Oh dear....comprehension skills need tuning?
God is not human.....do you get that? On this planet, all life must come from pre-existing life, unless you know of a life that didn't and you can prove it by more than suggestion....?
We are speaking about entities that occupy a realm where time and matter do not exist. We have no idea about the nature of the Creator....all we know is what is written in scripture....writings that have existed through thousands of years of human history despite all attempts to destroy it.
Take this passage from Daniel for a glimpse into that realm.....
"On the 24th day of the first month, while I was on the bank of the great river, the Tiʹgris, 5 I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, and around his waist was a belt of gold from Uʹphaz. 6 His body was like chrysʹo·lite, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like fiery torches, his arms and his feet looked like burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a multitude." (Daniel 10:4-6)
Like other Bible writers who were granted such visions, Daniel struggled to describe in human terms what he was seeing.
We see these kinds of things in sci-fi movies, but these descriptions are thousands of years old.
Once more for the dummies......
Genesis 1:14-19....
"Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."
Read this passage and see what Moses wrote. Also remember that the description of creation was given from the perspective of an earth dweller with no knowledge of the heavenly bodies in a scientific sense.
God did not "create" the sun, moon and stars, but "made" them shine on the earth. Whatever was not allowing these luminaries to be visible from the earth was now removed and it appeared as if God put them there. But the rest of Genesis says they were there all along. You are reading the words with no discernment whatsoever.
You know how much I love links.......
The Abstract of that piece is hilarious......so full of jargon that the average person would just assume it was right because scientists who are supposed to know what they are talking about, wrote it......but check this out....read what it really says, rather than what you assume it says....
"Were molecular data available for extinct taxa, questions regarding the origins of many groups could be settled in short order. As this is not the case, various strategies have been proposed to combine paleontological and neontological data sets. The use of fossil dates as node age calibrations for divergence time estimation from molecular phylogenies is commonplace. In addition, simulations suggest that the addition of morphological data from extinct taxa may improve phylogenetic estimation when combined with molecular data for extant species, and some studies have merged morphological and molecular data to estimate combined evidence phylogenies containing both extinct and extant taxa. However, few, if any, studies have attempted to estimate divergence times using phylogenies containing both fossil and living taxa sampled for both molecular and morphological data. Here, I infer both the phylogeny and the time of origin for Lissamphibia and a number of stem tetrapods using Bayesian methods based on a data set containing morphological data for extinct taxa, molecular data for extant taxa, and molecular and morphological data for a subset of extant taxa. The results suggest that Lissamphibia is monophyletic, nested within Lepospondyli, and originated in the late Carboniferous at the earliest. This research illustrates potential pitfalls for the use of fossils as post hoc age constraints on internal nodes and highlights the importance of explicit phylogenetic analysis of extinct taxa. These results suggest that the application of fossils as minima or maxima on molecular phylogenies should be supplemented or supplanted by combined evidence analyses whenever possible."
The first paragraph of the article continues.....
"As many as 50 billion species, up to 99.9% of all organisms that have ever existed, have gone extinct (Raup 1993) and cannot be included in phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data."
Hang on.....if "99.9% of all organisms that have ever existed...cannot be included in phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data", what is science basing its data on? 0.1% of living things?
"However, these taxa can potentially provide a rich source of information regarding the origins of extant groups based on their age and phylogenetic position. A major goal of systematics is to produce an accurate “time tree” of life, describing the relationships between organisms (both extant and extinct), and their dates of origin (e.g., Kumar and Hedges 1998, Benton and Ayala 2003, Donoghue and Benton 2007, Hedges and Kumar 2009)."
So this "tree of life" is hoping to be accurate with a completely inaccurate data base? This is clearly guesswork masquerading as science!....
It continues......
"However, the occasionally incomplete nature of the synthesis of paleontological and neontological data in molecular divergence time estimation has been noted by many authors, as fossils are usually applied only as broad minima or maxima on internal nodes (e.g., Benton and Ayala 2003, Müller and Reisz 2005, Donoghue and Benton 2007, Parham and Irmis 2008). New approaches are needed for more accurate divergence time estimation to extract not only temporal but also phylogenetic information from paleontological data sets, as previous studies have typically done only one or the other (e.g., Kumar and Hedges 1998, Gatesy et al. 2003).
You can continue reading the rest of this made-up rubbish.....but it is science shooting itself in the foot, rather than those who advocate for Intelligent Design making a better argument. They don't need us to point out the flaws in the theory....scientists already do it themselves, except that it is masked by the jargon. I guess they hope you won't notice how much guesswork is used to support their agenda.
You will believe in the writings of your science 'gods' because you want to.....not because their evidence is in any way, "overwhelming". When you read what their evidence is based on, it is conversely completely "underwhelming" IMO. The readers can make up their own minds.