Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

Sadly, Craig offers nothing of substance to back up this silly charge.

The fact is that Darrow not only would not allow his client to be cross examined - he did not allow the trial to continue by having Bryan present the "other side" of the coin for the Jury.

He truncated the proceedings by immediately asking that the Jury find his client guilty. "The Ploy" was to stop the cross examination process.

The fact is - that based on his argument to that point AND based on Bryans approach that is all they COULD do - so truncating the trial did NOT allow it to go to a higher court by getting a "FASTER GUILTY charge" as your bogus line of reasoning suggests.

The case was going to go to a higher court IN ANY case! All that was accomplished by cutting the process short - was the perfidity of crossing with Bryan while NOT allowing Bryan the SAME opportunity to make Darrow appear in a "monkey suit".

The idea that evolutionists must pretend to be incapable of seeing the antics at that "bizzar trial" is incredible - and yet "instructive" to the observant reader.

When the defense attorney tells the jury that they have no other option but to find his own client guilty - "there is no more defense" - get it? Yet?

The jury can hardly turn to the prosecuting attorney or the Judge to take up the challenge of defending the case!

(Stating the obvious "again" but it is always such a necessary requirement when opening the eyes of evolutionists to historic fact).

Paid by the ACLU - who was also paying the football coach, Scopes, to "act" as though he taught evolution when in fact Scopes himself admits he did not.

Recall that the legal point under debate was ONLY the point "DID scopes teach evolution or not". The BIZZAR antics of the trial were in the form of distracting the jury from the substance of the court decision OVER to the topic Darrow preferred to discuss AND the fact that the prosecutting attorney would ever agree to take the stand as his own expert witness.

Bob

 

The Craig's own appeal to the Scopes trial perfectly illustrates the bias that evolutionsts have against the Bible and in favor of atheist doctrines on origins (and revisionist history).

And hence - the subject title of this thread.

Bob

 

Bingo. God created the earth as He needed it to be. The appearance of age or maturity is not a limitation on Him nor His integrity.

From my first premise, I can easily believe that God used any manner of creation He chose. Evolution? Yes. OE Creationism? Yes. YEC? Yes. Day-age creationism? Yes.

One problem with evolution is that it is simply a human interpretation of general revelation... that happens to disagree with a normal, literal understanding of special revelation. In fact, the pattern of thought that led Darwin, Huxley, and other great expounders of evolution to their conclusions quite often follows the pattern described in Romans 1:18-25. They needed a means of explaining what exists without having to be accountable to a creator.

This is a false generalization. Fully functional is not always different from an appearance of age or maturity. "Appearance" always has a subjective element. The subjective part for evolution is deeply imbedded. It is rooted in the core assumptions. If you accept the premise that supernatural events must not be a valid option then the appearance of things will be shaded by that assumption every time.

And as you well know, credible people have put forth credible alternatives to the explanations you accept for all of these events... unless you have completely lost your objectivity.

You full well know that this is not true. We do not have any such complete set of intermediate forms. Further, the only connections made between the fossils we do have are those imagined by interpreters of this data.

You have bought into a bias... just as surely as you accuse others of us of having done.

As far as similarities between animals and animals and animals and humans, you need to answer my very simple question.

If I built a chair with 1/2" wood screws and a table with 1/2" wood screws, would that prove that they were made from the same tree? The question and its obvious answer are no different nor more ridiculous than the assertions that you are making. Yours are just slightly more complex in their details.

 

Not too much mentioned in scripture other than "He made the stars also!" What ever was going on at the beginning of its creation was able to be viewed from Earth shortly thereafter (either via naked eye or via high powered telescope had one existed at the time) from that time on, whatever was going on could be observed such as the crab nebula explosion or whatever. There are those who hold to a "Gap Theory" and that the seven days of creation were seven days of "Re-Creation." Such a view would be compatible with the stars and galaxies being millions or billions of years old while also allowing for the Genesis account of creation. I do not hold to this theory personally but I would not break fellowship with those who did!

First of all, I do not believe that God created the fossils with the earth. The so-called "Gap Theory" allows the Earth to be in existence prior to Adam (called a "Preadamite Earth" by certain theologians that hold this view) in which certain creatures roamed an Earth quite different than the one we know. I believe these fossils were the result of a universal flood as recorded in Genesis and can also be found in the folklore of civilizations throughout the world! Then again, those who hold to the theory of Evolution usually tend to reject the idea of a universal, worldwide flood. Would this be you also?

Archaeology and Palentology suggest that perhaps at one time, the entire Earth was Subtropical. Sounds consistent with an Antediluvian Earth in which giant reptilian creatures could dwell. The Pteradactyl could not exist in the present reducing atmosphere but would thrive in an ecological setting that would've existed prior to the flood!

Such evidence as you have specified here does not convince me that I have a common ancestor but a common creator as the other "Primates!"

The Bible actually speaks of Plate Techtonics:

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided ; and his brother's name [was] Joktan.

There had to be some joining of the landmasses (of which the concurrent "Ice Age" also played a part) in order for the land dwelling animals to scatter and for Man to migrate throughout the world after the Tower of Babel. I believe that this took perhaps hundreds of years rather than the Millions you or others may assert. Certainly their movement is measurable but who is to say they have always moved at the same rate of speed?

I'm not a Geologist (or a scientist for that matter) but are you inferring some sort of catastrophic event here?

This is interesting and I do not have an answer. I have read about it before though.

There is a purpose and reason for EVERYTHING!!!

BTW, why would God create us with an appendix (or other "vestigial" organ) if it served no purpose?

 

To borrow from the words of the Tennessee Supreme Court,

"Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."

 

Backing up a bit to cover something I skipped yesterday. I had challenged Todd that if the literal 6 day creation is so important to the rest of the Bible, why did our Lord And Savior Jesus fail to spend any time on that in his teaching. I claimed that Christ said very little about creation and nothing at all that is not compatible with an old earth Todd responded

First, "I could provide you with multiple examples where Christ referred to a literal Adam and Eve."

There is no reason to think that there was not a literal Adam and Eve in an old earth paradigm. There IS a dividing line between us and the other animals. God has given us a soul. He made us sentient. He gave us free will. He gave us the ability to reason in an abstract manner. So an old earth does not preclude God at some point giving the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, a soul and separating them out to the garden. Now I will be honest here and say that this is a point about which I am unsure. While I have no uncertainty about the creation account being non-literal I am uncertain about Adam. I can see it going either way though I tend to lean towards there being the first man with a sould, Adam.

So references to Adam and Eve need not be incompatible, as I claimed, and do nothing towards aserting that Christ spoke clearly about a literal 6 day creation or its central importance.

Second "And He answered and said to them..."

Yes, of course I am familar with the passage. It is the one I expected you to use for it comes the closest to what I asked for. But still it is not unambiguous.

One minor point to be made is the context. You already gave it, but let me remind the reader that it is not a statement about a literal 6 day creation nor how such a literal 6 day creation is central to Christ's message. It is a discussion about marriage.

Now the major point to be made is that I do not think that you will find any old earth supporter who doubts that humans have always been male and female. So there still is no incompatibility.

If you wish, we could even underscore that this was a statement about marraige and was not supposed to be about anything else by getting into how there are people running around who really are not male nor female. Genetics does some strange things.

 

"Bingo. God created the earth as He needed it to be. The appearance of age or maturity is not a limitation on Him nor His integrity."

I am not placing limits on God. It is a matter of certain things not being necessary simply for creating a mature and functional universe.

I have already given you an example. The gene for vitamin C.

Let me give you an analogy borrowed from another poster. Let's say I am a cartographer living a few hundred years ago. I do all this research to make my maps. They are my livelyhood. I suspect that some of my competitors are simply redrawing my maps in their own hands and selling them. So I challenge them. They of course deny it. So in my next iteration of maps, I draw in a few minor mistakes on purpose. When their next versions come out, they have the same minor errors. Now, I have unassailable proof that they copied my maps.

Vitamin C is made through the action of four separate enzymes made by four different genes. In humans and the other primates and apes, the fourth gene is broken and in exactly the same way. Just as in the maps above, that the exact same mutation is shared among all the primates is good evidence that it got there through copying. If it were just a place that is prone to breaking, then we would see other species besides primates whose gene were also broken there. And there is no logical reason to put in a non-working gene to make the universe to appear mature and to make it functional. How does a non-functional gene make the universe functional?

The same thing can be done with many other non-functional genes and functional genes. If you look above, you will see that I go through something similar for where virii have inserted the dame genes into humans and the other apes at the same places.

Let's do the same thing with whales. I stated above the whales have a fossil record going back to the even toed ungulates and that genetic testing confirms that this is the group to which they are most closely related.

Now, there are two classes of olfactory genes. Those good for detecting odors in the water and those for detecting odors in the air. Fish have the ones for water, mammals the ones for air. Some have both, like some amphibians. Now, if whales were created what would you expect them to have? The answer is either none or the ones for detecting odors in water. If they evolved, which ones would you expect? The answer is the ones for detecting odors in AIR since that is what their ancestors had.

What do you find? Whales actually have scores of the same genes for detecting airborne odors that match those of land dwelling animals. Not only that, they are not functionable. Because these genes are not useful underwater, they have gradually mutated until they no longer work. But they are there. This, just like the map copiers, shows that these genes were orignally in their land dwelling ancestors.

So why do whales need non-functioning genes for detecting airborne odors to make the universe functional?

" In fact, the pattern of thought that led Darwin, Huxley, and other great expounders of evolution to their conclusions quite often follows the pattern described in Romans 1:18-25."

Nope. THey are actually exposing the truth. Do you really think I hold these positions because I "need[] a means of explaining what exists without having to be accountable to a creator?"

"And as you well know, credible people have put forth credible alternatives to the explanations you accept for all of these events... unless you have completely lost your objectivity."

Remember who you are dealing with. I was YE, but uninformed. I first went to these "credible people" with a bias towards their position and looking for support. These people turned out to be not so credible. The obvious problems with their "solutions" is what led me to examine the rest of the story in the first place. So no, I have not seen credible alternatives. If you have them, present them.

"If I built a chair with 1/2" wood screws and a table with 1/2" wood screws, would that prove that they were made from the same tree? The question and its obvious answer are no different nor more ridiculous than the assertions that you are making. Yours are just slightly more complex in their details."

Faulty analogy. Life is not like a chair. The evidence is not simply that they are made of the same things. It is much grander than that. It is the way and the order in which life is found in the earth. It is the way this life is seen to change with time. It is the numerous examples of one creature changing into another recorded in the fossil record. It is the vestigals and atavisms that we find today. It is the genetic which match so closely the fossils. Both in functional and non-functional genes.

 

"You full well know that this is not true. We do not have any such complete set of intermediate forms. Further, the only connections made between the fossils we do have are those imagined by interpreters of this data."

I did not use the word "complete." There is no such thing. You cannot possibly imagine ever having every fossil. But we do have a pretty good record of human evolution. Are you familar with all of these?

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalsis
Homo sapiens

And maybe you have read about the latest find, from Spain, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.

Now, which of these do you have a problem with? Which of these do you think are fully human and which do you think are completely non-human apes? Make your choices.

But you have a bad choice. Let's take the most human-like non-human on the list. If you say the Neanderthals were human, then I am going to pull out the genetic testing that shows that they are not and I will start pointing out all the physical traits they have that no extant humans have, such as brow ridges. If you say they were not human, then I will point to their sophisticated life with tool making and burying dead and all that. If you make your break at a point further in the past then I will have an even easier time with you.

A few other things.

"Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees," Chen FC, Li WH, American Journal Human Genetics, 2001 Feb;68(2):444-56.

I want to look at pseudogenes can be used to trace the evolutionary history of apes. For this paper, they used "53 autosomal intergenic nonrepetitive DNA segments from the human genome and sequenced them in a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan." These segments included "Y-linked noncoding regions, pseudogenes, autosomal intergenic regions, X-linked noncoding regions, synonymous sites, introns, and nonsynonymous sites."

When all the various sequences are considered as togther, they "supports the Homo-Pan clade with a 100% bootstrap value." This is pretty clear evidence of the shared common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees.

--------------------

The next subject I wish to explore here is chimeric retrogenes. They happen to be functional but they arise in a specific way that allows them to be used to trace evolutionary family trees.

The basics are that mRNA is turned into cDNA through reverse transcription. This sequence is then permantently integrated into the genome by endogenous integration proteins.

The evolution of the primates and apes can then be traced by when specific sequences were integrated into the genomes of the various common ancestors.

When looking at this 12 specific chimeric retrogenes, you get the following chart.
http://nar.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/15/4385/GKG496F3

The distribution of the various genes in the various primates and apes, including humans, matches that which would be predicted through other techniques. That this technique matches that as done by other genetic, molecular and fossil methods is a very powerful combination of factors that strongly indicate the descent of humans from a common ancestor with the other apes.

"The human genome contains many types of chimeric retrogenes generated through in vivo RNA recombination," Anton Buzdin*, Elena Gogvadze, Elena Kovalskaya, Pavel Volchkov, Svetlana Ustyugova, Anna Illarionova, Alexey Fushan, Tatiana Vinogradova and Eugene Sverdlov, Nucleic Acids Research, 2003, Vol. 31, No. 15 4385-4390.
http://nar.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/15/4385

--------------

The next subject to look at is retroviral DNA insertions.

"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences," Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, Issue 18, 10254-10260, August 31, 1999.

Here, about a dozen different retroviral DNA inserts are used to construct the evolutionary tree of human and the other apes and primates. See the following chart to see how closely the different inserts match.
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue18/images/large/pq1892815002.jpeg

Emphasis added.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

There are many such papers out there using LTRs to trace evolution. Here is another.

Liao, D., Pavelitz, T., & Weiner, A.M. (1998). Characterization of a novel class of interspersed LTR elements in primate genomes: structure, genomic distribution, and evolution. JMolEvol, 46, 649-660.

And another...
"Evolutionary implications of primate endogenous retroviruses," Shih A, Coutavas EE, Rush MG, Virology. 1991 Jun;182(2):495-502.

 

"Not too much mentioned in scripture other than "He made the stars also!" What ever was going on at the beginning of its creation was able to be viewed from Earth shortly thereafter (either via naked eye or via high powered telescope had one existed at the time) from that time on, whatever was going on could be observed such as the crab nebula explosion or whatever. There are those who hold to a "Gap Theory" and that the seven days of creation were seven days of "Re-Creation." Such a view would be compatible with the stars and galaxies being millions or billions of years old while also allowing for the Genesis account of creation. I do not hold to this theory personally but I would not break fellowship with those who did!"

But it is no longer a literal six day creation. Weren't there stars made on day 4 there? Eliminates the Gap theory as an explanation supported in the text. It is merely an admission that the universe really is old.

"I believe these fossils were the result of a universal flood as recorded in Genesis and can also be found in the folklore of civilizations throughout the world!"

No evidence for that. The fossil are not sorted nor deposited consistent with a global flood.

"Then again, those who hold to the theory of Evolution usually tend to reject the idea of a universal, worldwide flood. Would this be you also?"

I ma enough of a renegade ( ;) ) that I belive the flood to have been regional. No evidence for a worldwide flood but plenty for a regional flood.

"Archaeology and Palentology suggest that perhaps at one time, the entire Earth was Subtropical. Sounds consistent with an Antediluvian Earth in which giant reptilian creatures could dwell. The Pteradactyl could not exist in the present reducing atmosphere but would thrive in an ecological setting that would've existed prior to the flood!"

I am not sure what you are getting at. The current atmosphere is not reducing it is oxidizing.

"The Bible actually speaks of Plate Techtonics:

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided ; and his brother's name [was] Joktan."

Uh...Are you sure that is plate techtonic? I do not think there is any biblical evidence to support this verse as referring to a physical divinding of the earth. I believe sound exegesis demands another interpretation.

Besides, do you understand the tremendous energy release that would be required for rapid plate techtonics? Can you imagine the destruction of constant eathquakes far beyond anyhting we have ever seen for even a brief moment?

And...There have been multiple supercontinents so it woul have to be divided and joined and divided and joined and so on...

"I'm not a Geologist (or a scientist for that matter) but are you inferring some sort of catastrophic event here?"

No. Steady mid-Atlantic spreading as the America pull away from Africa and Europe.

"This is interesting and I do not have an answer. I have read about it before though."

Now we are getting somewhere.

I do not have any problem with those who claim that their reading of Genesis demands a young earth, period. Good for you. What I do have a problem with is when some insist falsely that the evidence actually supports a young earth or when they try and justify an Omphalos argument. All I ask is that you look closely and openly at both sides. If you still disagree. Fine. This is not a salvational issue so one of us can be blissfully ignorant. I guess we won't know until the other side for sure. But I at least want to excise the worst arguments and get people to examine the issue closely for themselves.

"BTW, why would God create us with an appendix (or other "vestigial" organ) if it served no purpose?"

Just what I ask. See the above discussion on vestigal olfactory genes in whales, for example.

 

I have a problem with all and none at once.

How many species of primates exist on earth today? If all of them were extinct the same folks who line up lists like yours could line up the fossils of contemporary primates and conclude that they form our evolutionary chain.

I do not know about all of the things on your list. What I am confident of is that all of them either differ from man sufficiently to be called another species or have a malformation that can be explained by other means than evolution.

I am not going to cut and paste someone else's argument here and I have neither the time, money nor facilities to perform my own research work.

Suffice it to say that I have read both sides and am convinced that your model has been adequately answered and that your contention about neanderthal has been sufficiently answered.

So, let's go back to your premise. What have you seen in the fossil record that demonstrates categorically that God could not have created everything as it exists now? When you make things do you make them simple and hope that they will naturally add complexity to themselves until they meet your requirements or do you build them as needed? Is God truly lying if your interpretation of natural history isn't correct or was He lying when He directly told Moses, more than once, that He had created the world in six days?

Is this author a biblical Christian? Do they start with the premise that everything we see must have a naturalistic explanation?

You have shown that you know alot about something. What you have failed to show is that that something holds water. It is not logical in that evolution does not present a prime cause. It is highly improbable even by evolutionary scientists' own admission.

I think it was you that scoffed at the notion that our recently constructed foundation would ever occur by purely natural forces. However, it is far more likely than the spontaneous creation of the amino acids needed for DNA... and many other events assumed by evolutionists.

 

I think this is the same confused internally-conflicted ideas that Craig started out with and look where it took him - down to "No there was no Adam".

The Evolutionist's idea is that after eons of God arranging for death, disease, extermination, starvation and survival - mankind finally stood up on his own two feet. Only to find God saying "Hey WAIT! I have one more gift for you! You shall all burn in hell unless you repent".

This is the "gospel" according to the compromised conflicted views of evolutionism.

This is why many would prefer not to have such a clouded doctrinal POV presented from the pulpit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Evolutionists avoid exegetical discussions like the plague - so don't expect to be engaged on the basis of your argument above. The "details" will be ignored.

#2. Your argument from Romans 8 is very well put.

#3. God said that instead of sending us "disease and extermination" as his method of "creating life on earth -- He "spoke and it was" He commanded and it stood fast.

All foreign concepts to evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As Patterson observed about these bogus claims for continuous lines of ancestor decendants "Such stories are easy enough to make up ... but they can not be tested... they are NOT science".

So why do evolutionsts cling to these "stories easy enough to make up" but not the Word of God?

Why do the pretend that "stories easy enough to make up" are "science" when in fact they are non-science -- in fact junk-science?

Why trade exegesis for this form of eisgesis based on what is "NOT" Science??

In Christ,

Bob

 

"The evidence to me overwhelmingly points to a single, cataclysmic event! How else would you explain mammoths being frozen intact and perfectly preserved? Comet strike? A good possibility actually!"

How exactly would a flood or a comet freeze a mammoth?

There have actually only been on the order of a few dozen frozen mammoths found. The conditions under which they were frozen can often be determined. For example, the Berezovka mammoth fell off a cliff in a landslide. Broken bones help tell the story. The remains of the landslide were covered in mud and the whole lot was frozen.

"I would venture to say that you do not believe that the sun actually stood still during Joshua's battle against Adonai-Zedek. "

Well, technically you are right. The motion of the sun is caused by the rotation of the earth. So actually the earth stood still. But, since the writers of the Bible did not understand this fact, they phrased it as the sun stood still. Which is how it appeared to them, so it is correct enough.

"Additionally, you would be skeptical about the shadow on the sundial giong in reverse for Hezekiah."

Why be skeptical of that?

"you sould probably view the story of Jonah and the whale as an "Allegory" and not an actual historic event."

Again, why be skeptical?

"Do you believe that Moses led the Children of Israel into the Red Sea ON DRY GROUND with a WALL OF WATER ON EITHER SIDE?"

God provided for the Israelites when they needed. Whether He split the sea right down the middle or provided a natural solution is unimportant. God miraculously provided.

"Guess I shouldn't use terminology I am not completely familiar with! My point was that a Pteradactyl (A flying, cold-blooded reptile) could not possibly exist today where the altitude it must've flown was too cold and the air too thin."

Sorry, but I still do not follow.

"Those dingos had to have SOME WAY of migrating from the mountains of Ararat to the Australian Outback!"

You bring up another strange thing. Why is it that, using the Australian fauna as an example since you brought it up, that the same species would end up after the flood just where fossils of the same species got deposited during the flood?

"1. At what point in time was man distinguished from the remainder of the Animal Kingdom and considered to be created in THE IMAGE OF GOD?"

When God gave someone a soul. A date? I dunno.

"2. At what point in time did ALL OF MANKIND fall from grace thus requiring God's work of redemption? If we (mankind) evolved from a sub-species, why does the bible say that we are all guilty of the sin of ADAM who passed his sin to ALL MANKIND?"

Again, I dunno. Two leading possibilities though. The first with a soul was the literal Adam who then Fell. The second would be that Adam is a general term for all men and that our sinful nature leads us all into depravity and a need for salvation.

"You being a Christian Evolutionist though, I'd like to hear your perspective in regard to these questions!"

I tried.

BTW, I much more enjoy a conversational approach, as you seem to be doing, than confrontational.

 

"How many species of primates exist on earth today? If all of them were extinct the same folks who line up lists like yours could line up the fossils of contemporary primates and conclude that they form our evolutionary chain."

Nope, the morphology would not match.

Recently someone tried this with a group with far less diversity than primates. They used dogs. They were actually able to trace back where certain breeds originated and made some insights into dog breeding that were not apparent, that went against convential wisdom, but were found to be well supported.

"Is this author a biblical Christian? "

I dunno. Do you have a reason for us why their conclusions are false?

Look, my best evidence remains untouched. I purposefully through in a lot on non-coding DNA to eliminate the possibility of falling back on the similarities are because of a coomon designer.

Man and the other apes share a very specific mutation damaging the vitamin C making pathway. Common descent explains this quite simply. There really is no explanation in YE.

Man and the other apes share very specific retroviral DNA inserts in the same places. Common descent explains this nicely. For you, not only do you require that the same set of virii infected all the different apes, that they all inserted the same piece of DNA, that it was insertd in the same place, and that all these pieces made their way into the whole populations, you have another problem. Since humans all sharethe same set, too, then they must have all been inserted by our last common ancestor. Noah I pressume you would say. So, in ten generation from Adam to Noah, enough retroviruses inserted enough DNA into our genome, in just those ten men, to make up a few percent of our genome. But, by some amazing coincidence, there have not been any additional insertions in the intervening time. Unlikely.

Why do whales have olfactory genes for detecting airborn scents that match what our supposed land dwelling ancestors of theirs have that have all been disabled? THis makes no sense in a created kinds. WHat kind of designer would give whales scores of disabled versions of genes that would be useless even if they were not pseudogenes? Common descent handles this well.

 

UT, this is another clear demonstration of why you simply can't make macroevolution stand alongside a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall of man. Your statement is self-contradictory. You say that there is no reason to believe that a literal Adam and Eve could not have existed within the old Earth paradigm. Here's your problem: A literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall of man are born out of honest biblical exegesis of Gen. 1-11. An old Earth paradigm can't possibly be affirmed by that very same honest biblical exegesis that you would like to apply to a literal Adam and Eve.

That's why all along I've been saying that macroevolutionists want to have their cake and eat it too. They say, "Give us a literal Fall, a literal cross, a literal resurrection, and a literal heaven, but don't dare ask us to believe in a literal young Earth." I don't see why the macroevolutionists are unwilling to admit this. You would have no problem being bound by the exegetical consequences of Scripture as they relate to the Cross, the resurrection, heaven, etc., but you REJECT THAT VERY SAME EXEGESIS WHEN IT IS APPLIED TO THE FIRST 11 CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. That is being self-referentially inconsistent at best, and completely dishonest at its worst. I won't retrace all the exegetical reasons here because I have given them throughout this thread (and none of the macroevolutionists have been able to turn a single one of those reasons back yet).

UT, I think you feel the tension between an old Earth and a literal Adam and Eve/Fall when your views are applied to biblical exegesis, because you finally admit, "I will be honest here and say that this is a point about which I am unsure. While I have no uncertainty about the creation account being non-literal, I am uncertain about Adam." This is no surprise is it? Your uncertainty rests in the fact that you have an a priori commitment to macroevolution that can't possibly be affirmed by the honest exegesis of God's Word! Thus, you realize that if you are going to keep macroevolution, then you are going to have to start doing some shady hermeneutical work in Gen. 1-3 and Rom. 5-8 (among many other passages) to try and force macroevolution upon the Word of God. Your "uncertainty" about Adam simply proves the point that I've been trying to make from the beginning - you can't make macroevolution stand alongside a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall of man! Honest exegesis simply will not allow it. Thus, you have a choice to make - either accept the plain testimony of God's Word as based in honest exegesis, or stick with your a priori commitment to macroevolution. As for me, I'm going to stick with the Word of God, and I trust that the Spirit of God will lead you to do the same as well someday.

 

Yes. Their premise is fatally flawed.

 

As does common designer and common location.

I disagree. Acceptance of a supernatural creator who has directly interacted in a creative way with his creation leaves a great number of explanations open.

There is no evolutionary explanation for the fact that God said He specially made man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into Him.

That is an unfounded claim unless you deny the supernatural.

I likewise think evolution is "unlikely". In fact, it is ridiculously unlikely. However, I do not say that it is impossible.

 

What is false about shared pseudogenes among the apes being evidence for their common descent or of whales having pseudogenes of what land dwelling animals use for a sence of smell being evidence of them havinf a land dwelling ancestor?

Please give us the better explanation of these that does not involve common descent or an appeal to the unknown and unfalsibiable.