Land of Israel

[Deeje]

"Macro-evolution" is simply a logical and well-established continuation of "micro-evolution".

"Well established" by whom? Science has gone way past what it can demonstrate at an experimental level about "evolution" and what it 'suggests' about it. Since calling adaptation "evolution" makes it sound like a continuation, it really isn't. Adaptive change occurs only within a genus or family....it never takes an animal or bird or reptile outside of its taxonomic family.

Wiki explains this simply with an example of the red fox......

"Consider a particular species, the red fox Vulpes vulpes: its next rank, the genus Vulpes, comprises all the 'true foxes'. Their closest relatives are in the immediately higher rank, the family Canidae, which includes dogs, wolves, jackals, all foxes, and other caniforms such as bears, badgers and seals; the next higher rank, the order Carnivora, includes feliforms and caniforms (lions, tigers, hyenas, wolverines, and all those mentioned above), plus other carnivorous mammals. As one group of the class Mammalia, all of the above are classified among those with backbones in the Chordata phylum rank, and with them among all the animals in the Animalia kingdom rank. Finally, all of the above will find their earliest relatives somewhere in their domain rank Eukarya."

Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia

We see here how a line is drawn from "species" to "genus" and then to "family". But then when we come to "order" the line starts to blur. Lumping all these unrelated creatures into one group as if they are part of a related order is misleading. Just because some creatures are mammals, doesn't necessarily mean that all mammals are related, just as all animals with a backbone are not related.....just as all creatures with scales are not related....just as all creatures who can walk on two legs are not related. Similarity does not = relationship.

This is clearly the power of suggestion at work. Most people don't even notice that they have been led down a certain path to a pre-conceived conclusion for which there is no real evidence.

This idea of "kinds" is scriptural, not scientific, as there simply is not one iota of evidence that evolution hits some sort of magical "wall" and stops. And if there was any doubt about that, then geneticists, who specialize in this area, should be at least skeptics-- but they're not.

Who in the world of scientific academia wants to stick their neck out and call them out on anything? It would be career suicide....their limp and battered bodies would be thrown outside the halls of higher learning, their findings never to be given credibility.....ever.

When Darwin observed the creatures on the Galapagos Islands, he did not see "evolution"...he saw "adaptation". These creatures were clearly the same genus as he observed on the mainland but had adapted to a more marine oriented lifestyle and food supply to become a new variety of species of the same family. These adaptive changes did not make them into something beyond their genus. The finches were still finches, the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. There is no proof that any species can go outside of its genus no matter how much time elapses. Species within their taxonomic group remain within those biological parameters. Science cannot prove otherwise except by suggestion (and really good marketing techniques. I especially refer to the computer generated graphics used these days....makes it all seem very real. Its a clever illusion by a master deceiver. See 1 John 5:19)

There is a wall, but it is invisible to most scientists, brainwashed to accept something that is only suggested....it cannot be proven or demonstrated in a lab and never will be.

Fortunately, as I found out between my junior and senior years in high school, I realized that some denominations don't teach disregarding what science had and has determined.

BTW, I graduated from high school in 1963.

I graduated in '64. We are of a similar vintage apparently. I was dead keen on this theory in my youth.....but the more I investigated, the more I saw purpose and design in everything. Fortunate co-incidences have their limits and evolution went way out of the ballpark on that score. Science has not been able to change my thinking on this up to today. Its hard to make God go away in the mind of an ID believer......the evidence is just too compelling.....and its just as hard to make evolution go away in the mind of its believers for the same reason. Belief is what it is. We all have the same choices to make about the same 'evidence'. There is no substitute for informed choice and that works both ways.

It is fruitless to even discuss this aspect because every time this issue of what exactly is "macro-evolution" actually is, you constantly move the goalposts. For example, is a change in species "macro-evolution" or not? If not, exactly where is that magical line that supposedly cannot be crossed? All I ever get back is a run-around.

See above. I have maintained this position all along. I believe that "macro-evolution" is a figment of science's collective imagination. "Adaptation" is a pre-programmed response in all living things as a means to preserve life and to create variety within the confines of their taxonomic family. It is a designed mechanism that cannot be attributed to the blind forces of undirected chance. You do understand how many 'fortunate accidents' we are talking about here...right?

 

[arjuna]

I often hear on BBC radio that Jews say that God gave the land of Israel to them. What are the references for this? Was the gift unconditional?

The original promise was made to Abraham in the book of Genesis (12.1-3, RSV):
'Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."
Your question, as most relating to the Bible, is complex.
The conditionality is one of stewardship and the OT is full of the story of the formation of 'Israel': the prophets speak against 'Israel' when this stewardship ('are you a blessing?', 'are the families of the earth in the condition of blessing themselves' (as in free from your yoke?) is lacking.
In the book of Genesis, first born Ishmael is left out of the central covenant in favor of second born Isaac and first born Esau is tricked out of his favor by brother Jacob. Jacob is named 'Israel' and immediately met by Esau...yet they do not reunite. The lineage of second born Isaac and second born Jacob is a lineage to Jew and Christian and the lineage of first born Ishmael and first born Esau is generally considered the lineage to the Muslim.
The NT reinforces the lineage of Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to David to Jesus: Jesus opts for a wider circle.
The Koran emphasizes the lineage of Abraham to Isaac to Ishmael to Jacob to Jesus to Mohammed, PBUH.
If you follow the covenants through the book of Genesis, you may consider for yourself whether the covenants were unconditional or if they took different form. I hope that this helps.

 

[arjuna]

I wonder if you see a difference in the prophet Isaiah's use of 'Jacob' and 'Israel' as separate?

Two examples:

Isaiah 44.
[21] Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant;
I formed you, you are my servant;
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.

[23] Sing, O heavens, for the LORD has done it;
shout, O depths of the earth;
break forth into singing, O mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it!
For the LORD has redeemed Jacob,
and will be glorified in Israel.

second: use of 'Jeshurun'
Isaiah 44:
[2] Thus says the LORD who made you,
who formed you from the womb and will help you:
Fear not, O Jacob my servant,
Jeshu'run whom I have chosen.

Jeshurun:
ישר
The verb ישר (yashar), generally means to be level or straight. It's used in four distinct ways:

• Literally, of a road being straight (1 Samuel 6:12), or smooth (Isaiah 40:3).
• Ethically; of a just or virtuous life style; blameless (Proverbs 11:5), or discerning (Psalm 119:128).
• To be right in the eyes of someone, which means to obtain this person's approval (Judges 14:3).
• Tranquility or harmony: of a soul being at peace (Habakkuk 2:4)

The amazing name Jeshurun: meaning and etymology

‘Jeshurun’ is defined as the ‘proper name meaning ‘upright’ or ‘straight’. A poetic name for Israel. It may represent a play on Jacob, the original Israel, known for deception. Jeshurun would show that Israel had quit deceiving and become upright or straight in actions.’ (Holman Bible Dictionary).
who did Jacob deceive? Although Esau did sell his birthright, Jacob tricked him, in collaboration with his mother, out of his birthright. Also: see after Jacob's first naming to 'Israel' to second naming.

From another source, ‘Jeshurun’ means ‘righteousness, justice, upright, the brilliant one, tranquility, harmony, happiness, blessedness. Metta: the happy state (blessedness) which includes love, mercy, good judgment, order, and the activity of all the faculties of the mind raised to spiritual consciousness.’ (Metaphysical Bible Commentary).

 

[arjuna]

And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."
stewardship were there is no one to curse the steward--that is a high responsibility.

 

[arjuna]

The conditionality is one of stewardship and the OT is full of the story of the formation of 'Israel': the prophets speak against 'Israel' when this stewardship ('are you a blessing?', 'are the families of the earth in the condition of blessing themselves' (as in free from your yoke?) is lacking.
and when 'Israel' is in exile, the prophets call for their return to the land.

 

[Deeje]

Jesus was a person, not a "lamb", and human sacrifices were not and are not allowed in Judaism nor Christianity.

John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". He obviously understood Jesus' role as the symbolic Lamb who was to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
Jesus' life had redemptive value as I mentioned before. A debt was owed that no other human could pay....Jesus paid the debt and released the captives. It was indeed symbolic but a real life sacrifice on his part.

His life was taken from him by force and manipulation of the Roman and Jewish legal system. He was executed, illegally tried and murdered by those who should have accepted his correction. Instead, they did what their forefathers had always done. They silenced the one who told them things they did not want to hear. (Matthew 23:37-39) He knew what was going to happen to him but submitted to the task willingly.

Jesus called for the forgiveness of the ones who nailed his body to the execution stake, but he did not include the Jewish religious leaders who orchestrated the whole thing. They were responsible for putting an innocent man to death. I know that Jews will not accept this.

What you are missing is that what Paul was dealing with was a form of symbolism that he came to believe in, probably out of a necessity to try and merge the God-Fearers and Jews together as a cohesive unit. He also, I assume, well knew that God can and does forgive sins in various ways, and that the Temple sacrifices were just one way.

Since the temple was in existence up until 70 C.E. I presume that sacrifices were still offered there by Jews. The Gentiles to whom Paul was sent did not have to comply with Jewish law because they were not required to convert to Judaism in order to become Christ's disciples. Jewish Christians were no longer obligated to make sacrifices for their sins because Jesus had paid for them permanently. The cohesiveness of Jewish and Gentile Christians took some time to become established, but human nature is what it is and that is why Jesus advocated love of God and neighbor so strongly. (Ephesians 2:11-22)

Therefore, "Jesus' sacrifice" can make sense in a symbolic way, but it simply cannot and does not make any sense if taken literally.

To me it works both ways...it was symbolic and it also fulfilled God's law...."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...life for a life". Jesus' life was the exact equivalent of Adam's. He paid the debt that Adam left to his children.

Why is it that you accept, I assume, the symbolisms used in Revelations and other books, but can't seem to realize that the creation accounts can be taken much the same way, which is why most Christian theologians don't have a problem accepting the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God was and is behind it all?

The symbolisms in Revelation were stated at the very beginning. (Revelation 1:1) There is no stated symbolism in the creation account in Genesis. The symbolisms in Revelation were not understood until "the Lord's Day"....the time period in which all that symbolism was finally apparent.
Daniel too wrote about our time and was told to seal up his prophesies until "the time of the end", (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) only then would they make sense. The Bible says these are the last days.....I believe it. The signs Jesus gave are all there.

 

[metis]

"Well established" by whom?

Scientists the world over, and it's called "speciation", as I was referring to the evolution of new species.

Secondly, the fossil record simply does not in any way fit into the Genesis narrative as taken literally. There's simply not one iota of evidence that there was a deity that created all so, at best, such a concept is relegated to mere guesswork. And common sense says as such as well as who was there at "creation" to see exactly how it happened?

There is a wall, but it is invisible to most scientists, brainwashed to accept something that is only suggested....it cannot be proven or demonstrated in a lab and never will be.

See above. I have maintained this position all along. I believe that "macro-evolution" is a figment of science's collective imagination.

So, these scientists are so very brainwashed but creationists, who blindly believe in an account written roughly 3000 years ago by unknown author(s) is to be believed as if were science? No thank you. Science, through the "scientific method", tries to do its best to eliminate bias from our evidence, but theists tend to blindly rely on their bias.

 

[metis]

John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". He obviously understood Jesus' role as the symbolic Lamb who was to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.

A debt was owed that no other human could pay....Jesus paid the debt and released the captives. It was indeed symbolic but a real life sacrifice on his part.

When you use the term "symbolic" as you have done, and then slip back into the word "real", you are contradicting yourself.

IOW, "symbolic" means that it's not the "real" thing. Therefore, as I mentioned before, as a symbol, "Jesus' sacrifice" can make sense, but not at the real level.

 

[Deeje]

Scientists the world over, and it's called "speciation", as I was referring to the evolution of new species.

Speciation is what scientists can see in a lab experiment in real time...Yes? What does speciation lead to?.....a new variety within the same taxonomic "family"....it never leads to a new a new family of creatures because that has never been witnessed. There is not a shred of solid evidence that it ever happened outside of what science "suggests". What goes beyond adaptation is supposition based on a pre-conceived idea. You have a belief based on what? Educated guessing? How can you have a theory that is unsupported by any real facts, yet still taught as if it were undisputed truth?

Secondly, the fossil record simply does not in any way fit into the Genesis narrative as taken literally.

Oh, but it does.....especially since Genesis does not give us a timeframe for the creation that took place in each creative period....it only uses the word "day" (yohm) to indicate the beginning and end of an undisclosed period of time. We use such terminology ourselves when we speak of the "dawn of a new era" or we talk about our grandfather's "day". We are not referring to a 24 hour period. There is a lot of scope for the time indicated by science for all creation to have been crafted and placed in its prepared habitat. The creatures that came and went, (including the dinosaurs) did so long before man was created. God obviously chose the creatures he wanted to share the planet with mankind.

We have to lose the image of the Creator as some kind of celestial wizard, waving his magic wand to "poof" things into existence. A creator *creates*....uses his imagination and artistic flair to experiment with his designs. This is how I see him. It is why, at the end of each period, he expresses satisfaction with his achievements. Those expressions would be completely meaningless unless he can at times not quite meet his own expectations. There is even a difference with his final expression at the conclusion of the 6th "day" What does "good" mean if "very good" is used only for that creative period? Think about it.
If we are created in his image, then we reflect his flair for creativity......this is what I see in us. As an artist I completely understand what moves and fosters our creativity.

There's simply not one iota of evidence that there was a deity that created all so, at best, such a concept is relegated to mere guesswork. And common sense says as such as well as who was there at "creation" to see exactly how it happened?

Common sense also has to tell you that no one was there to see all that evolution take place either. Do you not see this? Has this fact escaped the notice of scientists? Guesswork is the foundation of your belief system too. You take the word of men in exactly the same way was we take the word of God. Yet you elevate science as if it were the superior 'belief'. I don't see it that way at all.

So, these scientists are so very brainwashed but creationists, who blindly believe in an account written roughly 3000 years ago by unknown author(s) is to be believed as if were science? No thank you.

Reject it if you wish, but please step back and try to understand the reasons why we see the world falling apart. Ask yourself how much religion, politics and science are equally to blame for the sorry state of this planet. Look at us and ask the fundamental question...."if everyone lived by the tenets laid out in the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, would we see all this trauma and tragedy?" If governments did...if we as individuals did....if science was only used for good purposes.....if religions taught that it was immoral to take innocent human life....."Love of God and neighbor", if these were implemented by all, it would change the world completely. Why has it never happened, do you think? How does science explain and solve the dilemmas facing humanity in a world seemingly gone mad? You and I live in that world and I needed answers to those questions. Can evolution provide them? What is it good for in the big picture, except to eliminate the only hope humanity has for a better future? Heaven knows that in all our years of existence and all our advances in science and technology...we are facing extinction by our own hand....drowning in our own waste. How intelligent is that?

It isn't God's fault that this situation exists....man chose this course despite his dire warning about the consequences of independent thinking.....the Creator is allowing all of us to see and experience the end results for ourselves. He will step in to rectify everything before we actually destroy the planet completely, (Revelation 11:18) but the results of the abuse of free will have been made clear and will set precedents for all time to come....only then, as the Bible says, will all things return to the way God intended them to be all along. This is the hope I have in all of this.

Science, through the "scientific method", tries to do its best to eliminate bias from our evidence, but theists tend to blindly rely on their bias.

"Eliminate bias"? Metis you know that will never happen because, as long as science and religion remain at odds, bias will dominate any conversation. It isn't about winning the argument, its about seeing the bigger picture and our place in it. We are choosing our own destiny just by the choices we make. We have the choice to believe in God or to believe in man. Look where man has taken us.

We can't make God go away just by not believing that he exists. I believe that his plans will go ahead with us or without us. The lesson of Noah's ark is still as valid today as it was back then.....the invitation to come on board was open to all.....and it was not withdrawn until God closed the door. I believe that the door of opportunity is still open for us today....but not for much longer. (Matthew 24:37-39)

 

[Deeje]

When you use the term "symbolic" as you have done, and then slip back into the word "real", you are contradicting yourself.

No, I am not...the Bible is full of real events with symbolic meaning. Abraham offering is son.....the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah...the flood of Noah;s day, and many more.

IOW, "symbolic" means that it's not the "real" thing. Therefore, as I mentioned before, as a symbol, "Jesus' sacrifice" can make sense, but not at the real level.

Jesus was a redeemer. The devil hijacked the human race and held them to ransom. God arranged for the ransom to be paid. With his real blood (the price of redemption required to pay for Adam's sin) he paid for the release of Adam's children. He fulfilled God's law and his blood atoned for Adam's sin. Those who exercise faith in that ransom have confidence that we will being going "home" soon. After all, who has to wait longer than their own lifetime to enjoy the benefits? Those who "sleep in death" know nothing at all. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) According to the apostle John, Jesus will awaken all who "sleep" in their graves, just like he did Lazarus. (John 5:28-29; John 11:11-14)

The "Kingdom of God" was the theme of Jesus' entire ministry. Do you know what it is and what it is supposed to accomplish?
This memo is completely missing from Christendom's teachings...yet Jesus said that with the 'coming' of God's Kingdom, his will "will be done on earth as it is in heaven".....that obviously hasn't happened yet. But with Messiah's return, this earth will become the paradise home that God intended it to be at the beginning. What Adam lost...Christ restores. Its really very simple.

 

[metis]

What does speciation lead to?.....a new variety within the same taxonomic "family"....it never leads to a new a new family of creatures because that has never been witnessed.

Please provide evidence for your assertion, and I can guarantee that you can't.

What goes beyond adaptation is supposition based on a pre-conceived idea.

Religious beliefs are "pre-conceived", and yet you accept your own blind belief, so maybe listen to your own words.

Oh, but it does.....especially since Genesis does not give us a timeframe for the creation that took place in each creative period....it only uses the word "day" (yohm) to indicate the beginning and end of an undisclosed period of time.

Except for the fact that it ends with the establishment on the 7th day of Shabbat, which is a day of the week.

Common sense also has to tell you that no one was there to see all that evolution take place either.

Ever hear of "forensics"? When something happens, it often leaves tell-tale signs, and the fossil record and the genome testing confirms there's been an evolutionary process.

OTOH, you literally have no objectively-derived evidence whatsoever for your religious beliefs.

Guesswork is the foundation of your belief system too.

That's really quite a bizarre statement as the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Reject it if you wish, but please step back and try to understand the reasons why we see the world falling apart.

And you somehow think that this belief is recent? Real history and real comparisons say otherwise.

 

[metis]

The devil hijacked the human race and held them to ransom.

And so you're polytheistic since you believe that the "devil" has his own domain and jurisdiction. Doesn't it at all seem strange that this supposed "devil" can undermine God and yet God seems powerless to stop him?

With his real blood (the price of redemption required to pay for Adam's sin) he paid for the release of Adam's children.

Again, show us in the Torah/Tanakh where human sacrifices are allowed and how these human sacrifices supposedly "pay for Adam's sin".

The "Kingdom of God" was the theme of Jesus' entire ministry. Do you know what it is and what it is supposed to accomplish?

I would say for us to have compassion for all and to do justice, which is what many inside and outside of Christianity try to live out. OTOH, the approach of the JW's tends to be more one based on condescension and hatred of any group other than themselves. Instead of building "bridges" of understanding and cooperation, the JW's build "walls" based on arrogance and non-cooperation.

Its really very simple.

As Gandhi said, "The truth is rarely simple".

Anyhow, I've had enough of your bashing of science, scientists, other religions, and even other Christian denominations, so it's time for me to leave this discussion behind. I do believe you're a nice person, but you're caught up in a denomination that teaches arrogance, condescension, and judgmentalism, and that I do believe is the wrong way to go. It is this kind of attitude that makes this world a worse place. Compassion and justice is, imo, far more important than the "my way or the highway" approach.

Take care.

 

[metis]

Do you?

Check my faith statement at the bottom of this page and see what you think.

 

[Deeje]

Please provide evidence for your assertion, and I can guarantee that you can't.

In the following examples of "speciation" from the Berkley Evolution Library, can you please tell me where you see any of the creatures featured in the article, morphing into a different creature that was outside their taxonomic family description? These are examples of what is seen...not assumed.

"Evidence for Speciation

Evidence for speciation

Cospeciation

Speciation in action?
In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island. If there were other intrepid Iguana iguana colonizers of Anguilla, they died out before humans could record their presence.

Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species? We could be watching the first steps of an allopatric speciation event, but in such a short time we can't be sure.

A plausible model
We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs — but of course, it's hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it's more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we'll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.

Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form:

• Geographic patterns: If allopatric speciation happens, we'd predict that populations of the same species in different geographic locations would be genetically different. There are abundant observations suggesting that this is often true. For example, many species exhibit regional "varieties" that are slightly different genetically and in appearance, as in the case of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Mexican Spotted Owl. Also, ring species are convincing examples of how genetic differences may arise through reduced gene flow and geographic distance.
  
  
  
  
• Spotted owl subspecies living in different geographic locations show some genetic and morphological differences. This observation is consistent with the idea that new species form through geographic isolation.

Experimental results: The first steps of speciation have been produced in several laboratory experiments involving "geographic" isolation. For example, Diane Dodd examined the effects of geographic isolation and selection on fruit flies. She took fruit flies from a single population and divided them into separate populations living in different cages to simulate geographic isolation. Half of the populations lived on maltose-based food, and the other populations lived on starch-based foods. After many generations, the flies were tested to see which flies they preferred to mate with. Dodd found that some reproductive isolation had occurred as a result of the geographic isolation and selection for different food sources in the two environments: "maltose flies" preferred other "maltose flies," and "starch flies" preferred other "starch flies." Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Cospeciation

If the association between two species is very close, they may speciate in parallel. This is called cospeciation. It is especially likely to happen between parasites and their hosts.

To see how it works, imagine a species of louse living on a species of gopher. When the gophers get together to mate, the lice get an opportunity to switch gophers and perhaps mate with lice on another gopher. Gopher-switching allows genes to flow through the louse species.

Consider what happens to the lice if the gopher lineage splits into lineages A and B:

1. Lice have few opportunities for gopher-switching, and lice on gopher lineage A don't mate with lice living on gopher lineage B.
2. This "geographic" isolation of the louse lineages may cause them to become reproductively isolated as well, and hence, separate species.

Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny.

Observing parallel host and parasite phylogenies is evidence of cospeciation. Download the graphics on this page from the Image library.
This example is somewhat idealized — rarely do scientists find hosts and parasites with exactly matching phylogenies. However, sometimes the phylogenies indicate that cospeciation did happen along with some host-switching."

So in these examples we see what amounts to 'adaptation' within a species due to environmental factors. It hasn't really changed 'what' they are, it has just modified the original to suit new conditions. What do you see metis?

 

[Deeje]

Religious beliefs are "pre-conceived", and yet you accept your own blind belief, so maybe listen to your own words.

Faith is not blind.....on the contrary, everything we see in nature reinforces the evidence that a brilliant designer was responsible for their existence.....unless of course you'd like to own a vehicle that had been involved in multiple accidents? Would you expect it to be in better than showroom condition? If you think that happened in nature, then whose faith is blind?

Except for the fact that it ends with the establishment on the 7th day of Shabbat, which is a day of the week.

This is why the creative periods were called "days", so that humans would understand what the 7th day was for....a day of rest to be used for spiritual reflection and family time together.
Who determined the divisions of days into months and seasons? Genesis said that God did that, using the sun and moon.

If you read the Genesis account, you will not see a declaration concluding the seventh day......that is because it hasn't ended yet.
We are still in the seventh day....a "day" when God rested from his creative works only. (Genesis 2:2-3; John 5:17) There is still much to accomplish before the seventh day is concluded.....once the rule of God's Kingdom has restored humanity to the physical perfection enjoyed originally by the first humans, it will probably end with the same declaration as the sixth day, because all that was supposed to be accomplished during the seventh day will be done and dusted....leaving God's will to be "done on earth as it is in heaven"....forever. This is what I look forward to.

Ever hear of "forensics"? When something happens, it often leaves tell-tale signs, and the fossil record and the genome testing confirms there's been an evolutionary process.

OTOH, you literally have no objectively-derived evidence whatsoever for your religious beliefs.

Yes, forensics is a fascinating science. There is much that can be deduced from examining evidence closely, but at the same time, the "evolutionary process" as science tells it, is a very embellished IMO. It goes from describing how a single creature adapted to how it changed an amoeba into a dinosaur and back to a chicken. There is no real evidence for that assumption.

Science has no "objectively derived evidence" for any of its claims outside of adaptation. The evidence for creation doesn't need a microscope or a science degree.....it's all there right under our collective noses....so simple in its brilliance, a child can comprehend it.

That's really quite a bizarre statement as the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

I keep hearing about all this "overwhelming" evidence, but it is 'underwhelming' in reality. The power of suggestion works apparently.....tell people something often enough and get an expert to sell it and 'voila' it must be true.....take my money and my life.

And you somehow think that this belief is recent? Real history and real comparisons say otherwise.

I think that we are living at the time Jesus indicated in Matthew 24:3-14. He said there would be a "sign" indicated by a series of world events.
He also said:
“But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into.  On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it."

This was backed up by Paul....
"For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.  Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape."

Tell me when the whole of humanity has ever cried out for "peace and security" more than they are doing at present. Once again, "the earth is filled with violence" to an alarming degree. Never before have so many been so disillusioned with their political leaders, spilling into the streets in vast numbers to protest what is happening to their nation....country after country is experiencing this.....what do you think will happen as a consequence? The Bible tells us....
There will be a hollow cry of "peace and security" as a global solution is proposed.....but then it predicts the greatest tribulation in the history of the world will begin. Why? Because the solution comes at the expense of all personal freedom. (Revelation 13:16-18)
Are we ready?...not according to Jesus. (Matthew 24:37-39)

I believe that the end is not disclosed because it tests our mettle. God doesn't want those who only have faith in what they can see. Faith is also the assurance of things you can't see. (Hebrews 11:1) The Bible gives us clues and indications, but only those who have "endured to the end" will reap the reward. (Matthew 24:13; John 15:18-21)

I believe the time is rapidly approaching and that it will catch most people off guard. I can't make people believe me, but I wish they would.