Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[ushishir]

For years, Creationist have been saying that if evolution were true that we would see these types of fossils. Well we are looking at just what they say they need...and still they deny it.

Sheesh!!

.

Yet more proof thats its not about truth just creationists trying to justify their belief that they would hold no matter what. No evidence can convince the creation fanatic because their belief is not based on evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

Perhaps, then transitionals are kind oriented, (adapt just from their own kind) or the created kind to begin with after all.

Show us a list of these "created kinds" or stop talking about them like the term means something. Creation "scientists" who are supposed to be researching "baraminology" have been studying "kinds" for decades now, and have nothing to show for it.

So, this 'type' of animal this thing was a representative of, you don't know anything about, then? About the only thing you seem willing to say for almost sure, is that it was transitional! Doesn't matter from exactly what, apparently. Long as it is the link from amphibians and fish, that will take you on the imaginary road to the Pond! But you nned to pause, and ask yourself why it may not have actually been simply a created creature for the world God knew well existed at the time. WE can't get any further than that, even to discuss if it was an adaptation from another creature, because all you are concerned about it seems is fitting it in evo old age belief.

Lets try this one more time dad.

1. These transitional creatures are found in the fossil record after the first lobe-finned fish are found and before the first true amphibians (i.e. the Devonian). They are only found in Devonian strata, and not found before they should or after they should according to evolutionary theory.

2. They all have features in common with both lobe-finned fish and tetrapods (amphibians).

3. Provide us with physical evidence that they were *poofed* into existance during the Devonian Period, before God *poofed* amphibians into existance and we will consider it.

You call that earth period of wetness and dry land a transitional time, because a lot of created creatures were able to make the transition between habitats! That is what I am saying. Bottom line, you have no idea, so don't teach it in school.

Make up your mind, do you agree this was a transition period or not?? We do not have all the answers, but the ones we have are the ones we teach in science classes.

Yes. Intelligent Almighty design, and deliberate creation is no harder to believe than an artist painting. A virus, or bacteria, or whatnot little germish thingy appearing in a pond, accidently producing all God's wonderful life on earth is truly insulting to my intelligence.

It may be insulting to your ego, but not to your intelligence. How can being asked to believe that God scooped up some dirt and blew on it to make mankind not be insulting to your intelligence? Only because of your faith, dad.

You have no evidence either way. Claiming it all created it's little self is not real science. It is pure religion and belief, that presently has mandatory worship in schools.

How is it "pure religion and belief?" Common descent is where all the physical evidence leads. You may not like the implications, but science cares nothing about your feelings on the matter. It either is or is not. Only Creationsist talk about how evolution "makes students feel like they are nothing but animals."

When you shortly see the world totally change, and realize we have entered the end of the world, truly, remember that a good part of the reason is God will not allow children to be so abused much longer, in my opinion.

WOOOOOO!! That sounds like a threat, dad.

If I make a claim, like God created things, it is because the bible tells me so. If I say you have no proof of your old age belief, it is because you don't. What "is so" must have solid evidence. And/or the bible.

Show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is 6,000 years old. Show me where is says that kinds "hyper-evolved" after the Flood. Otherwise, it is all your interpretation of scripture and nothing else. Guess what dad, you may be Wrong!

I used virus, because an article I read recently suggested that the first lifeform may have been one. But, all such ideas are pure, unadulterated belief, so they matter not a whit either way.

Then why mention it?

 

[dad]

Watching this thread I find the Creationist attitude amaizing.

Even when faced with transitional fosseils, even when it's right there for them to look at, they want to deny what their own eyes are seeing. What's the deal?

For years, Creationist have been saying that if evolution were true that we would see these types of fossils. Well we are looking at just what they say they need...and still they deny it.

Sheesh!!

.

Evolution is true, in that it is a YEC phenomena. It started with creations of God. But whether this was a creation or adaption I don't know, and it doesn't much matter. Evolution is a YEC phenomena, the geologic column is a YEc thing, we got it all now, some of us.
(Remember the reason many fight, and fought evolution is because it was assumed present slow rates of change meant long ages, plus, we know that God made everything to begin with)

 

[Grizzly]

How is it that the same science that brings us global communications, incredible health care advances, rovers on mars, airplanes, the electric grid, clean water, etc... can be so wrong about evolution? And why is evolution declared wrong? Because it contradicts a 4,000 year old story told by tribal herdsmen.

Meh.

 

[dad]

Show us a list of these "created kinds" or stop talking about them like the term means something. Creation "scientists" who are supposed to be researching "baraminology" have been studying "kinds" for decades now, and have nothing to show for it.

Better still, show us if this creature, for example was created or not. Show us if it must have evolved, and why, besides, 'it does look like a bit of each other type of creature'. As is, I have no reason to assume it was not created as such.

Lets try this one more time dad.

1. These transitional creatures are found in the fossil record after the first lobe-finned fish are found and before the first true amphibians (i.e. the Devonian). They are only found in Devonian strata, and not found before they should or after they should according to evolutionary theory.

That has no significance to one who does not assume they evolved. Because all creatures were on the planet anyhow at the SAME TIME! All this says, is that we see certain kinds on the planet at large, whaich was wet at the time, so what better creatures to have existed there? If the devonian (say it was 300 years after the cambrian, with rapid pre split deposition rates) was only centuries after Eden, it doesn't say much that only some creatures had gotten there, (or were created there, if they were not Eden's creatures) now does it?
2. They all have features in common with both lobe-finned fish and tetrapods (amphibians).

3. Provide us with physical evidence that they were *poofed* into existance during the Devonian Period, before God *poofed* amphibians into existance and we will consider it.

I don't say they were created in the devonian, according to my rough estimates ( I could be centuries off) this was some hundreds of years AFTER creation! Nothing was poofed anywhere. They simply are the best suited to be the first on the scene. Now, if they came from Eden, then they spread out in that early wet planet faster than frogs, etc. Is this a surprise? Look how they can move in water, and even, I think on land. Put these in a migration race with frogs, and I bet they woulld win. Either that, or they were created to be way out and about on the planet, and not originally Eden's creatures.

Make up your mind, do you agree this was a transition period or not?? We do not have all the answers, but the ones we have are the ones we teach in science classes.

Not in the way old agers think of 'transition'. The only changes came from fully intact creations of God to begin with. As I said, I could see how these may have adapted from other creatures, so they could get around more on the planet. But not just because someone says so. I need evidence. Just this thing existing is not evidence God didn't make it just like it was. Do you have any?

It may be insulting to your ego, but not to your intelligence. How can being asked to believe that God scooped up some dirt and blew on it to make mankind not be insulting to your intelligence? Only because of your faith, dad.

Because it involves a smart, deliberate God, creating a work of art, using materials from the earth He just created. I find that intelligent, planned, amazing, great. But to credit some germish little self appearing pond scum with all life on earth is a story, in which I detect no intelligence at all. A beastly flukeathon. One the does not acknowledge God, and all the spiritual most men know about!

How is it "pure religion and belief?" Common descent is where all the physical evidence leads.

No, it is where physical ONLY, leave God out of the picture, what if there were no God speculations lead. Simply observing some evolution now in no way leads to the pond.

You may not like the implications, but science cares nothing about your feelings on the matter.

You don't speak for science you speak for old age belief. I don't worry about implications that there was no creation, I look at the evidence, and it fits nip and tuck with it, despite your imaginary implications we basically are self created.

It either is or is not. Only Creationsist talk about how evolution "makes students feel like they are nothing but animals."

That is because old agers consider that frame of mind a natural state. People who want children in their country educated with hope and dignity and faith in God, whom they trust do not want kids taught they are self created little animals, and beasts, and reklated to cockcroaches, and there is nothing else but the physical. Period, and they may not tolerate it it much longer.

WOOOOOO!! That sounds like a threat, dad.

No, it is what millions of bible believers think, that we are in the end times, and big changes are coming. It is my opinion that part of the reason is that some countries have forsaken Him, and teach fables to the little children whom He loves.

Show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Adam lived so lang and begat a son, who lived so long, and begat a son, who....all the way up to recorded history. There are a few famous chronologies there, like Ussher's. Even with a little room for interpretation, the times are clearly within a narrow range.

Show me where is says that kinds "hyper-evolved" after the Flood.

That is a conclusion based on some bible fundamental parts to the equation. We know the timeframe. We know the size of the ark. Also science, we know close to how many species of animals and things there are, we know the continents seperated, etc. Any changes or adapting had to be within a certain timeframe. They had to start from creation of the world, and all creatures. We see things like many species of tigers, or elephants, and other things, that would not realistically all fit on the ark.

Otherwise, it is all your interpretation of scripture and nothing else. Guess what dad, you may be Wrong!

Look, if you believe scripture, we can talk. I can defend my beliefs with the bible.

Then why mention it?

I already said why. To silence the last week creation insinuation, and show fossils were known to be up there.

 

[dad]

How is it that the same science that brings us global communications, incredible health care advances, rovers on mars, airplanes, the electric grid, clean water, etc... can be so wrong about evolution?

Easy, it isn't the same science. Airplanes were not made in the devonian. It is assumption that is used for the past.

 

[dlamberth]

It started with creations of God.

Evolution, the scientific study of, makes no comment on the existence of or lack there of, of "God". There for, the above statement may be true. But, for the scientific study of Evolution, it doesn't really matter. God is not mentioned one way or the other.

.

 

[USincognito]

NBC nightly news ran a segment on this story tonight. Oddly they didn't interview any Creationists like Ken Ham or Duane Gish.

 

[dad]

Evolution, the scientific study of, makes no comment on the existence of or lack there of, of "God". There for, the above statement may be true. But, for the scientific study of Evolution, it doesn't really matter. God is not mentioned one way or the other.

.

Well, in the common usuage of terms, indeedy it does act as if there were no creation, and adjusts it's assumptions accordingly. Because creation has been commonly thought of by untold millions through history, as well as today, as meaning God's creation week, and the garden, and Eve etc. Not as some modern theists look at it which is more od a 'maybe God did do it, starting from Granny and the big bang. That, my friend, is NOT "creation" as bible believers comprehend it. To mentally sail past creation, therefore is absolutely omitting God from man's knowledge! And the result is fables, unproved, assumptions, beliefs, etc. - that are ever learned, but never ABLE to bring men to the knowledge of the truth.

"Evolution" as well is commonly understood to involve old ages, and have started at the pond. So, there is no study of this, as it never happened, there is a welding of what evidence is available into the old age fablish framework.

Now we look at a wonderful creature, with extra ability to cross habitats, and get around in that pre flood earth, and they try to tout it as evidence. Well, so do I!!!! It is evidence of a wet world, and a wonderful creation, the rest is imaginary.

 

[Grizzly]

Easy, it isn't the same science. Airplanes were not made in the devonian. It is assumption that is used for the past.

It is the same method. Emperical validation and hypothesis testing. Not blindly believing ancient manuscripts as if they were science books.

 

[dlamberth]

That, my friend, is NOT "creation" as bible believers comprehend it. To mentally sail past creation, therefore is absolutely omitting God from man's knowledge!

Science, when practiced with no mention of God either for or otherwise, if the story were true, would of it's own accord begin to learn towards creation as Bible believers comprehend it. That's not happening. The scientific knowledge gained has opened windows into a different story of Creation.

.

 

[Split Rock]

You don't speak for science you speak for old age belief. I don't worry about implications that there was no creation, I look at the evidence, and it fits nip and tuck with it, despite your imaginary implications we basically are self created.

You said earlier that creationism cannot be falsified.. so it is pointless to say it "fits nip and tuck" with anything. It also fits "nip and tuck" with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We who have been touched by his noodlely appendage know the truth that you only dream of.

That is because old agers consider that frame of mind a natural state. People who want children in their country educated with hope and dignity and faith in God, whom they trust do not want kids taught they are self created little animals, and beasts, and reklated to cockcroaches, and there is nothing else but the physical. Period, and they may not tolerate it it much longer.

More dire Spiritual-Only World warnings!

No, it is what millions of bible believers think, that we are in the end times, and big changes are coming..

"Bible Believers?" You mean "Bible Worshippers," don't you. How long have Bible-Worshippers been predicting that the "end-times" are coming?

It is my opinion that part of the reason is that some countries have forsaken Him, and teach fables to the little children whom He loves.

You mean like how a Talking Snake gave a piece of fruit to a Rib-Woman and Adam, the Mud-Man, was thrown out of the garden with the Tree of Life?

Adam lived so lang and begat a son, who lived so long, and begat a son, who....all the way up to recorded history. There are a few famous chronologies there, like Ussher's. Even with a little room for interpretation, the times are clearly within a narrow range.

I asked you where it says in scripture that the earth is 6,000 years old. Don't give me Ussher's interpretations.

That is a conclusion based on some bible fundamental parts to the equation. We know the timeframe. We know the size of the ark. Also science, we know close to how many species of animals and things there are, we know the continents seperated, etc. Any changes or adapting had to be within a certain timeframe. They had to start from creation of the world, and all creatures. We see things like many species of tigers, or elephants, and other things, that would not realistically all fit on the ark.

Again, I didn't ask for "conclusions" based on Young-Age Belief. I want you to tell me where the bible tells us about hyper-evolution after the Flood.

Look, if you believe scripture, we can talk. I can defend my beliefs with the bible.

You mean with your interpretation of the bible. Admit that it is all you have, dad. The truth won't hurt you.

 

[dad]

It is the same method. Emperical validation and hypothesis testing. Not blindly believing ancient manuscripts as if they were science books.

Blindly believing the past was as the present is not emperical! It doesn't produce airplanes! Neither does applying the same method to the future produce ought but dreams! No one cares what the present produces, when it comes to orgins of man. That was not in the present. Of course it is the same process, except misapplied if you try to apply it to the past or future.
I could look at the modern method of surgery. But I can't apply it to the surgery God did on Adam, cause I don't see any surgeuns producing cute, grown women from our ribs. If they existed, a lot of single men might consider having a rib removed.
"A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or emprically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

That which our senses observe does not include the future or far past. For that, we use a DIFFERENT method, it's called guessing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That which our senses observe does not include the future or far past. For that, we use a DIFFERENT method, it's called guessing.

And it's guessing that gets you past last Thursday.

 

[dad]

You said earlier that creationism cannot be falsified.. so it is pointless to say it "fits nip and tuck" with anything. ...

No, it is very relevant. Not only the story that could be false fits with the evidence, but also the story that can't be false! What else we would we expect of a story from God?

"Bible Believers?" You mean "Bible Worshippers," don't you. How long have Bible-Worshippers been predicting that the "end-times" are coming?

Doesn't matter, the antichrist has to come first. No speculation required.

You mean like how a Talking Snake gave a piece of fruit to a Rib-Woman and Adam, the Mud-Man, was thrown out of the garden with the Tree of Life?

Yes, that is the truth.

I asked you where it says in scripture that the earth is 6,000 years old. Don't give me Ussher's interpretations.

Yes, look into it. I explained it well, the geneologies bring us up to modern history pretty close. The sons of Adam up to Noah, then on down from there.

Again, I didn't ask for "conclusions" based on Young-Age Belief. I want you to tell me where the bible tells us about hyper-evolution after the Flood.

Gen 1:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

"
c. First, the serpent is cursed as an animal, because the serpent was used as a vehicle of Satan, and God commanded the serpent to slither on the ground instead of walking on legs like any other animal.
i. Adam and Eve must have been terrified as this once-beautiful creature called a serpent was transformed into the creeping, slithering, hissing snake we know today. They must have thought, "It's our turn next!"

http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=14#Ge3_14

Such rapid transformation began at the fall, as we see clearly here!

You mean with your interpretation of the bible. Admit that it is all you have, dad. The truth won't hurt you.

A lot of things are open to interpretation. A lot aren't. Some things are absolute, as any Christian would know. . .That Jesus, for example died and rose again on the third day. All Christians believe that.

As for bible interpretation, Jesus spoke of the flood, and the time of the garden. Those who say the bible is poetry and fables, and moralizing, etc are not really bible believers. I think it is mainly their interpretaion that you think is at odds with creationists. Of course it is. They don't believe it. At least hardly any of it.

Among bible believers, the range is really not that wide as to opinions of Eden, and the flood, etc. It is fairly clear cut.

For example, the simple fact that heaven is real, and this heavens is temporary, and will pass away. Not a lot of disagreement among bible believers there. That the city is transparent gold, and 1500 miles high, I never heard anyone claim any other height.

 

[dad]

And it's guessing that gets you past last Thursday.

No, that wasn't the 'far' past. Pay attention.

 

[dad]

Science, when practiced with no mention of God either for or otherwise, if the story were true, would of it's own accord begin to learn towards creation as Bible believers comprehend it. That's not happening. The scientific knowledge gained has opened windows into a different story of Creation.

.

Creation is not science. Science is a guppy in the fishbowl of the present, creation is the world the bowl sits on.
The guppies 'different' story of creation is just the fishbowl talking.

 

[caravelair]

No, that wasn't the 'far' past. Pay attention.

nothing existed before last thursday, so that's as far back as "the past" goes. pay attention, dad!

 

[dad]

nothing existed before last thursday, so that's as far back as "the past" goes. pay attention, dad!

OK, your official opinion is noted.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

More Than a Link Is Missing. . .

In Defense of the Faith
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. . ." (1st Timothy 6:21)
The media is all excited about the discovery of what is being called 'the missing link' that it says proves evolution is not just a theory. The 'missing link' has been, (if I may use the term) the Holy Grail of evolutionary science. Although evolutionary science claims all life evolved from simple organisms, no actual evidence has ever been found of a life form in transition.
Most newspapers are proclaiming that the discovery of the fossilized skeletons of a creature dubbed "Tiktaalik roseae" IS, as the Toronto Star proclaimed, the "missing evolutionary link between fish and the first land animals."
To shore up its editorial conclusions, it quoted a Canadian paleontologist (that the Star admitted had no connection to the discovery) named Steve Cumbaa, probably because it was such a catchy sound byte. "These are the first little baby steps on getting animals out of ooze and born to cruise."
The Boston Globe's headline announced that the 'Fossil Discovery Fills in a Piece of the Evolutionary Puzzle." The UK Independent proclaimed, "Scientists Find Missing Link to Land Vertebrates." The London Times called it the "Fish that took the first step for mankind."
It is worth noting that the scientist who actually discovered Tiktaalik roseae is about the only one NOT calling it 'the missing link'. That didn't stop the mainstream media, however.
Noted the New York Times, "While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind."
According to the majority of the news reports, the alleged missing link was a sharp-toothed predator that resembled a crocodile and grew to at least 9 feet in length and it lived 375 million years ago. Dr. Shubin described it as "like a fish that can do a push-up."
In large part, the conclusion that Tiktaalik is the 'missing link' arises from the initial conclusion that it was a fish in the process of turning INTO a crocodile. There appears to be no speculation that the find was a fossil of a previously-undiscovered crocodile-like species of fish, or fish-like species of crocodile, something I find interesting.
The AUTOMATIC assumption is that Tiktaalik is a 'transitional life form' that the New York Times couldn't resist noting 'undercut the creationists.' The Times' noted gleefully that;
"One creationist Web site (to which the Times' helpfully provided the URL http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
Then the Times' goes on to describe Tiktaalik, heavily relying on words like 'if' and 'probably, coupled with phrases like, 'in all likelihood' to make its case that at last, the creationists have been proved wrong.
This is what I find interesting, more than anything else. The desperate lengths to which the secular world is willing to go, and the stretches of logic it is willing to entertain, provided it disproves the Bible or 'undercuts the creationists'
Before returning to the Fish That Took its First Steps for Mankind, let's take a look at another recent scientific 'discovery' for further illustration.
A Florida State University professor made international news with his explanation of how it was that Jesus Christ was able to walk on the surface of the Sea of Galilee.
Noted the Associated Press, "Doron Nof, a professor of oceanography, said a rare combination of water and atmospheric conditions in the Sea of Galilee 2000 years ago may offer a scientific explanation for one of the miracles recounted in the Bible. Nof said a patch of ice floating in the Sea of Galilee - which is actually a freshwater lake - would have been difficult to distinguish from unfrozen water surrounding it."
A 'hard to see' patch of ice! Of course! No wonder the Apostle Peter went under! He missed the iceberg floating in the Sea of Galilee that Jesus was standing on. And, since it was 'hard to see’; none of the Apostles mentioned it in the Gospels.
Or, how about this? Jesus was wearing invisible wires and was being held up by a spacecraft hovering just above the clouds. What about this? Jesus was standing on a rock waiting to see if Peter was dumb enough to jump out of the boat. Or, Jesus was wearing inflatable shoes? Or. . .
The 'discovery' that Jesus walked on a submerged ice floe in the middle of the Sea of Galilee returned 200 headlines in a Google search and made the newspapers on every continent on earth. It has been the subject of discussion on talk shows, call- in radio, and all over the internet.
Sir William of Ockham is credited with developing the logic principle that bears his name, "Occam's Razor." Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
The principle is often expressed in Latin as: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", which translates to: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
People apply Occam's Razor to virtually every question, whether they are aware of it or not. A child is found with his hand in a bag of Oreos. His face is covered with Oreo crumbs. What is the most logical conclusion, based on the observable evidence? Using the logic applied to the 'missing link' or the Galilean ice floe theory, one could just as easily conclude the Oreos were eating the child.
A fossil is discovered of a fish that looks like a crocodile. Science concludes that THIS is the 'missing link'. How would Sir William evaluate that claim? Evolution says ALL life on earth evolved.
With ALL the fossils of ALL the species that EVER lived on this planet, science has discovered, ummm, ONE fossil of ONE previously-undiscovered species and it concludes THAT proves it was in evolutionary transition from fish to land-crawling vertebrate AND that THAT 'undercuts the creationists'? Puhleeze!
After 2,000 years, a scientist concludes there were underwater ice floes on the Sea of Galilee 2,000 years ago that don't exist now and THAT is how Jesus walked on water -- and the theory gets GLOBAL coverage.
Sir William must be spinning in his grave.
As we get closer to the end of this present age, it is important to keep in mind the PURPOSE of the Tribulation Period is two-fold. The primary purpose is to fulfill God's promise of Israel's national redemption in the last days.
The secondary purpose of the Tribulation Period is to exact judgment against the world for its rejection of Christ. The Apostle Paul says that the whole world will come under 'strong delusion' and that the world will embrace the lie because they didn't 'love the truth' of the Gospel.
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2nd Thessalonians 2:10)
The conclusion that a single fossil constitutes concrete evidence of evolution violates every empirical standard of evidence demanded by science. It turns Occam's Razor into a butter knife. But it made headlines, because it 'confirms' the 'truth' preferred by the secular world. That there is no God, and therefore, there is no eternal accountability for the things done in this life.
The conclusion that Jesus walked on ice instead of water is no more scientifically reasonable than the inflatable shoes or the invisible strings. But it was reported by more than 200 newspapers, because it 'confirms' the preferred 'truth' that man is his own supreme being.
But the benefits of that alleged 'truth' also provide concrete evidence of its source;
Another teacher was arrested this week for having sex with a 13-year old student. This makes, umm, what? A gazillion so far this year? Last week, one guy went berserk and shot up a rave party, killing total strangers at random. A couple of days later, another guy opened fire with a shotgun on a California street, shooting several people before being killed by police.
The newspapers are filled with stories of parents killing their children, pornography has the Supreme Court's blessing; 'In God We Trust' is under judicial review. Abortion is as innocuous as an appendectomy and restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is a form of bigotry.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:" (Romans 1:28-31)
Science has its 'theories' -- each more far-fetched than the next -- upon which to base its conclusion that there is no God. These theories defy science's own ethic of using evidence to form theory, forming theory first and then seeking supporting evidence afterward.
The Bible doesn't offer theory. It provides eyewitness testimony. "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYWITNESSES of His majesty." (2nd Peter 1:16)
Science has its theories. On the other hand;
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2nd Peter 1:19-21)
"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy." (Jude 24)