Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[Speedwell]

By what standard do we decide which passages of the Bible to accept and which to reject?

Why are we to decide that at all? The work was done for us when the Canon was assembled.

 

[VirOptimus]

No offense intended, but your argument is idiotic.
I don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't understand science.
I don't think there's an evolution proponent who hasn't penned this nonsense.
Learn this; live it; love it.
WE UNDERSTAND YOUR THEORY. WE REJECT IT.
God said He created man in his image. You say man evolved. Only one can be telling the truth, and it isn't you.
Rejecting a theory of origination does not equal rejecting all of science.

I can only judge your knowledge by your posts and by them, no, you dont understand the science.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why are we to decide that at all? The work was done for us when the Canon was assembled.

That cannon includes the story of creation, does it not? Also included is Exodus 11, where God Himself proclaims the six day creation. Again, but what standard do we decide which passages to accept and which to reject?

 

[KWCrazy]

I can only judge your knowledge by your posts and by them, no, you dont understand the science.

So we know that pomposity and poor judgement are among the things you bring to this debate.
Can you tell me the specific date when the laws of thermodynamics were repealed? I missed that.
Perhaps you can give me the date when the very intent of science changed from trying to find new discoveries to simply validating old theories.
You do not promote science at all. You are simply an evolution believer who is convinced that the theory you believe is the cornerstone of all understanding. So you come to a Christian forum proclaiming that the Bible is false and evolution is real. You use your faith in somebody else's interpretation of biological progression to attempt to undermine the faith of others who believe in the veracity of the Bible and who hold the belief that God, not science, is lord of the universe.

And you have the pompous arrogance to call others ignorant? Christians who believe in both the Bible and evolution have a solid understanding of neither.

 

[VirOptimus]

So we know that pomposity and poor judgement are among the things you bring to this debate.
Can you tell me the specific date when the laws of thermodynamics were repealed? I missed that.
Perhaps you can give me the date when the very intent of science changed from trying to find new discoveries to simply validating old theories.
You do not promote science at all. You are simply an evolution believer who is convinced that the theory you believe is the cornerstone of all understanding. So you come to a Christian forum proclaiming that the Bible is false and evolution is real. You use your faith in somebody else's interpretation of biological progression to attempt to undermine the faith of others who believe in the veracity of the Bible and who hold the belief that God, not science, is lord of the universe.

And you have the pompous arrogance to call others ignorant? Christians who believe in both the Bible and evolution have a solid understanding of neither.

... well to quote another poster. Thanks for the QED.

 

[Speedwell]

That cannon includes the story of creation, does it not? Also included is Exodus 11, where God Himself proclaims the six day creation. Again, but what standard do we decide which passages to accept and which to reject?

Why should we reject any of them? I don't. I just don't read them the same as you do. I don't think that the Genesis creation stories are 100% accurate literal history nor do I think God requires them to be read that way. Personally, I believe them to be a higher form of literature than bald historical narrative.

BTW, that Ex 20:11 argument is lame. I know you are too intelligent to believe it yourself, why do you think anyone else will?

 

[Skreeper]

Can you tell me the specific date when the laws of thermodynamics were repealed? I missed that.

Oh boy got any more of those PRATT's for us to enjoy? I can't seem to get enough of them.

 

[Ophiolite]

So we know that pomposity and poor judgement are among the things you bring to this debate.

Even if this were true VirOptimus also brings politeness to the debate. Something you might consider worthwhile.

You do not promote science at all. You are simply an evolution believer who is convinced that the theory you believe is the cornerstone of all understanding.

I cannot speak for VirOptimus, but I suspect he - and others who argue for evolution - do not believe in it. On the contrary they accept it as the best explanation for a very large and varied mass of biological observations. It is such a sound explanation, tested and validated in so many ways, with no plausible alternative in site, that such acceptance is deep and secure.

However, my reading of those same members is that if contrary evidence were to emerge that acceptance would weaken and their minds would be open. In the absence of such evidence there is no reason for that to happen.

So you come to a Christian forum proclaiming that the Bible is false and evolution is real.

Again, speaking for myself, I claim that certain literal interpretations of scripture are very likely mistaken and thus the Bible is not in conflict with evolutionary theory. And yes, I do this on a Christian forum, since making that point would have very little traction on one devoted to scuba diving, pastry making, or German history.

You use your faith in somebody else's interpretation of biological progression to attempt to undermine the faith of others who believe in the veracity of the Bible and who hold the belief that God, not science, is lord of the universe.

I don't have any faith in anybody else's interpretation of biological progression. I do have confidence in my own studies in the field and in my ability to skeptical analyse the studies of others. I have no desire to undermine the faith of others. I do have a strong desire to halt the misapplication of that faith, a misapplication that leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of science.

Science is a tool. Any scientist worthy of the name understands this. A remarkable tool nonetheless. You are erecting a strawman to imply that scientists somehow view it - a simple tool - as the Lord of the Universe. That is silly and offensive in equal measure.

And you have the pompous arrogance to call others ignorant?

I routinely call others ignorant. Certainly I am hugely ignorant. The breadth and depth of my ignorance are as boundless as the universe or the deeps of time. Ignorance is arguably the foundation of the human condition. However, I am not ignorant of evolutionary theory, nor am I ignorant of scripture, nor of the ease with which the two may be reconciled. That being the case it suggests your last comment is, in the strictest, non-perjorative sense, ignorant.

Christians who believe in both the Bible and evolution have a solid understanding of neither.

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't think that the Genesis creation stories are 100% accurate literal history nor do I think God requires them to be read that way.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. In an evolved world, nothing more be written. However, more was written, and the creation of a mature world by the hand of God over a six day period was then detailed. The same world cannot simultaneously be created and evolve. Either you accept the authority of the Scriptures or you reject it.

Romans 5: 12-14. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If there was no death prior to Adam's transgression, then there was no evolution. In addition to rejecting Moses, you have to reject Paul.

BTW, that Ex 20:11 argument is lame. I know you are too intelligent to believe it yourself, why do you think anyone else will?

Genesis 20:
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.bondage: Heb. servants
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So the spoken words of God the Father; Creator of the world makes for a lame argument?

I ask again, by what standard do you decide which passages of the Bible to accept and which to reject? According to your "truth," the Lord Himself lied. Which of you should we believe?
For your entertainment, here are a hundred verses which confirm the creation. I presume you reject them all, right?

 

[Speedwell]

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. In an evolved world, nothing more be written. However, more was written, and the creation of a mature world by the hand of God over a six day period was then detailed. The same world cannot simultaneously be created and evolve. Either you accept the authority of the Scriptures or you reject it.

Romans 5: 12-14. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If there was no death prior to Adam's transgression, then there was no evolution. In addition to rejecting Moses, you have to reject Paul.

Genesis 20:
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.bondage: Heb. servants
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So the spoken words of God the Father; Creator of the world makes for a lame argument?

I ask again, by what standard do you decide which passages of the Bible to accept and which to reject? According to your "truth," the Lord Himself lied. Which of you should we believe?
For your entertainment, here are a hundred verses which confirm the creation. I presume you reject them all, right?

Right. I utterly and completely reject the Bible as the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. I will continue to revere the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God, as my church has taught for centuries and as the rest of Christendom devoutly believes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. I utterly and completely reject the Bible as the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. I will continue to revere the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God, as my church has taught for centuries and as the rest of Christendom devoutly believes.

Looks like you want to play on both sides of the fence.

 

[KWCrazy]

Even if this were true VirOptimus also brings politeness to the debate. Something you might consider worthwhile.

Accusing others of ignorance because they disagree with you does not define politeness.

On the contrary they accept it as the best explanation for a very large and varied mass of biological observations.

Understood, as I accept the word of the Creator for the best explanation of the creation.

However, my reading of those same members is that if contrary evidence were to emerge that acceptance would weaken and their minds would be open.

Contrary evidence does exist and has been presented. It is rejected because it comes from the Scriptures, not from the science lab.

Again, speaking for myself, I claim that certain literal interpretations of scripture are very likely mistaken and thus the Bible is not in conflict with evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with anyone rejecting Scripture. I do take issue when they try to convince others that the Scriptures are not truthful. If one chooses to reject all of it and embraces atheism, that's his error. However, leading believers astray is another topic altogether. I am convinced that many seek to make themselves appear wise by convincing others to abandon their faith.

I have no desire to undermine the faith of others. I do have a strong desire to halt the misapplication of that faith, a misapplication that leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of science.

Science is not a god. Rejecting some of its claims does not constitute blasphemy. Science is the study of the natural world around us. It does not and cannot validate or invalidate the existence of the supernatural. No breakthrough in science can disprove the Scriptures. God is Lord of the impossible. Even if the mystery of abiogenesis were uncovered and man could generate life from amino acids, that would only indicate one possible method of origination. There are a lot of roads that lead to Rome. In the end what matters is where you place your faith. The speciation of a post-flood world would look no different than what we observe, only the requirement of millions of years would be gone. God has no such limitation.

You are erecting a strawman to imply that scientists somehow view it - a simple tool - as the Lord of the Universe. That is silly and offensive in equal measure.

Not science, natural law. Science is a field of study, not a force.
In a world ruled by natural law a man cannot walk on water (Illusionist tricks aside), but in a world where God is the Lord anything is possible; even the freezing of time itself for a day.

However, I am not ignorant of evolutionary theory, nor am I ignorant of scripture, nor of the ease with which the two may be reconciled.

Perhaps you can show me the verses which describe evolution and long ages as the method of creation. Nobody else has ever been able to do so. I did, however, post a hundred verses which support the six day creation by God. It seems that the Scriptures do not support your position.

 

[USincognito]

Can you tell me the specific date when the laws of thermodynamics were repealed? I missed that.

What does that have to do with evolution?

Perhaps you can give me the date when the very intent of science changed from trying to find new discoveries to simply validating old theories.

Since the advent of the modern scientific era the process of science has been to do both. Well sort of doing both. Investigation into fields already covered by a theory (evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics) is more about understanding specifics that validating them. Also some scientists work at falsifying old theories and, if successful, can make a name for themselves.

So you come to a Christian forum proclaiming that the Bible is false and evolution is real.

Just want to point out that VirOptimus was here four years before you. Oh, and evolution is real.

 

[Ophiolite]

Accusing others of ignorance because they disagree with you does not define politeness.

Identifying someone as ignorant has nothing to do with politeness. Identifying someone as ignorant is, when properly done, an objective assessment of their knowledge in a relevant area. I've already commented on my own extensive ignorance. It's a bit rich if you choose to take offence when someone points to an area where you may be ignorant.

Understood, as I accept the word of the Creator for the best explanation of the creation.

If I were inclined to accept the Bible as being the Word of God, then I would still see the Biblical account of creation for what it is: a lyrical, metaphorical description offered to his People in words and terms they, as a simple, tribal people could understand and appreciate.

Contrary evidence does exist and has been presented. It is rejected because it comes from the Scriptures, not from the science lab.

You don't look to a creation myth for scientific evidence. Or, if you do, then it suggests an ignorance of how science is conducted.

 

[KWCrazy]

You don't look to a creation myth for scientific evidence.

1. The Bible is not a myth.
2. There is a difference between evidence and scientific evidence. I never said the Scriptures were scientific.
3. Natural law is subject to God's authority. The 333 miracles listed in the Bible show that. The miracles God performs in our personal lives also show it.
4. Miracles are violations of natural law. They are not exceptionally rare. This forum is full of people who have experienced things which cannot be explained scientifically. In a world subject only to natural law no miracles would ever happen. Even one miracle disproves the notion that we live in a purely physical world.
Once you have personally experienced the supernatural, you understand that those who claim it doesn't exist are the truly uninformed.

 

[Ophiolite]

1. The Bible is not a myth.

Portions of the Bible are, by any reasonable definition, mythical. This is not a criticism. Myths are an important, arguably vital, part of any religion. They are a means of expressing fundamental truths in an accessible manner. I regret that you are unable to see this. The loss is yours.

2. There is a difference between evidence and scientific evidence. I never said the Scriptures were scientific.

Therefore they cannot be used to refute scientific findings without, simultaneously, rejecting the scientific method. I regret you are unable to see this. The loss is yours.

3. Natural law is subject to God's authority. The 333 miracles listed in the Bible show that. The miracles God performs in our personal lives also show it.

Yet, curiously, the scriptural evidence for any miracle fail any scientific test for evidence. Belief in those miracles requires faith.

4. Miracles are violations of natural law. They are not exceptionally rare.

Yet, strangely, none have ever been validated by science.

This forum is full of people who have experienced things which cannot be explained scientifically.

This forum is full of people who are unable to explain what they have experienced scientifically for two reasons:
1) They are predisposed to believe in miracles.
2) They lack the scientific experience to properly assess those experiences.

(And, seriously, you think anecdotal accounts have genuine validity? Give me a break. This is meant to be a serious discussion.)

Once you have personally experienced the supernatural, you understand that those who claim it doesn't exist are the truly uninformed.

I've experienced many things that I could have attributed to the supernatural. Some examples:
1. Two incidents of seeing ghosts.
2. One definitive instance of telekinesis.
3. Multiple instances of "prayers being answered".
4. Multiple instances of clairvoyance.

Curious that, despite these experiences, extending over more than half a century, I remain - in your words - truly uninformed.

 

[KWCrazy]

Portions of the Bible are, by any reasonable definition, mythical.

While a myth can be true, generally speaking people consider the following definitions:
An unfounded or false notion: the myth of racial superiority
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence: the Superman myth; the unicorn myth.
This is the evolutionist's way of calling the Bible false without coming right out and saying it. In fact, since the Scriptures and evolution are mutually exclusive, one can only promote evolution by discounting the authority of the Bible.

Therefore they cannot be used to refute scientific findings without, simultaneously, rejecting the scientific method.

Typical, uninformed answer.
Nobody rejects the scientific method or its ability to discover things about the world around us.
We disagree with a theory of origins. We also disagree with alchemy. Evolution is no more true than the other.
There are scientists and astronauts who believe in the word of God. You are not more learned than they.
Acknowledging that the supernatural exists doesn't change natural law. One simply has precedence over the other.
I regret you are unable to see this. The loss is yours.

Yet, curiously, the scriptural evidence for any miracle fail any scientific test for evidence. Belief in those miracles requires faith.

Wow!
Let me help you out here.
Miracles are violations of natural law. The can NEVER be validated scientifically. Science is the study of the natural world.
The men around Elisha knew that tossing a stick into the water would not make an ax head float, yet the Lord performed a miracle through Elisha. How would you go about validating this miracle? If it can be replicated, then there is a scientific explanation. If not, it's a true miracle. Remember, Jesus confirmed the truth of the Scriptures, so one can't reject the Bible's miracles without rejecting Christ's teaching.

This forum is full of people who are unable to explain what they have experienced scientifically for two reasons:
1) They are predisposed to believe in miracles.
2) They lack the scientific experience to properly assess those experiences.

Or 3) you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Suppose you see two shadows traversing a hallway. There are no people there to make the shadows. The lighting is overhead, so any shadow should be on the floor only, not 3 dimensional and vertical. You're wide away and know what you see. Instinctively, you know they are evil spirits. You can feel their malevolence.
Nobody else is in the room, nobody sees them. How to you validate that scientifically??

Four people are in a house when all four hear footsteps upstairs. They go up to see who is there. They all report the same cold, creepy feeling, but nobody is upstairs. The footsteps stop and later resume when they are all downstairs again. How to you validate that scientifically??

You live in a world of your own construction, where every happening conforms to the laws of physics. The trouble is, you are divorced from reality.

I've experienced many things that I could have attributed to the supernatural. Some examples:
1. Two incidents of seeing ghosts.
2. One definitive instance of telekinesis.
3. Multiple instances of "prayers being answered".
4. Multiple instances of clairvoyance.

And yet, despite having personal experience with the unexplainable, you still pretend it doesn't exist.

Curious that, despite these experiences, extending over more than half a century, I remain - in your words - truly uninformed.

No, worse than uninformed. You've been shown the existence of the supernatural and unexplained, and yet you still reject it. You live in a world of denial. When Jesus walked on water the disciples thought he was a ghost. These men were with Jesus and they believed in ghosts?

I don't believe in ghosts. I believe in spirits; both angelic and demonic. The Scriptures say that bioth are real. I think I will continue to believe God's word over yours.

 

[Ophiolite]

While a myth can be true, generally speaking people consider the following definitions:
An unfounded or false notion: the myth of racial superiority
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence: the Superman myth; the unicorn myth.
This is the evolutionist's way of calling the Bible false without coming right out and saying it. In fact, since the Scriptures and evolution are mutually exclusive, one can only promote evolution by discounting the authority of the Bible.

Let me take an elitist stance for a moment. I have little interest, in an discussion with an educated person, in using definitions followed by the "great unwashed", "Joe Average", "The Man in the Street". I choose to use the term, as is appropriate on a Science sub-forum, within a Christian forum, in the way it used by Cultural Anthropologists, Historians and Theologians.

I, a committed evolutionist, happen to view the Christian creation myth, as expressed in Genesis as a magnificent exposition. The reading, by the astronauts of Apollo 8 as it orbited the moon, of verses from Genesis 1, was a brilliant, moving, spiritual moment. So, please stop the trite stereotyping of what evolutionists think, do and intend. It is not only wrong, it is impolite and casts you in a bad light.

I have no need to discount the authority of the Bible to promote evolution. That is a ridiculous idea. The evidence does that task perfectly well. I do wish that those fervent believers in the literal interpretation of Genesis who see evolution as a threat, would not presume that the reverse is true. Regardless of my respect for the religion, for the moral content, tales and poetry of the Bible, I feel zero need to attack it in order to promote evolution. I say again, that is just silly. If you believe it, and I feel you must, else why post it, then you simply do not understand the views of many evolutionists in regard to the relevance of the Bible to evolutionary theory.

Typical, uninformed answer.
Nobody rejects the scientific method or its ability to discover things about the world around us.
We disagree with a theory of origins. We also disagree with alchemy. Evolution is no more true than the other.
There are scientists and astronauts who believe in the word of God. You are not more learned than they.
Acknowledging that the supernatural exists doesn't change natural law. One simply has precedence over the other.
I regret you are unable to see this. The loss is yours.

The TOE is more soundly validated than practically any other scientific theory. Only by turning a blind eye to the evidence, or the methodology can you deny this. There are lots of scientists who believe in the Word of God. Many of them (probably most of them) also accept TOE.

If not, it's a true miracle. Remember, Jesus confirmed the truth of the Scriptures, so one can't reject the Bible's miracles without rejecting Christ's teaching.

Incorrect. I, by and large, follow Christ's teachings. They represent a compassionate, perceptive, encompassing approach to conducting one's life. I don't need promises of an after-life, or claims of miraculous acts to know an ethical structure when I see one, or to understand the value of following it.

Or 3) you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Suppose you see two shadows traversing a hallway. There are no people there to make the shadows. The lighting is overhead, so any shadow should be on the floor only, not 3 dimensional and vertical. You're wide away and know what you see. Instinctively, you know they are evil spirits. You can feel their malevolence.
Nobody else is in the room, nobody sees them. How to you validate that scientifically??

I've highlighted the key words. I don't accept the evidence of my own eyes. I certainly won't accept that from others.

"Instinctively, you know they are evil spirits". No. Do you not see that such a sentence reflects a readiness to believe, without seriously seeking alternative explanations, or even just accepting that you have no idea what you saw. (If I followed your path of stereotyping I would note the tendency of many believers to require certainy in their lives. It's a pity life doesn't work that way.)

You live in a world of your own construction, where every happening conforms to the laws of physics. The trouble is, you are divorced from reality.

You are too kind. The world is fat too complex for me to construct it. There are, in my view, more unknowns than knowns - many laws yet to be discovered, many more to be refined. My reality is very pliable, uncertain and magnificiently interesting. I've done my level best not to tell you what you think. I wish you would accord me the same respect.

And yet, despite having personal experience with the unexplainable, you still pretend it doesn't exist.

No, worse than uninformed. You've been shown the existence of the supernatural and unexplained, and yet you still reject it. You live in a world of denial. When Jesus walked on water the disciples thought he was a ghost. These men were with Jesus and they believed in ghosts?

I don't believe in ghosts. I believe in spirits; both angelic and demonic. The Scriptures say that bioth are real. I think I will continue to believe God's word over yours.

How can you possibly say I don't believe in the unexplainable. I have witnessed a bunch of inexplicable events. I am quite comfortable having the jury out on these events. I have not made the decision, that you appear to have made, that such events are supernatural. I'm keeping an open mind.

Do I believe in ghosts as the spirits of dead people? No. Do I believe that people sometimes see apparitions? Yes. There are reasonable neurological explanations for most such sightings (having already disposed of the liars and the fraudsters). Are there some unexplained left. Probably. Are these supernatural? I don't know, but if you want to think you have the answer, go ahead, just don't ask me to join you on the Ghost Train.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution has never been demonstrated or observed. What planet are you on?

Evidently not the one you are currently inhabiting.

Evolution is a demonstrable, observable process. The process of evolution involves the changes to gene pools over time. If you deny this process, you are denying observable reality.

Hence, the flat Earth comment.

How do you intend on demonstrating the consequence of a supernatural action? God make's an ax head float. You take it out of the water and dry it off. Now how do you prove it was ever there?

This is precisely the problem with unbounded supernatural explanations. They are effectively untestable. At best you can try to test the claims made in relation, but if you opt to invoke supernaturalism to explain away any discrepancies, you've adopted an untenable philosophical position about the nature of the universe.

Scientific and rational are not synonyms.

Science, however, generally entails a rational approach to learning about our universe. It's certainly worked out well so far.

The only accurate timeline in the Scriptures. I'm not a historian.

Evidently.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let me take an elitist stance for a moment.

What makes you elite?

I, a committed evolutionist, happen to view the Christian creation myth,

I don't consider it to be a myth, I consider it to be foundational doctrine. The first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament alone.

The reading, by the astronauts of Apollo 8 as it orbited the moon, of verses from Genesis 1, was a brilliant, moving, spiritual moment.

They believed they were reading something more important than Green Eggs and Ham. They were reading the word of God.

I have no need to discount the authority of the Bible to promote evolution.

The Bible speaks of a six day creation. Evolution teaches gradual change over billions of years with purely natural processes; ie no God involvement.
The only way you can believe both is to understand neither. They ARE mutually exclusive.
You can CLAIM to believe both, but that just makes you dishonest.

The evidence does that task perfectly well.

So given the choice between the theory of man and the word of god, you choose the theory of man. I still don't see how believing in such foolishness makes you elite. To me, it makes you deceived.

I do wish that those fervent believers in the literal interpretation of Genesis who see evolution as a threat, would not presume that the reverse is true.

I don't see evolution as a threat, I see it as a lie. Either evolution is true or the word of God is true. I'm going with the word of God.
[quote, I feel zero need to attack it in order to promote evolution. [/quote]
"The evidence does that task perfectly well."
There is more than one way to attack the veracity of something. You simply do so while pretending to respect it. I'm more realistic. I can see that the two accounts of creation are mutually exclusive.

The TOE is more soundly validated than practically any other scientific theory.

I've heard this lie dozens of times.
It tells me evolution is your god; it's what you serve.

Only by turning a blind eye to the evidence, or the methodology can you deny this.

Grow up.
The natural origination of life is impossible.
The introduction of a single cell into any environment will not cause evolution. With no competition, the cell would not feel pressure until the food supply was exhausted, then all would starve.
The advancement of simple life to complex is logically absurd. Even Trilobites had complex DNA.
There exists no mechanism in biology for the introduction of new characteristics not previously coded and the encoding of them into the reproductive system.
Adaptation is a conservative process by which traits are extinguished or attenuated; never created. Thus repeated adaptation can no more equal evolution than repeated subtraction can equal addition.
Mutations; the hopeful monsters of evolution; are almost always deleterious or neutral. Repeated mutations result in death. Benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species.
Evolution is far from a proven scientific fact. It remains a theory with which the supposed driving force, benevolent mutations, have never been demonstrated to happen.
Bacteria adapting diet doesn't change the above. That's what bacteria do.

There are lots of scientists who believe in the Word of God.

Irrelevant. How many of the disciples believed in evolution?

I, by and large, follow Christ's teachings.

Sorry, but that won't get you into Heaven. You must be born again.
Satan, by the way, believes in God and knows that Jesus is the son of God. That isn't enough for him either.

I've highlighted the key words. I don't accept the evidence of my own eyes. I certainly won't accept that from others.

So by your own definition you're an unbeliever. We all knew that.

"Instinctively, you know they are evil spirits". No. Do you not see that such a sentence reflects a readiness to believe, without seriously seeking alternative explanations, or even just accepting that you have no idea what you saw.

A unique quality of humans, ever since the fall of man, is that we know the difference between good and evil. Those of us who are saved have experienced the Holy Spirit and very likely the hostility of demonic spirits who seek our destruction. These things are as real as the grass on your lawn. Denying this makes you blind. Wise men do not follow the blind in the light of day.

I have not made the decision, that you appear to have made, that such events are supernatural.

There are only two explanations; natural or supernatural.
Spiritual entities are only "natural" in some movies. That doesn't mean they don';t exist. That means they can't be validated or invalidated via the scientific method.

Do I believe in ghosts as the spirits of dead people? No.

Me either. For the most part, the dead are dead.
That they can be summoned is well documented by the account of King Saul and the witch of Endor.