The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Skwim]

Eight, skwim, I am well aware of the scientific method, but this method is not full proof, for the same reason I gave before and above (i.e. in view of the naturalistic worldview’s own presuppositions).

Ninth, skwim, the fact that the evolutionary worldview still exists as well as the Christian worldview are “good” examples of the effect of worldview on scientific investigation.

Eleventh, skwim, creationist scientists are just as qualified to do science as anyone else, unless someone (evolutionists) does not like the fact that they would have a say in science. Quite the reversal of Galileo’s problem I would say. Also, I described worldview above.

It's evident you don't know what a worldview entails, and have picked up the term as a catchword that you find fun peppering your conversations with.

Have fun with it, I can't be bothered with your word games.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Second, outhouse I disagree with the evolutionary viewpoint, because it simply, as a worldview, does not work.

I'm not sure about your usage of "worldview" here, or what the criteria for whether a worldview "works" is supposed to be, but as an explanation for observable facts of the natural world, as a scientific hypothesis, it works incredibly well- arguably as well or better than our best scientific theories. The convergent corroboration of evolution from various fields, as well as its ability to systematize and make sense of a ridiculously large body of data (again from various fields), is probably unrivaled.

Let me first explain what I mean by worldview and the evolutionary/naturalistic worldview. A worldview is the set of beliefs and values through which a person sees the world. Evolution is a part of the naturalistic worldview, although some religions try to borrow from this worldview (i.e. theistic evolution).

Evolution may well be part of the "naturalistic worldview", but evolution needn't imply naturalism- evolution works regardless of what metaphysical framework we suppose, because it simply fits the data so well. This is why we're even able to talk about such a thing as "theistic evolution"- naturalism may imply evolution, but not the other way around.

Already, I will say the impact upon scientific motivations and interpretations should be evident. With no God and everything being material, according to the naturalistic worldview, what science discovers must mean something other than creation, so when an evolutionary scientist comes to the scientific table, he does have certain expectations he brings to the table.

And yet, if creation or other instances of divine intervention or divine causal agency actually occurred, this should leave evidence which cannot be accounted for via naturalism. We are in possession of no such evidence, which increases our confidence in naturalism since the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence (the absence of evidence entailed by, e.g. divine creation/divine intervention, is necessarily evidence that no such events occurred).

Life does not consist simply of materiality. People can think, feel, and have emotions.

And what makes you think that these things are not a matter of physicality as well, particularly in light of the results of contemporary neuroscience which has suggested that such "mental" events are merely functions of the brain?

People have souls

What is a soul and what makes you think people have them?

Morality is a huge problem of the naturalistic worldview.

Not at all. Morality is the product of adaptive (mutually beneficial) cooperative strategies employed by our ancestors.

How would we say anything is either good or bad, and why would we even want to?

Because cooperation, prohibiting cheating and deception, and so on, are mutually beneficial, and those of our ancestors which developed the requisite cognitive machinery to employ such strategies survived to pass on their genes.

Practically, how does this worldview work out, if it is truly applied consistently? It leads to nihilism, in its fullest sense. Hopelessness, meaninglessness, and each person determining their own meaning for life and morality, which in itself would be meaningless and pointless.

Talk about non-sequitur: each person determining their own meaning for life and morality would not entail that life is meaningless or hopeless.

Also, in general, that something doesn't sound pleasant isn't a very strong argument that it isn't true nonetheless; unfortunately, reality doesn't appear overly concerned with obliging our preferences. This is a non-objection.

Third, outhouse, can you say that the whole universe, with every nook and cranny, has been overturned in search for God?

Unnecessary. Conceptual analysis shows the concept of God to be incoherent, and a concept which could not be instantiated, even in principle- like a round square or a married bachelor. We needn't investigate every nook and cranny of the universe before declaring there are no round squares, because nothing COULD be a round square- being round and being a square are mutually exclusive, just like various aspects of the definition of God.

Nonetheless, I will try to briefly answer your critiques related to evidence for Christianity. Let me first say that time is on the side of Christianity, as time has passed, the archeological discoveries have only become more supportive of what is given in Scripture, the Bible. For example, at one point skeptics said they could not find any evidence of the existence of the Hittites outside of the Bible, yet years later, archeologists found evidence for the Hittites. And so it goes with much of what is found in the Bible, over time it finds more support, not less.

Unfortunately, the parts of the Bible that have been corroborated are not parts that have much bearing on the truth of Christianity as a religion- the truth of Christianity would seem to stand or fall based on the truth of such core claims as the existence of God and the divinity of Christ- not the existence of the Hittites.

Fifth, outhouse, no stone age here. I will have you know that some of the most educated people and influential people in all of history have believed the Bible and were creationists.

Irrelevant. Some of the most educated and influential people in all of history believed all sorts of ludicrous things. Pointing out that Aristotle, one of the most brilliant and influential people ever to walk the planet, believed that gods were magnet-like planetary bodies, doesn't make this claim any more credible. This is pretty close to a bare appeal to consensus/authority- just because alot of smart people believe X isn't a good argument that X is true.

Sixth, Monk of Reason, when you say, “the only ones who don’t believe evolution are those that have a very rigid religious denial of it,” I could say that same of evolutionists.

You could say that, but would be wrong, and laughably so. Creationism is inconsistent with the data, and is pseudo-science to boot. If propositions are answers to questions AND if explanations are propositional AND if mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND if God is "the ultimate mystery" (i.e. theos), then God neither explains how things actually are nor justifies why things ought to happen one way or another.

And, there are real scientists (like creationists) who do not hold to evolution, with ever increasing number.

Less than 1-5% of scientists disbelieve in evolution, according to numerous polls.

Eleventh, skwim, creationist scientists are just as qualified to do science as anyone else

"Creation science" is an oxymoron. Nice try.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know I have been gone for some time (due to Thanksgiving, being sick, and my Internet being out), but I would like to try to respond to some of the arguments made against mine back on pages 11-12 of this thread (sorry to interrupt the present debate).

Welcome back, hope both you and your 'net connection remain hale and hearty. I haven't been involved too much, but a couple of things in your post interested me.

I'll flag up front, I've only cherry-picked certain points to respond to. Mostly just what I have an opinion on. Happy to respond to any others if you want me to.

The evolutionary viewpoint is part of the naturalistic worldview, which holds to a number of key points. Naturalism holds there is no God, but only materiality. In view of this, mankind is also material and therefore morality is a human invention. Death is final, the end of the material is the end of you. Lastly, naturalism holds we live in a universe that is cause and effect.

I'd suggest your over-simplifying naturalism to some extent. I would describe myself as a methodological naturalist, for example. There may very well be things outside our capacity to ascertain using current scientific methods, but I'd still see current scientific methods as our best chance of developing knowledge and understanding.

Already, I will say the impact upon scientific motivations and interpretations should be evident. With no God and everything being material, according to the naturalistic worldview, what science discovers must mean something other than creation, so when an evolutionary scientist comes to the scientific table, he does have certain expectations he brings to the table.

How were evolutionary scientists created in the first place, do you believe? How did this initially fringe view grow to the overwhelmingly supported position it holds today? (by scientists in relevant fields)

In addition, I disagree with the naturalistic worldview for a number of reasons. Life does not consist simply of materiality. People can think, feel, and have emotions. People have souls and are not merely having a chemical reaction when they love someone or have an innate desire to worship. Morality is a huge problem of the naturalistic worldview. How would we say anything is either good or bad, and why would we even want to? If we are simply like animals, why not behave like animals morally? Also, what gives us any reason to trust our thoughts, if we are only machines (in view of being material)? Also, to say that there is no God and that death is final has not been scientifically proven either, it is a belief inherent in the worldview.

That which is not currently understood is currently not understood. We don't have the answers to everything, and some of what we do have the answers for will inevitably be proven wrong.

Practically, how does this worldview work out, if it is truly applied consistently? It leads to nihilism, in its fullest sense. Hopelessness, meaninglessness, and each person determining their own meaning for life and morality, which in itself would be meaningless and pointless. Progression (in life, technology, science, understanding, love, etc) is pointless, because progression will still mean death and meaninglessness in the end, with no hope otherwise.

Thanks for trying to reduce my life to meaninglessness and pointlessness...lol
Actually, I don't feel that way at all. I rather like life. What is it about your supposed eternal existence that lends itself meaning?


But, this is not the way people live. People try to create meaning, because they were created with much they were meant to be, to do, and they were created to rightly worship the Triune God who made them to be satisfied in Him and not mud pies by the sea (to borrow from C. S. Lewis).

So any who don't worship the Triune God is are devoid of meaning? That is a hard viewpoint to justify, unless you simply take one viewpoint, and ignore everything else which might suggest you're wrong. I, for example, would not claim that people following a religion lack meaning in their lives.

William Ramsey, an atheist and a well-known archeologist, is an example of someone who went out to disprove the Bible ended up finding the biblical accounts were accurate and he ended up becoming a Christian because of what he found.

That's a fairly interesting interpretation. From where did you arrive at it?
Consider the following;

Thoughts from a Sandwich: Sir William Mitchell Ramsay

In relation to the flood, I would simply say that such accounts only confirm the Biblical flood, verifying that indeed a major flood, and I would say worldwide flood, occurred. The Bible is giving the true account of the flood, as God had caused it to be due to the wickedness of man. The other accounts point to the reality of a worldwide flood and the Bible gives the actual account of what really happened. Also, there is evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, with bones being found at great heights and characteristics of having been swept about in water, like a flood.
Also, I would point you to the cite answersingenesis.org, which will provide a much more detailed and scholarly response to each of your critiques.

Is this like the whale standing on it's tale example from California? I'd be fascinated by any specific evidence you have of global flooding.

Fifth, outhouse, no stone age here. I will have you know that some of the most educated people and influential people in all of history have believed the Bible and were creationists. Like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, William Ramsey, and John Ambrose Fleming, to name a few.

Amazingly, if you look at Ancient Greece, you could make the point that the most learned people on the planet were polytheists. If you consider the Golden Age of Islam, you could suggest Muslims. Unlikely there are too many self-described atheists in history, though. We might differ on the reasons for that.

Sixth, Monk of Reason, when you say, “the only ones who don’t believe evolution are those that have a very rigid religious denial of it,” I could say that same of evolutionists. Evolutionists don’t believe in creation because of their rigid naturalistic denial of it. And, there are real scientists (like creationists) who do not hold to evolution, with ever increasing number.

This is kinda hyperbolic. You have a world population at one time consisting of creationists to the exclusion of all else. Somewhere along the line it was scientific method which led people to see the world in naturalistic terms. If you're issue is with scientific method as a tool for understanding the world around us, I can understand that to a degree. Offering 'real scientists (like creationists)' is tokenism. If they're real scientists, they're judging the world along naturalistic lines. So is there naturalistic proof of creationism? Or not?

Some scientists who hold to the biblical account of creation today are William Arion (Biochemist, chemistry), Steve Austin (Geologist), Kimberely Berrine (microbioloy and immunology), Vladimir Betin (microbiology), Ken Cumming (Biologist), and many more.

For obvious reasons, I can't list scientists who hold to an evolutionary viewpoint.

 

[Skwim]

For obvious reasons, I can't list scientists who hold to an evolutionary viewpoint.

You can always start with Project Steve.

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

​

source


​

 

[StarryNightshade]

Creationism a philosophical study

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "Intelligent Design" is more of philosophical study, rather than creationism?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "Intelligent Design" is more of philosophical study, rather than creationism?

No... Saying either one is "a philosophical study" is equally inaccurate. Don't mince words, let's call it what it is- pseudo-scientific religious creation mythology.

 

[Parsimony]

I saw an awful lot of irrelevant talk in that post. The whole "if naturalism is true then there is no God, no morals, etc." is an example of the "argument from adverse consequences" fallacy. Secondly, evolution and naturalism are not the same thing. You can still believe in the Christian God while believing in evolution. Therefore, any arguments that "evolution automatically implies the world is meaningless, atheistic and amoral" is wrong. Evolution does not say whether God exists or not.

I also find it rather nonsensical that you brought up Isaac Newton as evidence for creationism being true because the modern concept of evolution did not even exist during his life time. Not only that, but the attempt to justify a belief by pointing to intelligent, powerful or otherwise well-renowned people who hold that belief is an example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Also, I did not see any attempt to counter the arguments we have presented here:

-Why do humans have body hair with piloerectile muscles attached to them?
-How can light travel billions of light-years in 6,000 years?
-How can any one human gene have more than four alleles without evolution generating them?

And how about some new ones?

-Why do whales have individual finger bones in their pectoral fins? The fact that sharks have pectoral fins without such individual bones demonstrates that they are not necessary for the design of a functional fin. Why would God design such unnecessary features? Evolution can easily explain their existence: they are there because whales evolved from land mammals which had feet and digits. A similar problem and explanation can be raised for sea turtles.

-If new functions cannot evolve, then explain nylonases. It has been discovered that a strain of Flavobacterium is capable of digesting 6-aminohexanoate. This is an artificial chemical not known to exist in nature. The enzymes responsible for the organism's ability to digest this chemical have been given the name nylonase as a group and have been linked back to changes in the bacteria's genes. Since 6-aminohexanoate does not exist in nature, and since the nylonases do not act on any other chemical, then it must have come into existence by evolution. It could not have been put there since the beginning of life 6,000 years ago, since without 6-aminohexanoate around to digest it would have been useless and therefore completely vulnerable to destruction by adverse mutations.

-If new functions cannot evolve, then explain why E.coli has been observed to evolve the ability to aerobically digest citrate in the lab. Normally, E.coli cannot do this. This trait was linked back to mutations in the cells. This is an example of a new function appearing thanks to evolution.

-If mutations cannot be adaptive, then explain AZT-resistance in HIV. AZT is a drug which mimics the nucleotide bases that HIV uses to build new virions inside of a host cell. AZT, however, blocks the continued addition of further nucleotides once it is added to the strand because it is slightly different from normal nucleotides. As such, the process is stopped. However, HIV is extremely mutation-prone and some have a mutation that allows them to recognize and reject AZT in place of normal nucleotides. This makes AZT ineffective once this mutation comes into play. Not only that, but this particular mutation has been seen to evolve again and again in dozens of HIV-infected patients whenever they are given AZT treatments. This is due to a combination of rapid reproduction in a short period of time and the massive error-prone replication that HIV possesses. That is, you can expect a whole heck of a lot of mutations in a relatively short period of time and chance alone makes it eventually inevitable that this particular mutation will pop up eventually. This means that mutations can most certainly be advantageous for HIV since they allow it to adapt and continue to reproduce (and by extension, any other virus or living thing could do the same).

-If new structures cannot evolve, then explain why cecal valves have been observed to evolve in the gut of a population of Italian wall lizards which were moved to a new island. The lizards were moved there in 1971 and were checked on in 2004-2006. So we not only have an example of the evolution of adaptive gut structures where they did not previously exist (cecal valves do not normally exist at all in this species), but we also see it occurring in only around 30 years.

-Explain why this dolphin has hind flippers. Since creationists contend that new structures cannot evolve, then they must believe that the genetic information necessary to construct these hind flippers had always existed in dolphins in the first place. This would mean that modern dolphins evolved from a population of original dolphins with hind flippers. However, modern dolphins can get along just fine without these hind flippers. Why then would God give the original dolphins hind flippers when they were not needed? Evolution can explain this by saying that the hind flippers are vestiges of hind legs which were used by the ancestors of modern dolphins to walk on land.

-Why do manatees have fingernails? What use would fingernails have for a creature with flippers? Also, look at the bone structure of the flippers. It is surprisingly similar to that of mammals which have paws and hands, isn't it? This goes hand-in-hand with the question about whales earlier. Why would God bother putting such an intricate and unnecessary assemblage of bones inside of a fleshy slab like a flipper when we know that a flipper can function just fine without such bones (look at sharks)? Evolution can explain both the fingernails and the bones by saying that manatees are descended from ancestors which had forelimbs in which both the nails and bones were functional.

-Explain why human males (and many other male mammals) have nipples. Why would God create such a normally non-functional feature in males instead of making it specific to females? Although lactation has been known to occur in men, it is not the norm and in the vast majority of men it does not occur. Evolution can explain male nipples by saying that the genes necessary for the creation of mammary glands were incidentally inherited by both sexes but selection pressures only acted on females to give them the hormones necessary to stimulate lactation at the right time (since female mammals are, of course, present when the baby is born whereas their fathers may be far away at that time).

If you want to present a challenge to evolution as it currently exists, then there are a few things you could look for that would prove challenging to explain:

-The existence of a reptile fossil that is older than any amphibian fossil.
-The existence of a mammal fossil is that is older than any reptile fossil.
-The existence of a human fossil that is older than any ape fossil.
-The existence of a bird fossil that is older than any dinosaur fossil, etc.

 

[StarryNightshade]

No... Saying either one is "a philosophical study" is equally inaccurate. Don't mince words, let's call it what it is- pseudo-scientific religious creation mythology.

Creationism (at least the Young Earth variety) perhaps, but Intelligent Design isn't really the same. It takes a look at nature and the universe and speculates that there must be a creative force/creator behind it. Whereas YEC looks at literalist religion and tries to fit science around it. When one looks at the universe and speculates that there must (or at least could) be a creator behind it, then it could be a philosophical exercise, if not a study. However, when one takes a creation story as literal fact and tries to fit science around it? Not so much.

By the way, I say this as someone who doesn't really accept intelligent design and is certainly not a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[johnhanks]

If the fossil record supported an evolutionary tree, we wouldnt be having the web concept being promoted now.

Could you outline to us your understanding of this "web concept", and explain how it completely replaces the concept of a phylogenetic tree?

Evidently not.

 

[Man of Faith]

Golly, have we finally pinned a creationist down into telling us what "kind" means? "Kind" = Family? So you're happy to call humans "ape kind"?

Of course you can understand that there are limits to how naturalists and creationists see where humans fit into biology. However we can say that the kind if very similar to the family biological classifications.

 

[Man of Faith]

I have no problem scientifically to see God in evolution, as I would not do what I see the mistake of many is in trying to fit the Genesis myth of special creation into a modern scientific view. What has to happen is to jettison the Genesis myth as a literal description of events and see it purely as allegorical.

I have a document in my hands written by a Ph.D in Hebraic and Cognate studies showing how Genesis 1:1-2:3 was written as a historical narrative and "differs distinctly from that in Hebrew poetry". Meaning, by using the original Hebrew language, it is plain to see that Genesis wasn't written as a poetic metaphor in the original language. So it is either literally wrong, or it is right literally right, there is no in-between. It wasn’t originally written as a metaphor.

 

[Windwalker]

I have a document in my hands written by a Ph.D in Hebraic and Cognate studies showing how Genesis 1:1-2:3 was written as a historical narrative and "differs distinctly from that in Hebrew poetry". Meaning, by using the original Hebrew language, it is plain to see that Genesis wasn't written as a poetic metaphor in the original language. So it is either literally wrong, or it is right literally right, there is no in-between. It wasn’t originally written as a metaphor.

Either literally wrong or literally right? Those two choices only? How about this, we can in fact read it allegorically and get truth from it. Why can't you? And since you appear unable to, aren't you then missing those truths? Like looking only at the roots of a tree and defining the tree as such, never at all seeing the trunk, the leaves, and the sunlight upon it?

BTW, you still need to answer my question of you to explain your understanding of what web of life is, and secondly how you see that as a contradiction to evolution?

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of Faith, I'm still waiting for you to explain your understanding of Web of Life, and how to you it contradicts evolutionary theory. I'll continue to ask, because I'm deeply curious.

The evolution philosophy can survive any new evidence because of the statement "it happened we just have to figure out how". So any new discovery will only be looked at by science to better understand evolution, not to challenge it. Everybody is afraid to challenge evolution, they are terrified because they know what will happen to their careers. But you are asking me how a tree differs from a web. Look at a tree with its branches shooting up to points, then look at a spider web. Basically the way that I understand it is, based on the scientific data, the tree model can no longer be defended. A new imaginary model has been created that will take many years to investigate and refute.

Time is on creationist’s side as science struggles with the wrong philosophy and eventually will end up with the true and proper creationist’s orchard model.

 

[Windwalker]

The evolution philosophy can survive any new evidence because of the statement "it happened we just have to figure out how". So any new discovery will only be looked at by science to better understand evolution, not to challenge it. Everybody is afraid to challenge evolution, they are terrified because they know what will happen to their careers. But you are asking me how a tree differs from a web. Look at a tree with its branches shooting up to points, then look at a spider web. Basically the way that I understand it is, based on the scientific data, the tree model can no longer be defended. A new imaginary model has been created that will take many years to investigate and refute.

Time is on creationist’s side as science struggles with the wrong philosophy and eventually will end up with the true and proper creationist’s orchard model.

You still didn't tell me your understanding of the web of life theory. Explain how it contradicts evolution? Specifically.

BTW, I accept a holistic view of the world. It does not contradict evolution.

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of Faith, have you read Stephen Meyer's book? What did you think of it? Do you recommend it to others? How many stars would you give it out of five?

No, I just like to quote mine it. But I understand the concept and have read others reviews on it.

 

[Windwalker]

Here's the deal. The mechanics of how evolution occurs is still being investigated, expanded upon, questioned, etc. The fact that evolution has, and does occur, is beyond dispute. The evidence is solidly, irrefutably offered from nearly every branch of science. It's not a philosophy. It's a fact.

But I will agree with you that philosophical materialism is a philosophy, and that can and does influence how science may or may not be able to imagine something beyond a limited range. That is very true. However, that does not mean evolution does not happen. That has been clearly established. How it happens, is continuing to be researched. End of story.

 

[Man of Faith]

Either literally wrong or literally right? Those two choices only? How about this, we can in fact read it allegorically and get truth from it. Why can't you? And since you appear unable to, aren't you then missing those truths? Like looking only at the roots of a tree and defining the tree as such, never at all seeing the trunk, the leaves, and the sunlight upon it?

BTW, you still need to answer my question of you to explain your understanding of what web of life is, and secondly how you see that as a contradiction to evolution?

You can read it allegorically, just like you can read a tech manual for a cell phone allegorically but there is no reason to do that, from the Hebrew language studies it is shown to be written as an historic narrative.

 

[fantome profane]

No, I just like to quote mine it.

Well Merry Christmas. Here, have a fish :tuna:.

Seriously, try reading a book sometime. You might actually enjoy it.

 

[Windwalker]

You can read it allegorically, just like you can read a tech manual for a cell phone allegorically but there is no reason to do that, from the Hebrew language studies it is shown to be written as an historic narrative.

First, I consider that assessment by your unnamed scholar to be balderdash, but even so, even if they thought in modern terms, which such an assessment of them would in fact demand, which is an absurd assumption, even if they wrote it as a historical record, it is done in a premodern, nonscientific language using symbols of characters etc. It's mythology, in other words.

That doesn't make it lack value, it would simply mean that was their perceptual reality. We don't perceive the world that way today, nor should we. Therefore, it cannot be understood as a scientific document, nor a record of actual historical individuals. That is a modern mentality to assume they interpreted the world in literal, rational modes of thought as we do. They did not think as we do. We have to understand it through their eyes of their world, which was full of magic and myth. They were not rationalists. They were not scientists.

But again, understanding that does not mean what they say has no truth to it, through their eyes, that we can related to today. I do believe we can, and why I say it is necessary for us to take it in allegorically, to reinterpret that world in modern terms that make sense to a modern mind. I do not have a premodern, prerational mind. I had that when I was a child, not an adult. To not believe something like Genesis literally in the sense of factual, like I would something today, does not mean it still is not true. It is simply truth of a non-factual orientation, that transcends mere fact. I cannot think as a child any longer. When I became an adult, I put away childish things, to quote Paul.

BTW, you cannot legitimately read a technical manual allegorically. That's just saying you can without any substance to the claim to detract from the actual legitimate reading of the Bible as allegory.

 

[Parsimony]

I actually pointed out some examples that could be used to falsify evolution. Find a bunch of out-of-sequence fossils. If you believe that all animals were created on the same, literal day, then you should be able to find human fossils and dinosaur fossils that are the same age. Hasn't happened so far.

Also, I still haven't seen any attempt on your behalf to counter the evidence for evolution that I brought up.

I'm also waiting for you to tell me what those "4 or 5 other possibilities" are for explaining how we can see galaxies billions of light-years away.