The Miracle of Water.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science cannot prove anything in connection with macro-evolution.

The theory is correct in the main. It can be tweaked, but not overturned.

You have also been ducking the question of what barrier exists in nature that would prevent the smaller changes in living things over shorter periods of time from accumulating into larger changes over much longer periods of time. You simply declare it impossible, and offer nothing more than that nobody has witnessed what the theory posits would not be witnessable in time scales of a few centuries or millennia.

Remember what you claim is true or believe is of little value to others. What you can demonstrate to be true is what people are interested in. Simply claiming that "macroevolution" is impossible has no persuasive power with the rational skeptic. He needs to see your reasoned, evidence argument, and needs to find it compelling. Unsupported claims can be ignored as easily as they are made.

You also refuse to answer what are we to do with those mountains of evidence consistent with naturalistic biological evolution if the theory ever were falsified, say by finding the legendary pre-Cambrian rabbit or a partially digested human being in the digestive track of a dinosaur?

As is the case with the other evaded questions, it's pretty apparent why you choose to pretend that they were never asked. You have no adequate answers, and find the questions inconvenient.

there is this innate need in us to answer those questions with something better than "I dunno"

But you should try to transcend that, and answer "I dunno" when that is true. We should remain agnostic on matters that cannot be decided rationally and empirically. Inventing mythologies to satisfy the need for answers is not helpful to somebody that is able to resist deciding undecidable matters.

My beliefs are very rational to me

They are faith based. Faith is a guess that results in holding an unjustified belief. That doesn't meet the criteria for rational thought.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You believe that the universe just "happened" for no apparent reason

And that's appropriate until a reason to believe one origins hypothesis over another becomes apparent. There is no apparent reason why our universe exists, at least not yet.

When you destroy hope, you take away the only thing that keeps some people functioning.

False hope may be a comfort to those who have never learned to cope without it, but is undesirable to those that can live without it, and not considered a virtue by them. It's a dependence.

You imagine that we atheists live empty, desperate, lives devoid of hope, probably through listening to your church elders and imagining how you would react if suddenly you lost your god-belief. You would feel hollow and disoriented, and probably experience an existential crisis.

But that's not relevant. If you had been raised in secular humanism, you would have learned to find meaning and purpose in life even in a godless universe, and even if physical death is the end of consciousness. I have.

you have no idea how God communicates with me

I think we have a pretty good idea of what is going on in your head - what psychological mechanism are playing out.

Getting rid of the idea of 'a big wizard in the sky', helps us to appreciate how very like the Creator we actually are

Really? How could we be more different that a creature that was never born, can't die, doesn't get sick, doesn't eat, doesn't have a job, has never gotten married or divorced, is omniscient and omnipotent, doesn't experience fear, doesn't sleep, is never humiliated, etc.?

The creative days were not 24 hour periods either

Let me give you one of your typical answers. You have no facts and no proof for that claim. Plus, you weren't there to see it, so this is all just assumption on your part.

 

[Bear Wild]

Some birth defects are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, like Downs syndrome. Genetically inherited diseases are passed on by an afflicted parent. All can be technically classified as birth defects.



Conjoined twins are usually the cause of two heads, but there is still so much that medical science doesn't know about the process. It is still under study...the ability to conceive non- identical twins can be inherited. What do you think you need to teach me?



To suggest that an extremely rare occurrence forms the foundation of a belief where they have to have occurred millions of times for each species, is ridiculous. You have more faith in science than I have in God....and with way less real evidence.



The mechanism was adaptation. Adaptation does not explain macro-evolution because it has never been observed. It is a suggestion. Never proven. OK?



What has the age of the earth got to do with anything? No changes have ever been observed that even suggest that one species can morph into another, no matter how much time you throw at it.



Usually, natural selection means that creatures naturally select the best specimens for mating. In birds, the females are usually very fussy about who will father their offspring. Wild land animals usually have a sire who needs to prove himself stronger than his rivals. What's to understand?
Variations within species never lead to a change in species. Beneficial genetic mutations are a very poor basis for belief in evolution because they hardly ever happen. So why are you pushing these things like we never discussed how unlikely they are to have ever taken place.....seriously?




The fossil record is open to bias and misinterpretation. Conclusions are often seen to force facts.
Google the reliability of the fossil record.



Whose story? They tell no story of their own. Scientists have to give them a voice. How many times do you need to hear this?



I demand proof from people who claim that they have evidence that proves that they are right.....I have examined the evidence and found that it is riddled with holes....I reject it. What more do you need to know? You are hardly dazzling me with science. I am not a high school kid you know.

Not all birth defects are chromosomal mutations.

Natural selection is the cause of adaptations. You have it incorrect. Natural selection is the mechanism that causes the adaptations we see. If you need this better explained I can go on but if you look on your own you will see the difference. Genetic mutations are happening all the time. Faster in organisms with more frequent rates of reproduction. Seriously!

A rare occurrence becomes not such a rare when considering the size of populations and the length of time especially if there is a force selecting for the positive rare occurrences. It is the time frame and the numbers which makes the changes occur.

The age of the earth has everything to do with evolution since there was sufficient time for humans to come about who try to argue that evolution does not occur.

The fossil record can be and is debated in science. That is what makes science so effective. By challenging the evidence better and better explanations develop. Just look at the idea of plate tectonics or quantum theory. The original believes were challenged and now we have a better understanding of our world. Challenging your own ideas may help you.

Whose story? Fossils tell a story but do not expect a fossil to start talking and explaining itself.

You demand proof for evolution which as tremendous evidence but you of now proof for your position and I am not trying to dazzle anyone just trying to help you understand the evidence for evolution since you seem to have some holes in your knowledge. You reject it because you do not want to believe in it not because there is not enough sufficient evidence.

If you want to understand evolution better I will be happy to help but there are others in this forum that may be able to help you more. There is much more to the theory and we can discuss the evidence in more detail. Maybe it would be best to do it one concept at a time instead two many ideas at once. All can be discussed but that would help to prevent confusion. I attended college in what is called the bible belt of the United States so I have plenty of practice to help you.

 

[Deeje]

If you continue to call for "proof" you are indeed trying to set up strawmen. You ask for proof but you dismiss all evidence.

There is no evidence for macro-evolution that science can substantiate. If there was we would have seen some by now....
None of you have provided anything that has real evidence to support it.....I think you already know that it doesn't exist.

I don't expect you to accept any evidence that conflicts with your deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

Ditto.

Those are religious/philosophical questions, not scientific questions. You base your acceptance of science on religion/philosophy. You dismiss science where it conflicts with your religious/philosophical concepts. The worst is that you don't see anything wrong with that.

Originally science was not a separate subject to philosophy and religion. (Acts 17:22-31) In fact, Philosophy, Science and Religion mark three of the most fundamental modes of thinking about the world and our place in it. In ancient times they were always assumed to be inextricably linked....until by the dawn of the twentieth century, science considered itself to be so learned that it didn't need a God anymore.

GodDidIt does nothing to advance science. Fortunately, over the centuries, some men set aside GodDidIt and pursued "I dunno, but we'll work at finding out". Otherwise, we would still be living like the people who wrote the OT. People with no knowledge of diseases or causes of plagues.

You obviously have no knowledge of Israel's hygiene laws then.
They practiced quarantine and cleansing of clothing and anything else that had come in contact with a diseased person or a dead body....the burial of their excrement outside of their living area showed that following the law prevented the spread of disease....
Did Israel understand the reasons why these laws were given.....no! But we do. How long did it take men to figure it out? Thousands of years...so clever these humans.

OK You don't celebrate Christmas or Easter. One reason is that Christ's birthday is not mentioned in the Bible.

Jews didn't celebrate birthdays and were told not to imitate the practices of the nations around them. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)

Christmas and Easter are also borrowed from the Gentile worshippers of false gods. False Christians can get fleeced by their adopted yearly festivals, but we will save our money to spend on more important things.

If the Bible says to do something, we do it...if it says not to, we don't do it. It's not that complicated.

the origins of humans is also not written in the books of Jesus. The origins of humans is written about in the old Jewish writings that some men decided to include in Christian religious doctrine. If Marcion had prevailed, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

You have never read the Bible, have you? Jesus did reference the origins of humans. (Matthew 19:3-9)

Since there are numerous references to the Hebrew Scriptures in the Christian Scriptures...and since Jesus himself was a Jew, I imagine Marcion was spouting absolute nonsense. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the only scripture they had at the time. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

When you can rephrase that without resorting to the word "proof" then we can discuss it.

LOL...oh look excuses masquerading as reasons.

I have a belief system.....I do not need proof.

Evolutionists on the other hand, claim to have the evidence for how life evolved from a single celled organism...all the way to dinosaurs.

Planet Earth, along with the rest of the universe, just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and by using the mechanisms that science claims they did, life accidentally popped into existence too and then morphed themselves into all the creatures who have ever existed. But there is not a shred of proof for any of it.

If you don't also have a belief system, then let's see some evidence for all this evolution that does not rely on suggestion or assumption. When you can come up with that, perhaps we can discuss it?

You have no proof of anything that happens after death. You have no evidence of anything that happens after death.

Since the Bible says that nothing happens after death, I have all the proof I need. All the dead are still 'resting in peace' in their graves. They haven't gone anywhere. Gotcha!

What happened to your insistence for "proof"?

I insist on proof from those who claim to have it. Science gives the impression that their interpretation of evidence is proof enough....sorry, but I don't buy it.

This thread is proof that the evolution promoters cannot give us substantive evidence.....backed up by real science. If you can't give us anything but veiled insults, then what have you got?

I have come to terms with the lose of a significant other. I didn't have any need to turn to nonsense in order to accept reality. Serious illnesses, accidents, deaths are part of life.

We have all lost loved ones, but it never gets easier. Illness, accidents and death are part of life, but strangely, evolution has never taken us to the point where we can just accept it. Why do we grieve? If death is supposed to happen, why does it still feel so wrong? We have had all this time to get over ourselves, but we never do. Humans all over the world have invented places for the dearly departed to live on after death. Why do humans have this innate desire to go on living?

I don't need to talk to or listen to mythological make-believe creatures.

Neither do I....nor do I need science to create their own mythology and palm it off on me as if there is no other alternative?

I can appreciate nature without the need to attribute it to an omni-all entity. I use my intelligence and knowledge to make decisions, not voices in my head.

I thought we already dismissed the voices in the head thing. You don't listen, do you?

Your reality is not the reality of the vast majority of humans.

Thank goodness!!! (Matthew 7:13-14)

Since you do not believe in science, you must accept that these pictures are evidence of God's handiwork.

LOL I have great respect for much of what science has achieved....but I also know that it has been extremely irresponsible in many areas of endeavour.

I know the difference between fact and fantasy. And I know the difference between good and evil. I'm not sure science does.

Mutations are not God's handiwork, but the product of the world of mankind wanting to make their own decisions instead of obeying the Creator. If all else fails....read the instructions.....humans never get the memo.

Also, you made it clear that you do not understand the cause of errors during gestation.

Actually science doesn't know what causes the errors in the DNA coding. It's not my problem.

So unless you have something more that these pathetic responses to offer, I am done with you on this thread. Bye.

 

[Deeje]

Natural selection is the mechanism that causes the adaptations we see. If you need this better explained I can go on but if you look on your own you will see the difference. Genetic mutations are happening all the time. Faster in organisms with more frequent rates of reproduction. Seriously!

I understand adaptation well enough...but it doesn't appear that you do.
Please show us where adaptation has ever led to a change in taxonomy. Since this is supposedly the mechanism upon which the theory is based, it should be easy to demonstrate it with all the creatures on this planet, morphing into other creatures. Please provide some....but no suggestions or assumptions now....just real evidence.

A rare occurrence becomes not such a rare when considering the size of populations and the length of time especially if there is a force selecting for the positive rare occurrences. It is the time frame and the numbers which makes the changes occur.

What does "rare" mean? Dictionary says..."not common or frequent; very unusual".

Time does not make a difference to frequency. Each individual mutation is "not common or frequent; very unusual". It doesn't come close to explaining all the millions of beneficial mutations that would be necessary for all that evolution to have taken place.

The age of the earth has everything to do with evolution since there was sufficient time for humans to come about who try to argue that evolution does not occur.

The creative days in the Bible were not 24 hour days, but eons of time allotted by the Creator to accomplish what he wanted to do. They may well have been millions of years long. That is plenty of time for God to do whatever he wished. He is a Creator, not a magician.

By challenging the evidence better and better explanations develop. Just look at the idea of plate tectonics or quantum theory. The original believes were challenged and now we have a better understanding of our world. Challenging your own ideas may help you.

You don't see the problem? The humble "I think" becomes the bombastic "I know" and then some new information comes along and what was previously believed has to be dismissed and the new idea put in its place....until the next new idea comes along....and so on....ad infinitum.
That is not how truth works. You cannot defend a constantly changing idea, by calling it fact. If you call it a theory in the true sense of the word, then all well and good, but you can't call it fact. There are no facts in evolutionary science.

Fossils tell a story but do not expect a fossil to start talking and explaining itself.

The point was that fossils cannot speak, so scientists have to speak for them.
You don't see the problem there either?

You demand proof for evolution which as tremendous evidence

What they have is a tremendous amount of unverifiable information based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. You might want to take that on board.....but I'll pass.

I am not trying to dazzle anyone just trying to help you understand the evidence for evolution since you seem to have some holes in your knowledge. You reject it because you do not want to believe in it not because there is not enough sufficient evidence.

I reject it because it is not based on facts. The holes are in the theory itself because from the outset, it has no idea where life came from, nor does it have any real evidence to back up what it suggests. Am I getting through? I have no desire to "understand" what you believe any more than you have a desire to understand the theme of this thread. Where did water come from? It has some amazing and unique properties...but did it just pop up out of nowhere, like the rest of creation, with no intelligent direction?

If you want to understand evolution better I will be happy to help but there are others in this forum that may be able to help you more

I understand it enough to make me want to laugh and reject it outright. You obviously do not see the glaring flaws that I do....otherwise you might want to dig a little deeper.

There is much more to the theory and we can discuss the evidence in more detail. Maybe it would be best to do it one concept at a time instead two many ideas at once.

What is the point? You cannot present any substantive evidence that evolution, on the scale that science suggests, ever took place. Do you really understand this?

All can be discussed but that would help to prevent confusion. I attended college in what is called the bible belt of the United States so I have plenty of practice to help you.

You attended college in the Bible Belt and that is supposed to help in what way? At your age, (going by your profile) I am assuming that it was some time ago?

 

[Bear Wild]

I understand adaptation well enough...but it doesn't appear that you do.
Please show us where adaptation has ever led to a change in taxonomy. Since this is supposedly the mechanism upon which the theory is based, it should be easy to demonstrate it with all the creatures on this planet, morphing into other creatures. Please provide some....but no suggestions or assumptions now....just real evidence.



What does "rare" mean? Dictionary says..."not common or frequent; very unusual".

Time does not make a difference to frequency. Each individual mutation is "not common or frequent; very unusual". It doesn't come close to explaining all the millions of beneficial mutations that would be necessary for all that evolution to have taken place.



The creative days in the Bible were not 24 hour days, but eons of time allotted by the Creator to accomplish what he wanted to do. They may well have been millions of years long. That is plenty of time for God to do whatever he wished. He is a Creator, not a magician.



You don't see the problem? The humble "I think" becomes the bombastic "I know" and then some new information comes along and what was previously believed has to be dismissed and the new idea put in its place....until the next new idea comes along....and so on....ad infinitum.
That is not how truth works. You cannot defend a constantly changing idea, by calling it fact. If you call it a theory in the true sense of the word, then all well and good, but you can't call it fact. There are no facts in evolutionary science.



The point was that fossils cannot speak, so scientists have to speak for them.
You don't see the problem there either?



What they have is a tremendous amount of unverifiable information based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. You might want to take that on board.....but I'll pass.



I reject it because it is not based on facts. The holes are in the theory itself because from the outset, it has no idea where life came from, nor does it have any real evidence to back up what it suggests. Am I getting through? I have no desire to "understand" what you believe any more than you have a desire to understand the theme of this thread. Where did water come from? It has some amazing and unique properties...but did it just pop up out of nowhere, like the rest of creation, with no intelligent direction?



I understand it enough to make me want to laugh and reject it outright. You obviously do not see the glaring flaws that I do....otherwise you might want to dig a little deeper.



What is the point? You cannot present any substantive evidence that evolution, on the scale that science suggests, ever took place. Do you really understand this?



You attended college in the Bible Belt and that is supposed to help in what way? At your age, (going by your profile) I am assuming that it was some time ago?

You still have adaptation and natural selection reversed. There is substantive evidence for evolution you just do not want to hear or understand it. I am willing to help you but it seems we need to start with the basics. Natural selection is the mechanism and adaptation is the result. Can you understand that or do you need more information for you to understand the basics. I have been helping many to understand evolution for a long time and am willing to help you.

 

[Bear Wild]

I understand adaptation well enough...but it doesn't appear that you do.
Please show us where adaptation has ever led to a change in taxonomy. Since this is supposedly the mechanism upon which the theory is based, it should be easy to demonstrate it with all the creatures on this planet, morphing into other creatures. Please provide some....but no suggestions or assumptions now....just real evidence.



What does "rare" mean? Dictionary says..."not common or frequent; very unusual".

Time does not make a difference to frequency. Each individual mutation is "not common or frequent; very unusual". It doesn't come close to explaining all the millions of beneficial mutations that would be necessary for all that evolution to have taken place.



The creative days in the Bible were not 24 hour days, but eons of time allotted by the Creator to accomplish what he wanted to do. They may well have been millions of years long. That is plenty of time for God to do whatever he wished. He is a Creator, not a magician.



You don't see the problem? The humble "I think" becomes the bombastic "I know" and then some new information comes along and what was previously believed has to be dismissed and the new idea put in its place....until the next new idea comes along....and so on....ad infinitum.
That is not how truth works. You cannot defend a constantly changing idea, by calling it fact. If you call it a theory in the true sense of the word, then all well and good, but you can't call it fact. There are no facts in evolutionary science.



The point was that fossils cannot speak, so scientists have to speak for them.
You don't see the problem there either?



What they have is a tremendous amount of unverifiable information based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. You might want to take that on board.....but I'll pass.



I reject it because it is not based on facts. The holes are in the theory itself because from the outset, it has no idea where life came from, nor does it have any real evidence to back up what it suggests. Am I getting through? I have no desire to "understand" what you believe any more than you have a desire to understand the theme of this thread. Where did water come from? It has some amazing and unique properties...but did it just pop up out of nowhere, like the rest of creation, with no intelligent direction?



I understand it enough to make me want to laugh and reject it outright. You obviously do not see the glaring flaws that I do....otherwise you might want to dig a little deeper.



What is the point? You cannot present any substantive evidence that evolution, on the scale that science suggests, ever took place. Do you really understand this?



You attended college in the Bible Belt and that is supposed to help in what way? At your age, (going by your profile) I am assuming that it was some time ago?

Lets start with one thing at a time rather than the long aimless posts on so many factors that it becomes confusing. Much better to start with one step at a time. That will help to keep things more clear.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

GodDidIt does nothing to advance science. Fortunately, over the centuries, some men set aside GodDidIt and pursued "I dunno, but we'll work at finding out".

What a ludicrous statement.
Did believing "God created it," inhibit Boyle, or Kepler, or Newton?
No way! In fact, believing that God was behind it all, encouraged them to find out not only how things were made, but why they were made... the purpose they serve.

They were highly successful scientists.

 

[Deeje]

Lets start with one thing at a time rather than the long aimless posts on so many factors that it becomes confusing. Much better to start with one step at a time. That will help to keep things more clear.

Since you seem so determined to educate me, why don't you give it your best shot? All that I ask is that you substantiate your evidence with more than suggestion and assertion....OK? Truth does not need suggestion.

 

[ecco]

There is no evidence for macro-evolution that science can substantiate. If there was we would have seen some by now....
None of you have provided anything that has real evidence to support it.....I think you already know that it doesn't exist.

Why do you think you are qualified to understand the scientific evidence surrounding evolution? Do you have training in any of the related fields such as biology? I'll answer that rhetorical question. NO.

You obviously have no knowledge of Israel's hygiene laws then.
They practiced quarantine and cleansing of clothing and anything else that had come in contact with a diseased person

Ah, yes. Good old ancient hygiene laws. Instead of don't eat pork they could have just said cook the pork well.

Let me ask, do JW's make women leave the home when they have their periods?

If the Bible says to do something, we do it...if it says not to, we don't do it. It's not that complicated.

Let me ask, do JW's make women leave the home when they have their periods?

I have a belief system.....I do not need proof.

BINGO! Finally, an honest admission.

You can't believe in evolution because it goes against your "belief system". I think I said that about a week ago.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have a belief system.....I do not need proof.

Yet you demand it of others. That's called special pleading, a form of double standard. This is why your calls for proof or even evidence can be ignored. You don't use it to make your decisions, so you have no legitimate reason to ask for it.

I notice that you declined to address any of the three questions I left for you again. Concession accepted. How else can that choice be interpreted given the strong motivation you would have to answer them if you thought you could.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is substantive evidence for evolution you just do not want to hear or understand it.

FYI, Deeje stated up front that nothing anyone could post would cause her to change her mind. She also stated that she would never compromise on evolution because if she were to do so, her life would lose all meaning and purpose, and her friends and family would treat her like a rotten piece of fruit.

I have been helping many to understand evolution for a long time and am willing to help you.

In this case, you're trying to help someone who has their eyes shut, has their fingers in their ears, and is shouting "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The point was that fossils cannot speak, so scientists have to speak for them.
You don't see the problem there either?

Yeah! “Here, I’ll speak for you....this was your GGGGGGGGG Grandmother!”

And the whale said, “Eeeeek! She had legs!”

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...what barrier exists in nature that would prevent the smaller changes in living things over shorter periods of time from accumulating into larger changes over much longer periods of time.

1) Direct experimental evidence. Ex.: even under lab-controlled conditions, basically providing an environment conducive to evolution, untold numbers of experiments performed on Drosophila melanogaster, didn’t alter it, one iota! Not beneficially, anyways!
(Poor flies.)

2) Apoptosis. Any mutation in a cell's structure not immediately resulting in a function, like in the irreducibly-complex eye, would have caused cellular self-destruction.

3) Sexual selection. Females are picky! (No further explanation needed!)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Genetic mutations are happening all the time. Faster in organisms with more frequent rates of reproduction. Seriously!

A rare occurrence becomes not such a rare when considering the size of populations and the length of time especially if there is a force selecting for the positive rare occurrences. It is the time frame and the numbers which makes the changes occur.

Really? How did this turn out w/ Drosophila melanogaster? Mutations even under controlled conditions were....what? Beneficial? I think you know the answer.

Yet, in natural, harsher conditions, you expect better results?

To account for the huge numbers of vastly disparate (yet functional) lifeforms.... it’s irrational.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no known way to stop it [evolution] short of an extinction event. At no time does it reach a point where no more evolving can occur.

Yes, there is another way....by turning a population into homosexuals. Would it?

Which raises a question (in all honesty, with no offense intended to anyone): if evolution is indeed based on the "selfish gene".... why would natural selection 'select' for that trait? It would be killing itself, in the long run. No benefit, there.

 

[ecco]

...

Three posts - So much wrong one hardly knows where to begin. Well, let's start with this exchange...

what barrier exists in nature that would prevent the smaller changes in living things over shorter periods of time from accumulating into larger changes over much longer periods of time.

3) Sexual selection. Females are picky! (No further explanation needed!)

No further explanation needed? Really? Actually a lot of further explanation is needed. Please, please explain why picky females are a deterrent to evolution. If anything, the exact opposite is true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? You truly have no idea?

Well, I might have an inkling ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

None of those gods existed before mine, according to the Bible. They were all created by the pretender......the other "god" that atheist don't believe exists. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Well, they did exist in the minds of people before your God existed in the minds of people.

You're missing the point though. I'm explaining this from the point of view of someone who isn't a member of your religion. I have no reason to believe what the Bible says about God(s) is any more or less accurate than any other "holy text" that has ever existed. The reality is, that many people have believed in many different gods, and still do.

Again, I need substantiated evidence for these transitional fossils.....a suggestion is not substantive enough for me. I am surprised that they are sufficient for you when you claim that science is so "evidence" based. But interpretation of evidence by biased individuals with a pet theory to uphold does not inspire me with confidence as to their conclusions being accurate.....

You've been given what you asked for. And yet you are still asking for it.

How does science know this? 99% of all species have become extinct???.....substantiated evidence for this is....?

From studying the available evidence. Care to address the point about design, please?

Things that don't fit in with an overall theme are not evidence of poor design...it is what is commonly seen in the normal behavior of all creative individuals.

Pardon?

Getting rid of the idea of 'a big wizard in the sky', helps us to appreciate how very like the Creator we actually are. As an artist myself, I can vouch for the fact that I have had many productions that just did not live up to my own expectations and ended up on the scrap heap, or were reworked. Others have simply lived out their shelf life and needed to be replaced with something that worked better later on.

No one has ever met this creator you speak of, so I don't know how you can make any claims about "his" supposed character traits.

The creative days were not 24 hour periods either....so there was plenty of time for the Creator to do whatever he wished in the time he allotted. Tweaking is what we see in the universe and in nature.

Sounds like an interpretation to get to the conclusion you already accept in the first place. And you poo-poo science? Come on.

The very fact that each creative period ended with God pronouncing everything that he had accomplished in that timeframe as "good" (and the last "day" as "very good").....have you ever wondered why he closed each period with a declaration of his satisfaction? Each period may have included things that may have ended up being redundant in the finished product. It was a creative project undertaken by an amazing Being with incredible power and creative ability in his chosen medium.

That's the way I see the Creator.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a ludicrous statement.
Did believing "God created it," inhibit Boyle, or Kepler, or Newton?
No way! In fact, believing that God was behind it all, encouraged them to find out not only how things were made, but why they were made... the purpose they serve.

They were highly successful scientists.

Perhaps you could show us how many of them included invisible deities in their explanations for the natural workings of the earth and the universe.

What's that? None of them. Okay then.