Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Umm...

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

The main findings include:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.
​

Plus lots and lots of analyses using lesser amounts of data.
It also depends on exactly what one is comparing - genes tend to show a higher similarity than noncoding regions.
However, there is a clear trend in terms of decreasing similarity the 'farther away' you go - so, gorilla is a few percent less similar, orangutan a few percent less, etc., just as hypotheses of descent imply they should.
More important than mere similarity, though, is the extend of shared, unique mutations.
That is the sort of analysis that was discussed in those papers I cited.

This is over my head. I wonder if you understand it and can explain it. Perhaps we can go over it sentence by sentence and whatever I don't understand you can explain since you offered it. For instance, what does the following mean: "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." What is the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome?

 

[YoursTrue]

Who said it did?
Strawman much?


No, it really isn't.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.​

We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.

Feel free to provide evidence for magic creation of a man from dust 6-10,000 years ago.

Well, well, well, I just read an article about a scientist experimenting with bacterial changes (by themselves, no intervention) in a laboratory. And change they did. Does that prove [sorry, not prove, because science proves nothing as it seems] evolution? So does changing bacterium in an experiment provide evidence for evolution? Do you conclude from that experiment that means (of course, can't use the word 'proof') that in millions, billions of years, plants and animals of different sorts came about? I can only venture you will say yes. And my conclusion is: no, it doesn't. It shows that some bacterium can change, for whatever reason.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It took time for men and scholars to conclude which writings were to be included in the Bible canon. And remember it was considered a crime for centuries to read the Bible.

So, God wasn't real clear about what he wanted in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how tall they were prior to the flood.

Scientists do. Especially since there was no flood.


You could try to learn.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, God wasn't real clear about what he wanted in the Bible.

He was. And He motivated men to preserve and compile what He wanted for men to share with one another, sometimes at the risk of their own lives. Satan is very powerful now. Yes, God gave them free reign as well as time. He gave Adam and Eve free reign also.

 

[Wandering Monk]

He was. And He motivated men to preserve and compile what He wanted for men to share with one another, sometimes at the risk of their own lives. Satan is very powerful now. Yes, God gave them free reign as well as time. He gave Adam and Eve free reign also.

Magical thinking. No time for it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Magical thinking. No time for it.

Well, I don't think it's magicial thinking, life has hinged on much history, and you have your opinion, of course, but you seemingly made a comment as if God was not sure about what He was inspiring men to write and so I answered you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

YEC is just wrong factually, and there's a lot of just wrong factually around, often spread in the internet. It's not really of a lot of moment, in the end.

But I understand trying to shake some sense into people! I've done my fair share of trying over the years.

(a needed fyi here: my degree is in engineering physics, and I read in professional journals and also in high level science writing ever since about a hobby interest: astrophysics, broadly, just all related fields, so it's been a lot of reading over the decades, and that's just so you don't try to explain stuff to me I already know of course )

So, this could be interesting, even if you don't have a degree in the hard sciences, but find cosmology interesting. This is the first article, and one can also read the follow up articles there at Quantamagazine. It's a nice site for substantive writing without esoteric maths. --

I'd better point out I do not -- get that, 'not' -- consider this evidence of God, but it is on the other hand sorta what you asked for, but from another field: (the article is a lot of fun for people that want to understand what's been happening in physics, and the current status quo is largely unchanged over the last 6 years, but you can get updates and hear about new speculations)

Is Nature Unnatural?
Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? ....

Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis [or...Is Nature Unnatural?] | Quanta Magazine

(note that it appears still that multiverse hypotheses may be permanently untestable, without any way to ever choose between competing ones that contradict each other, etc. Picking one and actually believing it could be...well, "theology" as some have said, already. Multiverse ideas may just be....speculation that comes to nothing. It's a fascinating moment. A moment that is going on for years, on and on.)

Here's one of the update articles for those that want more. A key theory idea "supersymmetry" is starting to look as if perhaps if it does show up (if it's not already just dead in the water) very unlike what was expected....or maybe just wrong, some are thinking. What's left?.... A real feeling, or to many a real challenge, to the idea we understand nature that well. We are realizing on a very basic level a lot less is known than was thought just 10 years ago.
What No New Particles Means for Physics | Quanta Magazine

Thanks for all the info. I am an entomologist, but I am interested in physics and cosmology. I know enough of the latter two, to get myself in trouble, and need some non-specialist schooling on occasion. Folks like @Polymath257 and @gnostic have been helpful at providing math, physics and cosmology for non-specialist consumption, but others are a welcome addition.

I am a Christian, but neither fundamentalist nor a biblical literalist. I view my belief as personal and not something to be forced on others or to take the place of reality. My understanding of the natural world is based on science and what can be explained through science. That understanding is not determined or tainted by some church doctrine that demands I turn over reason and ignore observation and rational explanations based on evidence. It is my personal belief that a Christian can have their belief and accept the findings of science, and many do. This is probably more than I have said on the subject of personal belief than I have mentioned in my entire time on RF, but I felt it was important to be transparent in my response to you. Other than to reiterate that I don't practice the notion that my belief explains reality, I haven't anymore to expound on the subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok so what exactly is your position

1 that 500,000 benefitial mutations are enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans

2 that there was enough time for more mutations?

It is a good opportunity to teach me a lesson and justify your claim, so please show that 5M years is enough time to account for the differences between chimps and humans trough the process of random mutations and natural selection ..... Perhaps I will end up learning how us someone suppose to justify claims

Funny how you demand others explain their position, but run like mad when you are asked to demonstrate your assertions about ID. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just another attempt to weasle out of his burden of proof.

He is the Jimmy Durante of excuses. He's got a million of em.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep.

Classic case of pidgeon chess.

That comparison never stops being funny or apt. Too bad the same cannot be said of creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I must give credit to @leroy though.
He does it far more blatantly then most.

Almost like he's not even trying to hide it.
He'll off course deny it till he's blue in the face though. And then some.

There are others that are equally transparent. One keeps getting asked questions that he never answers, but claims over and over that he has many times. @leroy may not be alone at this level, but he is a strong competitor and one of the best in the free style burden of proof relay for individuals.

Without a doubt he will demure such well-deserved recognition.

 

[leroy]

Just for the record, I will not answer to any of the responses to this comment, unless the response is made by polymath

No, it is because those values maximize overall complexity. That, in particular, allows the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies, complex chemicals, etc.

Ok why I think your explanation is a bad... (3 main reasons)

1 we know that atleast in some cases "values" do not change to optimize what you call "complexity" for example one example of fine tuning is the initial low entropy of the universe, we know that matter/energy can exist in any state (ether low entropy or high entropy) we know that a state of high entropy is more likely than a state of low entropy and we know that if anything changes, the change will always tend to occur towards a state of high entropy..... Further more, the second law of thermodynamics is a "complete law" in the sence that we know with certainty that it works and why it works, (you can't simply assume that things could be different given some other deeper law)....... So to say that the entropy simply changed in the early universe until in "arrived" at a value of low entropy (or complexity) is simply wrong or if anything it would have been a miracle because it contradicts a well known law of nature.

2 your explanation is completely ad hoc, you invented this "super law" just because you need an explanation for the FT of the universe, while the existance of an intelligent designer was proposed long before the FT of the universe was descovered

3 I don't see how your model solves the FT problem, for example let's assume that the mass of the electron was given by the Higgs Field, why would this field make the mass of the electron such that it would latter be cabable of orbiting the nucleos of the atom,allowing the existance of stable atoms? .... This would only indicate that the Higgs field is also finely tuned, so at best your model would only push the fine tuning problem one step back, but it wouldn't solve it.


3 reasons why I think I'd is a good explanation

I would argue that there are atleast 3 reasons for why design is a good explamation.

1 given that you don't seem to have conclusive evidence against the existance of a designer, one can conclude that the existance of a designer is atleast possible, even assuming that there are no other arguments for the existance of a designer we should put God in the category y of things that may (or may not) excist for example we should put God in the same category that you would put Aliens, perhaps he exists, perhaps he doesn't,..... this is important because to accept this point forces you to atleast consider ID as a possible explanation, and precludes you to reject ID by default, not granting this point would imply that you have good and conclusive evidence against the existance of an intelligent creator of the universe. This point can be falsified if conclusive evidence against the existance of a designer is presented.

2 everytime a FT pattern (that is analogous to the universe) has been observed, design is always accepted as the best explanation (in fact as the only plausible explanation) this is because we are talking about multiple independent "values" all conspiring to produce the basic ingredients for life. For example in order to have carbon the Hoyle state the electromatic force and the strong nuclear force (3 independent forces) would have to be finely tuned, if any of those forces would have been a little bit different no carbon would have formed, but there is more, if you don't have stars you can't have star fusion, and therefore you can't have carbon, but in order to have stars, you need low entropy, hydrogen, and finely tuned values of gravity and dark energy. This is analogous to trow a dard and hitting the center of a bullseye, in order to do that, you have to trow the dart with a correct force, in the correct angle, in the correct direction, at the correct distance etc... Given that multiple independent "values" have to be precise in order to hit the center of a bullseye, design would tend to be the best explanation if such event is observed, this would be true even if you don't see the guy that is throwing the dard, and even if you make this observation in an other planet where there is no aditional evidence for intelligence.

Or to put it this way, there are objective ways to detect intelligent design, archeologists, forensic scientists, etc. Can detect intelligently design patterns, and conclude that such patterns where caused by intelligent designers..... Design can also be detected in the geologic column in pereods of time where modern humans didn't excist and in theory one can use this methods to detect design in other planets, even if there is no prior evidence for intelligent individuals.

So my suggestion is, to simply use those methods of design detection that we know they work, apply them to the universe, and see if the universe has indications of being created by an intelligent designer.

You can falsify the argument if one ether shows that the Complexity of the universe is not analogous to the complexity of stuff that could only be caused by an intelligence.... Or... you can simply show that those patterns are not necessarily caused by an intelligent designer.

3 the lack of any competent alternative explanation, there are devastating and conclusive objections against all the other alternatives that have been discussed in the literature, all the alternative explanations for the FT of the universe fail. For example the Bolzmann Brain paradox destroys any "chance/multiverse hypothesis" the fact that primodial blackholes don't require as much FT as stars, destroys "cosmic darwinism models" and quite frankly I think I provided insuperable objections to your model.

There are no comparativly good objections against ID, at best you can argue that there is not strong independent evidence for a designer, (I would disagree) but even if that where the case, that will leave us with agnosticism (perhaps it exists perhaps it doesn't)

Pretend that there is a robbery , and that there are 3 suspects, John Marry and Fred, then pretend that there is conclusive evidence that prove the inoscence, of John and Marry, wouldn't that make Fred more probably guilty than not?

As a side note, I would like to know, what else should God do to make his existance evident, I mean even if there where a combination of stars that mimic the letters Polymath I created the universe.... Sincerely God. You could still invoque a similar adhoc explanation.... "maybe there is a law that forces stars to change their position untill that combination of words and letters arises"

Or to put it this way, what attributes should the universe have in order for you to conclude that maybe there is a designer of the cosmos?

 

[Valjean]

Well, well, well, I just read an article about a scientist experimenting with bacterial changes (by themselves, no intervention) in a laboratory. And change they did. Does that prove [sorry, not prove, because science proves nothing as it seems] evolution? So does changing bacterium in an experiment provide evidence for evolution? Do you conclude from that experiment that means (of course, can't use the word 'proof') that in millions, billions of years, plants and animals of different sorts came about? I can only venture you will say yes. And my conclusion is: no, it doesn't. It shows that some bacterium can change, for whatever reason.

Yes, it's evidence for evolution, in fact, it's a direct observation of evolution.
The experiment demonstrates natural selection -- a major mechanism of evolution.

"Some bacterium [sic] can change" seems an acknowledgement of evolution, but your "for whatever reason" is a dismissal of the known, observed and demonstrated mechanisms driving it.

 

[Polymath257]

Just for the record, I will not answer to any of the responses to this comment, unless the response is made by polymath

Ok why I think your explanation is a bad... (3 main reasons)

1 we know that atleast in some cases "values" do not change to optimize what you call "complexity" for example one example of fine tuning is the initial low entropy of the universe, we know that matter/energy can exist in any state (ether low entropy or high entropy) we know that a state of high entropy is more likely than a state of low entropy and we know that if anything changes, the change will always tend to occur towards a state of high entropy..... Further more, the second law of thermodynamics is a "complete law" in the sence that we know with certainty that it works and why it works, (you can't simply assume that things could be different given some other deeper law)....... So to say that the entropy simply changed in the early universe until in "arrived" at a value of low entropy (or complexity) is simply wrong or if anything it would have been a miracle because it contradicts a well known law of nature.

The second law is a derived law, not a fundamental law. To have a low entropy at the start only requires having a low number of available quantum stayes initially. And, the false vacuum is typically seen as having exactly one quantum state: the lowest entropy possible!

This fails on different lines: not a fundamental constant, not a fundamental law, and we already have a good explanation.

2 your explanation is completely ad hoc, you invented this "super law" just because you need an explanation for the FT of the universe, while the existance of an intelligent designer was proposed long before the FT of the universe was descovered

And physical laws are proposed ALL the time just to explain observable events. The ID proposal has *never* been a scientific proposal: always a religious one. Why? Because there is no actual evidence specifically pointing to an ID.

On the other hand, the observed complexity of the universe seems to be close to the maximum complexity allowed by the known laws. So proposing a law that does precisely this isn't ad hoc at all.

3 I don't see how your model solves the FT problem, for example let's assume that the mass of the electron was given by the Higgs Field, why would this field make the mass of the electron such that it would latter be cabable of orbiting the nucleos of the atom,allowing the existance of stable atoms? .... This would only indicate that the Higgs field is also finely tuned, so at best your model would only push the fine tuning problem one step back, but it wouldn't solve it.

Again, *all* the fundamental constants, from the mass of the electron to the mass of the Higgs are included. They *all* are adjusted to maximize the overall complexity.

3 reasons why I think I'd is a good explanation

I would argue that there are atleast 3 reasons for why design is a good explamation.

1 given that you don't seem to have conclusive evidence against the existance of a designer, one can conclude that the existance of a designer is atleast possible, even assuming that there are no other arguments for the existance of a designer we should put God in the category y of things that may (or may not) excist for example we should put God in the same category that you would put Aliens, perhaps he exists, perhaps he doesn't,..... this is important because to accept this point forces you to atleast consider ID as a possible explanation, and precludes you to reject ID by default, not granting this point would imply that you have good and conclusive evidence against the existance of an intelligent creator of the universe. This point can be falsified if conclusive evidence against the existance of a designer is presented.

On the other hand, the proposal introduces a wide range of unobserved and unobservable assumptions/ Already that is enough to reject it as a scientific hypothesis. It also has a host of metaphysical assumptions that are unsupported.

2 everytime a FT pattern (that is analogous to the universe) has been observed, design is always accepted as the best explanation (in fact as the only plausible explanation) this is because we are talking about multiple independent "values" all conspiring to produce the basic ingredients for life. For example in order to have carbon the Hoyle state the electromatic force and the strong nuclear force (3 independent forces) would have to be finely tuned, if any of those forces would have been a little bit different no carbon would have formed, but there is more, if you don't have stars you can't have star fusion, and therefore you can't have carbon, but in order to have stars, you need low entropy, hydrogen, and finely tuned values of gravity and dark energy. This is analogous to trow a dard and hitting the center of a bullseye, in order to do that, you have to trow the dart with a correct force, in the correct angle, in the correct direction, at the correct distance etc... Given that multiple independent "values" have to be precise in order to hit the center of a bullseye, design would tend to be the best explanation if such event is observed, this would be true even if you don't see the guy that is throwing the dard, and even if you make this observation in an other planet where there is no aditional evidence for intelligence.

Have you read Weinberg's counter to Hoyle's comment?

And you have *still* not said exactly which fundamental constants you are using (initial entropy is not fundamental), what your proposed distribution for them is and what range allows for the things you are selecting for (carbon atoms and stars).

Or to put it this way, there are objective ways to detect intelligent design, archeologists, forensic scientists, etc. Can detect intelligently design patterns, and conclude that such patterns where caused by intelligent designers..... Design can also be detected in the geologic column in pereods of time where modern humans didn't excist and in theory one can use this methods to detect design in other planets, even if there is no prior evidence for intelligent individuals.

Yes, there are known methods for detecting design. I even pointed out some of the methods and requirements. Those have not been met.

So my suggestion is, to simply use those methods of design detection that we know they work, apply them to the universe, and see if the universe has indications of being created by an intelligent designer.

And guess what? The first step is to understand precisely what can happen without design. We are still in that phase of the investigation.

At worst, we have a few constants that seem to have values that allow us to be here. That is the weak anthropic principle, but you want to argue for a strong version.

You can falsify the argument if one ether shows that the Complexity of the universe is not analogous to the complexity of stuff that could only be caused by an intelligence.... Or... you can simply show that those patterns are not necessarily caused by an intelligent designer.

Well, given the laws we know and the constant values we know, complexity seems to be a natural result. Already that argues against and ID.

3 the lack of any competent alternative explanation, there are devastating and conclusive objections against all the other alternatives that have been discussed in the literature, all the alternative explanations for the FT of the universe fail. For example the Bolzmann Brain paradox destroys any "chance/multiverse hypothesis" the fact that primodial blackholes don't require as much FT as stars, destroys "cosmic darwinism models" and quite frankly I think I provided insuperable objections to your model.

There are no comparativly good objections against ID, at best you can argue that there is not strong independent evidence for a designer, (I would disagree) but even if that where the case, that will leave us with agnosticism (perhaps it exists perhaps it doesn't)

It would leave us with agnosticism and, by Ockham, not making any assumption about a designer at all. Which is the scientific position.

Pretend that there is a robbery , and that there are 3 suspects, John Marry and Fred, then pretend that there is conclusive evidence that prove the inoscence, of John and Marry, wouldn't that make Fred more probably guilty than not?

Until it is discovered that Sam was hiding out.

As a side note, I would like to know, what else should God do to make his existance evident, I mean even if there where a combination of stars that mimic the letters Polymath I created the universe.... Sincerely God. You could still invoque a similar adhoc explanation.... "maybe there is a law that forces stars to change their position untill that combination of words and letters arises"

Well, that would at least be a very good start. Something unambiguous in the cosmic background radiation would be preferred.

Or to put it this way, what attributes should the universe have in order for you to conclude that maybe there is a designer of the cosmos?

Incredible special conditions in multiple locations necessary to explain the observations would be a good start. Multiple items that would be incredible unlikely to form from natural processes showing artistic design would be another. A regularity to the distribution of stars, planets, etc that actually shows a concern about placement.

I could go on. But at this point, I just don't see the types of order that would imply an intelligence acting on a cosmic scale.

 

[ecco]

I don't know what are talking about in reference to lake Michigan.

I'll accept your own comment about your lack of comprehension.

 

[ecco]

When did your worldwide flood occur? 4000 years ago? Are you saying that you believe that Mt. Everest and other miles high mountain ranges grew from a few hundreds of feet to 29,000 feet in 4000 years? If so you need to show a mechanism that explains the sudden cause of the growth, the mechanism for the growth and the mechanism that caused the growth to stop.

You should be aware that science has accounted for these things taking place over millions (not 4000) years.

I don't know how tall they were prior to the flood.

Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge.

That is one thing that is consistent across the board with Creationists.

Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge. Try addressing the actual questions. Yeah, I know that might make you actually have to think. Yeah, I know that is probably painful.

 

[ecco]

Do you happen to have the written records of genealogy and history, whether or not you believe it, for any groups other than the Israelites? Perhaps you can let me know. I am asking even if you don't believe any of it.

I do not have genealogies for the Chinese people.
I do not have genealogies for Native Americans.
I do not have genealogies for Australian Aborigines.

I do not have genealogies for Israelites. The names mentioned in the OT are fictional myths.

What are you asking?

 

[ecco]

When did your worldwide flood occur? 4000 years ago? Are you saying that you believe that Mt. Everest and other miles high mountain ranges grew from a few hundreds of feet to 29,000 feet in 4000 years? If so you need to show a mechanism that explains the sudden cause of the growth, the mechanism for the growth and the mechanism that caused the growth to stop.

You should be aware that science has accounted for these things taking place over millions (not 4000) years.

It took time for men and scholars to conclude which writings were to be included in the Bible canon. And remember it was considered a crime for centuries to read the Bible.

You did not address the questions. All you did, again, was duck and dodge.

• When did your worldwide flood occur? 4000 years ago?
• Are you saying that you believe that Mt. Everest and other miles high mountain ranges grew from a few hundreds of feet to 29,000 feet in 4000 years?
• If so you need to show a mechanism that explains the sudden cause of the growth, the mechanism for the growth and the mechanism that caused the growth to stop.

 

[YoursTrue]

Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge.

That is one thing that is consistent across the board with Creationists.

Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge. Duck and dodge. Try addressing the actual questions. Yeah, I know that might make you actually have to think. Yeah, I know that is probably painful.

Why? You know how tall they were before the flood? Any flood...you know?