It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
In order to believe in evolution you need to read about it and digest not only the facts about biology, geology, and genetics but understand cause and effect. When and if science finds something missing they don't stick God in the hole they publish where and in what the hole exists. Once that is done, the work starts to find the reasons why and the what's. Tulsa don't step off the curb the dogs of war just passed by.
Where do you pick up this junk science, the Creation Museum?
You said: "The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves."
Gee...where do I start! How about this ... "The lower mandible is the lower part of the bill and in many birds, this is the only part that moves. It is in function and location similar to the human’s lower jaw. Certain species, such as the parrot, are able to move both mandibles."
You said: a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.
And this doesn't click in your religious brain that it might just be more proof for evolution?
Both are further evidence that Archeaoptryx was simply another bird, not a dino/bird transitional creature.
Much more detailed view here of Archaeopteryx than that creation site, are we surprised..? Even the wing claws can be seen.
Yes, again showing that it's clearly a bird - not a dino/bird transitional form.
In order to believe in evolution you need to read about it ------> and then insert it's belief system into everything that you discover. It doesn't matter if the logical conclusion points squarely away from evolution. Evolutionists are determined to interpret everything in the light of their belief system. Therefore evolutionists must claim that the fossil record supports their belief system even though there is no proof to support it.
arrival as fully formed and functioning organisms and these species being able to adapt to new environments within their God-given genetic constraints.
Within the those constraints when environmental change occurs most of the life forms perish but some are capable of survival. Those few become the many while of others have been selected out of the gene pool. They don't adapt they over the selected ones survive.
We are taking the facts as they are & applying them to really the only two available theories - evolution & creation. Which model to the facts best fit?
What is the mechanism of creation? How do you test your hypothesis? How do you answer these two question; God did it. That sir is putting God in he gaps.
If there's a watch, then there must be a watchmaker. If there's life, then there must be a life giver - a Creator.
It there is a Creator then there must be a Creator of the Creator. And that Creator's Creator....see how that just keeps going and going
If not scientific or philosophical logic, what other logic is there?
My belief in the soul comes not from either logic system. The soul, as I have asserted before, is spiritual. I believe in the soul because I apply faith. Faith is illogical when viewed from the physical universe.
I must add this; philosophy does directly, relate with theology.
to objectively understand reality?
At this time and for a long time past they are the only way to objectively understand reality. Science is that rare instance of practice that moves us into an uncertain future using sure steps of varying size. Theology tends to define a goal and dismiss any and all things that get in the way. Science and scientists navigate a very cluttered path. Each twist and turn lead them to discovery. Sometimes the discovery verifies the goal sometimes not but there is always serendipity that forces the scientist to explain that first then continue toward the goal or perhaps, because of the serendipitous discovery, to the modified one. Unlike theology that dismisses the obstacles, science explains each obstacle in an inclusive manner. Scientists never argue about the data, they argue about the results. Theology argues about data continuously and never the goal.
It there is a Creator then there must be a Creator of the Creator. And that Creator's Creator....see how that just keeps going and goingAn infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. You can't just keep going back infinitely into the past from one cause to the next. If that was the case, we would never arrive to where we are in time now. If time and space came into existence, which science, philosophy/logic, and theology would seem to say, then there had to be a first cause that put the universe into existence and set a chain of events into motion. So, there was nothing that caused the first cause. So, if space and time were not the natural result of an earlier event since there were no ealier events, there had to be some kind of agent that initiated the chain of events by an act of will. Therefore, the first cause must be a self-existent being (that had the will to create) that did not come into existence. That being is God. The real question is who is that God?
I'm curious, do you believe that the Earth was created by your god for mankind, how about the universe?I do believe the Earth and the universe were created by God. I believe He made the Earth our temporary home. As for the universe (and the Earth for that matter), He created them to be suitable places for us to live. But I think about how big the universe is and how little of it we see (and use), it makes me wonder or consider that God must have some kind of purpose(s) for that. Maybe it's all just for His enjoyment. I don't know.Have you ever asked yourself what are the real motivators as to why you are a believer?Of course. I haven't always been a believer. I'm very aware of my reasons and motivations for following Jesus Christ (at least as best as I can understand myself). Have you asked yourself what are the real motivators as to why you are not a believer? It's unfortunate that most people fail to ask each other such a question, or rather, asking what are your motivators. I see some just assume that a person of faith is superstitious, weak-minded, scared of the world, etc., etc. I'm sure for some it just helps them to feel more comfortable with their own point of view if they can stereotype others. I have no doubt it works the other way, too. There are people of faith who make assumptions about atheists, too.