Because the drawings show what the animals looked like when the drawings were made. Check for the dates of drawings like you refer to. Then go and read a book on evolution and check the dates in there. Then realise that your point is invalid.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, that's right - prehistoric man... couldn't draw. It just happened, one day... out of the blue. UGH!
Funny, though: human skulls and skeletons always seem to look like HUMAN skulls and skeletons... and ape skulls like APE skulls. With the exception, of course, of those times when "science" finds an unusual or deformed ape skull they can't explain and so SPECULATE that it HAS to be human... or an unusual or deformed human skull... and SPECULATE that... well... ALL humans of the time must have looked so (versus some tribal member who was ostracized from the rest purely BECAUSE of such deformity... many primitive people thinking such was a curse... "by the gods"... which would explain why they always only find ONE... and not a tribe of 'em... and then, its always way out in the boondocks of whatever continent they find it on...)
And well, of course, since THEY (scientists) say so... it must BE so. (And yet, some of these same ones... and their followers... chide people who follow religious science... for putting their belief in a written, illustrated, recorded history... as being followers of myths and tales... while scientists tend to use those very same writings, illustrations and records to support their findings. Can we spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s"?)
Things that make you go "hmmmm"....
Again, your point is invalid. We have observed cases of speciation taking place around us.
And yet, the new species is STILL of the same GENUS. Heck, we've even cloned sheep! But a sheep... is STILL a sheep. Now, when they start cloning rabbits into, say, deer... THEN you've got an argument. (Why rabbits and deer? Because although a different SPECIES... they originate from the same GENUS. So, of course, it should be NOTHING to have a little rabbit, say, over time, "evolve" into a moose, yes?). I'm waiting...
If you’re making a big thing about ‘PROOF’, where is yours? In fact, define 'PROOF'.
"Proof," would be TRUE evidence, not that which is speculation or contrived. At least, that is my definition for purposes of this discussion. Now, MY 'proof' is in earthling man himself: what you see now held up against what has been written, illustrated and recorded about him... then. No change. You mention timeframes. Okay, MY timeframe is the recorded history of man, whether from the Hebrews, the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Africans, the Aborigines, Native Americans... what have you. All have pretty much the same recorded history, at least in terms of timeframe, give or take a couple thousand years. Now YOUR timeframe... has none. You got something to show me from a million years ago? No? A hundred thousand years ago? No? Ten thousand years ago? No? Hmmmm...
"... it is in fact SCIENCE... that proves the existence of God... much more in any form... than religion. Should the two get together, would they ultimately "find" God? Nope!""
I wonder why...
I said why: "science cannot fathom that which it cannot prove empirically..." You do remember that folks... no, let me be specific... SCIENTISTS... were CERTAIN that the earth was flat, don't you? And that man could/would never fly? That the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it? That all animals were dumb (and I don't mean "mute")? You remember what SCIENTISTS thought BEFORE understanding tetonic plate movement and BEFORE understanding the formation of the solar system and BEFORE understanding that the universe was expanding, etc., etc., etc.?
To say that science has never been wrong... is to say that the WTBTS has never been wrong. Both contain more "new light" that the entire universe itself can hold.
You mean religionists...
Be careful... because IF you knew your science, you would know that more scientists believe in God than don't... more surgeons and physicians do than don't... that in fact the greatest among these do... and simply refrain from comment on the subject based (1) on their faith, and (2) their inability to explain what cannot, from the sole point of science BE explained... which is, to me, quite wise, give their respective professions.
But if by "religionists" you are meaning ME... you are in total error: I do not believe in religion, I do not support religion, I do not apologize for religion... and would be quite happy to see it go. For all it is to ME... is a means by which deceitful people mislead otherwise good and well-intentioned people... into following them and their beliefs... versus the One who gave his life so that we would follow him... and him only. Which One condemned religion.
persist in making specific claims that they cannot support and get all bent out of shape when scientists point out they have no evidence?
I'm sorry... but methinks you are "calling the kettle 'black'" here. Yes, methinks you are. For in truth, if we are comparing science... and RELIGION... neither have any 'proof': science in evolution of man from apes... and religion in the existence of God. For you cannot see God... heck, you cannot even FIND Him... through either.
Provide one Biblical proof that shows that god would be unprovable in the modern age.
By "science", and since we've included it, by "religion"? Sure! Certainly! In fact, I'll give you a few:
Matthew 13:13-15; Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2; Mark 4:12; John 12:40
But, I did not say that God was "unprovable"... in this age or any other. (Although I did make comment elsewhere about folks who take one thing said and its implied meaning and turn into something completely different, usually for the sake of pure contention - and I invite you to look for that and read it...). He is, in fact, QUITE provable.
Provide explainations of why our sexual biology is incompatible with Biblical moral codes
Now, here, I would have to advise you to speak... for yourself. Just because YOU may not be able to control yourself doesn't mean EVERYONE can't. Personally, I don't necessarily agree with your assertion, as I know MANY people who adhere to the "code" (which is their right to do so, if they so chose. It is not their right, however, to impose it upon others...)
And for those that can't or don't adhere to it... those who do not possess such self-control... and quite possibly by choice as much as my inability... but may possess other strengths that those who DO have such self-control do not possess - like... kindness... mildness... FAITH - there is forgiveness by means of Christ so that they don't have to go around hang-dog and condemning theirselves.
Doesn't matter if others condemn you (unless, of course, they have received holy spirit and judge by means of that - but even then, THEY must themselves be careful, for by whatever means THEY judge... they will BE judged - so that the BEST course is to judge none... but forgive ALL). What matters is whether your own conscience condemns you so that you cannot stand "clean" before the Holy One of Israel... which
"cleansing" can only come by means of holy spirit... "living water"... which water, by means of baptism with it... can clean even the spirit. But this is only done by means of the One who has authority to grant such "living water"... the Son of God, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH.
But, perhaps that's not what you were getting at... or wanted to hear. Only you can say...
Peace to you.
A slave of Christ,