Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Audie]

Indeed!

Animals display lots of "intelligence". I put the word in quotations only because what we usually call intelligence doesn't really exist at all.

A few weeks ago I saw a female cardinal land at the top of a very unstable stalk of hosta seeds in order to eat them. Cardinals seem to eat these every January even if they have access to the sunflower seeds that are among their favorites. They preferentially eat hostas in January. As it was balancing on the stalk its mate landed at the point that this stalk intersected another one and grabbed them both with his feet which stabilized the stalk allowing the female to more easily get the seeds at the top of the stalk.

This is most assuredly not "instinct". One could argue that making sacrifices to keep a mate is instinct but certainly not the calculations this bird had to make to solve the problem.

Only modern humans lack instinct and it's not so much they don't exist as it is that we overrule them in most cases by using knowledge and belief instead. We can get away with this because we've mostly eliminated the human predators in our environments.

Our understanding of evolution is wrong. Experiment is right but this has been extrapolated incorrectly.

"Our understanding of evolution is wrong"? huh?

 

[Mock Turtle]

It always kind of surprises me how nominal Christians are so free about
simply making things up, saying whatever opinion comes to mind for all the world as if it were somehow established fact.

There is no integrity in it at all.

Then, they think that we should somehow accept their word on things
far more difficult to "know" than some simple biology? ha. Not a chance
there is just no credibility there at all.

Unless they are shills for some anti religious cause, they might do welld
to go hide and keep their mouths shut, as ambassadors for the Faith, they
are not much of a success.

Quite. I know many religious people will willingly accept what their eyes tell them - if they care to look - but some, like our friend here are beyond reason it seems.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Indeed!

Animals display lots of "intelligence". I put the word in quotations only because what we usually call intelligence doesn't really exist at all.

A few weeks ago I saw a female cardinal land at the top of a very unstable stalk of hosta seeds in order to eat them. Cardinals seem to eat these every January even if they have access to the sunflower seeds that are among their favorites. They preferentially eat hostas in January. As it was balancing on the stalk its mate landed at the point that this stalk intersected another one and grabbed them both with his feet which stabilized the stalk allowing the female to more easily get the seeds at the top of the stalk.

This is most assuredly not "instinct". One could argue that making sacrifices to keep a mate is instinct but certainly not the calculations this bird had to make to solve the problem.

Yep, the more one studies animal species, the more one learns how exceptional they are in their own ways. We still have a long way to go - I've done my bit of bird-watching too.

 

[cladking]

"Our understanding of evolution is wrong"? huh?

Yes. It is wrong to the degree we believe change in species is caused by "natural selection" or 'survival of the fittest' in any of its names. This is only a tertiary cause of species change and has more effect on diversity of genes within a given species than it does on change in that species.

Most change is caused by population bottlenecks and mutation. Genes drive behavior and then individuals in a species are segregated by behavior in whether they live or die. When the behavior that confers survival is selected in a bottleneck the species changes to reflect the genes that drive that behavior. This is why there aren't missing links; they never existed.

Mutations are likely a leading cause of the arising of genes that allow individuals to survive a bottleneck but, no doubt, "survival of the fittest" has at least a minor role.

 

[12jtartar]

This makes no sense.

The line of the Messiah comes through Seth......this lineage in Luke leads from Noah to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

"son of Noah,
son of Laʹmech,
37 son of Me·thuʹse·lah,
son of Eʹnoch,
son of Jaʹred,
son of Ma·haʹla·le·el,
son of Ca·iʹnan,
38 son of Eʹnosh,
son of Seth,
son of Adam,
son of God." (Luke 3:23-28)



Disagree....the "male and female" created in Genesis 1 are the same male and female spoken about in Genesis 2 and 3.



Oh, but I believe it is. The "evolutionary process" is assumed by scientists, not proven. We are speaking about macro-evolution here...not adaptation. Science has postulated a theory and built a house of cards into a monolith of suggestion. Science cannot prove that evolution ever took place or that it is even possible the way they say. It has observed adaptation and made wild claims that it cannot back up with substantiated evidence.

In Genesis there is a direct creation of every living thing, beginning in the oceans and finishing with the creation of man. There is no evolution in the Bible. What is misunderstood is the time taken for each creative "day". I believe that this is what best explains the situation.

If each creative period was thousands or even millions of years long, then we are looking at a slow and deliberate process of creation over eons of time, with God taking time and care to craft each creature. It also explains why there are no intermediate links in a chain to other creatures. Each was a separate creation. Each had the inbuilt ability to adapt to new circumstances (environment or food sources). Adaptation occurs within a single family of organisms.

Genesis allows for an old earth by separating the first verse from the following ones. The creation of the "heaven and the earth" was a separate event, long before the preparation of the earth for habitation began. The creative periods did not have to be 24 hour days. The Hebrew word "yohm" (day) can mean an undetermined length of time.

Each "day" had a beginning and an end, but that is where I believe the similarity ends.



According to the Bible, Noah was "blameless"...not "perfect". Considering that his conduct was the very opposite to that of the general population of his time, he might have looked "perfect" to God because his family were the only ones worth saving.



Correct.



There was no need to till the ground until Adam was kicked out of the garden. They initially ate only fruit...remember? (Genesis 2:16) The "history" in ch 2 & 3 relate to the humans and what happened as a consequence of their choices. They lost so much when they chose to rebel.

Only when the ground was cursed did God tell Adam they had to eat "bread" until they returned to the dust.

"And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:17-19)

It was a very different life now to the one in the garden.



No sorry, I cannot come to the same conclusion at all...but thanks for the exercise.

Deeje,
Great!!! If anyone would just sit down and use a little intellectual honesty when reading your post, they, if their hearts are open will be able to understand your post. These things that you have written are not really difficult, if a person is humble enough to really listen, to what the Bible actually says, and quit believing what someone says that it says.

 

[cladking]

Yep, the more one studies animal species, the more one learns how exceptional they are in their own ways. We still have a long way to go - I've done my bit of bird-watching too.

I just came up with an interesting hypothesis for the increase in hawk populations in suburban areas. I think they mightta learned to use automotive traffic to drown out the warnings of small creatures around them. With fewer warnings issued and heard the odds of something that missed them all soar.

This will require a lot more observation to confirm.

 

[Audie]

Yes. It is wrong to the degree we believe change in species is caused by "natural selection" or 'survival of the fittest' in any of its names. This is only a tertiary cause of species change and has more effect on diversity of genes within a given species than it does on change in that species.

Most change is caused by population bottlenecks and mutation. Genes drive behavior and then individuals in a species are segregated by behavior in whether they live or die. When the behavior that confers survival is selected in a bottleneck the species changes to reflect the genes that drive that behavior. This is why there aren't missing links; they never existed.

Mutations are likely a leading cause of the arising of genes that allow individuals to survive a bottleneck but, no doubt, "survival of the fittest" has at least a minor role.

Ok, I dont see zactly eye to eye with you on above, but dont see anything
outlandish I could add in a thing or two, and I'd change the emphasis in places, but, guess I wont.

 

[cladking]

Ok, I dont see zactly eye to eye with you on above, but dont see anything
outlandish I could add in a thing or two, and I'd change the emphasis in places, but, guess I wont.

This is the ancient understanding of species change and the theory that formed the basis of the invention of technology we call "agriculture". It is also the basis of their understanding of human behavior as the basis of "good" and "evil". It is at the heart of ancient holy writings and the basis of what we call "faith" today.

Our confused understanding of species change, human behavior, and religion underlies most modern belief. It is expressed as language itself because we can't see from our perspective that language is the basis of thought itself and the (re)wiring of the human brain. We tend to misapprehend and misobserve because of modern language.

 

[Audie]

This is the ancient understanding of species change and the theory that formed the basis of the invention of technology we call "agriculture". It is also the basis of their understanding of human behavior as the basis of "good" and "evil". It is at the heart of ancient holy writings and the basis of what we call "faith" today.

Our confused understanding of species change, human behavior, and religion underlies most modern belief. It is expressed as language itself because we can't see from our perspective that language is the basis of thought itself and the (re)wiring of the human brain. We tend to misapprehend and misobserve because of modern language.

Ok... now it is down to spelling as the only item of agreement.

And not even all of that.

Also-
I am not part of your "we", or, "our"

 

[Axe Elf]

It always kind of surprises me how nominal Christians are so free about
simply making things up, saying whatever opinion comes to mind for all the world as if it were somehow established fact.

There is no integrity in it at all.

Then, they think that we should somehow accept their word on things
far more difficult to "know" than some simple biology? ha. Not a chance
there is just no credibility there at all.

Unless they are shills for some anti religious cause, they might do welld
to go hide and keep their mouths shut, as ambassadors for the Faith, they
are not much of a success.

I read an article on that just the other day...

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

No, I lied. It wasn't an article written just the other day. That was actually written by St. Augustine in 401 AD as part of his treatise on "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." It's not a new problem.

 

[Audie]

I read an article on that just the other day...

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

No, I lied. It wasn't an article written just the other day. That was actually written by St. Augustine in 401 AD as part of his treatise on "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." It's not a new problem.

Yes, I know the quote. i rather enjoyed the book, "Confessions..."
tho I felt bad for him, the way he spoilt his own enjoyment of nature.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Chapter 2 is a "history" or a recap, (not necessarily in chronological order) adding detail that is not recorded in the basic account of what is recorded in Chapter 1. There is only one creation of mankind and the other creatures who inhabit planet Earth....they had one assignment....to reproduce and fill the earth.

Chapter 2 is not a recap. It's an entirely different account. It says the animals were made after Adam. In Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are made seemingly at the same time, after everything else.

Anyone that recognizes the differences between 1 and 2 knows why scholars are right to say that the two have opposed traditional lineage. Genesis 1 is Elohist. It is so much so in fact that it's not even clear Elohim is singular in the account.

Why would God make two separate creations of humankind? And what makes you think that there are two?

This is your dilemma to solve, and any one else that wishes to continue insisting the Biblical narratives are literal. The interesting thing is: both narratives can easily be true- if they're taken as allegory to something hidden. They can't both be true if they are literal.

 

[Deeje]

Then tell us everything you actually know about God outside of what your holy book says since we can read. Does it all just come from your holy book and if not share with us all you actually know beyond what your holy book says.

Tell me what "faith" is and I will tell you why my faith is in my Creator rather than in what human intelligence imagines to be truth.

My "holy book" is not just a bunch of meaningless stories....it is a history that explains the Creator's interaction with his human creation, and in a relatively simple way it tells us how the universe began. That there was a "beginning" to it all. Science agrees.

It tells us how we got here. Science doesn't know, but it makes imaginative guesses about the process.

The Bible tells us why our life experience does not gel with our expectations in life. Why we collectively display sadness or disappointment when those expectations are not met.
Science tells us that we are just animals who form these expectations from our own evolutionary experiences, but that does not explain why humans collectively desire happiness, peace, security and loving family relationships as a norm. And why laughter is universal, a sense of humor, pretending (acting), poetry, enjoying fiction, creating music in a variety of genres, and any number of other traits that humans have exclusively.

It explains why something like death, (especially sudden or unexpected death which is accepted naturally by the vast majority of creatures on this planet,) is never accepted in the human species. Grief is felt deeply (sometimes for decades) despite it being part of our existence from the beginning. What does science do to explain this? Surely by now we should have 'evolved' the same kind of acceptance displayed in the majority of other creatures on this planet?

It tells us about free will and why it was given along with a superior level of intelligence, only to humans. In the animal kingdom, wisdom is pre-programmed in creatures to make their lives and interactions successful. They have no ability to conceptualise past, present and future, so their actions, (anything that sustains their species) are automatic......involving no ability to plan beyond the present.
How does science explain this?

My holy book explains why humans do not behave in a way that we might expect, given our 'natural' moral qualities. We are sometimes appalled that humans are capable of behaving in ways that are described as "inhuman" (not what we expect from humans...in fact not even what we would expect from animals who usually kill with no malice, but simply for a desire to eat.)
Science says we are just animals.....but are we? We might physically resemble some of them in some ways, but intellectually, we are poles apart.

The Bible tells us that the situation we find ourselves in is temporary, with a final solution that will achieve the Creator's first purpose without removing what caused our dilemma....the abuse of free will. We are the only creatures on the planet with truly free will and a moral sense (along with the faculty of conscience) to modify our behavior in a conceptualized manner. We alone can see where our actions may lead in the future and can avoid those actions according to that imagined outcome.
How does science explain that some humans can see the imagined outcome of their actions but carry them out anyway?

Our conduct on this planet demonstrates that humans are the greatest threat to all species that live here. As custodians, man has committed crimes against all of them for the sake of furthering his own greed.....and the misuse of science is in the forefront of that situation....man will ultimately lead to the demise of all life unless his behaviours are brought to a halt. He shows no real evidence of an intention to cease his behaviors......I believe that God will have to do that. In fact, he guarantees it.

The Bible has no unanswered questions...evolutionary science provides answers that never touched that part of me that demanded reasons that gelled with my own sense of logic and my own natural spirituality.

You asked 'what is there to threaten you with if there is no punishment'? And the answer is, there was never a threat in the first place. God doesn't "threaten" anyone.

He simply said that he was going to 'fill this earth' with humankind who would be caretakers of this earth along with its myriads of creatures.....he allows us to show him if we have what he is looking for in that role, or whether we are only interested in looking out for ourselves.

He will allow those who demonstrate the desired qualities to live on his earth but, as its "Landlord", those who trash his property and have no regard for his laws, or appreciation for his generosity, will be evicted. We determine by our own behavior, which side of that issue we have placed ourselves.

We either live or we die. Our judge can read hearts and motives, so there will not be a single person who will suffer an injustice in the outcome.

This is my reasoning on the matter.

 

[Deeje]

Butting in to point out that you know next to nothing about evolution, or how science works.

I used to believe in evolution until I actually examined the "evidence" for myself. It might surprise you to know that there is no actual evidence that is not interpreted by scientists to fit a pre-conceived idea. Evolution (of the macro variety) cannot be proven at all. It is suggested as a possibility, but presented in language that makes it appear to be fact. It isn't.

You are though quite open to making all manner of false and rather absurd statements about their nature, and likewise statements of facts not in evidence about the nature of your "god".

You are free to quote any material that provides proof for the evolutionary process....but it cannot be based on suggestion, conjecture or supposition....go for your life. Knock us out!

Do you find this to be entirely honourable and respectable? As a "Christian" and all.

Oh, a guilt trip? Nice try.

 

[Axe Elf]

You are free to quote any material that provides proof for the evolutionary process....but it cannot be based on suggestion, conjecture or supposition....go for your life. Knock us out!

One of the first things I have learned on this site is that it is pointless to argue with you. You simply respond with ever-increasing torrents of nonsense until your adversary gives up in recognition of your willful ignorance, and then you taunt them for running away. So if you reply to this, please do not expect me to answer. I provide it only in the vain hope of your education, and for the enlightenment of anyone who may truly be questioning the issue.

This is a great little compendium of information that refutes just about anything that a Creationist could throw at you.

An Index to Creationist Claims

In response to the objection, "Evolution has not been proved," the site offers this response:

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms. Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
   • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
   • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
   • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
   • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
   • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
   • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
   • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
   • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
   • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
   • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
   • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
   • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
   • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
   • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
   • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
   • Speciation has been observed.
   • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
   
   Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies.
   
   The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

 

[Deeje]

This is garbage. Concept or not, even lowly creatures like some birds and squirrels for example plan the future, by stashing food away from prying eyes. Many other animals plan for the future

No they don't. Squirrels have no idea why they store food away for the winter. Bears don't plan to hibernate. Birds don't plan how to build their nests. It's all pre-programmed instinct. Do you know of a program that doesn't have a programmer? What a multitude of fortunate accidents you believe in.....

chimpanzees for example, gather a group together to raid or hunt other species that they will eat, and cooperation between members of many species is very common - when planning future events.

Family groups likewise are programmed to do what they do collectively. They are not unintelligent, but not anywhere close to being able to plan what humans do. There is no real foreseeable future in their actions, just a program from their Creator that makes them enjoy their lives and make them fascinating to us as their caretakers. My favorite animals in the zoo are the various species of monkeys.....they resemble humans in some ways but are light years away in others. I just love to sit and watch them. I love to observe creation generally as a lot of it happens in my backyard.

You really do need to brush up on these matters. And many animal species remember quite a lot from the past, such as who has wronged them, been their friend, etc., - no thought to the past?

I have brushed up on these matters which is why I hold the beliefs that I do.

The ability not to forget a pleasant interaction with a human or a particularly traumatic event, is not to be confused with our ability to remember whole portions of our past not connected to anything dramatic in particular...an outing or a trip, or an event with family....some childhood memory that is connected to a certain odor or sound. I doubt that animals have the ability to remember mundane things. Their programming has mostly to do with survival. Certain species were actually designed to be companions of humans....others were not.

Not half as amusing as many seem to find you. You know, there was a time before religions took hold. Were we really just animals then? Many would see the era of religions as being the dark ages - me for one.

It isn't our own amusement with each other that determines our future. If you see religion as something from the dark ages, then I might suggest that you are looking at the wrong type of religion.

 

[Audie]

I used to believe in evolution until I actually examined the "evidence" for myself. It might surprise you to know that there is no actual evidence that is not interpreted by scientists to fit a pre-conceived idea. Evolution (of the macro variety) cannot be proven at all. It is suggested as a possibility, but presented in language that makes it appear to be fact. It isn't.



You are free to quote any material that provides proof for the evolutionary process....but it cannot be based on suggestion, conjecture or supposition....go for your life. Knock us out!



Oh, a guilt trip? Nice try.

My, who could resist suvh a delightful invitation!

No, I will leave you to it. Your investigation did not get as far as
Intro to Remedial, as you so clearly demonstrate, and I dont think
I could drag you any further. Maybe the hairy one can.

Cheerio and all that rot.

 

[Deeje]

One of the first things I have learned on this site is that it is pointless to argue with you. You simply respond with ever-increasing torrents of nonsense until your adversary gives up in recognition of your willful ignorance, and then you taunt them for running away.

I am smiling now because of the fact that you just described yourself. This is a debating site, which means debate is why we post on these forums. As they say..... "If you can't stand the heat...stay out of the kitchen".
When you have no answers, you cry foul and run away, making up sad excuses. I don't pretend to know what a "zen xian" is, but from what you post, I can't see that it is anything that Jesus Christ would recognise. As one who assisted in creation, the son of God is insulted by any "Christian" inferring that he is a liar and that the Bible can be ignored in favour of what humans think. That is your choice, of course.

So if you reply to this, please do not expect me to answer. I provide it only in the vain hope of your education, and for the enlightenment of anyone who may truly be questioning the issue

Then I will respond to your copy and paste as I have the time or inclination for the same reason. Not for your benefit obviously but for anyone who might be interested in an opposing view based on an equal amount of "evidence".

I will be back later....

 

[Deeje]

My, who could resist suvh a delightful invitation!

No, I will leave you to it. Your investigation did not get as far as
Intro to Remedial, as you so clearly demonstrate, and I dont think
I could drag you any further. Maybe the hairy one can.

Cheerio and all that rot.

Another runaway....it wasn't a difficult challenge, was it?
You could have posted your evidence for the benefit of the readers here.....?

 

[Axe Elf]

My, who could resist suvh a delightful invitation!

No, I will leave you to it. Your investigation did not get as far as
Intro to Remedial, as you so clearly demonstrate, and I dont think
I could drag you any further. Maybe the hairy one can.

Cheerio and all that rot.

She's a piece of work, isn't she? She's kind of out of place on a debating site, when all she's good for is outlandish nonsense unsupportable by either evidence or logic. You would think maybe she would have wanted to learn a little something about debate before she gave it a shot, but then again, I doubt if it would have helped. And I don't think I can drag her any further either.

Oh well, on to those who are still salvageable...

 

[cladking]

This is a great little compendium of information that refutes just about anything that a Creationist could throw at you.

This is mostly just evidence that species change and not that the "theory" of evolution supports the causations. It is interpretation of observation and does not support all known facts. That there are "missing links" ignores the fact that there are more missing than are represented. We have several of representatives of a few stages of species change but nothing in between.