Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:First off the reason a lack of transitional fossils is brought up is because Charles Darwin was proven wrong that transitional fossils would be found,they never were found and yet this did not stop evolutionists from pushing evolution,instead they just made up their own chart and made a chart and called them transitional fossils and it shows how dishonest scientists are in their attempt to push the ToE on the world as true science. Evolutionists might have ignored this and came up with talking points to explain it away,but the bottom line is there are no transitional fossils like Darwin predicted would be found. This is why it is brought up when it comes to evolution.

All of your points about what a transitional fossil should look like is just a talking point you've picked up from somewhere. It is evolutionists playing dumb because they should already know what a transitional fossil should look like based on Charles Darwin's book "The origin of species" because it tells us what Darwin meant by transitional fossils and atheists know all about Charles Darwin,they have read his books,they know all about evolution,yet play dumb when called on something he was wrong about.It is to try to cover up the fact Darwin was wrong.

A Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCl4p6dp6OA

crochet1949 wrote:Audie --- sorry to hear that you've not been feeling well -- hope you will have a speedy transition back to feeling good.

crochet1949 wrote:I Did look that up -- interesting looking 'fish'.

Isn't it Also possible that God created them like that? That He knew that eventually scientists would find these fish and marvel at how they look and live in their environment.

And, maybe, as in other animal life - there are varieties Of fish that are 'born' a particular way - not being able to create more of their particular kind -- they are observed Now , for a time. Sort of like a horse and donkey? can mate but their offspring are sterile. So - there are enough of one type of fish that can reproduce with another type and ... Just a thought. And, I already know I'll hear about my ignorance of the subject.

hughfarey wrote:

AirBetweenTheNotes wrote:We are not talking of a few feet of depth of waters but that of thousands of feet. If you spent time around rivers & digging in their muck or observing what & how things move around on their surface "hughfarey", you would see the idea of time without biological interaction on what settles out is erroneous. There is so much alive in the bottom to feed on what is left it that things don't survive unless there is great devastation the likes of which we just don't see in a natural observation of time & assuming that is how things always go on as time unfolds. It takes a great cataclysm to bring about what evolutionists see as great amounts of time passage. Look to the depths of the sea, enough weight of water there to compress sediment into rock but still we see life feeding on the bits falling down to them whether it be dust or a whale.

So is all that experience of the great outdoors any use or not in determining what might have happened in a global catastrophe? In line 1 you say that I can't tell you what would happen in a global flood because my experience of flood detritus doesn't compare to a global catastrophe, while in line 2 you say that you can tell me what would happen in a global flood because your experience in rivers does compare to a global catastrophe. Don't you think that's a little contradictory?
"It takes a great cataclysm to bring about what evolutionists see as great amounts of time passage." Could you relate this statement to my observations regarding the layers in Greenland and Antarctic ice?
"Look to the depths of the sea, enough weight of water there to compress sediment into rock but still we see life feeding on the bits falling down to them whether it be dust or a whale." We see life feeding on the soft parts, agreed, but not on shells or bones. That's why it's shells and bones that are fossilised, and not the soft parts, except in the exceptional circumstances I mentioned in my previous post.

AirBetweenTheNotes wrote:So, your saying that when God created everything within it's kind, that you see wiggle room to shoehorn in the demonic lye of evilnotion in there somehow?
There was a quote earlier of weathermen looking to the sky & knowing what was coming or something to that extent....really....they've been predicting a significant amount of snow here for the last 5 days & not a flake yet.

Audie wrote:The flood is a myth.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:The flood is a myth.

No -- no myth -- just a real happening.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the new moderating policy:

There will be absolutely NO further continued PUBLIC arguing (past a warning, in a thread) over ANY aspect of what a poster has been warned about! Again, while a warned poster cannot continue a PUBLIC discussion over their warning, they CAN engage moderators privately, to argue or lobby their contentions and views concerning their warning. It is important to emphasize this new addition to policy is NOT designed to censor or temper the civil discussion of ideas and beliefs, no matter how extreme they might be - as long as they do not violate other aspects of our moderating policy.

AirBetweenTheNotes wrote:The 2 water burial quotes are your saying I had no idea of how a flood works?

I was speaking that a flood that we see here & now is nothing like The Flood & how deep those waters were & that your observations of a flood now a days is not near as deep or powerful nor is there as much volcanic activity involved or crust movement today as was experienced in Noah's flood & so your ideas of how the effects of a small flood of today would be nothing like the effects of the global flood, way, way more forces involved than what is seen today.

AirBetweenTheNotes wrote:Evolution is not a demonic lye? I don't understand? Are you saying that honest science points to anything besides a Creator, intelligence, order, creativity, laws that keep things spinning or heading in the direction intended, a Master's Hand seen same as the brush strokes of Monet point out his works?

So the establishment doesn't remove people from position if the party line is strayed from (in that naturalism is the only way " the lye"), that foolishness of nothing multiplied by 20 billion years equals EVERTHING, THing, thing, ing.... is pushed in place of Creation?

Or that where did everything come from to begin with that came out of the Bigbang? Or where did all of the organic information come from to move from one organism to the next more complicated one?

Information & odds which one comping up with via just time passing is so very remote like how many times would it take to drop scrabble squares to come up with "To be, or not to be?" or better yet a dictionary to come about via an explosion in a printing shop?

When the amount of info in just one of our cells is enough to fill a book of at least 500 pages doublesided & all of your cells info would fill the Grand Canyon with said books 50 times? Evilnotion?