Scientist are having to explain nature without appealing to a higher power.
You make a huge and inaccurate assumption: that one must appeal to a higher power. Good scientists use the simplest explanation possible that fully explains the results. Appealing to a higher power is a more complex explanation because one must then prove the higher power exists and that can not be done scientifically.
Not even evolution is allowed to be called any more than chance and happenstance.
This statement is false. Chance (and happenstance) is only a small part of the process and thus characterizing evolution as chance is at best a distortion of reality.
You have no explaination for why life arose, I in the belief of a God do.
You make another huge assumption: that there is a reason "why". Life is. Why do you need a "why"?
how do bones show any bearing on my life now? even IF evolution is true, what is it to me? How does it help me pay the bills? What can it give to me in trying to teach my children morals and kindness? why would i care about what you have to say regarding where I came from?
All of these questions can be validly reversed:
How does an ancient "holy" book show any bearing on my life now? (Other than helping create a hateful society.) Even IF the Bible is true, what is it to me? (Other than showing god to be erratic and/or malevolent.) How does it help me pay the bills? (It doesn't.) What can it give to me in trying to teach my children morals and kindness? (It can't unless one is careful to cherry pick small portions.) Why would I care about what you have to say regarding where I came from? (Since you don't accept reality.)
The claim that there is no God, I can do what I want. I look at the REAL world. Being people and how they interact with each other and ask you. Is that not the very statement being made throughout our culture? Nobody appeals to a higher power for accountability. Those of us who do are mocked and ridiculed, all the while society falls apart around us.
I am not so weak that I need a God to provide a morality.
There are questions I had that were unanswerable through evolution. Such as the basics in journalism, who what when where and why. If we can't apply those questions to evolution and answer them, how can we claim evolution is true?
Why does there need to be a "who"?
What, when and where are answered.
Why does there need to be a "why"?
I claim it is because there is a Designer. The very fact that the rules don't change suggests there is something Keeping them from changing. You live your life in the belief that Gravity will hold you to the surface of the earth. why, if chaos and randomness created this, how can you be sure they wont change at any moment? It is because you believe there is "something" keeping them this way. Allow me to introduce to to that "something" I call Him God
You have this strange idea that the universe on its own would be chaos and randomness. IF that were true, something/someone would be needed to maintain things. But ONLY if you believe the weird idea that the universe is chaos.
Evolution does not subjest itself to the same rules the above sciences do. Evolution begins with the premise that it has already been proven.
It hasn't. What has been proven is adaptation, speciation, genetic drift.
The issue I have with this is the gene transfer necessary to produce new animals.
The first two statements here are false. And I see you've been listening to Kent Hovind. He has progressed to the outright lie that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. The contrary is true: natural selection is the core of evolution. Similarly, adaptation, speciation and genetic drift are crucial central components of evolution since they are parts of natural selection.
at the very beginning of his treatise vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Robert Carrol observes " most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradual account" of evolution. Yet Darwins theory requires it. It is the heart and soul of the theory.
Not true. Darwin's initial theory might have needed it but we have modified it to match reality. Catastrophic circumstances can cause a far more rapid change – most often extinction of some species while other formerly marginal ones thrive. And as I stated above, natural selection
is the "heart and soul of the theory" of evolution.
Heredity requires genes to be present before they can be passed, they must be present in the parent.
Or a mutation occurs in either gamete cell or the zygote.
Natural selection requires the progeny to be better than the parent.
False. This displays a total lack of understanding of natural selection. Natural selection will eliminate any progeny that are not equally adapted
to the environment they are living in. If there are changes to the environment, then mutations can prosper even if the parent would not have.
there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.
Seriously? This is a load of fecal matter. This is what you could learn by watching the Simpsons opening credits – and that's supposed to be a humorous version of evolution.
1. The Intrinsic value of Life
2. The Intrinsic Belief that Man has purpose
3. The Intrinsic difference between man and animals
4. The Intrinsic ability to see Good and Evil
5. The Intrinsic ability to Choose to do good or evil
6. The Intrinsic Belief in "A Moral Code"
What are each of these things? In other words, don't just claim they exist, tell us what they are. What, when, where?
If you really believe the phycology behind atheistic evolution, then I am sad for you.
(bold mine) Why is the study of algae such a problem?
Elsewhere you have said that you don't "believe" in evolution. I used to believe in evolution. Then I read more about it and realized the flaw. A knowledgeable person understands
evolution. You can only believe or not believe in evolution ONLY if you do not understand
Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and their ilk are not the people to listen to since they will mislead you if you are lucky. Both named men have lied outright in their discourses about evolution. Read Darwin and Richard Dawkins if you actually want to know about evolution. If you don't want to know about it, you should not enter into discussions about it.