Here’s a link to evidence of transitional forms; which you claim do not exist:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
Furthermore, all those opposing evolution and quoting Scripture as proof that evolution is not true, should think of this: If God created the Universe, and, by extension, the Earth, they why did He create the Earth and FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEAD US ASTRAY FROM HIS TRUE PATH? I am constantly amazed at the rejection of science and the lengths otherwise sensible people will go to in order to cling to their mythical beliefs. Evolution has been proven to a scientific certainty to all those who are capable of understanding and analyzing the mountains of evidence in favor of it.
“If God created the Universe, and, by extension, the Earth, they why did He create the Earth and FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEAD US ASTRAY FROM HIS TRUE PATH?”
Maybe it’s not false evidence, but evidence misunderstood.
[[Furthermore, all those opposing evolution and quoting Scripture as proof that evolution is not true, should think of this: If God created the Universe, and, by extension, the Earth, they why did He create the Earth and FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEAD US ASTRAY FROM HIS TRUE PATH?]]
Who said He filled it with false evidence Locke? The evidence is what it is- the conclusions, which are rormed by fallible man, are what they are. BOTH hypothesis can NOT be ruled out- You can’t state emphatically and in finality that a Designer can NOT possibly be rersponsible for the designs we see in nature and that a random process HAS to be the ONLY logical interpretation. There is plenty of Evidnece to HIGHLY suggest that an itnelligent agent is behind the vast vast amounts of irreducible complexities. The link you provided lists all manner of evidneces that are OPEN TO INTERPREATION and are NOT difinitive proofs for macroevolution in the least- Macroevolution is just ONE HYPOTHESIS. There is also plenty of evidnece and scientific fact to speak against the hypothesis of evolution. You and I must make up our minds which one has the stronger, and therefore more convincing evidences to support it and also which has the stronger and more scientifically valid evidences to show the otehr is weak and not plausible. But don’t blame God for for ‘planting false eivdences to throw us off the path’. The evidence is overwhelming for His direct involvement and creation. You’ve made your mind up that the lack of supporting evidence, the obscurities of evidence, and the biological impossibilities aren’t a problem and you choose to beleive the HYPOTHESIS’ of evolutionists- Swell- Noone’s telling you you can’t- however, to claim there is ‘mountains of evidnece’ supporting macroevolution is not true. there isn’t.
I wasn’t yellin, but stressing key points-
When an evolutionist looks at hte evidence, he does so with an a priori belief that it will lead to support of evolution- The evidence doesn’t TELL a person what happened, they simply take the eivdnece and SUGGEST what MIGHT have happened- in other words, they HYPOTHESISE in order to support their position on the matter. As well, they will take the eivdence and PREDICT, and when predictions are shown to be true by the evidnece which is later discovered, they INTERPRET that as supporting their HYPOTHESIS.
However, these very same predictions ALSO support ID and DESIGN, which, the design HYPOTHESIS can not be simply dismissed in light of this. This will of course never be admitted by the evo side who demands that all interpretations be favorable to ONLY the evolution HYPOTHESIS, and they will go to great lengths to deride anyone that points out that the eivdneces can ALSO have a very valid Intelligent Design inference- there IS definately an A Priori bias at work here.
No- God idn’t deceive or plant wrong evidnece- He DID however give each one of us hte free will to choose which we interpretation of the evidences we will believe
Nonsense!
The evolutionist's FALSE INTERPRETATION of the true evidence is the real problem.
The sarcasm, smugness and arrogance of the hardcore evolutionists reveals a hardness of heart that makes it almost impossible for them to see the handiwork of God in anything.
Rather than looking at the real source of much of the misinterpretation, their own arrogance and arrogant assumptions, they blame God and ignore the entry of sin into the world.
While real science is good, the cult of hardcore evolution is not real science. Though it is falsely called science, much of it is nothing more than politicized "historical conjecture".
I reject your science, that does not follow the scientific method or have any evidence worthy of real science. So yes I do. And btw, these “transitionals” are BS as well.