"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists

[tas8831]

Various creationists claim some few dozen thousands kinds of animals were on board of Noah's Ark, I myself believe Noah's Ark to be pure mythology.

Me too!

How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark? | GotQuestions.org

http://amendez.com/NAES/Noahs_Ark_Articles_files/NAS Size of the Ark-Handout.pdf

Philosophies of Men Mingled With Scripture: Noah's Ark

Not sure, what you mean by me continuing to lie about evolution.

OK, so there is something weird going on - it had been my intent to reply to Deeje, not you. My mistake - with apologies!

 

[gnostic]

One of many problems with the Urey Miller experiment is it assumes a reducing atmosphere.

There is no evidence that the earth ever had a reducing atmosphere according to NASA
However a primordial problem is that miller generated mostly poisonous materials and the chemicals made were not stable and also random handedness where life is highly left or right handed.

A rescue device is having life form of life formed in a slushy comet! Some evolutionists realized the hopelessness of the Urey Miller conclusion and gave that up in favor of life elsewhere. Some such as Crick even said life is so complex it was seeded by the aliens but can't answer the question where the aliens come from.

Not to mention entropy. Information cannot arise spontaneously. Information runs down but with a creator 'in the beginning was information' Creation explains that.

Here is your problems, whirlingmerc.

You have misunderstood the actual parameters of the experiments.

The Miller-Urey experiment did not set out to create “LIFE”. Creating life was never their purpose in the experiment.

The actual purpose was to cause chemical reactions that would chemically create organic matters from inorganic matters.

You are confusing the experiment of finding “organic matter” with finding “life”. You are wrong, the experiment was to test if organic matters can be form with limited numbers of inorganic chemicals, whether t be for reducing atmosphere or for less reducing atmosphere of later experiments.

And in these experiments since the first experiment, have been successful in creating organic compounds with less reducing atmosphere.

This organic matters are organic compounds of amino acid.

Amino acids are essential compounds found in a larger biological compound - protein. And the organic compounds of proteins are found in all forms of life, whether these be multicellular animals, plants or microbes, or in unicellular organisms.

There are over hundred different types of amino acids, and 20 types are known to be naturally found in proteins.

In the human body, the largest organic molecules is protein, which make up about 20% of the mass. Between 65% and 70% of the mass is water, but water isn’t organic molecule (H2O).

If you really want to understand the experiments, not just Miller-Urey, these experiments were never setup to create life from inorganic chemicals, but they did set them up, to find how to make up organic matters.

So basically, you have misunderstood the purpose of the experiments (not just that of Miller-Urey experiment), and you have used strawman argument to compound your errors.

 

[gnostic]

Various creationists claim some few dozen thousands kinds of animals were on board of Noah's Ark, I myself believe Noah's Ark to be pure mythology.

How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark? | GotQuestions.org

http://amendez.com/NAES/Noahs_Ark_Articles_files/NAS Size of the Ark-Handout.pdf

Philosophies of Men Mingled With Scripture: Noah's Ark

Not sure, what you mean by me continuing to lie about evolution.

These are not the only problems with Noah’s Ark.

They stay on board of the Ark for one whole year.

If that was true, then there would whole load of problems with the story.

There are matters of putting animals in confined space of the vessel, plus the construction of the Ark. there have to be openings in the ark, like windows that allow air in and let C2O out, otherwise animals will start dying. But having such openings for ventilation will make living in the Ark terribly cold and damp.

Then there are matters of animals not used to being on board of floating vessels. Humans are not only creatures on Earth that can suffered from seasickness.

Sanitation would be major problems in the ark, because cleaning up waste made by humans and other animals - vomits, excrement/diarrhea, urine - would take many hours of the days, and not removing the waste and keeping the ark clean, will lead to diseases.

Have any creationist ever been on board with live animals of modern cargo ships for weeks, if not months? A large number would die.

There are matters of food supply and water that are required for a whole year. And what did carnivores eat?

And then there are matters of animals migrating to all parts of the continents from Mount Ararat?

For instance, how would slow-moving kolas or wombats reach Australia, without dying from the long hazard journey or being killed by humans or by predatory animals? And they certainly cannot swim. They are more likely to drown or eaten by sharks.

Creationists don’t give much thought about any of the problems that I have raised.

Yes, the ark story is a myth.

 

[Valjean]

Goodness...its "Where's Wally" impersonating a scientist.....!

What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....but adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video that kids probably wouldn't....its what turns science fact into science fiction. There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.

Creationist tend to have very little knowledge of either biology or science in general. You have to start with the basics or you'll loose them. You wouldn't teach algebra to someone not versed in arithmetic.

 

[Deeje]

Creationist tend to have very little knowledge of either biology or science in general. You have to start with the basics or you'll loose them. You wouldn't teach algebra to someone not versed in arithmetic.

I don't think it takes a university degree to see through a charade. "Looks like"....so it "must be"....?

Where do "might have's" and "could have' '" or "must have's" fit into factual science? This is not the language of fact, but the language of uncertainty. Creation can use those same words and come to a completely different conclusion......how does science know that there is no Creator? It assumes there isn't. Assumptions can be dead wrong.

 

[Deeje]

These are not the only problems with Noah’s Ark.

They stay on board of the Ark for one whole year.

If that was true, then there would whole load of problems with the story.

There are matters of putting animals in confined space of the vessel, plus the construction of the Ark. there have to be openings in the ark, like windows that allow air in and let C2O out, otherwise animals will start dying. But having such openings for ventilation will make living in the Ark terribly cold and damp.

Then there are matters of animals not used to being on board of floating vessels. Humans are not only creatures on Earth that can suffered from seasickness.

Sanitation would be major problems in the ark, because cleaning up waste made by humans and other animals - vomits, excrement/diarrhea, urine - would take many hours of the days, and not removing the waste and keeping the ark clean, will lead to diseases.

Have any creationist ever been on board with live animals of modern cargo ships for weeks, if not months? A large number would die.

There are matters of food supply and water that are required for a whole year. And what did carnivores eat?

And then there are matters of animals migrating to all parts of the continents from Mount Ararat?

For instance, how would slow-moving kolas or wombats reach Australia, without dying from the long hazard journey or being killed by humans or by predatory animals? And they certainly cannot swim. They are more likely to drown or eaten by sharks.

Creationists don’t give much thought about any of the problems that I have raised.

Yes, the ark story is a myth.

And all of that leaves God completely out of the picture. The ark was built at his command, with detailed 'blueprints' provided. The animals were gathered and brought to Noah by God.

You don't have any idea of how God instructed Noah to tend to all these creatures. If they needed to go beyond their own limits, could not the one who created them take them through those limits? He did with humans at times.

There were windows in the structure to let in light and to facilitate airflow. The ark was a box shape with no bow or stern or rudder. It was designed to float, not to navigate. Every square inch of that structure was pre-determined as was the care and feeding of every living thing on board....including the management of waste, which was part of Israel's law when not many other nations had the kind of hygiene laws that they had.

It's to be seen that you have very little knowledge of God who can easily carry out his will without having to conform to human ideas as to what is possible and what is not. It's his creation to do with as he pleases....are you in a position to tell him he can't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And all of that leaves God completely out of the picture. The ark was built at his command, with detailed 'blueprints' provided. The animals were gathered and brought to Noah by God.

You don't have any idea of how God instructed Noah to tend to all these creatures. If they needed to go beyond their own limits, could not the one who created them take them through those limits? He did with humans at times.

There were windows in the structure to let in light and to facilitate airflow. The ark was a box shape with no bow or stern or rudder. It was designed to float, not to navigate. Every square inch of that structure was pre-determined as was the care and feeding of every living thing on board....including the management of waste, which was part of Israel's law when not many other nations had the kind of hygiene laws that they had.

It's to be seen that you have very little knowledge of God who can easily carry out his will without having to conform to human ideas as to what is possible and what is not. It's his creation to do with as he pleases....are you in a position to tell him he can't?

No, even the Bible does not say that God gave detailed blueprints. The Bible only claims that God gave Noah a rough size. That is a children's bedtime story. It was refuted long before Darwin's time.

 

[gnostic]

And all of that leaves God completely out of the picture. The ark was built at his command, with detailed 'blueprints' provided. The animals were gathered and brought to Noah by God.

You don't have any idea of how God instructed Noah to tend to all these creatures. If they needed to go beyond their own limits, could not the one who created them take them through those limits? He did with humans at times.

In another word, God used - “magic”.

You also don’t have any idea what god said or do for Noah. The “God did it” is the weakest possible answer you can give.

That’s the thinking of child. It is unrealistic, and based on Genesis myth and faith in primitive superstition.

What would Noah or his family about his the dietary requirements of each pair of animals?

Kolas, for instance, eat specific leaves from eucalyptus trees, which never exist in Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia. They don’t just eat any type of leaves, and they only spent much of their times on trees in local vicinity, they are not known for long treks, trees found in eastern and southeast Australia.

Koalas are nothing like the kangaroos that can move at great distance at good speed.

And do you know what they do up eucalyptus trees? Koalas spent most of the day asleep, because their diet don’t give that much energy.

There are no way for koalas to travel from Mount Ararat to eastern Australia.

And again, what would carnivores eat, if they cannot eat other animals on the ark?

 

[Valjean]

Genesis has its own take on this.
"God commanded the seas to bring forth life."
Genesis says that life appeared on land first - ten years ago people would say
that was wrong but now there's a strong suspicion that life cannot develop in
salt water - it most probably emerged in fresh water, wet volcanic rocks or wet
clay.

But genesis doesn't explain anything, it just posits an agent and a couple of different timelines.
Science studies mechanism, and tests it's hypotheses. Agency is outside its purview.

A rescue device is having life form of life formed in a slushy comet!

Rescue? Hardly. Panspermia just moves the goalpost.

Some evolutionists realized the hopelessness of the Urey Miller conclusion and gave that up in favor of life elsewhere. Some such as Crick even said life is so complex it was seeded by the aliens but can't answer the question where the aliens come from.

Nothing rests on the Urey-Miller experiment, just as nothing rests on Darwin. They're just early pioneers, historical curiosities.
Modern medicine has advanced way beyond Hippocrates or Galen, Physics has long eclipsed Archimedes. Why do evolution deniers keep bringing up Urey-miller and Darwin?

Not to mention entropy. Information cannot arise spontaneously. Information runs down but with a creator 'in the beginning was information' Creation explains that.

What does this have to do with entropy, and why can't information arise spontaneously? For that matter, where did this creator and his information come from? Were they spontaneous?
Again, creation doesn't explain anything, there's no mechanism proposed. The ToE, on the other hand, is all about mechanism. If anything's going to explain how life arose; how RNA arose with its information storage, it's most likely to be the ToE. There are no other contenders.

I don't think it takes a university degree to see through a charade. "Looks like"....so it "must be"....?

Where do "might have's" and "could have' '" or "must have's" fit into factual science? This is not the language of fact, but the language of uncertainty.

Science begins with curiosity, and apparent connections or coincidences are the stuff hypotheses are made from. But it's science's method that makes it so successful: the testing, peer reviews, predictability, &c.

Creation can use those same words and come to a completely different conclusion......how does science know that there is no Creator? It assumes there isn't. Assumptions can be dead wrong.

Which is why science tests its hypothesis, and continues to look for supporting evidence.
Creation's conclusions, on the other hand, really are just speculation. Religion doesn't test it's hypotheses, it discourages criticism or review. Religion was around for thousands of years, but it was only when we began applying the scientific method that our understanding really took off.

 

[Deeje]

In another word, God used - “magic”.

There is no magic...there is power to control and manipulate matter. Can you say for certain that there is no power in existence that can create matter? Something did.....why not God? Do you have a better suggestion that is provable?

You also don’t have any idea what god said or do for Noah. The “God did it” is the weakest possible answer you can give.

It is only weak to those who can't or won't believe.....you can't make God disappear just by imagining that he isn't there. I believe that every human will confront him sooner or later if the Bible is true.....you don't really know that it isn't....you hope it isn't.

That’s the thinking of child. It is unrealistic, and based on Genesis myth and faith in primitive superstition.

LOL....you can think that if it makes you feel like a grown up. What is your definition of "unrealistic"?
To the Creator we are all infants. His reality doesn't need to match yours you know.

What would Noah or his family about his the dietary requirements of each pair of animals?

Kolas, for instance, eat specific leaves from eucalyptus trees, which never exist in Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia. They don’t just eat any type of leaves, and they only spent much of their times on trees in local vicinity, they are not known for long treks, trees found in eastern and southeast Australia.

Koalas are nothing like the kangaroos that can move at great distance at good speed.

And do you know what they do up eucalyptus trees? Koalas spent most of the day asleep, because their diet don’t give that much energy.

There are no way for koalas to travel from Mount Ararat to eastern Australia.

And again, what would carnivores eat, if they cannot eat other animals on the ark?

Who said koalas were on the ark? "Kinds" were on the ark, not every species. And if God was responsible for the flood, and the food supply for the creatures on board, why can't he take care of speciation when the animals left the vessel? He is not a human with limitations.....he doesn't need you to dictate the terms under which he can accomplish his purpose.....there was a bigger agenda concerning the flood. The survival of the animal kinds was the least of God's worries. There were bigger fish to fry.

And who said that the animals were carnivores? Humans weren't meat eaters before the flood, they were vegetarians. Perhaps the animals were too? The Bible doesn't say...all it says is that in the new world, the predatory animals will not be meat eaters anymore.

Isaiah 65:25...
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull,
And the serpent’s food will be dust.

They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah."

Hosea 2:18....
"In that day I will make a covenant for them with the wild animals of the field,
And with the birds of the heavens and the creeping things of the ground;
I will rid the land of the bow and the sword and war,
And I will make them lie down in security."

Isaiah 11:6-9...
"The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb,
And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,
And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7 The cow and the bear will feed together,
And their young will lie down together.

The lion will eat straw like the bull.

8 The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra,
And a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake.

9 They will not cause any harm."

There is the promise.....believe it or not....no more carnivores. The only meat eaters will be carrion creatures who serve as a clean up crew for those creatures who die of natural causes. These already operate very effectively.

I love the way you treat God as if he must operate on your terms.....he doesn't need to answer to us for what he does or doesn't do. We have to operate on his terms or face our own extinction. His terms are not negotiable....so where does that leave those who want God to disappear?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no magic...there is power to control and manipulate matter. Can you say for certain that there is no power in existence that can create matter? Something did.....why not God?Do you have a better suggestion that is provable?



It is only weak to those who can't or won't believe.....you can't make God disappear just by imagining that he isn't there. I believe that every human will confront him sooner or later if the Bible is true.....you don't really know that it isn't....you hope it isn't.



LOL....you can think that if it makes you feel like a grown up. What is your definition of "unrealistic"?
To the Creator we are all infants. His reality doesn't need to match yours you know.



Who said koalas were on the ark? "Kinds" were on the ark, not every species. And if God was responsible for the flood, and the food supply for the creatures on board, why can't he take care of speciation when the animals left the vessel? He is not a human with limitations.....he doesn't need you to dictate the terms under which he can accomplish his purpose.....there was a bigger agenda concerning the flood. The survival of the animal kinds was the least of God's worries. There were bigger fish to fry.

And who said that the animals were carnivores? Humans weren't meat eaters before the flood, they were vegetarians. Perhaps the animals were too? The Bible doesn't say...all it says is that in the new world, the predatory animals will not be meat eaters anymore.

Isaiah 65:25...
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull,
And the serpent’s food will be dust.

They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah."

Hosea 2:18....
"In that day I will make a covenant for them with the wild animals of the field,
And with the birds of the heavens and the creeping things of the ground;
I will rid the land of the bow and the sword and war,
And I will make them lie down in security."

Isaiah 11:6-9...
"The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb,
And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,
And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7 The cow and the bear will feed together,
And their young will lie down together.

The lion will eat straw like the bull.

8 The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra,
And a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake.

9 They will not cause any harm."

There is the promise.....believe it or not....no more carnivores. The only meat eaters will be carrion creatures who serve as a clean up crew for those creatures who die of natural causes. These already operate very effectively.

I love the way you treat God as if he must operate on your terms.....he doesn't need to answer to us for what he does or doesn't do. We have to operate on his terms or face our own extinction. His terms are not negotiable....so where does that leave those who want God to disappear?

Oh Deeje, contradicting yourself so badly. If koalas are not a "kind" in other words if they are somehow bigger then that you just called man a monkey.

 

[gnostic]

There is no magic...there is power to control and manipulate matter.

Being able to control and manipulate matter by using some words or by the will, is magic. It defy the law of nature.

Healing by touch, is called magic. Making light from nothing, is magic; actually when God said "Let there be light", is sort of like using incantation in witchcraft.

Turning non-living dust into a living man, is magic.

Talking snake or talking donkey, is nothing more than myth or fable, very similar to talking animals of other myths and fairytales.

Supernatural beings, like Ezekiel's 4 angels with 4 wings and a head with 4 faces, are nothing more than myth.

And how many heads did Revelation's Two Beasts and the Dragon have?

You are kidding yourself, if you believe these stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament to be literal and true.

It is only weak to those who can't or won't believe.....you can't make God disappear just by imagining that he isn't there. I believe that every human will confront him sooner or later if the Bible is true.....you don't really know that it isn't....you hope it isn't.

Sorry, but you don't believe in other gods, spirits or monsters from other myths, which are in the same boat as the stories of the Bible. If other myths are not true and weak, then why is the Bible an exception?

And you don't need to "believe", to know what a lot of the bible say, to be untrue.

 

[Deeje]

Science begins with curiosity, and apparent connections or coincidences are the stuff hypotheses are made from. But it's science's method that makes it so successful: the testing, peer reviews, predictability, &c.

I don't see them as successful at all....only to those who already subscribe to the original premise, which is guesswork anyway. Because I don't subscribe to science's theory, the guesses are all still just guesses. There is no proof so its a belief.

Which is why science tests its hypothesis, and continues to look for supporting evidence.

We only have to look at nature to see all the evidence we need for an Intelligent Designer. Flukes just don't make any sense when you clearly see purpose in the way things operate and how highly specific information is conveyed through the DNA from one creature to the next. Information has to have an intelligent source to formulate it and write it in a manner that can be conveyed to other creatures. Life is not a fluke.

Creation's conclusions, on the other hand, really are just speculation.

Science's conclusions are based on speculation too. Nothing science suggests about evolution can be proven. It is all based on "might have's" and "could have's"......that is speculative language.....not fact.

Religion doesn't test it's hypotheses, it discourages criticism or review. Religion was around for thousands of years, but it was only when we began applying the scientific method that our understanding really took off.

If one has faith in the Creator, no review or criticism is necessary. We can trust him and take him at his word....its humans whom we can't trust to tell us the truth.

Isn't it interesting that only in the last 70 years or so that humans have possessed the ability to permanently obliterate the only home they have? Who do we have to thank for that? Did we really need that kind of scientific understanding to take off? And yet what hope does the Bible give us when humans are threatening our very existence?

Revelation 18:11 foretold almost 2,000 years ago....."But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
So before humans even had the ability to "ruin the earth" God foretold their own ruin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, even the Bible does not say that God gave detailed blueprints. The Bible only claims that God gave Noah a rough size. That is a children's bedtime story. It was refuted long before Darwin's time.

“A rough size”?

ROFL!

You keep ignoring those ideal ratios!

 

[Deeje]

You are kidding yourself, if you believe these stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament to be literal and true.

Let's see who is kidding who...shall we? I believe the author of the Bible more than I believe any human.
Time will tell, won't it? Everything the Bible has predicted so far has been accurate. Things become clearer as time progresses towards the fulfillment of God's original purpose.

And you don't need to "believe", to know what a lot of the bible say, to be untrue.

None of what the Bible says is untrue.....anyone who thinks so is misreading or misinterpreting it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“A rough size”?

ROFL!

You keep ignoring those ideal ratios!

You have to be kidding. Those so called "ideal ratios" have been refuted a thousand times on this site alone. You used a bogus source by a false "expert". Or did you forget that already? You agreed to that once.

And how do you explain your version of God's endless lying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's see who is kidding who...shall we? I believe the author of the Bible more than I believe any human.
Time will tell, won't it? Everything the Bible has predicted so far has been accurate. Things become clearer as time progresses towards the fulfillment of God's original purpose.



None of what the Bible says is untrue.....anyone who thinks so is misreading or misinterpreting it.

Oh Deeje, the Bible is filled with failed prophecies and it has been shown to be wrong time after time. Only certain cults have this sort of belief.

 

[gnostic]

And who said that the animals were carnivores? Humans weren't meat eaters before the flood, they were vegetarians. Perhaps the animals were too? The Bible doesn't say...all it says is that in the new world, the predatory animals will not be meat eaters anymore.

Isaiah 65:25...
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull,
And the serpent’s food will be dust.

They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah."

Hosea 2:18....
"In that day I will make a covenant for them with the wild animals of the field,
And with the birds of the heavens and the creeping things of the ground;
I will rid the land of the bow and the sword and war,
And I will make them lie down in security."

Isaiah 11:6-9...
"The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb,
And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,
And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7 The cow and the bear will feed together,
And their young will lie down together.

The lion will eat straw like the bull.

8 The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra,
And a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake.

9 They will not cause any harm."

There is the promise.....believe it or not....no more carnivores. The only meat eaters will be carrion creatures who serve as a clean up crew for those creatures who die of natural causes. These already operate very effectively.

Wow, you really are deluded.

In the current and extant species of today, we have animals that are carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous.

Much of the species that are alive today, existed 5000 years ago and even 10,000 years ago.

If you are claiming that animal kingdom were all herbivorous BEFORE THE FLOOD, then you as claimant of the word being different, all vegetarians, then the burden of proof lies with you.

Can you show conclusive evidence that all land animals were all herbivorous?

If you can't then the your interpretation of bible is bogus.

Genesis have made no claim that animals were all plant-eaters. Nothing before the chapters on Noah, say anything about humans and animals being strictly herbivorous. Abel was a shepherd, which would indicate he was a meat-eater.

I am not blaming the bible. It is you, who is the problem. You are really dishonest with your interpretations of the bible. You are making things up, once again.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have to be kidding. Those so called "ideal ratios" have been refuted a thousand times on this site alone. You used a bogus source by a false "expert". Or did you forget that already? You agreed to that once.

And how do you explain your version of God's endless lying?

Right! You keep believing that....

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science | Smithsonian

“Refuted a thousand times”, huh?
Lol.

 

[Valjean]

I don't see them as successful at all....only to those who already subscribe to the original premise, which is guesswork anyway. Because I don't subscribe to science's theory, the guesses are all still just guesses. There is no proof so its a belief.

Science's theory? What would that be?
Science is a method of investigating evidence. For thousands of years people relied on untested guesswork and folklore. Progress -- engineering, medicine, and understanding of the world in general -- proceeded at a snail's pace, sometimes even reversing. Only recently, with a systematic, experimental, analytic approach, has technology taken off.

There is no "proof" of anything outside of mathematics. What science does is amass and test evidence. What religion does is suppress evidence and promote folklore. It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't look for or test evidence. It interprets scripture.

We only have to look at nature to see all the evidence we need for an Intelligent Designer. Flukes just don't make any sense when you clearly see purpose in the way things operate and how highly specific information is conveyed through the DNA from one creature to the next. Information has to have an intelligent source to formulate it and write it in a manner that can be conveyed to other creatures. Life is not a fluke.

You can clearly see your untested, magical, scriptural interpretation. If it were really that clear there would be universal acceptance -- albeit no understanding.
Purpose? You're imagining that, as well. There is function, but no need for preplanned, intentional purpose. Science explains the order we see in nature, and without the need for a magician.
Fluke? Who's saying any of this is a fluke? There's a selective process at work.
You clearly don't understand the natural mechanisms involved. You're arguing from ignorance.

Science's conclusions are based on speculation too. Nothing science suggests about evolution can be proven. It is all based on "might have's" and "could have's"......that is speculative language.....not fact.

Science, like religion, may begin with speculation, but science takes things many steps further, evidence gathering, analyzing and testing. Science yields results.

If one has faith in the Creator, no review or criticism is necessary. We can trust him and take him at his word....its humans whom we can't trust to tell us the truth.

Yes, if one has faith -- belief without evidence -- one can believe in anything.
Take him at his word? Which word would that be? There are so many of them.

Isn't it interesting that only in the last 70 years or so that humans have possessed the ability to permanently obliterate the only home they have? Who do we have to thank for that? Did we really need that kind of scientific understanding to take off? And yet what hope does the Bible give us when humans are threatening our very existence?

Now you seem to be acknowledging science's prowess, but are objecting to our application.

Revelation 18:11 foretold almost 2,000 years ago....."But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
So before humans even had the ability to "ruin the earth" God foretold their own ruin.

I'm sure that passage has been interpreted a hundred different ways, referring to a hundred different times.