God of Gaps is one of God's holy names

[setarcos]

Every time a fossil turns up in strata of the age predicted by the theory that's another test it has passed. We do not find rabbits in the Cambrian, right?

wrong...fossils have been found in the wrong strata from time to time.
Then scientists have to device reasons why.

The correlation of DNA relationships with the tree of life diagrams that evolution has put forward are successful tests, too.

Tests of what? Its simply data. Correlation does not prove causation now does it. Why would you think that a creator God would have to use uniquely distinct materials for every aspect of life created? Good grief we share 50% of our genes with bananas for crying out loud. So think about this...
"The 50 per cent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences." from newscienist.com.

The so called tree of life has been reorganized a few times according to new discoveries in modern molecular science. However it simply represents data, not process. It hasn't passed anything.
[FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

The observed evolution of viruses (like now), cancer cells and phenomena such as "ring species" are successful tests of what the theory predicts.

This is representative of evolutionary drift within a species. For instance a certain bacteria becomes immune to a certain drug. That's not representative of macroevolution in which a new species has emerged. Thats virus is still a virus. Its simply genetic drift within the same species. For all science knows that virus may have been around all the time, not newly evolved. Circumstances may have simply changed allowing that particular strain to become dominant or manifest in a particular area at a particular time. Actually this has been shown by science to be sometimes the case as when antibiotics have been used killing off the more susceptible good bacterium and leaving the
already existent resistant bad bacterium room to dominate.
I don't know if you realize this, but cancer cells have been shown to be nearly universally bad for the species. So much so that most species have "built" in defenses against passing on mutations in cells. As far as ring species go I think that's more of a biological problem of how to define species.

Can you give examples of these "confusing issues in evolutionary theory" that are stacking up, according to you? And confusing to whom? To evolutionary biologists? Or just to people who don't know the subject?

I'll see what I can dig up at home when I get there. As far as confusion...probably neither and probably both depending on who you ask.

 

[setarcos]

That's not scientific evidence. The most that kind of exercise can do is formulate a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is scientific, it would then have to make some sort of prediction about what observations in nature could be expected if the hypothesis were correct. This hypothesis makes no testable prediction.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not but most of our biggest scientific theories in physics are theorized and validated as far as they can be currently mathematically not by direct experiment. Things like the big bang, black holes, dark matter and energy..etc.
We can't "as yet" test these things directly. We can only surmise their value evidentially via mathematical coherence and their not violating what we do observe experimentally and otherwise. In other words the experimental part is the collection of data. The mathematical part, in this case is the analysis of that data. That is the science.
Look at it this way. The beginning of life is untestable scientifically. Scientists propose theories on what happened but have no way to validate those theories. Evolutionarily speaking, scientists gather data on what exists or has been found and then propose theories through analysis of the data they've found. To date no experiment has been done or proposed in which we may predict the outcome of a particular new species without intelligent interference in the experiment. Evolution theory is not predictive. It is analytical.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So tell me...what is YOUR proof of the belief you hold?

Existence of disasters and diseases, the problem of evil. How do you defend Kentucky tornado?

 

[setarcos]

Existence of disasters and diseases, the problem of evil. How do you defend Kentucky tornado?

Well I don't "defend" such things. I abhor such events. How do these things determine for you that a God as defined doesn't exist? I suppose you've got it into your head that if God exists then we should all be living in a perfect paradise from the get go forever? The God is all powerful, all knowing, all loving conundrum. I think you are right to question whether or not a specifically defined entity can exist logically and coherently with the reality we know. Job in the bible had similar questions. If you haven't it is an interesting book to read.
First of all nothing concerning how we think about God or can think about God as defined would suggest that God is obligated to confine itself to our conception of how we love as we have come to define what love is from a human perspective.
I think your specifically targeting the Christian conception of God. And I think that many people-Christians especially- have been taught and promote a misconception of who and what God is. Libraries have been written concerning the problem of suffering and evil and I can hardly do it justice here. I personally can't stand those that tout Gods love to those in the midst of great suffering. The strong in their belief don't need such gibberish and the weak will hardly believe it while suffering. I can only give a synopsis of what I believe. The Christian creator God is the source and sustainer of all things. It is a mystery as to why the existence of evil is sustained in this reality by an entity defined as being love. I can only say that you cannot define love except by the existence of its opposition by which its standard is defined. Love as it relates to God is a state of being not action. It is a source from which we draw our ability to cope with reality. Of course this requires, as with anything we do consciously, a certain amount of cooperation. This reality for some unfathomable reason includes evil and suffering but as far as I can see that fact does not require the exclusion of a creator God. The Christian God cannot according to many peoples misconception do anything it wants because it is all powerful etc. God itself is conceptually confined to the possible. By definition God can do anything that is possible to do. This does not include contradictions like making a rock so heavy even God cant move it. Or creating another God which would violate the very definition of what God means. Or making something both exist and not exist at the same time etc. It may very well be that this existence must of necessity include evil and suffering to make possible the fulfillment of its purpose, whatever that may be, and the fulfillment of that purpose may be impossible without such things.
Oh and then there's the fact that the existence of an intelligence which directed the creation of this reality may simply not conform to the Christian conception of what God is. So, the fact of suffering and evil are not in themselves proofs against the existence of such a being.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not sure if you realize this or not but most of our biggest scientific theories in physics are theorized and validated as far as they can be currently mathematically not by direct experiment. Things like the big bang, black holes, dark matter and energy..etc.
We can't "as yet" test these things directly. We can only surmise their value evidentially via mathematical coherence and their not violating what we do observe experimentally and otherwise. In other words the experimental part is the collection of data. The mathematical part, in this case is the analysis of that data. That is the science.
Look at it this way. The beginning of life is untestable scientifically. Scientists propose theories on what happened but have no way to validate those theories. Evolutionarily speaking, scientists gather data on what exists or has been found and then propose theories through analysis of the data they've found. To date no experiment has been done or proposed in which we may predict the outcome of a particular new species without intelligent interference in the experiment. Evolution theory is not predictive. It is analytical.

The Big Bang theory is based on evidence (recession of galaxies, CMBR), not mathematics.

There is observational evidence too for black holes: Evidence for Black Holes – Astronomy

Dark matter and dark energy are not theories, but labels for observations that are so far unexplained by any theory.

I do not believe you will be able to name a single theory of science that is not rooted in observational evidence. Of course it is true that almost all evidence - for anything in science - is indirect in some way or other. Nobody has "seen" a molecule, for example. But indirect evidence is still evidence. Not maths.

You seem to have some strange ideas about what science is and does. Have you studied science beyond school level?

 

[setarcos]

The Big Bang theory is based on evidence (recession of galaxies, CMBR), not mathematics.

The big bang theory is a mathematical extrapolation of current observational evidence. Obviously we can't observe the big bang currently nor experimentally. I feel your not paying attention to what I've said or don't care. I said they are theorized or validated mathematically not through "direct experimentation". Anything we can know about the big bang is surmised mathematically. But perhaps we are splitting hairs here if you consider the big bang, not the moment of the past expansion of the universe and time but a current ongoing event?

There is observational evidence too for black holes: Evidence for Black Holes – Astronomy

Yes, there is now observational evidence. However prior to any observational evidence, black holes were predicted from solving the relativistic equations not by experimentation.

Dark matter and dark energy are not theories, but labels for observations that are so far unexplained by any theory.

Yes, here I have to agree with you. They are as yet mysteries. Not by direct observational evidence of themselves but by observational evidence of mysterious effects that what we can observe seem to be subject to.

I do not believe you will be able to name a single theory of science that is not rooted in observational evidence.

The multiverse theory and String theory.

You seem to have some strange ideas about what science is and does. Have you studied science beyond school level?

I'm just a simple man trying to live a simple life in a world made complicated by our own pathetic motives who likes to read and play chess.

 

[exchemist]

The big bang theory is a mathematical extrapolation of current observational evidence. Obviously we can't observe the big bang currently nor experimentally. I feel your not paying attention to what I've said or don't care. I said they are theorized or validated mathematically not through "direct experimentation". Anything we can know about the big bang is surmised mathematically. But perhaps we are splitting hairs here if you consider the big bang, not the moment of the past expansion of the universe and time but a current ongoing event?

Yes, there is now observational evidence. However prior to any observational evidence, black holes were predicted from solving the relativistic equations not by experimentation.

Yes, here I have to agree with you. They are as yet mysteries. Not by direct observational evidence of themselves but by observational evidence of mysterious effects that what we can observe seem to be subject to.

The multiverse theory and String theory.
I'm just a simple man trying to live a simple life in a world made complicated by our own pathetic motives who likes to read and play chess.

Yes the Big Bang theory makes predictions, using maths, but based on observational evidence. That is like any theory in physics. But it is based on observation.It is false to claim it is "validated mathematically". It is not. It is validated experimentally, by observation of the CMBR and recessional velocities. How could anything be validated mathematically? All the maths can do is develop a model to predict what phenomena should be observable. The predictions can only be validated by observation.

Regarding black holes, you seem to have understood what happened. The theory of general relativity, which has been tested by observation, predicted that black holes might exist. And that prediction has been validated, by observations consistent with how these black holes would be expected to behave. That's how science works. A hypothesis is constructed to account for observations, it makes predictions about what further observations should be expected if the theory is right, and these are put to the test by observation.

The same with evolution. The appearance of birds suggested there should be some ancestors which were not yet birds, but with feathers or feather precursors. And this is what we have subsequently found. And not in Palaeozoic rocks but in the Mezozoic. Moerover only in the therapods, which are closest to the birds. As theory would suggest. And so on.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think your specifically targeting the Christian conception of God.
Oh and then there's the fact that the existence of an intelligence which directed the creation of this reality may simply not conform to the Christian conception of what God is. So, the fact of suffering and evil are not in themselves proofs against the existence of such a being.

No, I am not. I am a strong atheist, I reject all God concepts (whether one, three or many) because there is absolutely no evidence. And the universe, if it has been created by an intelligence, that intelligence is of a very low order. Your apologies do not strike a chord with me.

 

[rational experiences]

God of any gap is space and pressure owned by space.

Emptiness what a gap means.

 

[rational experiences]

Yes the Big Bang theory makes predictions, using maths, but based on observational evidence. That is like any theory in physics. But it is based on observation.It is false to claim it is "validated mathematically". It is not. It is validated experimentally, by observation of the CMBR and recessional velocities. How could anything be validated mathematically? All the maths can do is develop a model to predict what phenomena should be observable. The predictions can only be validated by observation.

Regarding black holes, you seem to have understood what happened. The theory of general relativity, which has been tested by observation, predicted that black holes might exist. And that prediction has been validated, by observations consistent with how these black holes would be expected to behave. That's how science works. A hypothesis is constructed to account for observations, it makes predictions about what further observations should be expected if the theory is right, and these are put to the test by observation.

The same with evolution. The appearance of birds suggested there should be some ancestors which were not yet birds, but with feathers or feather precursors. And this is what we have subsequently found. And not in Palaeozoic rocks but in the Mezozoic. Moerover only in the therapods, which are closest to the birds. As theory would suggest. And so on.

Birds fly or not fly.

Humans wore bird feathers on their head so scientists won't think we fly.

 

[Sheldon]

Good grief we share 50% of our genes with bananas for crying out loud. So think about this...

Indeed, almost as if the idea all living things evolved from shared ancestry is manifest in that fact? Now if we were more closely related to say apes, than plants, you'd expect that DNA to be much higher of course, refresh my memory, what percentage of our DNA to we share with chimpanzees?

Evolution theory is not predictive.

I just offered a prediction it made, that has been demonstrated with genetic evidence. Darwin originally predicted that all species are connected in a single phylogeny, viewable as a phylogenetic tree. Darwin considered this so important that the only illustration to ever appear in Origin of Species is a figure of a phylogenetic tree. When Darwin published his work, perhaps 100,000 species were known. Today, the number is something like 2,000,000 or more. And in 100% of the cases, Darwin's prediction has been corroborated - so, at least 1,900,000 tests of one of his fundamental predictions, with 100% corroboration. I think this makes Darwinism one of the most tested scientific theories in history.

 

[Sheldon]

exchemist said: ↑
Every time a fossil turns up in strata of the age predicted by the theory that's another test it has passed. We do not find rabbits in the Cambrian, right?

wrong...fossils have been found in the wrong strata from time to time.
Then scientists have to device reasons why.

Have they found fossilised mammals in the Cambrian strata? Perhaps a citation for the claim, offering some examples would help provide context?

 

[setarcos]

No, I am not. I am a strong atheist, I reject all God concepts (whether one, three or many) because there is absolutely no evidence. And the universe, if it has been created by an intelligence, that intelligence is of a very low order. Your apologies do not strike a chord with me.

Apologies? Seems to me you might be biased because you've had a rough experience or life so you base your belief on how you think a God should behave if it existed ? Life is hard. And an existent God is no guarantee for immediate relief from its hardships.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's science 101. Now if atheism doesn't declare its beliefs out of sheer ignorance then what is your evidence for the non-existence of a God? Until such evidence is presented atheists are as guilty of what they accuse deists of being. And actually, all else being equal there is more evidence for design in the universe than there is for randomness. So much so that even well known atheists or agnostics like Richard Dawkins wrote in one of his books that "biology is the study of things that give the 'appearance' of 'design'." Not that he believed in a designed universe but the universe certainly looks more designed than random that's for sure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Setarcos, I am an 80-year old very well adjusted grandpa (can be a great grandpa if I live for about 5 years more, my grand daughter got married in October) and have never had any psychological problems which are common in Western societies. The problems that I faced in life are behind me (who does not face problems in his/her life?). Absolute absence of evidence has not made me accept God (I was a vacillating theist for half of my life) like there is no elephant in my room. I have not read any Yerpean atheist, including Mr. Dawkins (I have read just one small book of essays by Bertrand Russel and was was suitably influenced by it). I am not at all impressed by what famous people may say. My guru, Buddha, warned me against it (Kesamutti Sutta/Kalama Sutta* - Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia). My atheism arises from Hindu philosophy (Hindu atheism - Wikipedia). As early as 3,000 years ago, RigVeda in its hymn on creation denies existence of God.

"arvāg devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yatābabhūva ll"
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Verse 6 (Translation by Ralph Griffith)

* "Thus, the Buddha named ten specific sources whose knowledge should not be immediately viewed as truthful without further investigation to avoid fallacies:
4. upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna - Scriptures or other official texts).
9. upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya - famous people)"

Design comes up because of environment. Environment does not come because of design.

 

[setarcos]

Have they found fossilised mammals in the Cambrian strata? Perhaps a citation for the claim, offering some examples would help provide context?

I am unaware of any such claims for the Cambrian. Incidentally however, last I read on the Cambrian so called "explosion" it has been noted as somewhat of a mystery in evolution.

 

[setarcos]

Indeed, almost as if the idea all living things evolved from shared ancestry is manifest in that fact? Now if we were more closely related to say apes, than plants, you'd expect that DNA to be much higher of course, refresh my memory, what percentage of our DNA to we share with chimpanzees?

Pay attention to context my friend. My point here was that the fact that we find similarities in material make up across special lines is not unexpected from a creator designing point of view.
We share roughly 60% of our DNA with strawberries. Now would you say that we are more closely related to strawberries than bananas? How so, since we know that animals did NOT evolve from plants nor plants from animals. The current thinking is that roughly a billion and a half years ago life split into three kingdoms...plants, animals, and fungi. We should be as closely related to strawberries as bananas...genetically speaking.
DNA is a bit more complicated functionally than you give it credit for. What are you saying? The higher the percentage of DNA the more similar the animal? Chimpanzee's have legs, we have legs, muscles, skin, hair, eyes, etc. every functionally similar structure has functionally similar DNA sequences. Those animals with functionally dissimilar structures would have less similar percentages of DNA. That's the design.
The folks at "Reasons.org" puts it this way.....
"Increasing scientific evidence indicates that genetic similarity has no bearing on the biological and behavioral disparity between humans and chimpanzees. Instead, what matters is the way genes are used (gene expression). One study demonstrated that the co-expression patterns of genes for humans and chimpanzees differ considerably in the cerebral cortex but are largely similar in subcortical regions. Another study indicates that human and chimp genomes vary in microRNA (molecules that regulate gene expression) content. The way genes are regulated and expressed corresponds with profound dissimilarities in human and chimpanzee brain structures and cognitive abilities (behavior). Differences in gene expression are sufficient to explain the crucial differences between humans and the great apes."
Believe them or not...its something to consider.
Even in the bible there is gradations of complexity through a time span in the creation process. That's not contested as far as evolution contends that. Start looking at the complexities being found by modern geneticists and biologists though and then you start to wonder about random happenstance.
Look at the expressed differences in just the 1% -+ of DNA between us and Chimps. The differences are monumentally beyond the expected ratio of similar DNA percentages to similar abilities and behaviors of a "normally" a.k.a. healthy functioning human.
Consider mysteries like genetic homogeneity between humans as compared to other species.
From the good people at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
"People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations."
Prove anything? Not really. But it is data to consider. If humans were "designed" to serve a purpose, it would make sense for a creator God to stabilize the species genetically. Pure speculation though.

 

[Sheldon]

Pay attention to context my friend. My point here was that the fact that we find similarities in material make up across special lines is not unexpected from a creator designing point of view.

You mean your unevidenced assumption. There is no objective evidence for any deity or creator. There is overwhelming evidence for species evolution and natural selection, but even were there not, the Abrahamic creation myths would remain unevidenced superstition. At their heart are unfalsifiable claims for inexplicable supernatural magic.

We share roughly 60% of our DNA with strawberries. Now would you say that we are more closely related to strawberries than bananas? How so, since we know that animals did NOT evolve from plants nor plants from animals.

We don't need to have evolved from something in order to have common or shared ancestry, creationists always seem to "create" this kind of straw man fallacies about evolution.

Even in the bible there is gradations of complexity through a time span in the creation process.

It's not a process it's an unevidenced myth, about an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

That's not contested as far as evolution contends that.

That's errant nonsense, the creation myth couldn't even get the most basic facts about the chronology the formation of our solar system and the universe right, plants and vegetation existing on a planet with a sun to fuel photosynthesis.

Start looking at the complexities being found by modern geneticists and biologists though and then you start to wonder about random happenstance.

Natural selection is not random happenstance.

If humans were "designed" to serve a purpose, it would make sense for a creator God to stabilize the species genetically. Pure speculation though.

Humans were not designed they evolved, all the objective evidence demonstrates that. Again however lets be absolutely clear, in the astronomically unlikely event species evolution were entirely reversed tomorrow, this would not evidence or lend any credence to the superstitious myth of creationism. It is a false dichotomy creationists often create, if we are faced with a choice between evolution and creationism, which is why creationists make up pseudoscience to attack evolution. They mistakenly think discrediting it will lend credence to their belief in creationism, which of course it would not.

Species evolution is a scientific fact, evidenced beyond any reasonable or rational doubt, that directly contradicts Abrahamic creation myths. However even without evolution, those creation myths are entirely unsupported by any objective evidence.

 

[setarcos]

Setarcos, I am an 80-year old very well adjusted grandpa (can be a great grandpa if I live for about 5 years more, my grand daughter got married in October) and have never had any psychological problems which are common in Western societies.

Well I must admit I didn't see that one coming. I'm glad you've made 80 years in this life, have progeny and are generally healthy and happy. I tip my hat to you sir.

Absolute absence of evidence has not made me accept God

In my humble opinion, I don't know why people keep claiming an absolute absence of evidence of design? If you look and listen evidence is everywhere. Scientists themselves cannot escape the appearance of design in the universe everywhere they look. So much so that the word keeps cropping up in their theories...even though derisively. Science can show the what, but it consistently fails to show the why or how.
What is gravity? Don't know but science can show what it does.
What is charge? Don't know but science can show what it does.
What is a quantum field? Don't know but science can show what it does.
Why does the field collapse the way it does? Can only guess.
What is quantum entanglement? Ditto.
How did life arise from non life? No clue, science has been thinking on this one for 70 years since the first experiments with absolutely no advancement in understanding or evidence.
How does the processes of DNA and the information it contains along with other microbiological systems work within an undirected evolutionary process? According to modern science its not looking good.
Science is a data collecting device. That's it. That data is analyzed by scientists and that analysis is subject to all the limitations a scientist has in understanding that analysis. One scientist says, ok this looks like design so I'm going to hypothesize a designer. Another scientist says, ok this looks like design but I'm going to hypothesize a natural process that accounts for the "appearance" of design. Both scientists are working with the same data.
So the question is, what is your criteria for what evidence is? You need a God to poke you in the nose and say "HERE I AM! I EXIST!"? I doubt God, if it exists, would be confined to what our expectations are. Never the less the analysis of the probabilistic calculations of the odds of design versus random process in some structures of the universe clearly favor design over the alternative.

I am not at all impressed by what famous people may say.

I for one am impressed by the words of some famous people. I don't discount a person simply because they've found their way to becoming famous somehow. Didn't the Buddha himself become somewhat famous for he did and said? I am interested in what they have done and have to say whether they are famous or just a dishwasher for a café in some small town.

My guru, Buddha, warned me against it (Kesamutti Sutta/Kalama Sutta* - Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia). My atheism arises from Hindu philosophy (Hindu atheism - Wikipedia). As early as 3,000 years ago, RigVeda in its hymn on creation denies existence of God.

Reading what you've referenced (Kesamutti Sutta) is hardly a wholesale warning against listening to anything a famous person has to say.
The atheism in Hindu philosophy does not quite equate to the modern western understanding of the term Atheism. Atheistic Hindus are still spiritual in practice.
All you have done is exchange one, according to you, unevidenced proposition for another in your beliefs. You condemn theists for lack of evidence but where is your evidence for the truth of the RigVeda's proposal for how creation happened? Not to mention the word itself belies a directed event by some intelligent means and mentions the existence of Gods coming into being. What evidence does the RigVeda present that shows these Gods came later than creation but didn't precede a creation event?
Where's your evidence for the validity of Hindu philosophies concerning Atheism?

* "Thus, the Buddha named ten specific sources whose knowledge should not be immediately viewed as truthful without further investigation to avoid fallacies:

You should take the Buddha's advice yourself and apply it to your own philosophies I'm thinking.
Thanks for the exchange and here's wishing you 5 more years of life and then some. Take care.

 

[Sheldon]

Scientists themselves cannot escape the appearance of design in the universe everywhere they look.

Nonsense, and the subjective assertion that the universe has the appearance of designed is of course not evidence it was designed. Science does not and never has evidenced any deity.

How did life arise from non life? No clue, science has been thinking on this one for 70 years since the first experiments with absolutely no advancement in understanding or evidence.

So what?

 

[setarcos]

You mean your unevidenced assumption. There is no objective evidence for any deity or creator. There is overwhelming evidence for species evolution and natural selection, but even were there not, the Abrahamic creation myths would remain unevidenced superstition. At their heart are unfalsifiable claims for inexplicable supernatural magic.

I keep asking...what is your criteria for evidence? There is evidence everywhere for design in the complex systems of microbiology for instance. People like Dawkings say that "biology is the study of living organisms that give the "appearance" of design." The key difference is Atheists believe that design is only an appearance produced by natural processes alone. And theists of course believe that appearance of design to be evidence of a directing itelligence.
Evolution can only show the similarities between species. That's it. All else is speculation. There is no experiment producing evidence or proof that evolutionists can point to which testifies to the processes behind the appearances. Biologist's can't even agree on a definitive definition of species for crying out loud.
Evolution for instance has no successful test nor any way of proving a successful test of how life began. How early simple organisms evolved into complex multi cellular organisms or how the complexities found in DNA and rDNA account for a process of natural selection alone.
As far as the description of creation in the bible goes they can be subject to comparison with scientific discoveries about our universe. Keep in mind that Genesis in the bible was not supposed to be a description of the minutest details of all the minutia of the creative act. It is merely a synopsis of the why and what of creation.

At their heart are unfalsifiable claims for inexplicable supernatural magic.

Anything supernatural by definition is beyond any known method's of scientific analysis after the fact. That does not prove impossibility. It at best only shows ignorance of the circumstances and confines science to a state of inability to comment upon. To believe that only things that are subject to scientific analysis can exist is profoundly arrogant and ignorant. Not only that but it would have to dismiss the experiences of millions of people whose intelligence, occupations, and achievements are spread throughout the entire spectrum of humanity. Unrepeatable phenomena does exist. Such phenomena happens daily. Sometimes the effects can be demonstrated. Sometimes not. But they are not subject to scientific analysis since they typically are unrepeatable events with no known way of forcing a repeat. Even those events which can be repeated so that the resultant phenomena can be analyzed scientifically would not be the original events themselves and would be subject to contaminating factors.
There are things in our world where science simply cannot go. Heck Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that.

We don't need to have evolved from something in order to have common or shared ancestry, creationists always seem to "create" this kind of straw man fallacies about evolution.

Good grief. That was my point! Similarities in organisms does not give evidential proof of evolution. It simply doesn't contradict the speculation of evolutionary origins. The straw man fallacy is in evolutionists assumptions that their speculations are unassailable truths. As I've said...it may be expected that an intelligent designer of life would have no necessary reason not to design species etc. using the same or similar structures if they serve similar purposes.
So this type or evidence may be applied to either speculative theory. It might be said though that theists have the upper hand since many of life's structures and processes give an evidential appearance of design that evolution through natural selection simply can't account for.

That's errant nonsense, the creation myth couldn't even get the most basic facts about the chronology the formation of our solar system and the universe right, plants and vegetation existing on a planet with a sun to fuel photosynthesis.

Now what about your biblical analysis makes you think this?

Natural selection is not random happenstance.

The processes by which natural selection work are by their very nature random...as in mutations, and happenstance, as in all the factors which must come together which somehow gives a particular organism enough of an advantage to propagate its own newly unique genome.

It is a false dichotomy creationists often create, if we are faced with a choice between evolution and creationism, which is why creationists make up pseudoscience to attack evolution. They mistakenly think discrediting it will lend credence to their belief in creationism, which of course it would not.

Yeah...only creationists right? Not evolutionists? If you look at the literature you would see that belief in a creator God does not equate automatically into evolution cannot have taken place. That's an evolutionist's ploy. They lump any belief in an existent creator into what some creationists believe but not all. This discussion concerns evolution through natural selection without intelligent interference. It does not concern the belief that...poof God created everything immediately and unnaturally included red herrings like fossils and the appearance of an old age earth so that one may claim a young earth.
It should be beneath you to accuse creationists of the very same thing many evolutionists do. Isn't that a waist of time...employing ad hominem fallacies instead of keeping on track with the discussion?

Species evolution is a scientific fact, evidenced beyond any reasonable or rational doubt, that directly contradicts Abrahamic creation myths. However even without evolution, those creation myths are entirely unsupported by any objective evidence.

Species evolution solely through natural means is a scientific speculation and can only be speculation. Since there is alternatives to the theory and evidence for an appearance of design has been shown the discussion of what accounts for this appearance is quite still alive and a valid challenge to evolution by natural selection.