The Miracle of Water.

[Bear Wild]

Are you sure about that?

"Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.

New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose, but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.

“Everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case,” said Matthew Dean, assistant professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and co-corresponding author of a paper on the research that was published online by Evolution on Sept. 3."

Whale reproduction: It’s all in the hips

This article is 4 years old.



See, here we go again.....a lot of bluster but still no sign of all this "overwhelming evidence". Give us the evidence Wild Fox.....you must have some that does not have to resort to suggestion and guesswork.



Give us these many facts then. I have yet to see them.
I have a firm belief in my Creator through my observation of creation and from personal experience, but I can no more produce him than you can prove your theory. I admit that but the evolution promoters never seem to be able to back up their assumptions with anything concrete. If you guys have the facts (which science tells me it doesn't) then what are you talking about?



Show us the testable assumptions. Show us what tests demonstrate that four legged land creatures became whales.



Which is another way of saying "I can't find anything...I know it must be there somewhere, so you better find it yourself".
You honestly think I haven't read the research....why do you think I can challenge this subject so confidently? None of you are disappointing me right now.

Wouldn't it be funny if the ones accusing us "Bible believers" of being conned by an old myth are themselves the victims of the biggest con job in history?

Did you read the article carefully. whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. So the article agrees with the evolutionary process. It was still derived from the structures from animals that use it for the hind legs which whales do no longer use. it is an interesting article in that it has retained the importance in reproductive process thus evolution altered it but keep one of its apparent functions. All this does is still support evolution. Thanks for the article.

 

[Bear Wild]

Are you sure about that?

"Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.

New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose, but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.

“Everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case,” said Matthew Dean, assistant professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and co-corresponding author of a paper on the research that was published online by Evolution on Sept. 3."

Whale reproduction: It’s all in the hips

This article is 4 years old.



See, here we go again.....a lot of bluster but still no sign of all this "overwhelming evidence". Give us the evidence Wild Fox.....you must have some that does not have to resort to suggestion and guesswork.



Give us these many facts then. I have yet to see them.
I have a firm belief in my Creator through my observation of creation and from personal experience, but I can no more produce him than you can prove your theory. I admit that but the evolution promoters never seem to be able to back up their assumptions with anything concrete. If you guys have the facts (which science tells me it doesn't) then what are you talking about?



Show us the testable assumptions. Show us what tests demonstrate that four legged land creatures became whales.



Which is another way of saying "I can't find anything...I know it must be there somewhere, so you better find it yourself".
You honestly think I haven't read the research....why do you think I can challenge this subject so confidently? None of you are disappointing me right now.

Wouldn't it be funny if the ones accusing us "Bible believers" of being conned by an old myth are themselves the victims of the biggest con job in history?

Ok lest start and this is just a start.
Fact 1. there is variation in species due to variations in their genetic sequencing with characteristics having greater advantages in certain environments.

Fact 2. Natural selection favors individuals better adapted to that environment increasing their chances of reproduction.

Two facts to start with.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Where did God come from? Who created God?

That's as bad as asking where did the singularity come from. What created it? What did it exist in?

People need to accept there are far more things unknown than known.

 

[Deeje]

If you have read the research you would not argue the way you do.

Now that is a strange assumption....I have read the research, but perhaps without the lens that most evolutionists use when reading the same material.
You assume that because I have read the articles that I must be swept away by the suggestions.....well, I'm not. I actually find them quite comical at times.

You have nothing to challenge the subject with any real evidence so you just make uneducated commentary.

Uneducated commentary?.....LOL....you mean unindoctrinated commentary, don't you?

Let me give you an example of the kinds of things that are fed to young students of science....

"Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

1. There is variation in traits.
   For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

1. There is differential reproduction.
   Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

1. There is heredity.
   The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

1. End result:
   The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

So at the end of the day...what do we end up with? Beetles......just beetles. They might be different colors but they have not changed into anything other than a beetle...so what are we proving? That adaptation can make things change shape and color without changing their "kind".

Let's continue......


"Natural selection at work

Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

Any coffee table book about natural history will overwhelm you with full-page glossies depicting amazing adaptations produced by natural selection, such as the examples below.

Orchids fool wasps into "mating" with them.

Katydids have camouflage to look like leaves.

Non-poisonous king snakes mimic poisonous coral snakes.

The male blue-footed booby, shown to the right, exaggerates his foot movements to attract a mate."

So what do we see here? Mindless Orchids just decided to decorate the cusp of their flowers to resemble a female wasp, complete with the right pheromone, just to attract a pollinator? Undirected chance did that?

The katydids made themselves so closely the leaves upon which they lived that you couldn't tell them apart? How clever of the katydid to think of camouflage as a way to survive.

The king snake realized that dressing up as a poisonous snake would also be a good idea.....and the blue footed boobies must have been influenced by Elvis to put on their blue suede shoes....? Are you getting a sense of what I am seeing as opposed to someone indoctrinated by science?

"In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented."

Natural selection at work

As previously mentioned, the entire series in this online teaching tool shows that natural selection creates variety within a species.

The finches on the Galapagos Islands were not evolving into anything but new varieties of finches. The peppered moths were turning into....peppered moths of a different color. That is what was observed and documented.

What is the data "convincing" people about? Nothing more than what the scientists are suggesting to their intended audience. No facts, just suggestions that anyone can see don't really add up.
Adaptation is a far cry from macro-evolution.

You have no evidence for you side so you make inaccurate statements about evolution thinking they have meaning when they are not based on knowledge of the natural world. You do not produce any support for your view. So who is the biggest con in history? The one making claims not supported with anything but their opinion.

You need more.....?

How about that whale evolution?


"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Hang on....did you read that? "hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."

Read that all again and tell me what its saying. They say these things without a single reference to any proof and expect young minds to just accept it all as gospel (pardon the pun).

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

Skeletons of two early whales.

I can see the resemblance....can't you? An ear bone that strongly resembles those of a whale??? That's all the evidence you need?

What a load of old cods.....

 

[Skreeper]

Now that is a strange assumption....I have read the research, but perhaps without the lens that most evolutionists use when reading the same material.
You assume that because I have read the articles that I must be swept away by the suggestions.....well, I'm not. I actually find them quite comical at times.



Uneducated commentary?.....LOL....you mean unindoctrinated commentary, don't you?

Let me give you an example of the kinds of things that are fed to young students of science....

"Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

1. There is variation in traits.
   For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

1. There is differential reproduction.
   Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

1. There is heredity.
   The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

1. End result:
   The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

So at the end of the day...what do we end up with? Beetles......just beetles. They might be different colors but they have not changed into anything other than a beetle...so what are we proving? That adaptation can make things change shape and color without changing their "kind".

Let's continue......


"Natural selection at work

Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

Any coffee table book about natural history will overwhelm you with full-page glossies depicting amazing adaptations produced by natural selection, such as the examples below.

Orchids fool wasps into "mating" with them.

Katydids have camouflage to look like leaves.

Non-poisonous king snakes mimic poisonous coral snakes.

The male blue-footed booby, shown to the right, exaggerates his foot movements to attract a mate."

So what do we see here? Mindless Orchids just decided to decorate the cusp of their flowers to resemble a female wasp, complete with the right pheromone, just to attract a pollinator? Undirected chance did that?

The katydids made themselves so closely the leaves upon which they lived that you couldn't tell them apart? How clever of the katydid to think of camouflage as a way to survive.

The king snake realized that dressing up as a poisonous snake would also be a good idea.....and the blue footed boobies must have been influenced by Elvis to put on their blue suede shoes....? Are you getting a sense of what I am seeing as opposed to someone indoctrinated by science?

"In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented."

Natural selection at work

As previously mentioned, the entire series in this online teaching tool shows that natural selection creates variety within a species.

The finches on the Galapagos Islands were not evolving into anything but new varieties of finches. The peppered moths were turning into....peppered moths of a different color. That is what was observed and documented.

What is the data "convincing" people about? Nothing more than what the scientists are suggesting to their intended audience. No facts, just suggestions that anyone can see don't really add up.
Adaptation is a far cry from macro-evolution.



You need more.....?

How about that whale evolution?


"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Hang on....did you read that? "hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."

Read that all again and tell me what its saying. They say these things without a single reference to any proof and expect young minds to just accept it all as gospel (pardon the pun).

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

Skeletons of two early whales.

I can see the resemblance....can't you? An ear bone that strongly resembles those of a whale??? That's all the evidence you need?

What a load of old cods.....

A person who clearly lacks even a basic education in biology criticizing science, how magnificent.

Luckily we don't base our education on the opinion of JWs cult regarding scientific matters otherwise humanity would probably be still stuck in the dark ages.

 

[ecco]

Did you know that his studies of the Bible also led him disbelieve the Holy Trinity?

Yes. I don’t see where the Bible teaches it, either.

Do you believe the Holy Trinity?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your God has never come through for me, on any of the things you've mentioned.
My anecdotal personal experiences contradict your anecdotal personal experiences. Where do we go from there, using your "hypothesis method?"
Also, did you bother counting the number of times your God didn't answer your prayers?
How did you attempt to filter out your own bias?
Are you under the impression that your method is scientific in any way? I hope not.

Really? You tithed? How many hundreds of tithing cycles and hundreds of tithing blessings should I consider to be statistically significant? I've tithed several hundred times...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You might like the idea of that reality, feeling as if you may have accomplished much of what you wanted to in this life....but for most people its an empty prospect and not what makes life worth living at all. When you take away hope, you take away all purpose in living. If this is all there is, then what is the point of it?

Actually, it's religious beliefs like these that strip life of meaning. You don't see any point to life if there's no afterlife. I do. Of course, I was raised without religion, so I've had quite a few decades to learn to live without gods or promises of immortality. It's not that difficult, and not empty at all. Perhaps you should let those with the atheist experience tell you about our lives rather than telling us how depressing and empty they are.

As previously mentioned, the entire series in this online teaching tool shows that natural selection creates variety within a species. The finches on the Galapagos Islands were not evolving into anything but new varieties of finches.

After all that has been told to you about the finches, you still think that they are all the same species? Why do you think that people educated in the sciences - biology in this case - can be swayed about them by somebody that isn't interested in the subject enough to learn the difference between a species and a family? It's like the difference between a house and a city.

Here's yet another chance for you to learn some science :

The family of finches is called Fringillidae. A family is a group of genera, and a genus is a group of species. One subfamily of Fringillidae is Carduelinae, a subfamily of finches containing 183 species divided into 49 genera.Think 183 houses comprising 49 neighborhoods in a single city. When you confuse species and families, you make an error of scale similar to confusing houses and cities.

I can see the resemblance....can't you? An ear bone that strongly resembles those of a whale??? That's all the evidence you need? What a load of old cods.

It's already been explained to you that your understanding of and agreement with the science isn't necessary. You are welcome to your religious beliefs.

But they are of little interest or value to those who have learned to live without them, and as you should know by now, arguments based on incredulity have little persuasive power outside of creationist circles.

 

[ecco]

Now it occurs to me that as rational human beings, that we need reasons for everything.

As a rational human being you should know there is a difference between "needs" and "reality".

....its in our nature to need those reasons to give us a sense of who we are, and where we are, and why we are here. We need a sense of purpose. Its a natural curiosity that is programmed into us.

It's not "programmed". It's part of natural evolution. Curiosity is in all "higher" species. It's a survival technique.

When man could not satisfy his curiosity naturally, he created gods in his own image.

For centuries, humans relied on religions to provide them with the reason for their existence....but by the end of the 19th century, the tide began to turn as science was making headway into some areas that opened religious ideas up to investigation on a whole new level. it seemed as if academia was now on a collision course with the church.....and the church was losing.

Beliefs in mysterious men in the sky is diminishing - slowly but surely. However, there will always be people whose needs go beyond reality.

Science has nothing to offer anyone beyond this life, so it gives people an "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" kind of attitude.

Theistic nonsense. Atheists know there is nothing beyond this life, that's one reason why we cherish it. When someone's child dies because of a shooter with an AK47, we work to eliminate AK47's. We don't say "God needed some more angels in heaven".

But I think it is significant that replacing God with science has seen humans plunged into an epidemic of depression, never seen before on such a global scale. I believe that it is sweeping the world at present because, science may have seemed to take away the need for a Creator, but it did not anticipate the fall-out that occurred when all hope is taken away for things to ever get better.

How do you account for the fact that the divorce rate is higher for religious people than for atheists. Do you just conveniently ignore it?

Often people have their lives cut short by accident or illness and there is nothing to offset the tragedy but that dreadful sense of loss. Without hope, the sense of loss is accentuated. The feelings of hopelessness do not sit well.

You might like the idea of that reality, feeling as if you may have accomplished much of what you wanted to in this life....but for most people its an empty prospect and not what makes life worth living at all. When you take away hope, you take away all purpose in living. If this is all there is, then what is the point of it?

Hope based on fantasy is worse than accepting reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? You tithed? How many hundreds of tithing cycles and hundreds of tithing blessings should I consider to be statistically significant? I've tithed several hundred times...

I told you before, I used to be a Christian. Went to church, Bible camp, youth group, all of it.

You wouldn't be trying to evade the point, would you? You're the one claiming to be using the "hypothesis method" here.You tell me how many instances of tithing are statistically significant to your findings. Along with all the other things you listed. Maybe you could answer my other questions as well.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have read the research, but perhaps without the lens that most evolutionists use when reading the same material.

Oh definitely. The lens you employ (according to your own posts) is "This can't be true, lest my life lose all meaning and purpose, and my Jehovah's Witness friends and family treat me like a rotten piece of fruit."

 

[Jose Fly]

When you confuse species and families, you make an error of scale similar to confusing houses and cities.

If someone came to Deeje and said "I'm not a Christian because Jesus taking the Ten Commandments aboard the ark to save them from the Romans doesn't make sense", she would instantly write that person off as ignorant and uneducated about Christianity. Yet for some reason, she completely fails to appreciate how her musings on science come across the same way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This was a response to my post? You think this question replaces all the questions I have asked on this, and other threads with no solid answers? I am the one with the belief system....if you don't have one, then please show us the scientific explanation for how four legged animals morphed themselves into whales....but please don't use suggestions in that that explanation....just real facts. OK? Similarity does not prove relationship. Nor does an ear bone.

What is not new is the avoidance of evolutionists in providing more than suggestion, assumption and assertion for the entire evolutionary scenario. Your theory is based on matchsticks, not concrete.....it doesn't pass the building code. This failure to be able to produce evidence gives rise to feelings of frustration and often spills over into abusive language....but it never leads to answers.

You got some? Let's hear it.....

Yep. You want to know where everything comes from. You assume a "who" created the universe.
So I asked you, who created God? Where does God come from?

The rest of your post is just the same old thing you've been posting since day 1. You've received endless answers and mountains of evidence for the things you ask for. And yet here you are, still asking for them. I implore you again, please learn how to take in new information. There's nothing wrong with expanding your knowledge base.

 

[Deeje]

Hope based on fantasy is worse than accepting reality.

What is reality? It's a personal perception.....your reality is not my reality. Please don't assume that your reality is the only valid one.
You assume that it is. Assumptions can be dead wrong.

Science knows very little in the big scheme of things, but you'd think they knew everything by the way they arrogantly throw their weight around. To me they are like the Emperor parading his new clothes. He is absolutely naked but he doesn't know it. The fantasy can only be broken by the truth.

You have "beliefs" based on what science suggests with regard to the 'origin of species'; there is absolutely no proof for what you believe, whether you admit it or not. You have your 'religion' and 'gods' and 'scripture', just as I do. You don't see it for obvious reasons.

We are all entitled to create our own reality based on what we want to believe (for whatever reason).....that's because we all have free will. Humans have a spiritual need that is innate....it will be filled with whatever we put into that compartment of our human nature.

 

[Deeje]

But they are of little interest or value to those who have learned to live without them, and as you should know by now, arguments based on incredulity have little persuasive power outside of creationist circles.

Well, I see macro-evolution is an argument based on incredulity......it's a belief, based on very little but wishful thinking; it is not established fact......or didn't you realise that? On what basis do you assume the superior position? Is your fantasy somehow better than mine? Who said?

You may not need God....but did it ever occur to atheists that he may not need you? He will not impose himself on anyone, but will require an accounting for how we have used the gift he gave to all of us....life.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Deeje on Monday: "We are not anti-science".

@Deeje today: "Science knows very little in the big scheme of things, but you'd think they knew everything by the way they arrogantly throw their weight around. To me they are like the Emperor parading his new clothes. He is absolutely naked but he doesn't know it."

 

[Deeje]

Yep. You want to know where everything comes from. You assume a "who" created the universe.
So I asked you, who created God? Where does God come from?

I have no idea.....I know God exists because he has personally guided me for most of my adult life. I know "who" he is but as for "what" he is....I have no answer, nor would I probably be able to comprehend it if he gave me an explanation. I don't need to know "what" God is apart from what he tells us in the instruction manual he gave us. He is a spirit....that is an intangible lifeform who has enormous power that can be directed wherever he deems it necessary. Can scientists test for the existence of such a being? Does that mean that he can't exist?

The rest of your post is just the same old thing you've been posting since day 1. You've received endless answers and mountains of evidence for the things you ask for. And yet here you are, still asking for them. I implore you again, please learn how to take in new information. There's nothing wrong with expanding your knowledge base.

I have had no such thing. All that has been presented is more of the same guesswork and assumption about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago. That is scientific fantasy. To take adaptation and expands it way beyond testable limits to suggest what can never be proven. That shows us that evolutionary science cannot support its own arguments. It "believes" its own conclusions because it wants to.....that puts it on the same footing as those who believe in Intelligent Design. We can't prove the existence of our Creator, but we can look at the same evidence as you do and see evidence for him.

On this thread, like all the others, the evolutionists do not disappoint when pressed to present evidence that does not rely on suggestion and assumption being accepted as fact. They simply do not have any facts. There are no facts in science....right?

If in your experience, you looked for God in the past and didn't find him, have you thought that maybe it had more to do with your expectations or what you were taught, rather than with God himself?
Did he simply not fulfill those expectations? Were they realistic? Were you taught correctly about what to expect from him? Do you know?

So many people have had their expectations fed by a corrupt religious system and it has inevitably led to disappointment.....people then assumed that he doesn't exist. Did you ever think that maybe you were looking for the wrong god?

 

[Deeje]

Do you believe the Holy Trinity?

Nope...never have.

 

[Deeje]

Luckily we don't base our education on the opinion of JWs cult regarding scientific matters otherwise humanity would probably be still stuck in the dark ages.

Ah...another atheist with no answers.....the queue of those with nothing but empty rhetoric is growing....how magnificent!!!

'Luckily' we don't throw away a secure future based on the unsubstantiated tripe dished up by godless evolution.

If I am wrong, what have I got to lose....if you are wrong, what does that mean for you? If you don't want what God is offering, then he will never force you to live the life that he offers to those who promote him as earth's rightful Creator....is that OK? Of course it is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is reality? It's a personal perception.....your reality is not my reality. Please don't assume that your reality is the only valid one. You assume that it is. Assumptions can be dead wrong.

Perhaps you should consider this advice yourself. Religious people aren't interested in reality.

Science knows very little in the big scheme of things

Religion adds nothing. Science has provided us with our only useful knowledge of reality.

You have your 'religion' and 'gods' and 'scripture', just as I do.

No, just you.

We are all entitled to create our own reality

But the rational skeptic isn't interested in doing that. We leave that to the religious and to the psychotic.

Well, I see macro-evolution is an argument based on incredulity......it's a belief, based on very little but wishful thinking

Then you don't understand what incredulity is. The theory of evolution is correct. You're the one that cannot believe that.

I know God exists

No you don't. Nobody does.

On this thread, like all the others, the evolutionists do not disappoint when pressed to present evidence that does not rely on suggestion

You are immune to evidence. You demonstrate that repeatedly. And education. Have you learned the difference between a species and a family yet? Can we assume not?

So many people have had their expectations fed by a corrupt religious system and it has inevitably led to disappointment

Yes, I found Christianity to be unsatisfying.

Ah...another atheist with no answers.....the queue of those with nothing but empty rhetoric is growing

We have answers. You cannot hear them because you aren't interested in them.

You, on the other hand, have no answers, just your incredulity and unsupported beliefs that can't be used for anything even if they were correct.

You declined to answer my question about why we would trade a useful idea for a useless one. I assume that I know why you chose to run from that. If you have to ignore questions, it means you have no good answer for them.

I'll repeat the comment since it appears that you are hoping that it will just go away if you do :

What motivation would any of us have to abandon a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition for an idea like creationism that can do none of that, especially if you consider them both faith-based? Seriously - why would I trade this idea for one that can't be used for anything if as you say you have no more evidence for your belief than the scientists do?