Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

There is a true God. But you keep calling me a liar, yet you haven't proven natural selection without a superior intelligent motivating force as the originator of life. When a man and woman have a child, that child, I read, has 50% dna of the father and 50% of the mother. That is not evolution. That is the way genetic lineage works. Meanwhile, there is nothing other than say-so that something that is now purportedly extinct in what is called the greater ape family interbred with whatever -- the whoevers -- to eventually evolve to become homo sapiens. Yes, and furthermore, yes, the breathing apparatus of gills was lost as combination fish types crawled on to land and stayed there? That's what I was taught in school. The picture was cute like a platypus crawling out of water, but now that I look more at that, it doesn't make sense. Maybe the land crawlers that emerged from the sea didn't want to go back there any more? I mean, are whales and dolphins evolving, or is there no natural selection need for them to live on land primarily? I wonder if some think birds wish they could breathe for an extended while under water. Maybe the thought will take root in their brains and they will genetically transform? Some say maybe they pray or wonder about God and wonder why they die. Frankly, I don't think so but some may ask how do I know? but then we have Mr. Ed to tell us, right?

No, I have pointed out when you have failed to be honest. And at times you have actually post what have to be lies since you knew better.

And you are somewhat correct. When a child is born he has half of his fathers and half of his mothers DNA, EXCEPT for one the order of 50 to 150 mutations. Mutations are how "new information" enters the genome. Add natural selection, which is a given, and you have evolution. And you keep making the error thinking that what an organism wants is part of evolution. That is not the case. Drop the strawman arguments, they only harm your case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think the Jews that believe in the scriptures about their history are misled as a religious group? I actually see more evidence about that than I do the theory of evolution insofar as life evolving without a divine originator. Do I think that means someone born with life threatening illness is from God? Some do. I don't see the Bible supporting that theory.

No, you do not see evidence. You do not know what evidence is and you won't let yourself learn. You can only fool yourself in that regards. Yes, there are some Jews that believe the scriptures. There are many that do not. And you cannot cherry pick what your God is responsible for. Instead of going off track let's concentrate on your education.

 

[Astrophile]

As far as parochial goes, I was just thinking if we cannot live on the moon or Mars, and there is no sign that any other place within a reachable distance can support life if transported from this Earth in the near future, how is it likely that life, as we know it, exists somewhere else as having evolved? The probability is probably just about 0.000 you think?

Scientists are already considering the possibility of life on, or inside, Venus (atmosphere or past life on surface), Mars (subsurface), and Ceres, and in subglacial oceans on the Jovian satellites Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, and the Saturnian satellites Enceladus and Titan (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Extraterrestrial_life and links). The possibility of life-bearing subglacial oceans on the satellites Rhea, Titania, Oberon and Triton and the dwarf planets Pluto, Eris, Sedna and Orcus, has also been mentioned, but at present we know very little about these bodies. Of course, the life-forms on these bodies, if they exist at all, would be extremophile micro-organisms; we are not talking about 'flying saucers' or 'men from Mars' here, and it would certainly be impossible for humans to live on these bodies. Also it would be very difficult to design probes that could travel to these bodies and search for evidence of life without contaminating the planet's environment with terrestrial organisms, so that it will be a long time before scientists can obtain evidence either way. However, although the probability of life on these planets and satellites is very low (perhaps 0.0001?), it is not zero.

According to E.A. Petigura (2013), 'Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars', https://pnas/org/content/early/2013/10/31/1319909110 , analysis of the observations by the Kepler telescope implies 'that 11±4% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet receiving between one and four times the stellar intensity as Earth', and that '5.7[±2]% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet with orbital periods of 200-400 d' (i.e. in the period range of Venus and Earth). This implies that, in the Milky Way alone, there may be around a billion Earth-size planets in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars - https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets. Thus there are likely to be many planets, in the Milky Way and in other galaxies, where life could have originated and evolved.

It is a small step to be able to infer the existence of so many Earth-like planets in stellar habitable zones; it would be a giant leap to conclude that these planets are actually inhabited, even by primitive micro-organisms. The discovery of an exoplanetary atmosphere that was out of chemical equilibrium would be evidence for life on the planet, and the presence of seasonally variable quantities of methane in the atmosphere of Mars may constitute such evidence. However, at present the evidence both from the solar system and from exoplanets suggests only that planetary and satellite environments exist that might be inhabitable by simple life-forms, and that the probability of the existence of such life-forms is above zero.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I have pointed out when you have failed to be honest. And at times you have actually post what have to be lies since you knew better.

And you are somewhat correct. When a child is born he has half of his fathers and half of his mothers DNA, EXCEPT for one the order of 50 to 150 mutations. Mutations are how "new information" enters the genome. Add natural selection, which is a given, and you have evolution. And you keep making the error thinking that what an organism wants is part of evolution. That is not the case. Drop the strawman arguments, they only harm your case.

Hopefully you can be honest here. Can you please point out where indeed you say I have been dishonest? Please show post and sentence(s) within the post. Thank you very much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists are already considering the possibility of life on, or inside, Venus (atmosphere or past life on surface), Mars (subsurface), and Ceres, and in subglacial oceans on the Jovian satellites Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, and the Saturnian satellites Enceladus and Titan (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Extraterrestrial_life and links). The possibility of life-bearing subglacial oceans on the satellites Rhea, Titania, Oberon and Triton and the dwarf planets Pluto, Eris, Sedna and Orcus, has also been mentioned, but at present we know very little about these bodies. Of course, the life-forms on these bodies, if they exist at all, would be extremophile micro-organisms; we are not talking about 'flying saucers' or 'men from Mars' here, and it would certainly be impossible for humans to live on these bodies. Also it would be very difficult to design probes that could travel to these bodies and search for evidence of life without contaminating the planet's environment with terrestrial organisms, so that it will be a long time before scientists can obtain evidence either way. However, although the probability of life on these planets and satellites is very low (perhaps 0.0001?), it is not zero.

According to E.A. Petigura (2013), 'Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars', https://pnas/org/content/early/2013/10/31/1319909110 , analysis of the observations by the Kepler telescope implies 'that 11±4% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet receiving between one and four times the stellar intensity as Earth', and that '5.7[±2]% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet with orbital periods of 200-400 d' (i.e. in the period range of Venus and Earth). This implies that, in the Milky Way alone, there may be around a billion Earth-size planets in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars - https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets. Thus there are likely to be many planets, in the Milky Way and in other galaxies, where life could have originated and evolved.

It is a small step to be able to infer the existence of so many Earth-like planets in stellar habitable zones; it would be a giant leap to conclude that these planets are actually inhabited, even by primitive micro-organisms. The discovery of an exoplanetary atmosphere that was out of chemical equilibrium would be evidence for life on the planet, and the presence of seasonally variable quantities of methane in the atmosphere of Mars may constitute such evidence. However, at present the evidence both from the solar system and from exoplanets suggests only that planetary and satellite environments exist that might be inhabitable by simple life-forms, and that the probability of the existence of such life-forms is above zero.

It will be a very novel idea to transport water and oxygen within a feasible distance from earth for humans to live for a while, much less to start vegetation and animal life there. At least for a long, long while, and that while scientists are declaring disaster for the earth, one way or another anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you do not see evidence. You do not know what evidence is and you won't let yourself learn. You can only fool yourself in that regards. Yes, there are some Jews that believe the scriptures. There are many that do not. And you cannot cherry pick what your God is responsible for. Instead of going off track let's concentrate on your education.

I am learning what your idea of evidence is. That is if there is an agreement among scientists in general that it is evidence that humans evolved from fish, is it?, because they have breathing apparatus or that they have limbs in the fetus that look like they might have been fish gills? Correct me if I'm wrong about some forms of evidence. Thank you. And please, if I'm wrong, instead of saying you think I'm lying, please show me exactly where I am wrong and how. Thank you.
"Let us make man in our image." That is written after the animals and plants were made by God. It did not say let us make man to look like the greater ape family. (And of course you know that many humans look very much like artists' renditions of Neanderthals.) Or let us make man to look like the greater apes after we make the fish and the land animals.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
(Being wrong is not necessarily lying, as scientists certainly know, since they change ideas. I've been reading about light, its composition ... radiowaves, magnetism, and concepts change over time as theories are examined and developed.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hopefully you can be honest here. Can you please point out where indeed you say I have been dishonest? Please show post and sentence(s) within the post. Thank you very much.

I pointed it out when it happened. The time to correct it was then. But for a specific example there is no doubt that you were dishonest when you denied the existence of scientific evidence for evolution.

You failed when you did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am learning what your idea of evidence is.

Whoa, I had to stop you right there. I could tell that anything after it was going to be nonsense and probably have several lies in it.

I made it clear from the start that this was not my idea of evidence. I sited one source but could have used various others that said the same thing. Just like creationists, and I have not found an honest creationist yet, some scientists can find it hard to be honest about ideas that oppose their own. That is why scientific evidence has a clear and concise meaning. You only need to ask yourself two questions.

First is the concept that is under discussion testable. And the theory of evolution is testable, I even have specific tests.

The second question is does the observation support it. And the answer to that question was yes for all of the examples I gave. Even when it was that obvious your fear of reality appears to not let you to admit to the obvious.

I have answered your questions, now please answer mine:

why does reality scare you?

 

[YoursTrue]

I pointed it out when it happened. The time to correct it was then. But for a specific example there is no doubt that you were dishonest when you denied the existence of scientific evidence for evolution.

You failed when you did that.

No. The evidence you are talking about is questionable in many respects. Further, there are no fossil evidences of an animal in the midst of evolving while he/she was alive, is there? Obviously your idea of a lie is not my idea of a lie. And of course, you wouldn't call it a lie when the idea of an animal in the course of evolution was said (or possibly is said) to go through somehow all the stages of evolution, is it?
because, as you probably know the following from history:
"In the late 1800s some scientists felt that ontogeny not only could reveal something about evolutionary history, but that it also preserved a step-by-step record of that history. These scientists claimed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP). This phrase suggests that an organism's development will take it through each of the adult stages of its evolutionary history, or its phylogeny. At the time, some scientists thought that evolution worked by adding new stages on to the end of an organism's development. Thus its development would reiterate its evolutionary history — ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny."
That was, by the way, taught as TRUTH in schools years ago. The article goes on to say, however:
"This idea is an extreme one. If it were strictly true, it would predict, for example, that in the course of a chick's development, it would go through the following stages: a single celled organism, a multi-celled invertebrate ancestor, a fish, a lizard-like reptile, an ancestral bird, and then finally, a baby chick."
And so does it? I ask you...since some do feel that because humans evolved from fishes with gills, that is probably why some feel that the baby breathes in the womb.
Which is another area I'd like to look at.
Learning about evolutionary history

 

[YoursTrue]

Whoa, I had to stop you right there. I could tell that anything after it was going to be nonsense and probably have several lies in it.

I made it clear from the start that this was not my idea of evidence. I sited one source but could have used various others that said the same thing. Just like creationists, and I have not found an honest creationist yet, some scientists can find it hard to be honest about ideas that oppose their own. That is why scientific evidence has a clear and concise meaning. You only need to ask yourself two questions.

First is the concept that is under discussion testable. And the theory of evolution is testable, I even have specific tests.

The second question is does the observation support it. And the answer to that question was yes for all of the examples I gave. Even when it was that obvious your fear of reality appears to not let you to admit to the obvious.

I have answered your questions, now please answer mine:

why does reality scare you?

That is an interesting question. If I seriously thought it was the reality, I would accept it. But the reality as you see it, in terms of evolution, is hazy. Many questions. Many gaps. Yet when I provided an article about artifacts found in the wilderness recently you scoffed at it, saying it wasn't "peer reviewed." Peer reviewed for what? Whether it was true or not? Whether the writers and explorers were lying about what they found?
Here is another thoughtful article about remains found in the Jordan Valley. Is this where the Israelites camped on their way to Canaan 3,200 years ago?
No decision has been made, inquiries and examinations are still being done and questioned. But the artifacts are there and thoughts are exchanged and questioned.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whoa, I had to stop you right there. I could tell that anything after it was going to be nonsense and probably have several lies in it.

I made it clear from the start that this was not my idea of evidence.

I understand it's not your idea of evidence. And of course for a different reason, it's not mine either. When I was in school I believed what they said. Did I understand it? To an extent I did. I studied because it was interesting, and because I wanted to pass the tests. I never really questioned it. I understand why people believe that. But I no longer take it for granted that because a majority of scientists say humans evolved in micro or macro increments from, for example, fishes, it means it is true. I honestly thought most, if not all, I was taught in school was true. I never really questioned it. But now I do and maybe it's the way for me to learn what more technically minded scientists believe about things like: the way light works, for instance, as well as how life evolved from bacteria to the last thing on the biological scale, which I believe, according to the thought either way (by means of evolution, or by Biblical description), is the human person.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. The evidence you are talking about is questionable in many respects. Further, there are no fossil evidences of an animal in the midst of evolving while he/she was alive, is there? Obviously your idea of a lie is not my idea of a lie. And of course, you wouldn't call it a lie when the idea of an animal in the course of evolution was said (or possibly is said) to go through somehow all the stages of evolution, is it?
because, as you probably know the following from history:
"In the late 1800s some scientists felt that ontogeny not only could reveal something about evolutionary history, but that it also preserved a step-by-step record of that history. These scientists claimed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP). This phrase suggests that an organism's development will take it through each of the adult stages of its evolutionary history, or its phylogeny. At the time, some scientists thought that evolution worked by adding new stages on to the end of an organism's development. Thus its development would reiterate its evolutionary history — ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny."
That was, by the way, taught as TRUTH in schools years ago. The article goes on to say, however:
"This idea is an extreme one. If it were strictly true, it would predict, for example, that in the course of a chick's development, it would go through the following stages: a single celled organism, a multi-celled invertebrate ancestor, a fish, a lizard-like reptile, an ancestral bird, and then finally, a baby chick."
And so does it? I ask you...since some do feel that because humans evolved from fishes with gills, that is probably why some feel that the baby breathes in the womb.
Which is another area I'd like to look at.
Learning about evolutionary history

Well, here's one answer for babies in the womb and breathing:
"Babies do not exactly “breathe” in the womb; at least not by inhaling air they way they do after delivery. Instead, oxygen travels through the mother's lungs, heart, vasculature, uterus, and placenta, finally making its way through the umbilical cord and into the fetus"
https://www.abclawcenters.com/frequ...mb-and-how-can-fetuses-be-deprived-of-oxygen/
Interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The evidence you are talking about is questionable in many respects. Further, there are no fossil evidences of an animal in the midst of evolving while he/she was alive, is there? Obviously your idea of a lie is not my idea of a lie. And of course, you wouldn't call it a lie when the idea of an animal in the course of evolution was said (or possibly is said) to go through somehow all the stages of evolution, is it?
because, as you probably know the following from history:
"In the late 1800s some scientists felt that ontogeny not only could reveal something about evolutionary history, but that it also preserved a step-by-step record of that history. These scientists claimed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP). This phrase suggests that an organism's development will take it through each of the adult stages of its evolutionary history, or its phylogeny. At the time, some scientists thought that evolution worked by adding new stages on to the end of an organism's development. Thus its development would reiterate its evolutionary history — ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny."
That was, by the way, taught as TRUTH in schools years ago. The article goes on to say, however:
"This idea is an extreme one. If it were strictly true, it would predict, for example, that in the course of a chick's development, it would go through the following stages: a single celled organism, a multi-celled invertebrate ancestor, a fish, a lizard-like reptile, an ancestral bird, and then finally, a baby chick."
And so does it? I ask you...since some do feel that because humans evolved from fishes with gills, that is probably why some feel that the baby breathes in the womb.
Which is another area I'd like to look at.
Learning about evolutionary history

No, it is not "questionable" . It is a reasonable and logical standard for evidence. It is sad that you cannot be honest in this matter. Tell me what is wrong with that standard? No nonsense allowed. If you post nonsense I will edit it out of my quote to try to help you to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an interesting question. If I seriously thought it was the reality, I would accept it. But the reality as you see it, in terms of evolution, is hazy. Many questions. Many gaps. Yet when I provided an article about artifacts found in the wilderness recently you scoffed at it, saying it wasn't "peer reviewed." Peer reviewed for what? Whether it was true or not? Whether the writers and explorers were lying about what they found?
Here is another thoughtful article about remains found in the Jordan Valley. Is this where the Israelites camped on their way to Canaan 3,200 years ago?
No decision has been made, inquiries and examinations are still being done and questioned. But the artifacts are there and thoughts are exchanged and questioned.

Perhaps I should have asked your level of education. It is now rather obvious that you have not had any serious post high school education. Peer review is the process that serious scholars to through when they publish their works. Well respected professional journals have experts in the various fields that read articles and alert the writer to any obvious errors. It is a process that weeds out poorly supported articles. It does not guarantee that they are correct, but they will not be obviously wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it's not your idea of evidence. And of course for a different reason, it's not mine either. When I was in school I believed what they said. Did I understand it? To an extent I did. I studied because it was interesting, and because I wanted to pass the tests. I never really questioned it. I understand why people believe that. But I no longer take it for granted that because a majority of scientists say humans evolved in micro or macro increments from, for example, fishes, it means it is true. I honestly thought most, if not all, I was taught in school was true. I never really questioned it. But now I do and maybe it's the way for me to learn what more technically minded scientists believe about things like: the way light works, for instance, as well as how life evolved from bacteria to the last thing on the biological scale, which I believe, according to the thought either way (by means of evolution, or by Biblical description), is the human person.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, but you won't allow yourself the use of tools that would justify skepticism. As a result you are not a skeptic. You are merely a denier.

And as to reality, since you won't use the tools that allow you to judge properly that does mean that you are afraid of reality.

Please note that even though you have been corrected on the concept of evidence you improperly and dishonestly try to claim it is "my idea of evidence" . Why do you do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps I should have asked your level of education. It is now rather obvious that you have not had any serious post high school education. Peer review is the process that serious scholars to through when they publish their works. Well respected professional journals have experts in the various fields that read articles and alert the writer to any obvious errors. It is a process that weeds out poorly supported articles. It does not guarantee that they are correct, but they will not be obviously wrong.

I was not a science major. In the meantime, I believe that you dismiss anything that you don't like or want to consider, without reading it. And that does fit the bill that some have about those who are staunchly supporting evolution. They really don't want to consider anything beyond the latest consensus. Oh well. But you 'proved' the viewpoint I read about.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, but you won't allow yourself the use of tools that would justify skepticism. As a result you are not a skeptic. You are merely a denier.

And as to reality, since you won't use the tools that allow you to judge properly that does mean that you are afraid of reality.

Please note that even though you have been corrected on the concept of evidence you improperly and dishonestly try to claim it is "my idea of evidence" . Why do you do that?

You really do prove my point. YOU said it's not your idea of evidence, not me. And I got your point. Would you like me to explain it? OK, I will. It's not YOUR idea of evidence because you are taking what you believe is the idea of evidence from others, and you believe them without much, if any, question. For basics, you accept that humans evolved from, let's say, fish. By what is termed natural selection. Thus it's not YOUR idea...you didn't make it up. You accept the idea of evidence that states what scientific evidence in the sense of evolution is because you believe it. Yet when I question you about the proof, it seems you (and a few others) assail me and my level of education. If my level of education matters that much, then you may feel that anyone not up to your level (whatever that is) may not be qualified or able to discuss this with you, and you, I perceive, are not willing to go to basics, since my level obviously does not meet with your standards. Again I say, thanks for your time trying to explain this to me.
Perhaps, though, I misunderstood you when you said it was not your idea of evidence. Sorry about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps I should have asked your level of education. It is now rather obvious that you have not had any serious post high school education. Peer review is the process that serious scholars to through when they publish their works. Well respected professional journals have experts in the various fields that read articles and alert the writer to any obvious errors. It is a process that weeds out poorly supported articles. It does not guarantee that they are correct, but they will not be obviously wrong.

I was not a science major. But since these discussions, I'm learning.
In the meantime, I believe that you dismiss anything that you don't like or want to consider, without reading it. And that does fit the bill that some have about those who are staunchly supporting evolution. They really don't want to consider anything beyond the latest consensus. Oh well. One of my questions is not about similar characteristics among fossils, but rather about dating.
Here's another one, almost bordering on the fact and theory idea proof and whether again what the biblical account is regarding the Israelites.
https://factsandtrends.net/2018/09/...dus-new-discoveries-support-biblical-account/
So time in this world may tell. "“We have not proved that these camps are from the period of the early Israelites, but it is possible,” Ben-Shlomo, an archaeologist from Ariel University and excavation co-director, told the Express." Do you think that is an untrue statement?
By the way, do you think I think genetic changes may occur without divine direction? Yes, I do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was not a science major. In the meantime, I believe that you dismiss anything that you don't like or want to consider, without reading it. And that does fit the bill that some have about those who are staunchly supporting evolution. They really don't want to consider anything beyond the latest consensus. Oh well. But you 'proved' the viewpoint I read about.

Wow, as a supposed Christian you do not put very much stock in the Ninth Commandment.

First off you do not need to be a science major to understand the concept of evidence. What I dismiss are statements made out of incredible ignorance or a hopeless l inability to be honest. You read what was almost certainly a lying viewpoint. You were wise not to say what it is. In debating creationists there is an acronym. You will sooner or later run across the term PRATT'S. That stands for Points Refutes A Thousand Times. It is one of the hallmarks of creationist dishonesty that those arguments are not trashed.

You really do prove my point. YOU said it's not your idea of evidence, not me. And I got your point. Would you like me to explain it? OK, I will. It's not YOUR idea of evidence because you are taking what you believe is the idea of evidence from others, and you believe them without much, if any, question. For basics, you accept that humans evolved from, let's say, fish. By what is termed natural selection. Thus it's not YOUR idea...you didn't make it up. You accept the idea of evidence that states what scientific evidence in the sense of evolution is because you believe it. Yet when I question you about the proof, it seems you (and a few others) assail me and my level of education. If my level of education matters that much, then you may feel that anyone not up to your level (whatever that is) may not be qualified or able to discuss this with you, and you, I perceive, are not willing to go to basics, since my level obviously does not meet with your standards. Again I say, thanks for your time trying to explain this to me.
Perhaps, though, I misunderstood you when you said it was not your idea of evidence. Sorry about that.

No, there is no need to accept anything ahead of time. You keep demonstrating that you will not learn. When it comes to any formal evidence the only question that you need to ask is "Does this observation support the concept". There is no assuming that any part of evolution is true. Scientific evidence adds the qualifier that the idea must be testable. That you cannot admit to the obvious tells us that you are very afraid. I do believe that you want to be honest, but when you cannot admit to something that can only be answered yes honestly then you have failed.

And why you resist makes no sense. One piece of evidence is not "proof". In fact nothing in the sciences is proved absolutely. But the fact is that there is no evidence for your beliefs. You appear to know that you are wrong and yet you won't let yourself admit it.

Why is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was not a science major. But since these discussions, I'm learning.
In the meantime, I believe that you dismiss anything that you don't like or want to consider, without reading it. And that does fit the bill that some have about those who are staunchly supporting evolution. They really don't want to consider anything beyond the latest consensus. Oh well. One of my questions is not about similar characteristics among fossils, but rather about dating.
Here's another one, almost bordering on the fact and theory idea proof and whether again what the biblical account is regarding the Israelites.
https://factsandtrends.net/2018/09/...dus-new-discoveries-support-biblical-account/
So time in this world may tell. "“We have not proved that these camps are from the period of the early Israelites, but it is possible,” Ben-Shlomo, an archaeologist from Ariel University and excavation co-director, told the Express." Do you think that is an untrue statement?
By the way, do you think I think genetic changes may occur without divine direction? Yes, I do.

Sorry,but that article is an example of clutching at straws. It in no way supports the Exodus myth. You seem to be unaware of what the Bible claims. It tries to claim that on the order of two million Hebrews left Egypt. That story is not about that at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe Einstein will see.

"It doesn't matter what Einstein actually believed, I can claim what I want about the man and spread falsehoods about him because my religious beliefs conveniently enable me to assume he'd end up on my side anyway."

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your diatribe. I'm just going to tell you plainly:

Asserting falsehoods about people who can't defend themselves is morally wrong, and claiming people who expressed nothing but contempt for your beliefs actually agreed with you also morally wrong. If you won't admit that, then you are an immoral person and a failed Christian.