannot deny our spirituality and evolution cannot explain it.

I can't do "hopeless" and I cannot believe that the miracle of life is "just an accident". You are welcome to your position but it makes no logical sense to me.

Evolution isn't supposed to explain anything but the diversity of life on the planet.

We make our own purpose in life. You do. I do. That guy over there does.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you not know to read?

Yes, I read as well as Newton and Boyle did. Which comment I made about them, you conveniently ignored.

You "found" a contradiction, that they didn't see? You're more astute and smarter than they were, huh?

We are done here.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, I read as well as Newton and Boyle did. Which comment I made about them, you conveniently ignored.

You "found" a contradiction, that they didn't see? You're more astute and smarter than they were, huh?

We are done here.

Are you kidding me?!

You were just throwing names around - Newton, Kepler, Milton, Boyle - never explains the HOWs and WHYs they are right about the subject of orders of Genesis 1 & 2.

So why should I waste my times on names that doesn't contribute to this argument we are having.

All you wrote is that these people believe believe the bible is the "God's Word". That doesn't refute my argument that Genesis 2 is contradicting Genesis 1. Your reasoning is just an excuse without substance.

You have offer nothing that's worth commenting on.

Do you have eyes? Can you not see the outlines of my argument that orders of creation in Genesis 2 chapters are different?

I wrote that Genesis 2 put the order of creation, like this:

1. Man
2. Vegetation
3. Land animal & birds
4. Woman

This is contradiction to order in Genesis 1:

1. Vegetation
2. Birds (and fishes)
3. Land animals
4. Man and woman

Do you not see and understand what I am showing to you, here?

If Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1, then the orders should be same...they are not same, because Genesis 2 have Adam being created BEFORE vegetation, birds and land animals. Genesis 1 clearly state that man and woman were created LAST.

You have not debunked my points, but skipped around or misunderstood what what I have stated.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What would those be? I have yet to see any actual evidence coming from your side of the discussion besides "look around at the pretty ducks" kind of stuff.

("look around at the pretty ducks" kind of stuff.) That was funny! I'm not being facetious. That was pretty good!

Deeje and I have been taught to have an 'expansive-viewpoint style', I guess you could say, where every day we see events and occurrences (between governments, and in people's lives) which are evidences that confirm what the Scriptures in the Bible tell us.


Do you totally discount all the paranormal activity that happens in the world? I mean from séances, to Ouija boards, to fortune tellers, to ancestor-spirit worship? It's too pervasive! (And these are activities God's Word condemns! Why?) Sure, I'll give you that maybe most is fake (and the fake stuff works into the plan, too), but not everything.

And you know what? I'm sure as an atheist you think, 'when you're dead, that's it..... you're gone." Deeje and I agree with you! (Although our belief is that this state of nonexistence won't last forever, per the Bible. But it is for now.) Then why is this paranormal ghost stuff so ingrained in almost every culture?

What about people's attitudes? Almost everyone says they want peace, but it just doesn't happen; too much turmoil in society. Why, if so many want peace?

And then, we have divisive religion. Even some that tells you, 'God will bless you if you kill others when you kill yourself! What!!
Why does Islam have about 40 different sects, and Judaism have about 40....but Christianity has 41,000??! If you're bent on deception, nothing like adding more hay to hide the needle!!

We are aware of who is behind the extent of this, and all the other confusing issues facing man. It simply fits the Bible's descriptions.

There are other issues we see, too.

 

[Segev Moran]

All a product of the Creator's work.

Of the Hidden creator that is...
That for some weird reason, these days, lacks the will or ability to show itself?

All his creations are incredible.

Did it create Cancer?
Did it create Hunger?
Did it create Anger? Envy? Psychedelic illness?
Did it make all the horrific things we experience as a human race?

Things that science believes it can explain are deemed "natural".

You'r mistaken...
Things that science can't explain are not considered "un" or "suiper" natural.. they are considered unknown. unlike you, if an Atheist doesn't know something, he simply sais so

I see the "natural" as having "supernatural" origins.

So fire is supernatural in origin?
And the moon?
And the sun?

Interesting addition to your list.....

Read a bit about the biology of the Jellyfish and you'll understand why

(except maybe the last one)...

I Don't consider Time as a supernatural thing lol.

whatever you think the "supernatural" is.

I Think it is a great TVSeries.

To me, the Creator is the most "natural" explanation there is for creation.

As long as it is for yourself, Knock yourself out

The fact that he is powerful enough

How can you claim it is a fact?
I Have never seen one occasion that anything that cannot be explained in natural ways has ever occurred.
Fact = Something that is supported by proof and evidence.
God = Something that is not

You are free to reject him.

In order for me to reject him, I first need to believe it is true.
It will be like me saying you reject the great witch of the north (She might be offended BTW

He gives you that choice

Funny.. I Can't recall the time he spoke to me and told me I can choose.

Are you a gambler?

Depends..
Are you???

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So why should I waste my times on names that doesn't contribute to this argument we are having.

All you wrote is that these people believe believe the bible is the "God's Word". That doesn't refute my argument that Genesis 2 is contradicting Genesis 1. Your reasoning is just an excuse without substance.

But see, that's just it: at the very heart of this issue, is the veracity of the Bible. Newton, Boyle, Keppler, etc., read and studied these chapters, too, and saw no contradiction. Even went so far as to say these words were God's words.

This discussion is about the wording of these two chapters, nothing else. Not about more evidence uncovered, only the wording. (Your accusation is based solely on semantics.) What we read now, is the same as they read back then. But no discrepancy was ever noted!

Believing the writer really meant that man was created, before he had food to eat, is a big problem....it would have been highlighted by those men, I'm sure. (It certainly isn't semantically valid.) At the very least, they wouldn't have proclaimed the Bible to be from God!

(I've had some to tell me, 'Galatians 6:2 and Galatians 6:5 contradict each other' -- yeah, like the writer would really contradict himself, 3 verses later! Maybe they just don't understand it correctly? And don't want to, either. They're happy with their ignorance.)

Unfortunately, attacking the credibility of the Bible is fashionable today. (One satellite reason for this is, people don't want anything that claims divine authorship to be condemning their sexually-free lifestyle.)

And your obvious vehemence (for whatever reason) surfaced aggressively, I think, due to my previous post about Moses writing those 10 steps of creation in correct sequence, and the odds of getting it right. Too much to take so make a smoke-screen, huh?

Since you view this discussion as an "argument" (your word), I will not respond anymore. I really don't want to argue over God's Word, I just 'report the news.'

Take care, cousin.

 

[Deeje]

As an olive branch, I'll concede that Abiogenesis is unsubstantiated to this point, if that's what you're trying to say. But organic evolution certainly isn't. If I'm not mistaken you're one of the Creationists who believe that "microevolution" takes place, but you balk at the thought of going any further, correct? The fact that we can agree on the biological processes which shape organisms within their "kinds" is evidence enough of descent with modification (Evolution). You only need more study to realize that there is no biological mechanism which would limit such change.

Adaptation takes place only within the (Genesis) "kind". As Darwin observed, the finches on the Galapagos Islands had adapted to life off the mainland and obviously a different food source....but they were still clearly recognizable as finches. The iguanas also had adapted to marine life, but they were still clearly iguanas. No one has come up with evidence for a slow morphing of one "kind" into another....no matter how many millions of years you throw at it. The evolutionary chain is based on imagination and educated guessing, not any real evidence. There are no verifiable links. You do understand this?

Your original argument here was that scientists need to believe in the "fairy tale of evolution" so that they can look cool amongst their peers. I'm countering with the fact that biological understandings are only a threat to literal religious interpretations and that most of the religious and faithful members of the scientific community have no problem reconciling their faith with their research. What we now know about biology upsets your worldview for example - it doesn't make it any less accurate and well supported. (Also, the point is that there are LOTS of Christians who are scientists.)

The scientists who are also creationists usually have sold out by modifying their "Christianity" to blend with the science.
I won't do that. I prefer to blend the science with my Christianity. I believe the actual evidence that is available is more than enough to confirm that creation is a deliberate act, not some accidental force that produces an endless stream of beneficial mutations. That to me is the real fairy story.

Yes - they're old illustrations. If you think the basis of biological understanding is founded on a textbook drawing, you're nuts.

And you're right about the lack of evidence too, so long as you throw out the Geologic chronology, Archaeological discoveries, genetic connections and morphological similarities...

I often see these supposed succession of apes to humans, but the one thing I never see is anything between these species, (many millions of years apart) that even suggests that this is an evolutionary progression. They could just as well have been a succession of individually created species, formed at different stages of the creative "day" in which the Creator made them, (which were most certainly NOT 24 literal hours long.) You always begin all your assumptions with the premise that evolution must have happened. I begin with the premise that all creatures are the product of an Intelligent Designer. Neither of us has any real proof for our first premise. So it is a choice of belief systems at the end of the day. Neither of us has any real scientific proof.

Look at the stated time between each species pictured in your diagram....and then look at the estimated times that they lived. Then tell us how many full specimens we have for each species pictured. How many human skulls could I find now in even recent burials where shapes and sizes vary for different reasons?

The science of evolutionary biology has been uncovered after decades of research and centuries of compiling data. There are studies being done to both substantiate and refute certain assumption, to this very day.

And if evolutionary biology is looking for ways to substantiate something that they already believe is true, then how is the "evidence" to be interpreted? No bias? Really? If the fossils could talk, they wouldn't need an interpreter and they would in all probability be telling another story altogether.....science can make them say anything they want them to.

In contrast, religious explanations for existence have never evolved past the argument that "The sky sure is pretty! I bet an invisible magic man made it that way just for me!"

And with that attitude, no wonder people brush creation off as a fairytale. The trouble is, you ignore your own fairytale and pass it off as science. Why is the sky blue? Outer space is all black as we can see at night when the sun is not releasing us from the darkness. Why do we have gravity? At the speed of earth's rotation, we would all be flying off into space without it. What about earth's atmosphere that contains all the necessary gasses and water so that life can be perpetuated on this planet without losing any of it? Just another fluke? If I were to make a list of all the flukes you people believe in, I'm sure you would be more embarrassed about things than you think we should be. Even the non biological things are there to enhance our lives. The sunset didn't evolve, nor did the blue sky, the sun or the rain. Do we take plain old dirt for granted too?

As for the wonders of biological creation....instead of "God did it" scientists say "natural selection did it"....is that really more convincing? Not to me.

If you choose to have faith in Gorgon the Space Wizard, you may live a life of eternal bliss and avoid being plunged into the pits of Endless Board Games after your death. There's really not much to loose, even if you're wrong. Choosing to disbelieve is a risk that not's worth taking, even if you're right.

Huh? If there is a Creator, then his creation is not without purpose and his purpose is clearly stated in a written dialogue given to humans. There is a reason and purpose to our being and a future that is explained in detail. It requires recognition of God's existence as the first cause of everything, and faith in his promises. Those who do not meet his requirements are not going to be accepted as citizens in his kingdom, which I can see may well extend into the universe in the eons to come. If someone doesn't want what he is offering, then he will not force them to accept his terms, but citizenship will be denied.

These are drawings... That's a good observation.
The facial reconstructions that you're seeing, however, are based on actual discoveries and actual science.

The same process that is used to reform modern skulls with faces is applied here:
Forensic facial reconstruction - Wikipedia

From your link.....
"The most pressing issue relates to the data used to average facial tissue thickness. The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited.[17]


Lack of methodological standardization
A second problem is the lack of a methodological standardization in approximating facial features.[5] A single, official method for reconstructing the face has yet to be recognized. This also presents major setback in facial approximation because facial features like the eyes and nose and individuating characteristics like hairstyle - the features most likely to be recalled by witnesses - lack a standard way of being reconstructed. Recent research on computer-assisted methods, which take advantage of digital image processing, pattern recognition, promises to overcome current limitations in facial reconstruction and linkage.[citation needed]


Subjectivity
Reconstructions only reveal the type of face a person may have exhibited because of artistic subjectivity. The position and general shape of the main facial features are mostly accurate because they are greatly determined by the skull.[18]"

That says it all really....

It's an artful science, sure - but it's not as simple as "Hell, Tony. Just throw some clay on it and see what happens!"

This may well be the case......all humans have the same facial features, and yet we are all different. Our 'facial recognition' ability is often taken for granted but it is just one of many abilities that slide under the radar when we speak of the marvel that human beings are.