Evolution is just a theory!

[lucaspa]

Genesis is just a pseudo-biographical story written by the priest for the scattered Israelite audience. This should be obvious to common sense, but religious superstition causes man to suspend common sense mistaking it for faith.

Colter, Genesis 1 was composed by what Biblical scholars call the "Priestly source", as opposed to Genesis 2:4 - 3 which comes from the "J" or "Yahwist" source.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

But you are correct, Genesis 1 was written (probably) by Judaic priests either during or soon after the Babylonian exile. The purpose was to reassure the Hebrews that Yahweh existed. I would suggest comparing Genesis 1 to the Babylonian creation story the Enuma Elish. You will quickly see that Genesis 1 destroys the Babylonian gods in the order of their appearance. The destruction happens because each of the Babylonian gods is tied to a particular part of the natural world. Tiamet and Apsu -- the first gods to appear in the Enuma Elish -- are the god and goddess, respectively, of salt and sweet (fresh) water. What's the first thing God does? Separates the water into salt and fresh. You can't be a god if what you are god of is created by a deity. Apsu and Tiamet's son is dry land. Guess what is the 2nd thing Genesis 1 has God creating? Ever wonder why plants are created before the sun? Makes no sense from either common sense or science. But the chief Babylonian god is Marduk, and he is god of plants. His younger sister is goddess of the sun.

The Hebrew audience of the day would have understood Genesis 1 immediately: asserting the sole existence and supremacy of Yahweh as opposed to the gods of the country that conquered them. Genesis 1 is a victim of its own success. It succeeded so well in establishing Yahweh as the only deity that monotheism is so well established that people like AV don't understand the story now. So now AV tries to make Genesis 1 be literal history (and science) when it was never meant to be that.

The sad thing is that, in the process, AV and those like him have stopped listening to God. Now they dictate to God, telling God how He had to create.

 

[lucaspa]

You didn't address the issue of the 'how' of Darwinist evolution which claims that a willy-nilly process produced all life we observe on earth today. You have no evidence for such a view, therefore you ignore your inability to provide proof.

First, Darwinian evolution is not "willy-nilly". Natural selection is a two-step process:
1. Variation
2. Selection

Variation is "random" with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. I.e, in a climate growing warmer, just as many deer are born with longer fur as shorter fur.

Selection is pure determinism. Only the deer with shorter fur will do well in the new climate. Therefore, over generations, the population will change to only shorter fur.

Second, the "proof" is out there. It's a good debating trick to say the poster did not provide evidence sufficient for you, and thus imply the evidence does not exist. But it is not a truthful thing to do if you care about truth and reality.

The evidence is there. Darwin started with a lot of it in Origin of Species. Have you read it? If not, then you should before making such dishonest statements as "you have no evidence". You also must read a good evolutionary biology textbook. I recommend Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. Again, if you've made no effort to do so, then you cannot make statements like "you have no evidence". Finally, you can go to Google scholar and enter "evolution" as your search term:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,33&as_sdtp=

There are 4,860,000 results. There is the evidence. Bon appetit

 

[lucaspa]

You keep making these worthless claims with no support. There is no evidence, none, for Darwinist evolution. Simply saying "there is plenty of evidence for evolution" are just empty words.

The words are only "empty" because you don't take the minimal time and effort to look for the evidence. Please read my previous post. I will repeat just one source of evidence: go to Google scholar and enter "evolution" as your search term:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,33&as_sdtp=

There are 4,860,000 results. They contain the testing, and evidence for, evolution. Start reading. Get back to us when you are done. Bon appetit.

 

[justlookinla]

First, Darwinian evolution is not "willy-nilly". Natural selection is a two-step process:
1. Variation
2. Selection

No, natural selection isn't a two step process. Natural selection only acts on an existing life form, it doesn't create new ones.

The willy-nilly part of Darwinist evolution is random mutation.

Variation is "random" with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. I.e, in a climate growing warmer, just as many deer are born with longer fur as shorter fur.

Deer aren't born with longer or shorter fur because of natural selection. The longer or shorter fur was the result of random mutation and after that natural selection either populated, or de-populated, the deer with the longer or shorter hair.

Selection is pure determinism. Only the deer with shorter fur will do well in the new climate. Therefore, over generations, the population will change to only shorter fur.

It won't unless random mutation 'creates' deer with shorter fur. Without the 'creation' by random mutation, there's nothing to natural select.

Second, the "proof" is out there.

I've heard this claim hundreds of times now. Not a single time has evidence been offered, based on the scientific method, for Darwinist evolution. 100% of the time it's been empty claim after empty claim...such as yours. Simply saying "the proof is out there" is worthless without actual evidence.

It's a good debating trick to say the poster did not provide evidence sufficient for you, and thus imply the evidence does not exist. But it is not a truthful thing to do if you care about truth and reality.

Give the evidence, based on the scientific method. Simple as that.

The evidence is there.

An empty and worthless claim.

Darwin started with a lot of it in Origin of Species. Have you read it? If not, then you should before making such dishonest statements as "you have no evidence". You also must read a good evolutionary biology textbook. I recommend Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. Again, if you've made no effort to do so, then you cannot make statements like "you have no evidence". Finally, you can go to Google scholar and enter "evolution" as your search term:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,33&as_sdtp=

There are 4,860,000 results. There is the evidence. Bon appetit

LOL. Links are evidence? Well, I have (per google) 45,800,000 links which prove that God exists.

The thing is, you'll not actually offer content, choosing instead to offer empty and worthless claims.

 

[Job8]

Christians just make stuff up, that's how the Jews ended up with so many cumbersome rules and regulations which were not from God.

Not sure where you come up with all this, but you really have no evidence for these assertions. Why don't you just read the Bible, and ignore the Christians? Or do you believe that the Bible is just a mishmash of tales, legends, fables, and fantasies?

 

[Colter]

You didn't address the issue of the 'how' of Darwinist evolution which claims that a willy-nilly process produced all life we observe on earth today. You have no evidence for such a view, therefore you ignore your inability to provide proof.



Your claim is supported by nothing but your own fertile imagination.



If you go back and read my post, you'll find I referred to the Urantia book....which you apparently worship.

I'm not a Darwinist, you made that claim. I believe that primitive life forms, that evolved into life as we know it, was planted and fostered by celestial beings under the authority of the Son of God some 550,000,000 years ago. I believe "will conscious man" sprang onto the scene "suddenly" from their primate parents some 1,000,000 years ago.

In short, God created the world through the technique of "cosmic evolution". The creation story of the Hebrews was one of many in circulation at the time. They didn't know any better, it was an enchanted age with no science.

 

[Colter]

Not sure where you come up with all this, but you really have no evidence for these assertions. Why don't you just read the Bible, and ignore the Christians? Or do you believe that the Bible is just a mishmash of tales, legends, fables, and fantasies?

I have plenty of evidence for the facts I assert about this earth, Bible worshipers are just incapable of facing reality.

 

[Colter]

Colter, Genesis 1 was composed by what Biblical scholars call the "Priestly source", as opposed to Genesis 2:4 - 3 which comes from the "J" or "Yahwist" source.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

But you are correct, Genesis 1 was written (probably) by Judaic priests either during or soon after the Babylonian exile. The purpose was to reassure the Hebrews that Yahweh existed. I would suggest comparing Genesis 1 to the Babylonian creation story the Enuma Elish. You will quickly see that Genesis 1 destroys the Babylonian gods in the order of their appearance. The destruction happens because each of the Babylonian gods is tied to a particular part of the natural world. Tiamet and Apsu -- the first gods to appear in the Enuma Elish -- are the god and goddess, respectively, of salt and sweet (fresh) water. What's the first thing God does? Separates the water into salt and fresh. You can't be a god if what you are god of is created by a deity. Apsu and Tiamet's son is dry land. Guess what is the 2nd thing Genesis 1 has God creating? Ever wonder why plants are created before the sun? Makes no sense from either common sense or science. But the chief Babylonian god is Marduk, and he is god of plants. His younger sister is goddess of the sun.

The Hebrew audience of the day would have understood Genesis 1 immediately: asserting the sole existence and supremacy of Yahweh as opposed to the gods of the country that conquered them. Genesis 1 is a victim of its own success. It succeeded so well in establishing Yahweh as the only deity that monotheism is so well established that people like AV don't understand the story now. So now AV tries to make Genesis 1 be literal history (and science) when it was never meant to be that.

The sad thing is that, in the process, AV and those like him have stopped listening to God. Now they dictate to God, telling God how He had to create.

Thanks Lucaspa, we are in agreement on some things. The sad part of the Old Testament redactions is that there was more there that would have made more sense but the priestly redactors were under pressure as the Israelites were once again in captivity.

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis makes no claim to have been written by God, the church government makes that claim.

It's not a "church government" that makes the claim, but rather a subset of Christians who originally called themselves "Fundamentalists" or can be called Biblical literalists. I suggest you look up the series of pamphlets published from 1910 through 1915 entitled "The Fundamentals". http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Torrey - The Fundamentals 1.pdf

There are Fundamentalists in most Christian denominations and some denominations -- like the Congretationalist Methodist Church -- are Fundamentalist.

Even though Biblical criticism is a relatively young discipline as the disgraceful church used to kill, torture and silence critics

Please document that. Lots of Biblical "critics" over the centuries that did exegesis -- starting with St. Augustine, and including John Calvin and John Wesley. So no, there has not been that much killing, torture, and silencing that I am aware of.

The "modern" era of Biblical scholarship started about 1700. It's about that time that the idea that there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis 1-3 was first mooted. What is called "Higher Criticism" started in the mid-1800s.

we have known for a long time that the books were redacted and edited by multiple unnamed authors.

That is misleading. What do you mean by "the books"? No one that I know is suggesting, for instance, that the gospels or the genuine Pauline letters were "redacted and edited by multiple unnamed authors". Even for the Pentateuch, there is only a single redactor proposed, as far as I know. While Biblical literalism and Mosaic authorship of all the Pentateuch is not correct, many of the statements you are making are also not correct.

 

[lucaspa]

The sad part of the Old Testament redactions is that there was more there that would have made more sense but the priestly redactors were under pressure as the Israelites were once again in captivity.

As I said, the Documentary Hypothesis proposes a single redactor for the Pentateuch. Ezra has been hypothesized. Mostly what the redactor did was tie P, J, and D together into a single narrative. An example is Exodus 20:10 where the redactor ties the Commandment of the sabbath to Genesis 1.

MOST of the OT, IMO, should be looked at in the light of the Hebrews' reaction to the Babylonian Conquest. In the thinking of the day, the existence and power of a deity was tied to the success of the nation that deity(ies) was associated with. Notice in Exodus that there is no denial of the existence of the Egyptian gods; it is just that Yahweh is more powerful. Also note in Psalms and elsewhere that the argument for Yahweh's existence is tied to His promises to establish Israel and to Israel's continued political and economic success.

And then the roof fell in. The Babylonians not only defeat Israel in battle, not only conquer the country, but take many of the citizens into captivity as slaves. 10 of 12 tribes of Israel disappear entirely into the maw. This is a theological disaster that we cannot fathom today. By all the standards of the day, the Hebrews should have admitted that Yahweh was so weak and powerless that it didn't exist, and they all should have converted to the Babylonian religion (as a more modern example of this thinking, look how the Aztecs converted en masse to Christianity after the conquest by the Conquistadors).

But the Hebrews don't convert. They hold to Yahweh in spite of the evidence. It is during this period where most of the OT is written that we see, for the first time, that the existence of God is not tied to the fortunes of country. What we see in the OT is a number of different hypotheses for answers for the disaster while keeping Yahweh. Job is one possible answer. The prophets (Israel was wicked) is another. Genesis 1 reasserts the primacy of Yahweh over the Babylonian gods. The Flood stories in Genesis 6-8 re-work a Babylonian story to make it serve the Hebrews.

And it all WORKS. It is all successful. Fantastically successful. So successful that no one today ties the existence of God into the fortunes of any particular state. When Rome quashed the revolt in 70 AD and dispersed the Jews around the empire, there was no angst or doubt among the Jews about the existence of God. When the Moslems conquered Constantinople, no Christian in the area doubted for second that God and Jesus existed. When Germany was defeated in both World Wars, no German doubted that God exists or converted to other religions. That idea that was universal in 500 BC is just gone. So gone that it takes an effort of will and imagination to put ourselves in the original audience of the OT. But if we don't make that effort, then we miss the messages in the OT. And instead lead ourselves astray by trying to impose our interpretation on it.

 

[lucaspa]

No, natural selection isn't a two step process.

Denial without evidence. Isn't that what you twitted Coulter about? So give us some evidence that natural selection is NOT a two-step process. In the meantime, I'm going to love you arguing with Ernst Mayr:
"The Two Steps of Natural Selection
Step One: The production of Variation. ...
Step Two: Non-random Aspects of Survival and Reproduction"
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS, page 119

That is another book you should add to your reading list.

Natural selection only acts on an existing life form, it doesn't create new ones.

Natural selection transforms existing species into new species. Over the course of generations.

The willy-nilly part of Darwinist evolution is random mutation.
Deer aren't born with longer or shorter fur because of natural selection. The longer or shorter fur was the result of random mutation and after that natural selection either populated, or de-populated, the deer with the longer or shorter hair.

And here you are trying to split the 2 parts of natural selection. You are using "natural selection" only for the selection part. However, even here, you are admitting that selection is going to change the population and produce something new.

You are good at debating tricks. Of course, you just ignore facts when you do. However, what you said is pretty much what I said. The variation is going to introduce novelty. (I can site a bunch of papers documenting where this has been observed, with new traits appearing.) However, not all variation is due to mutations. Recombination and random movement of homologous chromosomes actually provide most of the variation in sexually reproducing organisms. Which shows that there can be a lot of variation, considering that each human has about 20 mutations.

It won't unless random mutation 'creates' deer with shorter fur. Without the 'creation' by random mutation, there's nothing to natural select.

Which is why natural selection is a 2-step process. Just because the term is "natural selection", doesn't mean it means only selection! Tell you what, since you have never read Origin of Species, let's see how Darwin put both steps together in natural selection from the conception of the term. I'll bold where each step is:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 103 6th ed.]

Look at the last sentence. Darwin did not call the struggle and preservation (selection) "natural selection". He called the whole thing, including variation, natural selection.

I've heard this claim hundreds of times now. Not a single time has evidence been offered, based on the scientific method, for Darwinist evolution. 100% of the time it's been empty claim after empty claim...such as yours. Simply saying "the proof is out there" is worthless without actual evidence.

What I gave you were sources that have the studies using the scientific method. Or, in the case of Google scholar, actually are the evidence based on the scientific method. What do you think scientific publications are, anyway? They are the "actual evidence". That you won't even try to read them, but post this denial, shows that you are not interested in reality. If you won't look at the evidence when people point you right at it, then you are trying to peddle false witness.

LOL. Links are evidence? Well, I have (per google) 45,800,000 links which prove that God exists.

Did those links use the scientific method. The ones I gave did. Since I'm not arguing against God, your argument is irrelevant. You did notice my faith, right?

I will give you a few examples. But they are a molecule in the bucket compared to all the evidence out there. It won't make any difference to you, because you have already demonstrated how dishonest you are. But they may be interesting to the other readers.

New species by natural selection (in the lab):
G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.
The experiment tested whether speciation happens due to natural selection or the neutral theory. The neutral theory of speciation states that a new mutation establishes the species, and then the environment changes the new species. Natural selection says, of course, that changes in a new environment due to natural selection will produce a new species. Species here are populations that don't freely interbreed and, when they rarely interbreed, the hybrid offspring have lower sterility and survivability in the environment than the parent species.

They captured 600 parents from a natural population in Cephalonia, Greece The population was expanded in the lab and then split into separate populations:
1C was kept at 18 degrees C and 43% humidity for the first two years and then at 14 degrees C and 43% humidity for 3 years. (the natural temperature in Greece was 25° C. So this is 40% lower temperature.
1D was kept at 25 degrees C and 90% humidity all 5 years.

These populations were fed cornmeal-sugar-agar. 1D is thus the control population in terms of temperature.

2C was given bread-agar and 2D given meat agar. Both kept at 25 degrees C and 90% humidity. Notice that the normal diet is cornmeal-sugar agar.

Each population started at 300 breeding pairs but was kept at about 1,100 individuals.

Drosophila have a generation time of 1 week. At the end of 5 years (2600 generations) 12 virgin males and females from each population were put in mating chambers and mating observed. Fitness measurements were number of eggs, number hatched, F1 and F2 fitness to live in the various environments. Nine enzymes controlled by single genes were studied by starch gel electrophoresis. These are common metabolic enzymes and I can give the names if required.

Also at the end, then went and caught more native flies from Greece as another control. IF neutral theory is correct, then 1D would be a separate species from the new caught flies.

RESULTS
Flies exhibited a tendency to mate with only those flies of the same population. The exception was 1D, which mated with fresh caught flies from the wild (there goes neutral theory). The tendency was not due to chance. Thus, flies from a common gene pool but kept in different environments show sexual isolation. (Mate preference is one of the isolating mechanisms of new species.)

There was significant reduction in F1 hybrid sterility. That is, taking F1 hybrids from 1C and 1D and breeding them with either 1C or 1D shows a high rate of sterility. The F1 hybrids can't get pregnant or cause a female to get pregnant. When F1 and F2 hybrids are placed in the special environments, their viability drops to only 15% of that of the parents in that environment. That is, the hybrids can't survive as well. However, the F1 hybrids from 1D and the new caught wild flies had no reduction in hybrid sterility or viability.

When the genes were analyzed 4 of the 9 genes were the same in all populations. The other showed a genetic difference of 3% between 1C and 2C, 1D and 2C, 1C and 2D, 2.5% between 1C and 1D. Note that the difference between the same genes in humans and chimps is < 1%.
CONCLUSION:
Three new species of flies evolved due to natural selection. Each of them had new capabilities absent in the parents. One was a species that can live in a much colder climate. The other 2 now have new diets. So 3 species never seen before. I suggest you remember the title of Darwin's book: Origin of Species.

 

[lucaspa]

When I was doing the post above, justlookinla, I found another reason why your request is such a good debating trick but is a way to avoid the truth. Christian Forums has a character limitation on posts. So I literally cannot post all the evidence here. The site won't let me go into the detail on methodology and results you get if you go read those papers on Google Scholar.

Example 2:
D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198909)43:6<1308:RIAACO>2.0.CO;2-K

Gee, you can actually read this one for yourself and see how they used the scientific method. Just click on the link. Ah, but you don't do that, do you? After all, that would really screw up your "there is no evidence" claim.

This experiment lasted a year, so there were 52 generations. Dodd separated the original population into 3. The controls were fed fruit. One was fed malt. The other was fed potatoes (starch). Actually, 4 populations were put on the malt diet, and 4 on the starch. Dodd wanted to see if the adaptations to the different diets were the same between populations. Initially, there was a huge die-off in the 2 experimental populations. It took months to establish healthy populations. Makes sense, since Drosophila does not eat those foods; so most of the flies starved to death.

At the end of the experiment Dodd had 2 new species. The 3 populations did not interbreed One common creationist trick is to say: "but they were still fruit flies". Ah, but NO! Now there are "malt" flies and "starch flies. Brand new abilities. By natural selection. What is more, there are changes in the morphology of the mouth as well as major changes in the digestive enzymes.

Example 3:
This one is from paleontology.
PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987.
Trilobites are CLASS of invertebrates with at least 13 ORDERS. To put this in perspective, Mammals are also a Class and they have 20 Orders.

Sheldon found a very rich fossil bed of Ordovician trilobites. "Here I report some of the first detailed evidence of phyletic gradualism in benthic macroinvertebrates, based on a study of ~15,000 trilobites from central Wales. Over a period of about three million years, as many as eight lineages underwent a net increase in the number of pygidial ribs, a species-diagnostic character." He also did a rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens.
Conclusions:
1. Based on the biometric study, he found gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
2. The number of pygidial ribs tracked from species to new species. The track led to new genera, new families, and even to a new order. Within mammals, the equivalent would be tracking the evolution of arterodactyls to whales (which as also been done). Arterodactyls and whales are in separate orders.

I can continue to do this for quite a while. 4,680,000 sites, remember? However, I gave you the sources where you can do this for yourself.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not a Darwinist, you made that claim. I believe that primitive life forms, that evolved into life as we know it, was planted and fostered by celestial beings under the authority of the Son of God some 550,000,000 years ago. I believe "will conscious man" sprang onto the scene "suddenly" from their primate parents some 1,000,000 years ago.

In short, God created the world through the technique of "cosmic evolution". The creation story of the Hebrews was one of many in circulation at the time. They didn't know any better, it was an enchanted age with no science.

Basically what you have is successive creations.

The scientific data refutes the claim. The oldest fossils of "primitive life" are 3.8 billion years old. The 550 million years corresponds to the Cambrian, so "primitive life" would be multicellular with hard body parts. But the Eidacaran fossils are several hundred million years older and there are fossils of multicellular animals dating back 1 billion years now.

Remember I mentioned those series of transitional individuals? Well, one of them happens to be in the hominid lineage. There are transitional individuals linking us (H. sapiens) back to H. heidelbergensis (which is actually just a collection of transitionals) to H. ergastor to H. habilis to H. afarensis. No "suddenly". And A. afarensis is 3 million years ago.

I'm interested to see how you react to science falsifying your creation story. Are you going to be like justlookinla and deny everything?

 

[Doveaman]

God's Creation lead to God's Great Flood.

Rejection of God led to the Great Flood.

Didn't you read the Memo?

God's Great Flood brutally killed all but a few people, including young children and even embryos.

That's like saying Boeing's Great Plane killed all the passengers.

It wasn't Boeing's fault. It was pilot error.

That probably wasn't very comforting to the mothers who saw their daughters buried alive in a mud slide.

Those mothers were atheists.

Nothing about God's creation is comforting to an atheist.

 

[lucaspa]

LOL. Links are evidence? Well, I have (per google) 45,800,000 links which prove that God exists.

I just noted this Red Herring fallacy. I pointed you to Google Scholar. You responded with Google. Not the same thing, is it? Apples and oranges. Try this search on Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=God+exists&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33

So, only 1.8 million articles. What is more, as I look at the first page, only 2 of the articles deal with proof of the existence of God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just noted this Red Herring fallacy. I pointed you to Google Scholar. You responded with Google. Not the same thing, is it? Apples and oranges. Try this search on Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=God+exists&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33

So, only 1.8 million articles. What is more, as I look at the first page, only 2 of the articles deal with proof of the existence of God.

You should be aware, but justlookinla suffers from a very severe form of cognitive dissonance in that he will not look at ANY form of evidence given to him, then he will claim that he has not been shown any evidence and declare that his strawman version of evolution is correct.

 

[Colter]

Basically what you have is successive creations.

The scientific data refutes the claim. The oldest fossils of "primitive life" are 3.8 billion years old. The 550 million years corresponds to the Cambrian, so "primitive life" would be multicellular with hard body parts. But the Eidacaran fossils are several hundred million years older and there are fossils of multicellular animals dating back 1 billion years now.

Remember I mentioned those series of transitional individuals? Well, one of them happens to be in the hominid lineage. There are transitional individuals linking us (H. sapiens) back to H. heidelbergensis (which is actually just a collection of transitionals) to H. ergastor to H. habilis to H. afarensis. No "suddenly". And A. afarensis is 3 million years ago.

I'm interested to see how you react to science falsifying your creation story. Are you going to be like justlookinla and deny everything?

.

Two points. The first being that some scientist are rethinking the 3.5 million year old fosils as not being life forms. OR, they could be a form of life that came in from asteroids from distant solar systems disrupted by cataclysmic events, free wonderers of space. But at least it's fair to say that nothing appears to have happened between the 3.8 date and the Cambrian explosion. Seems odd.

 

[mickiio]

You should be aware, but justlookinla suffers from a very severe form of cognitive dissonance in that he will not look at ANY form of evidence given to him, then he will claim that he has not been shown any evidence and declare that his strawman version of evolution is correct.

And Warden suffers from only being able to flame instead of refuting arguments.

I just noted this Red Herring fallacy. I pointed you to Google Scholar. You responded with Google. Not the same thing, is it? Apples and oranges. Try this search on Google Scholar:


So, only 1.8 million articles. What is more, as I look at the first page, only 2 of the articles deal with proof of the existence of God.

Of course! Why would an atheist/Darwin Evolutionist, who believes in a theory that goes against the Laws of Physics, Laws of Mathematics and Laws of Nature publish an article that his cohorts would scoff at?

 

[Colter]

It's not a "church government" that makes the claim, but rather a subset of Christians who originally called themselves "Fundamentalists" or can be called Biblical literalists. I suggest you look up the series of pamphlets published from 1910 through 1915 entitled "The Fundamentals". http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Torrey - The Fundamentals 1.pdf

There are Fundamentalists in most Christian denominations and some denominations -- like the Congretationalist Methodist Church -- are Fundamentalist.


Please document that. Lots of Biblical "critics" over the centuries that did exegesis -- starting with St. Augustine, and including John Calvin and John Wesley. So no, there has not been that much killing, torture, and silencing that I am aware of.

The "modern" era of Biblical scholarship started about 1700. It's about that time that the idea that there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis 1-3 was first mooted. What is called "Higher Criticism" started in the mid-1800s.


That is misleading. What do you mean by "the books"? No one that I know is suggesting, for instance, that the gospels or the genuine Pauline letters were "redacted and edited by multiple unnamed authors". Even for the Pentateuch, there is only a single redactor proposed, as far as I know. While Biblical literalism and Mosaic authorship of all the Pentateuch is not correct, many of the statements you are making are also not correct.

Church government or church authority or religious authority, take your pick. Scripture has been the foundation of authority for religions sense the medicine man and shamans. People do it here all the time. It's understandable but strictly a social religious institution, not mandated by God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And Warden suffers from only being able to flame instead of refuting arguments.

How is it flaming when it's the truth?
I have seen many threads before I joined where justlookinla has been given credible evidence in the form of internet links, videos and book recommendations, and then he goes "Those aren't evidence."