Evolution's Achilles Heel ~ ~ Book, 9 Ph.D Scientists and Doctors ~ ~ Discussion

[The Barbarian]

Even Darwin supposed that God created the first living things. 

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

THING, not things.  Singular.  Original progenitor. 

Nope:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

It wasn't until we discovered the nature of DNA that it became clear that there was only one common ancestor for all living things today.   This illustrates the problem we see with so many creationists; they hate evolution, but they haven't any idea what it actually is.

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

News flash!  Evolution is taught in school as fact from about the third grade on.

I just took a look at a few state standards for science.   You're wrong.   If you doubt this, show me the third grade curriculum that includes evolutionary theory.  Checkable source.

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.  Evolution theory now includes abiogenesis, like it or not.

Nope.   As you learned, evolutionary theory has four basic points:

1. All organisms are slightly different than their parents.

2. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of surviving to produce offspring.

3.  Natural selection tends to increase those with good ones and to remove those with bad ones.

4. The changes accumulate over time, and this explains the evolution of new species.

It turns out that even if the Earth had not brought forth life as God tells us, and He just poofed the first living things into being, evolution would still work exactly as it does today.

Abiogenesis, as you see, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution teaches that all of life began from a single organism that became both the plants and the animals that inhabit the earth.

No.   As you just learned, for example, Darwin though it might have come about by the creation of any number of individual organisms by God.   This is why his book is about  the origin of species, not the origin of life.   Someone took advantage of your trust correctly assuming that you had never read the book.

You, for example imagine that it's about "molecules to man."   Completely wrong.  

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

3900–2500 Ma    Cells resembling prokaryotes appear.[29] These first organisms are believed[by whom?] to have been chemoautotrophs, using carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidizing inorganic materials to extract energy.

3800–3500 Ma    Last universal common ancestor (LUCA): split between bacteria and archaea.  Bacteria develop primitive photosynthesis, which at first did not produce oxygen. These organisms exploit a proton gradient to generate adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a mechanism used by virtually all subsequent organisms.  Source- Wikipedia.  Search time, five seconds.

Nothing here about molecules becoming any living thing, much less man.   Perhaps you don't understand what it's saying here.    For all we see here, God could have just poofed them into existence.   The key, as you just learned, is that evolutionary theory is indifferent to how they came to be.   If they were brought forth by the Earth that would be fine.    If they were miraculously created instead of the way God says, that would also work as far as evolutionary theory is concerned.

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Please show me a recordable incident in which low lying ground with easy run-off to the sea had a flood which covered a mountain. 

Sorry, as you learned, the Black Sea filled up precisely because it was a low area with higher ground all around it.   The mountains in the lowest part of the area were covered with water, but the higher mountains around it were not.   The Shatsky and Arkhang ridges, for example tower over lower parts of the Black Sea floor.

On 10/29/2023 at 8:12 AM, RV_Wizard said:

SURROUNDING, as in complete containment.

Yep,  that's what we have there.   

[Retrobyter]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:14 PM, The Barbarian said:

...

Because bats work well enough for the things bats do.  They lack the abilities of birds, but they don't need to be able to fly over Mt. Everest, or go over 100 mph as some birds can do.  And they were able to evolve other traits that few birds can match.  Humans can't run as fast as antelopes, but we go fast enough for our needs.   It would be useful for bats to be better fliers, but their mammalian ancestry makes feathers impossible.   It would be useful for humans to have a second set of hands, but our tetrapod ancestry makes that impossible.  The large number of  mutations, none of them useful, that would be necessary to add another set of limbs means it won't happen.

Shalom, again, The Barbarian.

Continuing on ...

But, don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to say that bats came from ... what, exactly? Why not just admit that God CREATED BATS?! Perhaps, some of the VARIETY of bats came from the original kind, but they are all BATS; much as all the various dog breeds came from a common dog kind.

Everything from a Shih Tzu to a Mastiff, from the chunky bulldog to a sleek greyhound, all may have originated from the same dog kind, including the wolves, wild dogs, and coyotes. Even the foxes may have been derived from that created kind, but they are ALL canines.

As far as "having another set of hands" is concerned, this is why God made us SOCIAL creatures! I've never enjoyed competition (as in sports) as much as I enjoy COOPERATION! I've worked with others on group projects before, and I LOVED working together to solve the challenges we've met in designing new tools! My lesser study was in computer engineering, and our tools were robotic creations. They couldn't have been accomplished without "being on the same page" and using the old phrase, "many hands make light work." Our "competition" was not other teams; our competition was the SET OF PHYSICAL CHALLENGES we faced!

On 10/29/2023 at 3:14 PM, The Barbarian said:

We do.  It's because those wings evolved from mammalian limbs and mammals lacked feathers.

Wrong.   Owls, for example, have feathers that are silent in flight.    And humming birds are more maneuverable than most bats.   The reason bats don't have feathers is they evolved from mammals and mammals never evolved feathers.

See this is the WHOLE PROBLEM with "evolution and common ancestry!" You can accept that "mammals," a class of noticeable distinctions could "never have feathers," but still believe that ultimately they had common ancestry "back in the long, long ago" with "birds!" It's all a COMPLICATED FABLE! an IMAGINATIVE NARRATION!

God TOLD US how He did it in six, regular days, but you WON'T believe Him! You CHOOSE not to believe Him! Instead, you LOOK FOR WAYS that He might have said something different, couched in what He actually said! And, THIS is the MAJOR PROBLEM with the allegorical interpretation of Scripture!

It's NOT BELIEVING GOD'S WORD with a salve on it to allay that nagging irritation of SINNING!

You've moved on, with what I've written so far, so I'm not going to bother with the rest.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Retrobyter
to get the right level of taxonomy

[RV_Wizard]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:14 PM, The Barbarian said:

If common design was true, bats would have feathers (which are much more efficient than webbed skin, and whales would have gills (which would be very useful to them).    But since they are both mammals, they have to go with modifications of the things the first mammals had.    "Common design" fails  to account for these facts, which are completely understandable in common ancestry.

Genesis 1:21-23  

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

I had to include verse 23 so you couldn't say everything evolves.  Evolution cannot happen in one day.  You DO note that the Bible SPECIFICALLY mentions whales, right?  They were a unique creation, designed from the beginning to be a sea-living mammal.  Bats also were designed to do a specific job.  They can change direction fast enough to catch and eat a bug in flight.

Instead of trying to find verses to take out of context in an attempt to make the Bible appear to say something it does not, why not actually read it with an open mind and discover for yourself the miracle of creation?  Why not LEARN what an incredible God we serve?  God could reverse the rotation of the earth in an instant without consequence.  God created an inhabitable world, full of everything we need to survive; full of plant and animal life in six days.  And yes, He also created great deposits of oil He knew we would need one day.  

Perhaps WE should evolve into the people God intended us to be.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, @The Barbarian.

I should also add that GOD HIMSELF knew the various life forms ("kinds") that He created, and HE was the One who brought the animals BY THEIR KINDS to Noach to "keep them alive":

Genesis 6:13-22 (KJV)

13 And God said unto Noah,

"The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 

14 "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch (waterproof tar). 15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of:

"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits (about 450 feet), the breadth of it fifty cubits (about 75 feet), and the height of it thirty cubits (about 45 feet). 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. 

17 "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 

18 "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 

21 "And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them."

22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Another interesting fact in Scripture is that there were NO CARNIVORES before the end of the Flood!

Consider: The foods of all land creatures, including humans, were herbs, and fruit:

Genesis 1:26-31 (KJV)

26 And God said,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

29 And God said,

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to EVERY beast of the earth, and to EVERY fowl of the air, and to EVERY thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat":

and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

It wasn't until AFTER the Flood, that some humans and animals were allowed to eat meat:

Genesis 9:1-7 (KJV)

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 

4"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

And thus, capital punishment was installed by God.

This goes AGAINST the fable of a very long history of carnivores and omnivores!

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

But, don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to say that bats came from

Comes down to evidence.   As you see they are mammals because they evolved from other mammals. 

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Why not just admit that God CREATED BATS?!

As you see, God created bats.  You just don't approve of the way He did it.

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Everything from a Shih Tzu to a Mastiff, from the chunky bulldog to a sleek greyhound, all may have originated from the same dog kind, including the wolves, wild dogs, and coyotes.

Humans are really good at using artificial selection to utilize mutations to change domestic animals and plants.   It works like natural selection.   But gentically, that chihuahua is much more closely related to a German Shepherd than either is related to a coyote.   After domesticated dogs happen to go feral, in a few generations, they look much more like coyotes.   Why?   Natural selection.

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

As far as "having another set of hands" is concerned, this is why God made us SOCIAL creatures!

Nevertheless, another set of hands would be most useful to those of us who build things.    But the problem is, nothing can evolve that requires transitional steps that would be harmful.   It is conceivable how such might evolve by duplication of body segments in utero, but such changes would cause all sorts of other problems, so it's effectively impossible.  Evolution is constrained by that fact.

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

See this is the WHOLE PROBLEM with "evolution and common ancestry!" You can accept that "mammals," a class of noticeable distinctions could "never have feathers," but still believe that ultimately they had common ancestry "back in the long, long ago" with "birds!"

Yes.  And not surprisingly, we find all sorts of commonalities among the amniotes (basically mammals, birds, and reptiles).     The evidence, including genetics, embryology, molecular biology, fossil record, etc. shows they evolved from a common ancestor.

Birds lack the simplified jaw and more complex ear of mammals because these evolved long after synapsids and diapsids diverged.    Likewise, mammals lack feathers and the super-efficient lung system of dinosaurs and birds for the same reason.

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It's all a COMPLICATED FABLE! an IMAGINATIVE NARRATION!

It's all evidence.   That's how we know.  As I've shown you, even knowledgeable creationists admit that there is "gobs and gobs of evidence" for evolution (citing Dr. Todd Wood in a slightly informal blog)   and "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" (Dr. Kurt Wise in a creationist journal).

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

God TOLD US how He did it in six, regular days,

He told us in the text itself that it wasn't "regular days" at all.   But you won't believe Him.  It's not trusting God's word as it is, by adding your own interpretations to it.

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I'm not going to bother with the rest.

Just think and pray on it.   You won't go to hell for being a creationist, but I think you'd have a closer relationship to God if you were willing to accept creation as it is.

 

[The Barbarian]

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I had to include verse 23 so you couldn't say everything evolves.  Evolution cannot happen in one day. 

As you saw earlier, the "days" of creation are not literal days.   The text itself makes that clear.  

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You DO note that the Bible SPECIFICALLY mentions whales, right?  They were a unique creation, designed from the beginning to be a sea-living mammal.

That's your addition to His word, not what God says.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Bats also were designed to do a specific job. 

Evolved.   Engineers have discovered that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design at solving very complex problems.   They've started to use Darwinian evolution to solve such problems.    God knew best, after all.

Instead of trying to find verses to take out of context in an attempt to make the Bible appear to say something that seems right to you, why not actually read it with an open mind and accept that God's creation is much more amazing than you suspected?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God could reverse the rotation of the earth in an instant without consequence. 

God often steps in and miraculously intervenes.    But you miss the point.   He doesn't have to do this to make the universe work.   It's always to teach us something.   He created the universe to do things exactly as He intended.  He doesn't have to tinker with it to keep it working right.   Let God be God.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps WE should evolve into the people God intended us to be.

Read Matthew 25 to learn what kind of people He wants us to be.   Notice that one's opinion of evolution is not one of those things He cares about.    Let God be God.

 

[Retrobyter]

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Comes down to evidence.   As you see they are mammals because they evolved from other mammals. 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

It all comes down to one's INTERPRETATION of the evidence. I don't have any problem with the real evidence; what I have a problem with is how the theoretical scientist will WEAVE the evidence into his or her WEB OF INTERPRETATION! Please, face the fact that NO ONE WAS PRESENT to say what acually happened! (No one, but God, that is.)  This is all SPECULATION! It's all based upon what they THINK happened! And, the POPULARITY of that speculation is based upon the GENERAL CONSENSUS of what the scientists SPECULATE!

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As you see, God created bats.  You just don't approve of the way He did it.

No, I don't approve of the way YOU SAY He did it. But, on the other hand, you don't approve of WHEN He said He did it!

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Humans are really good at using artificial selection to utilize mutations to change domestic animals and plants.

Actually, they are good at manipulating the dominant and recessive genes that are ALREADY PRESENT in the chromosomes of the domestic animals and plants. Very few mutations are involved, seeing that 99.9995% of the mutations are detrimental to the organism.

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It works like natural selection.   But gentically, that chihuahua is much more closely related to a German Shepherd than either is related to a coyote.   After domesticated dogs happen to go feral, in a few generations, they look much more like coyotes.   Why?   Natural selection.

Actually, the reason why dogs go feral and begin to look like coyotes is because of cross-breeding with coyotes and in-breeding within the environment in which they live. That there can be cross-breeding at all shows that they are of the same "created kind." By living in niches or pockets of a habitat, they are much more likely to in-breed with their own offspring and continue the genes until their genes become the dominant or ONLY genes in their genetic make-up. You can call that "natural selection" NOW, but not during the WEEK of Creation.

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nevertheless, another set of hands would be most useful to those of us who build things.    But the problem is, nothing can evolve that requires transitional steps that would be harmful.   It is conceivable how such might evolve by duplication of body segments in utero, but such changes would cause all sorts of other problems, so it's effectively impossible.  Evolution is constrained by that fact.

Good. I'm glad you recognize that evolution is constrained in some instances. I just don't think you realize, yet, just HOW constrained it is!

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes.  And not surprisingly, we find all sorts of commonalities among the amniotes (basically mammals, birds, and reptiles).     The evidence, including genetics, embryology, molecular biology, fossil record, etc. shows they evolved from a common ancestor.

But, don't you see? That is the SPECULATION! The Speculation is "that they evolved from a common ancestor!" Because God took a special care in constructing the man, I see NO common ancestor between the man and the ANIMAL that we call an "ape!" There are similarities between the two created beings, but that ONLY shows that the SAME GOD created them BOTH! He DESIGNED them BOTH! That one looks similar to the other in NO WAY "proves" that they originated from a common ancestor!

And, the same can be said for ANY OTHER COMPARISON between created beings called animals! And, the similarities can certainly be down to the cellular, even molecular, level and not show common ancestry!

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Birds lack the simplified jaw and more complex ear of mammals because these evolved long after synapsids and diapsids diverged.    Likewise, mammals lack feathers and the super-efficient lung system of dinosaurs and birds for the same reason.

It's all evidence.   That's how we know.  As I've shown you, even knowledgeable creationists admit that there are "gobs and gobs of evidence" for evolution (citing Dr. Todd Wood in a slightly informal blog)   and "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" (Dr. Kurt Wise in a creationist journal).

Despite men like Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise, it's not the evidence to which one should object; it's the INTERPRETATION of the "gobs and gobs of evidence" that is at fault! How one EXPLAINS the evidence is what is at fault! You know as well as I that most scientists who accept common ancestry have written GOD out of the scenario they use to describe the origins of the evidence! That fact, I believe, neither one of us can afford to ignore.

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

He told us in the text itself that it wasn't "regular days" at all.   But you won't believe Him.  It's not trusting God's word as it is, by adding your own interpretations to it.

He SAID He used yamiym ("days") with an `ereV ("evening," changing from LIGHT to DARKNESS) and a boqer ("morning, changing from DARKNESS to LIGHT)! He NUMBERED them, and then THEY WERE EQUATED TO THE NORMAL SEVEN DAYS IN A NORMAL WEEK in Exodus 20, even giving the command to honor the SEVENTH DAY, the DAY OF REST! He said, AND I'm quoting YHWH GOD HIMSELF,...

Exodus 20:9-11 (KJV)

9 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Here's the Hebrew:

שֵׁ֤֣שֶׁת יָמִ֣ים֙ תַּֽעֲבֹ֔ד֮ וְעָשִׂ֖֣יתָ כָּל־מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָ֒ ׃
וְיֹ֙ום֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔֜י שַׁבָּ֖֣ת ׀ לַיהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑֗יךָ לֹֽ֣א־תַעֲשֶׂ֣֨ה כָל־מְלָאכָ֡֜ה אַתָּ֣ה ׀ וּבִנְךָֽ֣־וּ֠בִתֶּ֗ךָ עַבְדְּךָ֤֨ וַאֲמָֽתְךָ֜֙ וּבְהֶמְתֶּ֔֗ךָ וְגֵרְךָ֖֙ אֲשֶׁ֥֣ר בִּשְׁעָרֶֽ֔יךָ ׃כִּ֣י שֵֽׁשֶׁת־יָמִים֩ עָשָׂ֨ה יְהוָ֜ה אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֶת־הַיָּם֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֔ם וַיָּ֖נַח בַּיֹּ֣ום הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י עַל־כֵּ֗ן בֵּרַ֧ךְ יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־יֹ֥ום הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת וַֽיְקַדְּשֵֽׁהוּ׃ ס

This is transliterated into English letters as ...

9 Sheeshet yaamiym ta`aVod v`aasiytaa kaal-mla'khtekhaa:
10 Vyowm hishViy`iy shabaat | l-YHWH 'Eloheeykhaa lo'-ta`aseh kaal-mlaa'khaah 'ataah | uwVinkhaa-uwVitekhaa `aVdkhaa va'amaatkhaa uwVhemtekhaa vgeerkhaa 'asher bish`aareykhaa:
11 kiy sheeshet-yaamiym `aasaah YHWH 'et-hashshaamayim v'et-haa'aarets 'et-hayyaam v'et-kaal-'asher-baam vayyaanach bayyowm hashshiy`iy `al-keen beerakh YHWH 'et-yowm hashshabaat vayqadsheehuw: C

And, this translates into English word-for-word as ...

9 "Six days shalt-thou-labor and-shalt-thou-do all thy-work:
10 But-day the-seventh [is]-Shabbat | to YHWH thy-God not-thou-shalt-do any-work thou | nor-thy-son nor-thy-daughter nor-thy-manservant nor-thy-maidservant nor-thy-livestock nor-thy-visitors who [are]-within-thy-gates:
11 For six-days made YHWH [d.o.=>]-the-skies and-[d.o.->]-the-earth [d.o.->]-the-sea and-[d.o.->]-all-that-[are]-in-them and-rested in-the-day the-seventh upon-thus blessed YHWH [d.o.->]-day the-Shabbat and-he-made-it-holy": [End of section]

The part in Royal Purple are GOD'S VERY WORDS! SPOKEN ALOUD to the children of Israel from Mount Sinai!

43 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Just think and pray on it.   You won't go to hell for being a creationist, but I think you'd have a closer relationship to God if you were willing to accept creation as it is.

I could say the VERY SAME THING to you! Think about what GOD said, and PRAY on it! You won't go to the Lake of Fire for being an evolutionist and a believer in common ancestry, but you may be leading OTHERS into a life of atheism, worshipping the almighty "Science!"

Listen to Paul's words!

Romans 1:18-32 (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 AND CHANGED THE GLORY OF THE UNCORRUPTIBLE GOD INTO AN IMAGE MADE LIKE TO CORRUPTIBLE MAN, AND TO BIRDS, AND FOURFOOTED BEASTS, AND CREEPING THINGS.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (the taxonomy) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature (lesbians): 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another (homosexuality); men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (venereal diseases and AIDS) which was meet (fitting).

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them!

There's a REASON why our world has forgotten it's MAKER and sins perpetually! There's NO FEAR (RESPECT) FOR GOD! And, it's DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the teachings of Science that "no God is necessary for all we see!"

[The Barbarian]

Comes down to evidence.   As you see they are mammals because they evolved from other mammals. 

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It all comes down to one's INTERPRETATION of the evidence.

No.   Evidence is what it is, and one can learn about the reality from the evidence. 

 

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Please, face the fact that NO ONE WAS PRESENT to say what acually happened!

No one honestly believes that we can't know anything we weren't actually there to see.  C'mon.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This is all SPECULATION!

Inferences from evidence.   And as you have seen, predictions based on those inferences have been verified.   Genetic and biochemical evidence and numerous predicted transitional fossils have confirmed these inferences.   Even honest and knowledgeable YE creationists admit it. 

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Because God took a special care in constructing the man, I see NO common ancestor between the man and the ANIMAL that we call an "ape!"

Nevertheless, there are numerous transitional fossils between humans and other apes, as Dr. Wise confirms.    And he actually knows the evidence, even if he prefers his interpretation of scripture.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, the similarities can certainly be down to the cellular, even molecular, level and not show common ancestry!

We can test that assumption, using organisms of known ancestry.   Turns out that it does show common ancestry.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Despite men like Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise, it's not the evidence to which one should object; it's the INTERPRETATION of the "gobs and gobs of evidence" that is at fault!

Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise are YE creationists, and they still openly admit that there is very good evidence for common descent.   Dr. Wise points out that the fossil record of whales is a particularly difficult issue for creationists, since it directly contradicts the presumed worldwide flood.   He expresses confidence that there will eventually be a reasonable YE interpretation of the evidence, but so far, there has not been.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Good. I'm glad you recognize that evolution is constrained in some instances.

I have to remind creationists of this fact, constantly.  Darwin pointed this out in his theory.   Creationists always ask why doesn't a cat turn into a dog.   They have no idea how it works.   If you understand this, you're miles ahead of the average YE creationist.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

You know as well as I that most scientists who accept common ancestry have written GOD out of the scenario they use to describe the origins of the evidence!

You can't insert religion into science.   It's too weak a method to include or exclude the supernatural.   You might as well criticize a plumber for not including God in his determination of leaks.    How silly.   If one's faith is not strong enough, science can't help.    But as you know, even Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.   It was that way from the start.  That is a fact that creationists frequently try to cover up.

He told us in the text itself that it wasn't "regular days" at all.   But you won't believe Him.  It's not trusting God's word as it is, by adding your own interpretations to it.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

AND I'm quoting YHWH GOD HIMSELF,...

If God cites a figurative passage from scripture, I don't see how that converts it to a literal account.  How do you figure that?

Just think and pray on it.   You won't go to hell for being a creationist, but I think you'd have a closer relationship to God if you were willing to accept creation as it is.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I could say the VERY SAME THING to you!

As you see, I'm willing to accept it as it is.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

You won't go to the Lake of Fire for being an evolutionist and a believer in common ancestry, but you may be leading OTHERS into a life of atheism, worshipping the almighty "Science!"

No one who actually understands science would worship it.   And it's not a mere possibility.   Glen Morton, who was a confirmed YE creationist, almost lost his faith, when the evidence showed him that those doctrines could not be true.   And he cites a number of others who were not so fortunate.    This is the real damage that YE creationism does to faith.

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

There's a REASON why our world has forgotten it's MAKER and sins perpetually!

That was going on long before Darwin discovered how evolution works.   Making a scapegoat of a natural process that God Himself created is not a very good response.\

 

[teddyv]

12 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No, I don't approve of the way YOU SAY He did it. But, on the other hand, you don't approve of WHEN He said He did it!

How do you know when he said it? Genesis does not internally date itself. Any chronology, such as Ussher's, is tied to secular dates, not from the Bible itself. So the Bible itself makes no claim as to the when.

[FJK]

38 minutes ago, teddyv said:

How do you know when he said it? Genesis does not internally date itself. Any chronology, such as Ussher's, is tied to secular dates, not from the Bible itself. So the Bible itself makes no claim as to the when.

Have you ever heard of the language of branches?

This is how Moses wrote in Genesis -Bereshith- and it is well to understand that when studying it if an actual understanding of it is to be obtained (assuming understanding, and not contention, is your desire).

Ask a Jew for further knowledge of this.