Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Hoghead1]

I agree with your point, Lastheor, that artists change their styles. Picasso is a prime example, so, too, Beethoven, who wrote every symphony differently. And that is a prime example of evolution. Artists continually evolve. No painter paints twice. And this is also true of ourselves. No thinker thinks twice. We are all continually evolving.
I don't agree, however, with your point about god not being people. I believe all knowing is analogous knowing; we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Now if there is one thing I am most familiar with, it is human existence. So unless there is a genuine uniformity or analogy between ourselves and god, we haven't got a clue who or what God really is.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Evolution dos snot at all propose that, Sister in Christ. Look, I realize you are out to ridicule evolution. However, truth is, you have neither the qualifications nor the credentials to do so. You are in no position to sit in judgment on mainstream science, period. And I find it quite arrogant on your part for you to assume your knowledge and approach is superior to that found in mainstream science. Also, you appear to know little about the world of art. You say you don't know why Picasso would paint such different pictures. However, that topic has been amply covered in and Art 101 course. Furthermore, had you taken a basic course in art, you would see that yes, art does evolve over time. For example, in the 19th century, with the invention of pistons, brass instruments underwent a terrific evolution.

Art evolves over time. Fact.
Every single piece of art is different. Fact.
Every single piece of art shares similarities. Fact.

Yet, every single piece of art has an artist.

I'm not a molecular biologist, and I skipped most of art 101. While I do have a degree in horticulture, and have a pretty thorough understanding of botany, I'm not a world-renowned expert.

All that aside, the argument thus far for evolution has looked like this:

Similarities point to evolution. How else do you describe all the similarities? Differences point away from a creator. Why didn't he make everything the same?

Well. Similarities in Picasso's work point to Picasso. And my classes in forensic science would back that up. You can tie them all together by dating methods, origin of materials, whether the artist used his right or left hand, psychology behind subject matter, evolution of the young artist's work to the elder's, etc. While they all look different, you can tie them together.

Now, the differences are pretty easy to explain. The world would be pretty boring if the only piece of artwork was *Three Musicians*. What kind of artist only paints the same thing over and over? Each one serves a different purpose.

So, back to the evolutionary theory. Which would examine all the similarities, and claim it's because they all came from the same painting. Then, people wanted different artwork, and the paintings evolved into many different paintings, and sculptures, and other works, over many years. All without an artist, and happened to produce even more complex and beautiful pieces than before!

You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the latter theory is ridiculous.

Now, if your only reason for believing art is the product of artists is because you have seen art created, then no amount of evidence will change your mind. Even though every conception creates a life, every seed creates a plant, and the entire earth continues to produce life through no input of our own, you refuse to believe there's an artist. That is not a matter of evidence. It's a matter of faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Art evolves over time. Fact.

Art does not fall into a nested hierarcy. Fact.

Life does fall into a nested hierarchy. Fact.

Like I said, creationists always ignore this fact. Evolution isn't evidenced by shared features. It is evidenced by the nested hierarchy. Until you incorporate this fact into your arguments, they will continue to miss the mark.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Art does not fall into a nested hierarcy. Fact.

Life does fall into a nested hierarchy. Fact.

Like I said, creationists always ignore this fact. Evolution isn't evidenced by shared features. It is evidenced by the nested hierarchy. Until you incorporate this fact into your arguments, they will continue to miss the mark.

The nested hierarchy is a tree of classification that all leads back to one source. Except, you don't have the actual source, and you have many gaps. Art could easily fall into a nested hierarchy if you chose to classify it by style, or color, or subject, etc. Just depends on the criteria.

 

[lasthero]

Similarities point to evolution. How else do you describe all the similarities? Differences point away from a creator. Why didn't he make everything the same?

That's not the argument.

It's not just the similarities - it's the PATTERN of similarities.

Well. Similarities in Picasso's work point to Picasso.

Not necessarily. People can and do imitate Picasso all the time. There's nothing in a particular Picasso painting that couldn't have been done by another artist, and Picasso wasn't limited to a single style. He wasn't even limited to paint - he made numerous sculptures.

And my classes in forensic science would back that up. You can tie them all together by dating methods

So dating methods work, now?

origin of materials

People can use the same materials.

While they all look different, you can tie them together.

Then do it.

Take the paintings I showed you an explain how they all tie together.

So, back to the evolutionary theory. Which would examine all the similarities, and claim it's because they all came from the same painting. Then, people wanted different artwork, and the paintings evolved into many different paintings, and sculptures, and other works, over many years. All without an artist, and happened to produce even more complex and beautiful pieces than before!

Evolution makes no such claim. We know paintings don't reproduce - they've never been observed to. Organic beings reproduce all the time.

You don't really have to be a rocket scientist to see that the latter theory is ridiculous.

It would be, but that's not the theory, so...

Now, if your only reason for believing art is the product of artists is because you have seen art created, then no amount of evidence will change your mind. Even though every conception creates a life, every seed creates a plant, and the entire earth continues to produce life through no input of our own, you refuse to believe there's an artist.

Because there's no evidence of one. Life and paintings are fundamentally different things.

 

[lasthero]

Art could easily fall into a nested hierarchy if you chose to classify it by style, or color, or subject, etc. Just depends on the criteria.

Then do it. Take some paintings from an artist and show how they fall into a nested hiearchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

The nested hierarchy is a tree of classification that all leads back to one source. Except, you don't have the actual source, and you have many gaps.

That's not how it works. You take the characteristics from the species you do have and organize them by shared and derived features. You don't need the common ancestor in order to construct a phylogeny.

Art could easily fall into a nested hierarchy if you chose to classify it by style, or color, or subject, etc. Just depends on the criteria.

Then prove it. Show how art falls into an objective nested hierarchy.

What is the first subdivision? Color, subject, or style? Which is objectively more important?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

That's not how it works. You take the characteristics from the species you do have and organize them by shared and derived features. You don't need the common ancestor in order to construct a phylogeny.



Then prove it. Show how art falls into an objective nested hierarchy.

What is the first subdivision? Color, subject, or style? Which is objectively more important?

You're saying you don't need a common ancestor, which your theory relies on. That's a key piece of information.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're saying you don't need a common ancestor, which your theory relies on.

You don't seem to grasp how hypotheses and the scientific method are used in science. Common ancestry is the conclusion, not the data.

Hypothesis: If fossil and living species share a common ancestor, then these species should fall into matching nested hierarchies. The twin nested hierarchies are those based on morphology and those based on DNA sequence.

Test and data: Test to see if physical characteristics and DNA sequences produce objective phylogenies, and see if they match.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

Experimental results: The phylogenies are objective and match.

Conclusion: Species share a common ancestor.

You might as well be arguing that we have to throw out all forensic evidence if we don't have a video showing the suspect producing the forensic evidence. Do we have to have a video of the suspect leaving DNA at a crime scene in order to use that DNA as evidence?

Past events leave evidence that we can test in the present. The fossil record, physical characteristics, and DNA are that evidence, and we use it to test the hypothesis that species share a common ancestor.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

You don't seem to grasp how hypotheses and the scientific method are used in science. Common ancestry is the conclusion, not the data.

Hypothesis: If fossil and living species share a common ancestor, then these species should fall into matching nested hierarchies. The twin nested hierarchies are those based on morphology and those based on DNA sequence.

Test and data: Test to see if physical characteristics and DNA sequences produce objective phylogenies, and see if they match.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

Experimental results: The phylogenies are objective and match.

Conclusion: Species share a common ancestor.

You might as well be arguing that we have to throw out all forensic evidence if we don't have a video showing the suspect producing the forensic evidence. Do we have to have a video of the suspect leaving DNA at a crime scene in order to use that DNA as evidence?

Past events leave evidence that we can test in the present. The fossil record, physical characteristics, and DNA are that evidence, and we use it to test the hypothesis that species share a common ancestor.

So you can infer origins and ancestors based on evidence, but you can't infer a creator based on evidence. Gotcha.

Basically, you can infer the life of DaVinci by his life's work, even though nobody has seen him, but we cannot infer God, because nobody has seen Him. Even though we have evidence for both.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you can infer origins and ancestors based on evidence, but you can't infer a creator based on evidence.

Can you show us a testable hypothesis and the accompanying data that would infer a creator?

Basically, you can infer the life of DaVinci by his life's work, even though nobody has seen him, but we cannot infer God, because nobody has seen Him. Even though we have evidence for both.

What evidence do we have of God?

 

[RickG]

You're saying you don't need a common ancestor, which your theory relies on. That's a key piece of information.

Really, then explain the fossil record without evolution. Common ancestors are not needed. Explain how they got distributed in earth's sedimentary strata by other means than evolution.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Can you show us a testable hypothesis and the accompanying data that would infer a creator?



What evidence do we have of God?

All living organisms share similarities. All living organisms serve a unique purpose. We have seen species interbreeding and creating new species over time.

We know the Bible states God created kinds of animals (beasts of the field, birds of the air, etc.) We also know He created humans apart from them all and in His image. We know there must have been enough genetic diversity in the first humans to have spawned the different races, hair colors, body builds, etc. that we see today. We can assume the same for animals and plants.

Therefore, our hypothesis is that if God created the world in the way He says He did, we would see speciation traceable back to a few common ancestors. People would be a diverse but unique species, and yet we would still see commonalities among all living things because they all have a common Creator. Everything would have a specific function, because God is a God of order. Yet, everything would have a beauty because He is also a God of beauty. We would expect predators and prey due to the fall, and we would expect problems in nature to an extent because it was created perfect, but was also subject to the fall.

We would expect to see ancestors respective to their kinds in the fossil layer, and would expect to see a steady speciation throughout the fossil layer.

The evidence we have supports all these expectations.

Inference? God created the world when and how He claims He did.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Sister in Christ, I am a theologian, so I most emphatically did not say there was no Creator. Please do not put words into my mouth until you fully understand my background. Next, just how did God say he created the world? I seem to remember I sent you a rundown on the contradictions in the Genesis account, which you have yet to address. I also sent you hard evidence why the inerrancy theory of Scripture is highly questionable and why Scripture is not and does not have to be an accurate geophysical witness. This does not mean there is no God, only that the biblical account may not be fully accurate as to how God really works. I have yet to see your response to any of this. If I go to the trouble to send something, I expect a reply. Just in case you lost it, I am sending it again, here.
Your argument seems to be that there is a resemblance among different species, simply because the same God created them, rather than the fact one inherited or evolved from the other. Now, I hold that's a weak argument. Who says God can't change? Scripture ahs over 100 passages that claim God can and dose change his mind. If God is creative, then he is eternally creative and that means God is continually coming up with new ideas. NO thinker thinks twice. no creator creates twice either. Therefore, the similarities are not at all due to the fact God kept the same agenda, but are based on the fact that God was transforming the old into something new and hence was a carry-over form the old. God does not crate out of nothing, but out of something preexistent. God doesn't crate a pot out of nothing, but out of clay, according to the Bible.

1. 
   
   

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[Loudmouth]

All living organisms share similarities.

Living species fall into a nested hierarchy, which is more than just sharing similarities.

We know the Bible states God created kinds of animals (beasts of the field, birds of the air, etc.) We also know He created humans apart from them all and in His image.

We know no such thing. I am asking you for the evidence backing this claim.

Therefore, our hypothesis is that if God created the world in the way He says He did, we would see speciation traceable back to a few common ancestors. People would be a diverse but unique species, and yet we would still see commonalities among all living things because they all have a common Creator.

So what tests would you use to differentiate commonalities produced by common ancestry and commonalities produced by a common Creator in separate species?

Everything would have a specific function, because God is a God of order.

If we show that you can remove DNA from a genome without causing any harm to the organism, would this disprove your claims? How is this claim falsifiable?

We would expect predators and prey due to the fall, and we would expect problems in nature to an extent because it was created perfect, but was also subject to the fall.

What tests are you using to determine that the creation was perfect? If life evolved, you would also expect to see predator and prey. You need a hypothesis that differs from evolution.

We would expect to see ancestors respective to their kinds in the fossil layer, and would expect to see a steady speciation throughout the fossil layer.

How do you determine if a fossil is a common ancestor of two living species?

 

[lasthero]

We would expect to see ancestors respective to their kinds in the fossil layer, and would expect to see a steady speciation throughout the fossil layer.

What's a kind?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Look, Sister in Christ, I am a theologian, so I most emphatically did not say there was no Creator. Please do not put words into my mouth until you fully understand my background. Next, just how did God say he created the world? I seem to remember I sent you a rundown on the contradictions in the Genesis account, which you have yet to address. I also sent you hard evidence why the inerrancy theory of Scripture is highly questionable and why Scripture is not and does not have to be an accurate geophysical witness. This does not mean there is no God, only that the biblical account may not be fully accurate as to how God really works. I have yet to see your response to any of this. If I go to the trouble to send something, I expect a reply. Just in case you lost it, I am sending it again, here.
Your argument seems to be that there is a resemblance among different species, simply because the same God created them, rather than the fact one inherited or evolved from the other. Now, I hold that's a weak argument. Who says God can't change? Scripture ahs over 100 passages that claim God can and dose change his mind. If God is creative, then he is eternally creative and that means God is continually coming up with new ideas. NO thinker thinks twice. no creator creates twice either. Therefore, the similarities are not at all due to the fact God kept the same agenda, but are based on the fact that God was transforming the old into something new and hence was a carry-over form the old. God does not crate out of nothing, but out of something preexistent. God doesn't crate a pot out of nothing, but out of clay, according to the Bible.

1. 
   
   

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

So... you're a theologian who believes God wrote an imperfect book, can't have created something from nothing, and lied about the origins of the earth?

I am doing quite a bit of research on your supposed contradictions, which have actually turned out to be quite harmonious.

I am also talking to an expert in ancient Hebrew who is explaining the origins of every letter, and every thought behind every letter, to fully understand creation.

So far, I haven't been able to find a legitimate contradiction, or any evidence for a figurative interpretation of Genesis.

And, how did you become a theologian who believes God can't do what He says, and doesn't believe the Bible is true? Ignoring part is ignoring it all. Jesus quoted scripture quite confidently. If it's good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for you?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

What's a kind?

Defined by baraminology

 

[Hieronymus]

Christianity is NOT opposed to evolution;

Christianity maybe, nowadays, but the Bible is very clear about God creating all kinds.

it's just creationists cannot respect hermeneutics, the science of understanding how the original audience would have read this passage. Most Sydney Anglican ministers are evangelical, respect the doctrine known as the 'Sufficiency of Scripture', and yet accept evolution.

Because they're too lazy or too worldly to doubt it and look why it is an impossible idea.
And so are you, and so is TS.

You're being bullied into naturalistic fairytales, without proof for which we've been waiting some 150 years now.

You don't seem to realise science has no room for God.
It's outside their paradigm, for obvious and good reasons.
But that obviously does not imply there is nothing outside the scientific pradigm.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Living species fall into a nested hierarchy, which is more than just sharing similarities.


We know no such thing. I am asking you for the evidence backing this claim.

This is what the Bible states, and is the foundation for the hypothesis.


So what tests would you use to differentiate commonalities produced by common ancestry and commonalities produced by a common Creator in separate species?

Why would we need to differentiate? A common Creator created kinds, and they reproduced according to His instruction. Therefore, every commonality is the result of a common Creator.



If we show that you can remove DNA from a genome without causing any harm to the organism, would this disprove your claims? How is this claim falsifiable?

Besides that being impossible... No.


What tests are you using to determine that the creation was perfect? If life evolved, you would also expect to see predator and prey. You need a hypothesis that differs from evolution.

We've already established that your theory needs no evidence of the state of the earth at the origin of life. This theory is based on the oldest historical document known to mankind. Besides that, there is no test, just like there is no test for you either.