Are your ears and mind open to the evidence for our Intelligent Designer?
Because his existence does not fit your definition of "scientific", you wave it away without showing us the real evidence.....all you show us is science's interpretation of evidence, couched in language to make people believe it can't be wrong.
I have been reading the explanations for evolution for years, and have not seen to date a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution that did not rely on supposition...peppered with a generous amount of assertion and suggestion. The power of suggestion is grossly underestimated in this case I believe.
I also like to refer to Berkeley for my info on Evolution....
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
This is because it has to break down the information into understandable increments for students, so they can't dazzle them with jargon...but have to present their information in simple terms.....the reason I like this is because they can't hide the supposition and the suggestions..... its there in plain sight.
Let me give you a small example.....since 'nested hierarchies' have been mentioned in the past as evidence for evolution.....what is the actual evidence?
"The science of evolution :
Nested hierarchies
Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.
In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.
Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."
Nested hierarchies
Now reading through those statements, anyone who already believes the first premise would see how this supports the theory without question.....but on closer inspection, what do we find?
"
Common ancestry is conspicuous." ....one has to ask..."conspicuous to whom?" Only to those who have no reason to question what is presented in those neat little boxes in the diagram.
But what is the diagram based on?
"Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below." (in the diagram)
Do "similar characteristics" or "shared traits" mean anything if you don't already accept evolution as fact? Do "
shared suites of similar characteristics" and a "
number of shared traits" prove "
relatedness" as in a place on the evolutionary tree?
The illustration means nothing if you don't already believe that the diagram is an accurate description of the truth?
Is the diagram based on fact or supposition?
Now,
phylogeny is described as "
the study of evolution, diversity, and the way different organisms and species are related to each other"......so again we see a foregone conclusion formed from an assumption that evolution is a proven fact....when it isn't.
The study of evolution is made by evolutionists so what conclusions are going to be drawn from their evidence? Does the evidence fit the theory or is the theory squeezed into the evidence?
Relatedness is not proven by similarity or shared traits. These things can just as easily be explained by an Intelligent Creator (who is not a magician) taking his time to create living creatures at will. He can take a basic framework and design living things around it. He can take the same basic materials and like a potter, fashion many different pieces. The pieces are related to the Potter, not the clay.
How many vertebrates are there? Who says they must be related, just because their framework is similar? God can create diversity because he has the power to create matter and to fashion it into whatever he pleases. The Bible describes God as "abundant in dynamic energy".....who is science to say that he can't exist, because they do understand the relationship of energy to matter.
What makes people think that the Creator needs to prove himself to mere mortals who are carried away with their own importance.....as if they "know" anything about the earth's past history with any certainty, or about its creatures who lived millions of years before they were even brought into existence? Its guesswork, pure and simple. Call it what it is.
So, when it suggests that "snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented.
The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees.
However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits." Again, we are seeing assumptions being portrayed as facts. The suggestion is that all these creatures are related because they share "common traits"....you mean like eating, sleeping and breathing?
The Creator is an artist...have you never seen an artist create different works with the same subject matter?
And here is the
'piece de resistance'...."
More inclusive still,
we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals.
At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."
So just to make sure we all get the point of our "relatedness", lets suggest that all life fits in one evolutionary box.
The fact that 'people who are blind will never see', can work both ways.....we see you as 'blind' as you see us. Time will tell I guess.
Our only advantage of course, is that we have a hope for the future, that thankfully doesn't depend on science or humans to deliver it.