Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You might get 10 different testimonies but that does mean they will all contradict each other. For example about 2 months ago my coworker & witnessed a car accident and I called 911 and waited for the police to arrive. After they spoke to the people in the accident and other bystanders I came over and asked if they needed a statement from us. He asked us to describe what we saw and we did and he said no that’s pretty much the same statement we have from all the other eyewitnesses.

You do realise that is different to talking about eye witness statements in a court of law, as you originally said.
Eye witness testimonies, in a court of law, are not considered good sources of evidence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You do realise that is different to talking about eye witness statements in a court of law, as you originally said.
Eye witness testimonies, in a court of law, are not considered good sources of evidence.

Well they’re definitely inconclusive but they they can be helpful in providing other sources of evidence. For example if a witness says the criminal ran around behind a building the police can use that information to potentially find additional evidence at that location.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well they’re definitely inconclusive but they they can be helpful in providing other sources of evidence. For example if a witness says the criminal ran around behind a building the police can use that information to potentially find additional evidence at that location.

But eye witness testimony BY ITSELF, as has been the point of this back and forth, are not conclusive enough nor are grounds for good testimony in a court of law.
Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[BNR32FAN]

But eye witness testimony BY ITSELF, as has been the point of this back and forth, are not conclusive enough nor are grounds for good testimony in a court of law.
Do you understand what I am saying?

I never said that eye witness accounts by themselves are conclusive evidence of God’s existence. Evidence is not always conclusive but can still used in conjunction with other evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Numerous eyewitness testimonies over a 3,500 year span in many cases people risked their lives and endured torture, imprisonment, and even death; along with intelligent design and personal experiences can make for a pretty compelling hypothesis in my opinion. I’m sure you’ll disagree which is fine but don’t expect me to renounce my faith just because you refuse to believe. I’m not expecting you to believe just because I do.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said that eye witness accounts by themselves are conclusive evidence of God’s existence. Evidence is not always conclusive but can still used in conjunction with other evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Numerous eyewitness testimonies over a 3,500 year span in many cases people risked their lives and endured torture, imprisonment, and even death; along with intelligent design and personal experiences can make for a pretty compelling hypothesis in my opinion. I’m sure you’ll disagree which is fine but don’t expect me to renounce my faith just because you refuse to believe. I’m not expecting you to believe just because I do.

Perhaps it is compelling evidence for the existence of God, but the OP was about the possibility of human evolution. The existence of God and His authorship of our being does not, in itself, rule out human evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nah don’t waste your time.

I take that to mean that you cannot give me a sound reason for placing any significant trust in eye witness testimony. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret your phraseology as a colloquialism, rather than provocative insolence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said that eye witness accounts by themselves are conclusive evidence of God’s existence. Evidence is not always conclusive but can still used in conjunction with other evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Numerous eyewitness testimonies over a 3,500 year span in many cases people risked their lives and endured torture, imprisonment, and even death; along with intelligent design and personal experiences can make for a pretty compelling hypothesis in my opinion. I’m sure you’ll disagree which is fine but don’t expect me to renounce my faith just because you refuse to believe. I’m not expecting you to believe just because I do.

One has to separate stories from "eyewitness accounts". Very little of the Bible appears to be eyewitness accounts and the Bible only dates to about 500 BCE. For example the Pentateuch is thought to have reached its final form during the Persian Period, which was from538 to 332 BCE:

Old Testament - Wikipedia

Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. American science writer Homer W. Smith points out similarities between the Genesis creation narrative and that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, such as the inclusion of the creation of the first man (Adam/Enkidu) in the Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a tree of life, and a deceptive serpent.[6] Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[7][t] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[11] and popularized by later writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[12][13] Wells concedes in The Outline of History that "there is a growing flavour of reality in most of" the later books of the Old Testament, describing the stories of David and Solomonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#cite_note-34 as being detailed with "the harshest facts" only a nearly contemporary writer would likely be able to relate.[12] Similarly, Will Durant states in Our Oriental Heritage (1935):

In its outlines, and barring supernatural incidents, the story of the Jews as unfolded in the Old Testament has stood the test of criticism and archeology; every year adds corroboration from documents, monuments, or excavations. ... We must accept the Biblical account provisionally until it is disproved.[14]

In 2007, scholar of Judaism Lester L. Grabbe explained that earlier biblical scholars such as Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) could be described as 'maximalist', accepting biblical text unless it has been disproven. Continuing in this tradition, both "the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs" and "the unified conquest of the land" were widely accepted in the United States until about the 1970s. Contrarily, Grabbe says that those in his field now "are all minimalists – at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. ... [V]ery few are willing to operate [as maximalists]."[15]

 

[BNR32FAN]

One has to separate stories from "eyewitness accounts". Very little of the Bible appears to be eyewitness accounts and the Bible only dates to about 500 BCE. For example the Pentateuch is thought to have reached its final form during the Persian Period, which was from538 to 332 BCE:

Old Testament - Wikipedia

Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. American science writer Homer W. Smith points out similarities between the Genesis creation narrative and that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, such as the inclusion of the creation of the first man (Adam/Enkidu) in the Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a tree of life, and a deceptive serpent.[6] Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[7][t] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[11] and popularized by later writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[12][13] Wells concedes in The Outline of History that "there is a growing flavour of reality in most of" the later books of the Old Testament, describing the stories of David and Solomon as being detailed with "the harshest facts" only a nearly contemporary writer would likely be able to relate.[12] Similarly, Will Durant states in Our Oriental Heritage (1935):

In its outlines, and barring supernatural incidents, the story of the Jews as unfolded in the Old Testament has stood the test of criticism and archeology; every year adds corroboration from documents, monuments, or excavations. ... We must accept the Biblical account provisionally until it is disproved.[14]

In 2007, scholar of Judaism Lester L. Grabbe explained that earlier biblical scholars such as Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) could be described as 'maximalist', accepting biblical text unless it has been disproven. Continuing in this tradition, both "the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs" and "the unified conquest of the land" were widely accepted in the United States until about the 1970s. Contrarily, Grabbe says that those in his field now "are all minimalists – at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. ... [V]ery few are willing to operate [as maximalists]."[15]

The Old Testament writings go all the way back to Moses which was around 1500BC. The Torah didn’t just appear 1000 years after it was given to Moses, it was observed ever since it was given to Moses.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never said that eye witness accounts by themselves are conclusive evidence of God’s existence. Evidence is not always conclusive but can still used in conjunction with other evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Numerous eyewitness testimonies over a 3,500 year span in many cases people risked their lives and endured torture, imprisonment, and even death; along with intelligent design and personal experiences can make for a pretty compelling hypothesis in my opinion. I’m sure you’ll disagree which is fine but don’t expect me to renounce my faith just because you refuse to believe. I’m not expecting you to believe just because I do.

I'll be honest, I don't care. I was just pointing out the fact that in courts of law, eyewitness accounts are not good sources of evidenc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Old Testament writings go all the way back to Moses which was around 1500BC. The Torah didn’t just appear 1000 years after it was given to Moses, it was observed ever since it was given to Moses.

Not according to those that have studied the history of the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not according to those that have studied the history of the Bible.

Oh, you mean like the Jews?

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, you mean like the Jews?

And the Christians--except the YECs, who mostly deny it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, you mean like the Jews?

Sure, Jews, Christians, secularists. Scholars that honestly studied the history of the Bible have come to those conclusions. Not every Christian interprets the Bible literally. Nor does ever Jew. In fact many warn against it since they see that act as the fastest road to atheism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Our difference is in our abilities.

As is true of a vast number of species.

We may not see the best, run the best, hunt the best, etc... Yet somehow we are on top with no competition

Well, we say we're 'on top' about traits that are, understandably, important to us - but other species are 'on top' in ways that are important to them.

 

[Ophiolite]

We may not see the best, run the best, hunt the best, etc... Yet somehow we are on top with no competition

We are certainly orders of magnitude superior in our demonstrated ability to destroy individual organisms, species and entire ecosystems. We probably won't manage to actually destroy the biosphere, but then no one is perfect.

 

[DamianWarS]

We are certainly orders of magnitude superior in our demonstrated ability to destroy individual organisms, species and entire ecosystems. We probably won't manage to actually destroy the biosphere, but then no one is perfect.

my point is we are inarguably separate from the rest of the animal world in contrast to the point of the OP that there is no secret ingredient to the human race.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well, we say we're 'on top' about traits that are, understandably, important to us - but other species are 'on top' in ways that are important to them.

we can remove the existence of those species.

 

[pitabread]

we can remove the existence of those species.

Probably not. There are organisms that would likely outlast any attempts at extermination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably not. There are organisms that would likely outlast any attempts at extermination.

Likely? How about all but impossible? We can't even begin to kill all bacteria. Nor would we want to.

 

[ozso]

A lot creationists I engaged with on this forum seem outright offended at the notion of being related to animals.

Insofar as scripture goes, that depends on one's POV. IMHO, Genesis 1 clearly describes an evolutionary process involved in diversifying the biosphere of the planet.

A renowned theologian named C.S. Lewis wrote some childerns books many Christians are familiar with, where humans and animals refer to each other couisns. I don't recall anyone ever complaining about that.

As far as Genesis describing an evolutionary process goes, the belief of creationism is that that process, however it took place, didn't happen by itself.