As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The use of the passive voice leaves one wanting. Who does the "considering"? Once "considered", is it fixed?

Typically biologists with expertise in relevant fields will come to a consensus view. It is not necessarily fixed - as is normal in science, if new data becomes available (including new analyses of existing data), a species designation may be revised.

If not then your sources as evidence of direct observation of speciation are pretty much useless as evidence.

Well... no. It is no different from any other observational categorization in science; at some point, the data may suggest a tentative novel category. As more data arrives and is analysed, the categorisation may be more or less well supported. The categorization may change as a consequence.

This is pretty basic stuff.

... fundamental logic tells us that the first observation of a thing is not necessarily the first instance of a thing.

Yes - and?

 

[HitchSlap]

Then the Bible exposes them.

Even using large font, which is considered shouting.

So the anonymous people expose themselves in the anonymous book that they wrote.

Got it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The corporeal substance changes from non-living to living. The exact moment of ensoulment is unknown. However, at the moment the substance evidences any property specific to living organisms then ensoulment has occurred.

So all living things have souls?

We also know that that corporeal substance left to its natural development will be nothing other than a human being.

Are other animals not made of 'corporeal substance'?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nope.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Oh yes; I forgot the dead hand of religious dogma.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1) Divine revelation, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the constant teaching of the Magisterium.
2) Read the source material as listed in #1
3) The animating principle of the human person
4) The human soul works through its functioning human body.
5) Same answer as #3
6) Examine a corpse and a living person
7) Offer a rational alternative
Anything else?

My bad, I forgot the 'Anything else?'. As a matter of fact, since you had no trouble answering those questions, I'd like you to engage with my post on judging explanations. If you don't agree that the criteria I presented were suitable for distinguishing between good explanations and bad ones, criticise them and/or suggest your own, and defend your title claim by those criteria.

Otherwise, I will have good reason to assume that you can't defend your claim given reasonable criteria.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the anonymous people expose themselves in the anonymous book that they wrote.

From your pov, that is absolutely correct.

But there's more to the story that you wouldn't understand.

 

[Astrophile]

evolutionists must include the question of the origin of life

Why? Chemists don't have to include the question of the origin of the elements, and meteorologists don't have to include the question of the origin of the Earth's atmosphere, so why should evolutionary biologists have to include the question of the origin of life. It looks to me as if you think that evolution makes God unnecessary (a very debatable assertion) and you are putting our ignorance of the origin of life forward as a God-of-the-gaps argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? Chemists don't have to include the question of the origin of the elements, and meteorologists don't have to include the question of the origin of the Earth's atmosphere, so why should evolutionary biologists have to include the question of the origin of life. It looks to me as if you think that evolution makes God unnecessary (a very debatable assertion) and you are putting our ignorance of the origin of life forward as a God-of-the-gaps argument.

Here's the thing though.

God says what He did, how He did it, when, where, and so on.

Then He says He made man in His image & likeness.

For evolution to deny all this, then claim we are great apes, is tantamount to saying God is an ape.

In addition, it is basically saying that a mutant, copy error died on the Cross to effect our salvation.

I think we have a right, a privilege, and an obligation to balk about it.

 

[Astrophile]

Can you cite in any thread in any forum where I claimed the "planet is only a few thousand years old"?

The problem is in the interpretation of the evidence compounded by the indirect methods used to estimate the age bones in rocks. The greater the number of specialist appliances and specialist technicians needed to interpret the ages, the greater the uncertainty of the data.

I grant that you have not claimed that the planet is only a few thousand years old, but you appear to be saying here that there are significant errors in the ages obtained for rocks. How large do you think these errors are? Do you think, for example, that the age of the beginning of the Cambrian period was only 500 million years rather than the generally accepted age of 542 million years, or do you think that the true age was only about 5 million years? How large, in your opinion, do the errors in age have to be to vitiate the fossil record as evidence for evolution?

If you google on 'geological time scale' you will obtain about 121 million results; the different versions of the time scale for the Phanerozoic eon are by now in agreement to within better than 1%. What evidence have you that the errors in the time scale are large enough to cast doubt on the fossil record of the evolution of living things, and, in particular, on the evolution of Homo from the australopithecines and, before them, from Miocene apes?

 

[HitchSlap]

From your pov, that is absolutely correct.

But there's more to the story that you wouldn't understand.

Nope, that's the whole enchilada.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, that's the whole enchilada.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[pitabread]

how He did it

Well no, there is a lot left out in that respect.

The Bible might give you a "what" and a "who", but it's short on the "how".

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible might give you a "what" and a "who", but it's short on the "how".

No, It isn't.

God spoke, and it happened. That's how He did it.

And that says plenty.

He didn't snap His fingers, wink His eye, stomp His foot, or anything like that.

He spoke, and it happened.

 

[pitabread]

God spoke, and it happened. That's how He did it.

Except we know that speaking by itself doesn't cause things to materialize into existence. So there is clearly more to it than just that.

But good luck trying to get those details. You certainly won't find them in the Bible.

 

[Astrophile]

if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

It depends what you mean by 'everybody'. If all professional biologists believed that humans evolved from Ediacarian invertebrates, would you have serious doubts about your lack of belief? If 99% of professional biologists believed this, would you still have serious doubts? What about 98%, or 95%? At what point would you think that there were enough biologists who had doubts about our evolution from invertebrates to justify your lack of belief?

If you think that there is not enough evidence for you to believe that we evolved from invertebrates, what do you think about the evidence that we share common ancestors with apes? Again, if 99% of biologists believed in our descent from simian ancestors, would you have serious doubts about your lack of belief, or would you insist on 99.9% or 100%?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except we know that speaking by itself doesn't cause things to materialize into existence. So there is clearly more to it than just that.

But good luck trying to get those details. You certainly won't find them in the Bible.

Now you know why I like this so much:

 

[pitabread]

Now you know why I like this so much:

Which is exactly my point: there is no "how".

 

[HitchSlap]

No, It isn't.

God spoke, and it happened. That's how He did it.

And that says plenty.

He didn't snap His fingers, wink His eye, stomp His foot, or anything like that.

He spoke, and it happened.

I just love how god refers to himself in the third person in G1.

'... and I said, er, Gaawd said, let there be light. And there was light!'

 

[Astrophile]

Here's the thing though.

God says what He did, how He did it, when, where, and so on.

Then He says He made man in His image & likeness.

For evolution to deny all this, then claim we are great apes, is tantamount to saying God is an ape.

In addition, it is basically saying that a mutant, copy error died on the Cross to effect our salvation.

I think we have a right, a privilege, and an obligation to balk about it.

You had better discuss this with Christian theologians; I gave up believing in gods nearly 40 years ago and am not competent to argue about such matters.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is exactly my point: there is no "how".

Ai-yi-yi.

Okay.