Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ImmortalFlame]

It is fairly simple really.....e.g. using Darwin's finches, you can see that speciation meant that all these finches were of the same taxonomy even though they chose not to interbreed. They are programmed to recognize their own species and to mate with them. All organisms are programmed to do this.....isn't that obvious?
A finch who does not recognize an adapted 'cousin,' is still a finch, regardless of ability to mate or not. Is this rocket science?

That's about as clear as mud. You do realize that there are many, many different species of finch, right? And that those populations fit into a larger heading of Fringillidae, which fits in the category of Passeroidea, Passeriformes, Aves, Chordata and Animalia. So where does "kind" fit between species (as defined by ability to reproduce fertile offspring) and population (being merely a group of a specific population) and between all the other taxonomies that finches belong to?

If I presented you with two finch-like birds that you had no idea of the taxonomical ranking of, how would you go about demonstrating to me that they were either the same or different "kind"?

 

[Segev Moran]

What a load of craps.

Do you even understand what proof is?

Proof isn’t evidence.

Nope. Evidence is a collection of proofs

According to mathematicians and scientists, proof is merely a logical statement, often including a mathematical equation or formula.

Yep.. It is a logical statement that represents the probability of something being true.
The more proof you have, the stronger the evidence.

Only mathematicians and theoretical physicists (like in the fields of Superstring Theory, Multiverse model, etc) used proofs, because it cannot be tested in experiments.

There is a HUGH difference between mathematical proof and proof.
Mathematical proof is a calculation that describes a process on an idea.
Mathematical proof is another word for an equation that works.
Proof, is a piece of validated information that makes your case more probable to be true.

Testable hypotheses required either evidences from experiments or discovered in the fields.

True

You are pathetic.

Simply wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope. Evidence is a collection of proofs

Um, no. Evidence are facts that indicate the validity of a given conclusion, they never "prove it" outright.

Yep.. It is a logical statement that represents the probability of something being true.
The more proof you have, the stronger the evidence.

Again, you're confusing proof and evidence. By definition, you only need "one proof" to demonstrate the truth of a claim, but the more evidence you have of a claim the greater the likelihood of that claim being true. Proofs aren't used to strengthen evidence (although a proof can be used as evidence, in a way).

There is a HUGH difference between mathematical proof and proof.

No, THERE is a Hugh.

Mathematical proof is a calculation that describes a process on an idea.
Mathematical proof is another word for an equation that works.
Proof, is a piece of validated information that makes your case more probable to be true.

Again, you're very close to being spot on here, but not quite. Replace the "proof" in the last sentence for "evidence" and you're correct.

 

[ecco]

Hockey's quote of my use of the word flat in post # 1034

......flat........​

There's that word again! I must've counted 'flat' in this thread alone, at least 10 times in referencing Isaiah 40:22. It's always added, lol. (Of course, I goaded some.)

But for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere in the Bible relating to the Earth, except added by those wanting to deny Biblical inerrancy!

I've seen a lot of out of context quotes, but that one really takes the cake. You make it sound like I was referring to Isaiah. You even tried to make it sound like my post was "wanting to deny Biblical inerrancy!"

Here is the word "flat" in my post...

IF! If the world was a flat circle, we wouldn't need to know why people don't fall off the bottom.

A sphere, viewed from any side, always appears as a circle.

Uh Huh.

In any case, Isaiah could not see the sphere since he was not in earth orbit. Isaiah wrote what he thought god created. Again, a circle is not a sphere.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And you have no problem ignoring the role of consciousness in life or the role of behavior in change in species. It's like playing cards without any deuces, jacks, kings, 8 of spades, or any diamonds at all. From the way the cards lay out Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest" and you're still playing with the exact same cards.

You haven't presented any evidence, so there is nothing to ignore.

 

[ecco]

Thank you, you just demonstrated what motivated people to learn the "whys" about those kinds of questions. God gave humans inquiring minds and intellectual capacity to explore and study what he created. How long did it take them to begin to understand those things?

People falling off the world....the Earth spinning at 1000 miles per hour....and man discovered GRAVITY!
"Newton's apple"....."what goes up must come down."

Now tell me what use it would have been to understand about gravity and the speed of Earth's rotation if they did not have the capacity to understand what gravity was, even though they could demonstrate it by dropping an apple....? Even today scientists do not fully understand what makes gravity work.

Nice diversion. Let's remember you were talking about your reliance (in 2018) on "common sense" as a reason to discredit ToE. I was pointing out that "common sense" is worthless when it comes to the intricacies of science. I was pointing out that your "common sense" assessment of ToE is worthless.

It appears to me that many atheists are afraid to admit there might be some Intelligent Design to it all.

Not at all, Atheists have learned that a magic man in the sky is not necessary to explain nature.

So was creation. According to Genesis, the creative "days" may well have been eons of time in length.

There you go again, picking and choosing which parts of your Holy Scripture to believe and which to dismiss. That's not very Christian of you.

You only need to check the responses to my posts over the years to see how many people protest that evolutionists do not deal with abiogenesis.....almost like you can't mention them in the same sentence.

ToE and abiogenesis are two different things. People who study these two different things are two different groups of people. People who study geography are not the same group of people who study astronomy. Why can you not understand that very basic concept.

I have past relatives who were clairvoyants and believe me, you would have had a hard time dismissing what my great grandmother was able to tell people. She wasn't one of those shonky TV show people.

It's too bad that she never took advantage of James Randi's $1,000,000 award for anyone who could demonstrate that they were truly clairvoyant.

And you have obviously never seen a water diviner at work.

Tell him about James Randi's $1,000,000 award for anyone who can demonstrate their success at this.

I accept all of it. I don't pick and choose.....which is why I became a JW in the first place. They were the only ones who didn't expect me to follow only some of Jesus teachings whilst weaseling their way out of the more inconvenient ones. We accept the very same scripture that Jesus did.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't accept the OT as written?

"Kinds" was a perfect description for the people of Bible times before science understood what a species is.

Yeah. My point exactly. We can excuse them for their lack of scientific knowledge. You have no such excuse - except your religious indoctrination.

A theory is not a fact. Only facts are truth. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Parroting your JW beliefs is meaningless and futile.

It is people's lifestyle and choice of diet that creates heart disease, cancer and strokes....so if science was so clever then it would have created a better way to grow food that didn't involve ruining what nature provided.
GMO's, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, polluted air, water and soil, highly processed foods....these are the things that science has helped to produce. We are all paying for these with ill health.

Yes, by all means, do continue to show your ignorance.
life expectancy since 1500 - Google Search:

 

[metis]

ToE and abiogenesis are two different things.

And this is what some either accidentally or intentionally conflate. It's like "If you believe in evolution, you are an atheist that beats your spouse every day of the week".

"Abiogenesis" is a hypothesis, as you well know, and also there are a great many scientists who fully accept the basic ToE who are also very much theists, which you also well know. But some of these "creationists" are so utterly dishonest that they portray all "evolutionists" as being anti-God and dishonest. Even when they are shown they're wrong, they still repeat the same old dishonest mantra over and over and over again.

Therefore, having a serious discussion with them is almost always futile, which is why I only make an occasional "cameo appearance".

Want my autograph? .

 

[cladking]

Not at all, Atheists have learned that a magic man in the sky is not necessary to explain nature.

Who needs proof of anything when you can explain nature?

Homo Omnisciencis.

Nothing is beyond our reach because everything is within our grasp.

 

[ecco]

Therefore, having a serious discussion with them is almost always futile

Almost always?

 

[ecco]

Not at all, Atheists have learned that a magic man in the sky is not necessary to explain nature.

Who needs proof of anything when you can explain nature?

Homo Omnisciencis.

Nothing is beyond our reach because everything is within our grasp.

I'm glad you are finally beginning to see the light.

 

[gnostic]

There's that word again! I must've counted 'flat' in this thread alone, at least 10 times in referencing Isaiah 40:22. It's always added, lol. (Of course, I goaded some.)

But for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere in the Bible relating to the Earth, except added by those wanting to deny Biblical inerrancy!

A sphere, viewed from any side, always appears as a circle.

Circle is only 2-dimension description of shape.

In 3-dimension object, a circle is only part of description to define a shape, but it is only circle when view in certain angle. By itself, circle is not adequate to describe the whole shape of object.

If you look at egg, it will appear as circle from the angle of the base, or from the top or bird’s eye view, but from view from the angle of any sides, the egg appeared in 2 dimensions as an oval.

On a sphere, it appeared to be circle, no matter from which angle you look at it.

If look at a cone from the top or bottom, the cone appeared to be a circle, but from the side, the object would look like a triangle.

Likewise, a cylinder or a disk appeared to be circle in certain angles, but rectangular in any adjacent angle.

For Isaiah to describe the Earth to be a circle, don’t make it mean sphere, because some objects, like the disk (cylinder) and cone also have circle, when looked at certain angle. Since, other passages describe the Earth have edges, then sphere don’t come to mind, because it can describe cone or cylinder.

The term “round” is also not accurate description to describe a sphere. Oval is round too. Round can be used to describe a non-spherical blob, or 2-dimensionally any arch.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since, other passages describe the Earth have edges, then sphere don’t come to mind, because it can describe cone or cylinder.

Neither does a circle have edges, grief. So what do you think the Bible is saying? Maybe it means the entirety of the Earth?

Poetic license is taken throughout much of it....the last part of Isaiah 40:22, “the One stretching the Heavens as a fine gauze”.... again, referring to how it appears, not necessarily as it actually is.

When Haggai 2:7 says “I will shake the nations, and the desirable things will come in....”, you don’t take that literally, do you?!

But nowhere, does the Bible say the Earth is flat!

But it does say, the Earth is “suspended on nothing”. Who would’ve thought that, back then?!!

“Again, the Bible is not a textbook on Cosmology or Astronomy. However, from a few scanty tidbits of Scripture and a conviction that Mesopotamian astronomy is the norm for Hebrew views on this subject, Liberal scholars today assume that the worldview of the Old Testament was that of a flat earth in a geocentric universe.1,2 Their assumption of the flat earth is from Isa 11:12 which speaks of the "four corners of the earth" as well as Isa 44:24 which speaks of God who "...stretched out the heavens , who spread out the earth by myself...." Now in regards to the expression, "the four corners of the earth," Willis says this:

The expression four corners of the earth (vs. 12; cf. Job 37:3; Rev 7:1) do not reflect an ancient notion that the earth was flat and the shape of a square or rectangle. Deuteronomy 22:12 speaks of the four corners of a cloak, and Ezekiel 7:2 of the four corners of the land of Israel, but in neither case is it implied that the biblical writer thought that the cloak or the land of Israel was square or rectangular. This is simply an idiomatic expression meaning "entirety."3

Therefore, there seems to be a rush on the Liberals' part to assume such phrases imply an ancient Hebrew belief in a flat earth. Rather, Isaiah 40:22 appears to imply that the earth is indeed not only "circular," but also a substantial three dimensional object. The Hebrew word chug in this verse can mean either "circle" or "vault," but two highly acclaimed Hebrew-English Lexicons prefer the meaning of "vault" for chug in Isaiah 40:22.4,5 Contrary to this, most of the English translators choose "circle." However, TMSG has "God sits high above the round ball of the earth" and DRB has "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth", both trying to capture something of the three dimensional nature of this Hebrew word.

If indeed the meaning is that of a globe (as would also be implied in Luke 17:34-36), then we have here some scientific foreknowledge of a substantial nature. Now concerning the date of writing Isaiah, conservative scholars, staying with the understanding of the ancients, date the ministry of Isaiah from 740-700 (or even 680) BC. Of course those unwilling to believe in predictive prophecy (Liberal theologians) rather choose a date after Cyrus in 536 BC, since Isaiah prophesied about this ruler by name (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-7). That is their way of destroying the power of predictive prophecy. However, they have no manuscript evidence for this, and certainly there was never a hint of this found in the Jewish writers before Christ or in the Church Fathers living and writing after the apostles to suggest an author other than the historical Isaiah of the 8th century BC. In addition, there are 21 passages in Isaiah that are attributed directly to "Isaiah" in the New Testament (7 in Isa 1-39, 12 in Isa 40-55, and 2 from Isa 56-66), and the strongest of these is found in John 12:38-41 where John specifically attributes Isa 53:1 and 6:9 both to Isaiah.6

According to Wikipedia, the earliest date documenting the concept of a round earth is in the 6th century BC:

The concept of a spherical earth dates back to around the 6th century BCE in ancient Greek philosophy. It remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BCE when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.7

However, it would appear that Isaiah predates the Greeks by 200 years in knowing the earth was round. How? Well, God told him, or at least that is what the Bible says.

In addition to the thought in Isaiah that the earth was spherical, we also find in Job 26:7 the suggestion that the earth is completely unsupported in space:

7“He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing. Job 26:7 (NASB95)
Now is it uncertain when Job was written. It nicely describes the milieu of the patriarchs, such as Abraham, who lived about 1800 BC. However, opinions abound about when it was actually written. The Talmud says Job was written by Moses,8 or about 1440 BC. Others think it was put into its current form in the 5th to 6th centuries BC. I am more inclined to honor the opinion of the Talmud on the subject. But the point is that here is a shocking statement from antiquity about the earth not being held up or hung up on anything, and we find it in Job.

Lynne S. Wilcox, M.D., M.P.H, wrote an interesting article in which she summarized the mythology of the ages to answer the question, "Who Holds Up the World?" This is what she found:

From earliest human history, people have created myths that depict the sacred and at times terrible responsibility of supporting the world. Although these myths vary from culture to culture--and the entities charged with the awesome responsibility of holding up the earth range from deities to animals to the elements--the underlying purpose of all of them is to assure people of the world's stability and order. In the Haudenosaunee (i.e., Six Nations or Iroquois), Hindu, and Gabrielino Indian religions, turtles and tortoises support the earth. The indigenous Japanese Ainu people describe the world as a vast ocean resting on the backbone of a trout that creates the surging of the tides each day by sucking in the ocean and spewing it out. In other mythologies, a single entity is responsible for carrying the heavy burden of the world. In Greek mythology, for example, Atlas was forced to support the earth after fighting unsuccessfully against Zeus, the leader of the Olympian gods. Hercules came to Atlas and requested that he obtain the Hesperides' golden apples. Atlas agreed on the condition that Hercules would support the earth while he was away. Atlas had no intention of accepting his eternal burden again, but Hercules tricked him into taking it back.9
Hinduism is called by some the oldest living religion, and the roots of that religion may have began during the post-flood times that were characterized by a deterioration of monotheism back into polytheism. If so, we have two very different ancient views of earth. Job said that the Lord "hangs the earth on nothing." However, all the other ancient writings seem to attribute this to someone or something holding up the earth. Could this be "scientific foreknowledge" in the Bible? I am inclined to think so. I have tried to find documentation going back further, but I cannot find anything earlier than Job with the true concept of the earth floating in space.

What about Job's statement that God "...stretches out the north over empty space...."? Walter Sullivan published an article in the New York Times on October 2, 1981 entitled, "Vast Hole in Space Appears to Defy Theories." You can read the article at the link indicated in the ENDNOTES.10 Now it appears that scientists prefer to consider these as "Molecular Clouds," and these bar our view of the stars behind such clouds. Take a look at Molecular Cloud Barnard 68 from NASA at the following link in the ENDNOTES.11 My point is that the perception of a lack of stars is certainly possible with these phenomena, and may well be what Job was writing about. Clearly, some of these holes are large enough be seen by the naked eye. If so, we have another example of scientific foreknowledge.

ENDNOTES:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible
2. Heard, RC. "Genesis," in The Transforming Word, MW Hamilton, General Editor. Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, TX, © 2009, p 109.
3. Willis, JT. The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament: Isaiah. Sweet Publishing Company, Austin, TX, © 1980, p 206.
4. Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) (295). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
5. Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLH 2553, #2). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
6. Willis, ibid., p 30.
7. Spherical Earth - Wikipedia
8. Book of Job - Wikipedia
9. Who Holds Up the World? (You can get her references from the online article.)
10. VAST 'HOLE' IN SPACE APPEARS TO DEFY THEORIES
11. APOD: 2009 June 23 - Molecular Cloud Barnard 68”

Source: Scientific Foreknowledge Regarding the Earth and Sky

 

[Deeje]

You do realize that there are many, many different species of finch, right? And that those populations fit into a larger heading of Fringillidae, which fits in the category of Passeroidea, Passeriformes, Aves, Chordata and Animalia. So where does "kind" fit between species (as defined by ability to reproduce fertile offspring) and population (being merely a group of a specific population) and between all the other taxonomies that finches belong to?

Using Google images, what can we discern about the way science classifies taxa? (a species, family, or class)

Now lets get specific with an example....the red fox.... (from Wikipedia)

We see that a red fox fits into the first three categories as a matter of specific definition. It is obviously in the same "family" as wolves and according to Wiki...." is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈkænɪd/, /ˈkeɪnɪd/).[4]"

However the next classification is "Carnivora", indicating that these are carnivorous. But are all carnivores part of wolf taxa? The graph indicates that science wants to lump all carnivores together. And the next classification puts them in the same group as other mammals. Are all mammals related to red foxes?

It appears to me as if science uses graphs to lead people into thinking things that are not entirely true. They might use these classifications in a science class to students who have no idea that they have been influenced by the subtle power of suggestion.

Why? Look at another graph to illustrate....

This "tree" is one that science planted. Since it lumps all carnivores into one "Order", thus implying 'relationship' on their evolutionary "tree". And since these are all mammals, again there is the suggestion of relationship.

This is why I believe that science is not entirely honest in their classification methods.
They can suggest a "tree" but they grafted on the branches, and put their own "fertilizer" on it IMO.

If I presented you with two finch-like birds that you had no idea of the taxonomical ranking of, how would you go about demonstrating to me that they were either the same or different "kind"?

That depends on what era I was living in. If I lived in Bible times I would have a totally different answer to the one I would give you now. Science is about gaining knowledge and we have come a long way in the last 200 years, but not so much in the millenniums before that. Natural science can tell us a lot about specific species and what family they belong to, which is fine....but they cannot prove that finches 'evolved' from anything but other finches. They cannot back up their "tree" with anything but diagrams and drawings.

 

[Deeje]

Atheists have learned that a magic man in the sky is not necessary to explain nature.

Perhaps this is where you guys come unstuck. There is no "magic man in the sky". That is the way atheists want to paint an entity whose power is immeasurable by human standards. It means that a powerful Intelligence exists that would by comparison make their brightest minds look like slugs. I hope I am around to witness to removal of the smugness and denial.

There you go again, picking and choosing which parts of your Holy Scripture to believe and which to dismiss. That's not very Christian of you.

There is no 'picking and choosing'...there is simply an acknowledgement that science has discovered an old earth and re-evaluating the original language helped us to find the truth. The Hebrew word for "day" (yohm) can mean a period of undetermined length. It has a beginning and an end, but what is in between is not specified. As we expect, in keeping with both science and the Bible, we find something coherent 'in the middle'. Should we not do this IYO? Should we just blindly accept one position or the other when both could equally be in error?

ToE and abiogenesis are two different things. People who study these two different things are two different groups of people. People who study geography are not the same group of people who study astronomy. Why can you not understand that very basic concept.

All branches of science are tied together in their acceptance of one premise....that macro-evolution is a foregone conclusion....therefore all their findings will fit into that box, no matter what 'field' we mention. How anyone can say that evolution and abiogenesis are separate and unconnected to each other is laughable.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't accept the OT as written?

Since Jesus often said "it is written" why would you suggest such a thing? He was only quoting the OT.

We can excuse them for their lack of scientific knowledge. You have no such excuse - except your religious indoctrination.

Might I suggest that you are equally 'indoctrinated' with your own unprovable 'belief system'? My belief system allows me to explore the facts of science and distinguish them from the supposition and suggestion. Can yours?

Parroting your JW beliefs is meaningless and futile.

Parroting you own views, based on the baseless musings of scientists, to me is equally meaningless and futile.

I know the difference between a fact and a suggestion. Do you?

Yes, by all means, do continue to show your ignorance.
life expectancy since 1500 - Google Search:

LOL ...the number one killers in western populations are cancer, heart disease and diabetes. All of which are caused by lifestyle choices and environmental factors. Look those up.

In this day and age when science has learned so much about many things, it is the implementation of their knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired. Our health is just one of the casualties of science. The medical system treating our illnesses is a cash cow that none in the orthodox medical system is in a hurry to fix. They are too busy making billions out of our carefully manipulated medicine and food choices. They are grooming us as customers for the rest of our miserable lives in this system. If you can't see that, then you are blind.

How did we end up with nuclear weapons that could wipe out all life on this planet on the whim of haughty world leaders who might decide to 'shirtfront' each other in a battle of ego and ambition? Should the fate of the world rest in the hands of such men? Who gave them that power? Wasn't it science?

Is that something to be proud of?

 

[Deeje]

A cameo!....Gotta love a cameo. Are you the evolution police?

"To serve and to protect" your precious theory?

And this is what some either accidentally or intentionally conflate. It's like "If you believe in evolution, you are an atheist that beats your spouse every day of the week".

When have we ever inferred that atheists beat their wives?

Someone is conflating the facts here.

"Abiogenesis" is a hypothesis, as you well know, and also there are a great many scientists who fully accept the basic ToE who are also very much theists, which you also well know.

A theist is not necessarily a Christian.....and calling yourself a "Christian" doesn't automatically make you one either, no matter what "branch" you subscribe to.
Its not about labels. Its about having the courage of your convictions....and not kowtowing for fear of losing credibility with your peers.

Even when they are shown they're wrong, they still repeat the same old dishonest mantra over and over and over again.

But of course that doesn't apply to evolutionists, does it?

Therefore, having a serious discussion with them is almost always futile, which is why I only make an occasional "cameo appearance".

My sentiments exactly......except that I don't run away from the challenge.

 

[ecco]

But it does say, the Earth is “suspended on nothing”. Who would’ve thought that, back then?!!

People who thought this was a bit too ridiculous even for them.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps this is where you guys come unstuck. There is no "magic man in the sky". That is the way atheists want to paint an entity whose power is immeasurable by human standards. It means that a powerful Intelligence exists that would by comparison make their brightest minds look like slugs. I hope I am around to witness to removal of the smugness and denial.

Not just a powerful intelligence. An intelligence so powerful that it knows all , past, present and future. An level of intelligence we call omniscience. He is also omnipotent - can do anything he wants to do in exactly the way he wants to do it.

What did the magic man in the sky do with his omniscience and omnipotence?

For 99.9999999+% of his eternal existence he did nothing except maybe think about what he was going to do. Then he created Adam & Eve. Then he waited for A&E to disobey him, as he knew they would. Then he kicked them out of the Garden for disobeying him. Do I have that right?

 

[ecco]

All branches of science are tied together in their acceptance of one premise....that macro-evolution is a foregone conclusion....therefore all their findings will fit into that box, no matter what 'field' we mention.

It was not a foregone conclusion 150 years ago. It is now established fact. You refuse to believe it because it flies in the face of your ingrained religious beliefs.

How anyone can say that evolution and abiogenesis are separate and unconnected to each other is laughable.

I agree, it would be laughable if anyone said that.
Who says they are unconnected? Give us a name and a quote.

I have stated that they are separate fields of study. That doesn't mean they are not connected. You really have to try harder to get your facts straight.

 

[ecco]

Might I suggest that you are equally 'indoctrinated' with your own unprovable 'belief system'?

You can suggest anything you want to. Evidence of your indoctrination can be found in the above sentence.

It has been explained to you, repeatedly, that science is not in the business of "proof". It is in the business of accumulating evidence.

Yet your indoctrination tells you that one way to counter ToE is to say "it's unprovable".

My belief system allows me to explore the facts of science and distinguish them from the supposition and suggestion.

Your "belief system" is based on the knowledge that people had 2-3 thousand years. Your "belief system" prevents you from accepting any science that that contradicts this ancient "knowledge".

Can yours?

My beliefs about science and religion are based on the accumulated knowledge of mankind, not on what was believed thousands of years ago.

 

[ecco]

LOL ...the number one killers in western populations are cancer, heart disease and diabetes. All of which are caused by lifestyle choices and environmental factors. Look those up.
In this day and age when science has learned so much about many things, it is the implementation of their knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired. Our health is just one of the casualties of science. The medical system treating our illnesses is a cash cow that none in the orthodox medical system is in a hurry to fix. They are too busy making billions out of our carefully manipulated medicine and food choices. They are grooming us as customers for the rest of our miserable lives in this system. If you can't see that, then you are blind.

And yet life expectancy is greater than at any time in the history of mankind.

That's not because of religion or you god. That's a result of science.