Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Evolution is a historical science and the theory is subject to change based on new evidence, the theory is an interpretation of historical evidence, like fossils, DNA, geology etc... etc... The problem is ACB that even if it is wrong, it is still the best theory we currently have that fits the evidence, no, I repeat no creation theory fits the evidence at all without massive problems with the evidence, so all we are left with is evolution and until a better theory comes along that fits the evidence better or new evidence is uncovered that changes the theory of evolution we have to go with it. Yes there are problems with evolution, no doubt about that, but it has far less problems than any other competing theory or creation perspective. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it is very strong, I have read the creation evidence and they have nowhere near the explanatory power that actually fits the evidence that evolution has, not many people just believe 99% of scientists, most people have looked at the evidence for themselves, there is so much information out there that you can't help being educated on evolution. If you want to believe in Gap theory, that's cool bro, I have no issue with it, but it has nowhere near the explanatory power and it has major flaws, biblical and scientific, more so than other creation theories.

I have compared evolution to the different creation theories too. I need to know what evidence convinced you life evolves? Because you seem to be saying because the other creation theories have no where near the explantary power of them so evolution is the top theory going but I just cannot understand how you can believe life evolves.

I would accept evolution if the evidence backed it up,but it doesn't and knowing this I think you underestimate the gap theory for in my research it is the only creation theory that has defeated evolution in debates in colleges.It defeats evolution because it removes and uses a lot of the same evidence evolutionists use and no evolutionists can demonstrate life evolves,so it makes the evidence fit the gap theory much better especially when it is pointed out everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and yet it cannot even be demonstrated life evolves.The gap theory becomes more credible than evolution using much of the same evidence.

I am not an expert like some, so anyone please correct me if I get something wrong.

Well the first thing you have to recognise is that there are multiple lines of evidence and these lines of evidence should line up with each other, like for example fossil record should line up with geology and dating methods should line up with geology, DNA should line up with predictions etc.. etc... the fossil record shows us organisms transitioning into more complex life forms as time goes by, dating methods show us that certain layers in the different stratum are older than others and the prediction of finding certain types of fossils at certain depths proves true. DNA shows us that we are related more closely to some species than others and lines up with the progression of the fossil record, DNA also shows us that all species have a common ancestor, which lines up with the progression we see from the fossil record and so on and so on. The problem you have is that there are hundreds of lines of evidence that ALL say the SAME thing, we can make predictions based on these lines of evidence which we can test for and repeat, we may not be able to watch it in action in real time as the time it takes to change from one species to another is too large and the closest we can get is with ring species (look them up if your interested) but we also cannot see the big bang, geological formation and other areas of science that are historical, but we can make models that fit multiple lines of evidence and make predictions from that and test to see if they are true. But I know I cannot sway your opinion because you don't believe the words of men, even though they are really studying the mind of God which is the natural world, so I feel like I am wasting my time. The Bible is very silent on these matters and I don't think it was ever it's intention to be a science book, if it was it would be a darn sight more comprehensive if it is the infallible word of God and since it's not it is easy to conclude that it's intention was theological and not scientific, the two are both totally different areas of study which do not try to explain each other.

If evolution was true and everything evolved the older rocks should be on top instead of on bottom.

abelcainsbrother wrote:If evolution was true and everything evolved the older rocks should be on top instead of on bottom.

fakedit: Boo. No alt text function in the BBCode. I wanted . Ah well.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Evolution is a historical science and the theory is subject to change based on new evidence, the theory is an interpretation of historical evidence, like fossils, DNA, geology etc... etc... The problem is ACB that even if it is wrong, it is still the best theory we currently have that fits the evidence, no, I repeat no creation theory fits the evidence at all without massive problems with the evidence, so all we are left with is evolution and until a better theory comes along that fits the evidence better or new evidence is uncovered that changes the theory of evolution we have to go with it. Yes there are problems with evolution, no doubt about that, but it has far less problems than any other competing theory or creation perspective. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it is very strong, I have read the creation evidence and they have nowhere near the explanatory power that actually fits the evidence that evolution has, not many people just believe 99% of scientists, most people have looked at the evidence for themselves, there is so much information out there that you can't help being educated on evolution. If you want to believe in Gap theory, that's cool bro, I have no issue with it, but it has nowhere near the explanatory power and it has major flaws, biblical and scientific, more so than other creation theories.

I have compared evolution to the different creation theories too. I need to know what evidence convinced you life evolves? Because you seem to be saying because the other creation theories have no where near the explantary power of them so evolution is the top theory going but I just cannot understand how you can believe life evolves.

I would accept evolution if the evidence backed it up,but it doesn't and knowing this I think you underestimate the gap theory for in my research it is the only creation theory that has defeated evolution in debates in colleges.It defeats evolution because it removes and uses a lot of the same evidence evolutionists use and no evolutionists can demonstrate life evolves,so it makes the evidence fit the gap theory much better especially when it is pointed out everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and yet it cannot even be demonstrated life evolves.The gap theory becomes more credible than evolution using much of the same evidence.

I am not an expert like some, so anyone please correct me if I get something wrong.

Well the first thing you have to recognise is that there are multiple lines of evidence and these lines of evidence should line up with each other, like for example fossil record should line up with geology and dating methods should line up with geology, DNA should line up with predictions etc.. etc... the fossil record shows us organisms transitioning into more complex life forms as time goes by, dating methods show us that certain layers in the different stratum are older than others and the prediction of finding certain types of fossils at certain depths proves true. DNA shows us that we are related more closely to some species than others and lines up with the progression of the fossil record, DNA also shows us that all species have a common ancestor, which lines up with the progression we see from the fossil record and so on and so on. The problem you have is that there are hundreds of lines of evidence that ALL say the SAME thing, we can make predictions based on these lines of evidence which we can test for and repeat, we may not be able to watch it in action in real time as the time it takes to change from one species to another is too large and the closest we can get is with ring species (look them up if your interested) but we also cannot see the big bang, geological formation and other areas of science that are historical, but we can make models that fit multiple lines of evidence and make predictions from that and test to see if they are true. But I know I cannot sway your opinion because you don't believe the words of men, even though they are really studying the mind of God which is the natural world, so I feel like I am wasting my time. The Bible is very silent on these matters and I don't think it was ever it's intention to be a science book, if it was it would be a darn sight more comprehensive if it is the infallible word of God and since it's not it is easy to conclude that it's intention was theological and not scientific, the two are both totally different areas of study which do not try to explain each other.

You can sway my opinion with evidence life evolves, if you cannot demonstrate life evolves then why look at the evidence from an evolution perspective? I mean they're looking at the evidence you mentioned and interpreting it from an evolution perspective.I really believe that if life evolves it could've been demonstrated then we could look at the evidence and interpret it from an evolution perspective,but yet they have assumed and have looked at everything from an assumption.

The whole point of biological evolution is one kind of life evolving and changing over time into another kind of life and it is assumption unless you know of evidence I don't.Why not look at the evidence and interpret it from the perspective of a former world existing full of life that perished before God created this world? I think you'd see the evidence fits this perspective and interpretation better.I think you might find that even if you don't think the gap theory is biblical,the evidence would still fit in it rather than looking at it from an evolution interpretation but I cannot change your mind.

abelcainsbrother wrote:If evolution was true and everything evolved the older rocks should be on top instead of on bottom.

I'm sorry what??

Notice no evidence life evolves and yet it is OK to interpret the evidence in the earth from this perspective even though nobody even knows if it really happens based on evidence.They tell you it is true and you believe them.I don't believe them because I want evidence life evolves but they've got the cart before the horse.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Notice no evidence life evolves and yet it is OK to interpret the evidence in the earth from this perspective even though nobody even knows if it really happens based on evidence.They tell you it is true and you believe them.I don't believe them because I want evidence life evolves but they've got the cart before the horse.

Based on the available evidence, yes life evolves. That's what all the historical evidence says.
If you can provide an alternative explanation of the evidence that can make predictions we can test for and has a better explanatory power than evolution then I am all ears. Until that time ACB I dismiss your assertions, because that's all they are, nothing you have said is based on any fact.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Evolution is a historical science and the theory is subject to change based on new evidence, the theory is an interpretation of historical evidence, like fossils, DNA, geology etc... etc... The problem is ACB that even if it is wrong, it is still the best theory we currently have that fits the evidence, no, I repeat no creation theory fits the evidence at all without massive problems with the evidence, so all we are left with is evolution and until a better theory comes along that fits the evidence better or new evidence is uncovered that changes the theory of evolution we have to go with it. Yes there are problems with evolution, no doubt about that, but it has far less problems than any other competing theory or creation perspective. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it is very strong, I have read the creation evidence and they have nowhere near the explanatory power that actually fits the evidence that evolution has, not many people just believe 99% of scientists, most people have looked at the evidence for themselves, there is so much information out there that you can't help being educated on evolution. If you want to believe in Gap theory, that's cool bro, I have no issue with it, but it has nowhere near the explanatory power and it has major flaws, biblical and scientific, more so than other creation theories.

I have compared evolution to the different creation theories too. I need to know what evidence convinced you life evolves? Because you seem to be saying because the other creation theories have no where near the explantary power of them so evolution is the top theory going but I just cannot understand how you can believe life evolves.

I would accept evolution if the evidence backed it up,but it doesn't and knowing this I think you underestimate the gap theory for in my research it is the only creation theory that has defeated evolution in debates in colleges.It defeats evolution because it removes and uses a lot of the same evidence evolutionists use and no evolutionists can demonstrate life evolves,so it makes the evidence fit the gap theory much better especially when it is pointed out everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and yet it cannot even be demonstrated life evolves.The gap theory becomes more credible than evolution using much of the same evidence.

I am not an expert like some, so anyone please correct me if I get something wrong.

Well the first thing you have to recognise is that there are multiple lines of evidence and these lines of evidence should line up with each other, like for example fossil record should line up with geology and dating methods should line up with geology, DNA should line up with predictions etc.. etc... the fossil record shows us organisms transitioning into more complex life forms as time goes by, dating methods show us that certain layers in the different stratum are older than others and the prediction of finding certain types of fossils at certain depths proves true. DNA shows us that we are related more closely to some species than others and lines up with the progression of the fossil record, DNA also shows us that all species have a common ancestor, which lines up with the progression we see from the fossil record and so on and so on. The problem you have is that there are hundreds of lines of evidence that ALL say the SAME thing, we can make predictions based on these lines of evidence which we can test for and repeat, we may not be able to watch it in action in real time as the time it takes to change from one species to another is too large and the closest we can get is with ring species (look them up if your interested) but we also cannot see the big bang, geological formation and other areas of science that are historical, but we can make models that fit multiple lines of evidence and make predictions from that and test to see if they are true. But I know I cannot sway your opinion because you don't believe the words of men, even though they are really studying the mind of God which is the natural world, so I feel like I am wasting my time. The Bible is very silent on these matters and I don't think it was ever it's intention to be a science book, if it was it would be a darn sight more comprehensive if it is the infallible word of God and since it's not it is easy to conclude that it's intention was theological and not scientific, the two are both totally different areas of study which do not try to explain each other.

Daniel we have to be careful when we say that animals are transitioning into more complex forms . What exactly does that mean ? Did u know that trilobites have one of the most sophisticated eyes in history yet they loved over 500 million years ago.

Have u seen the first cars that rolled off the assembly line in the early 20th century ?
They seemed extremely primitive to me . Did they evolve ? Or were they designed ? In fact the first person to use the car analogy was an evolutionist that said it clearly made the case for evolution , until people thought about it and said "wait a minute , those cars didn't come about naturally , they were all designed by a mind ""

As far as DNA similarities that can also be explained by intelligent design as a. Designer would be working with similar material when designing .


As far as common descent , we can use the same car analogy . They all look familiar and they all came from a simple prototype design , but they were all designed

And as far as transitions , there are many holes in the transitionary charts . There are many holes in that , and ever proceeding animal is a fully formed one . The other problems are the supposed transitions themselves .
I have highlighted the whale transitionary chart as a huge problem for evolution . Considering how strained it already is , and on top of that biologists recently found a basilosaurus fossil dating back from 49 million years , swimming the same oceans as it's supposed ancestor ambulocetas .

This doesn't even take into account the specified complex information residing within DNA itself , specifically within its nucleotide bases and their attachment site which cannot be explained by any known evolutionary mechanism. These are deeply troubling questions that evolutionary biologists simply don't have the answers for , but ID can explain it perfectly and we have many examples in our history as human beings to invoke to explain it with . Never in history has specified complex info arisen from anything other then a mind.

And since most if evolution is historical science , why not draw from the examples that we readily have instead of drawing from examples we have never known to have arisen without an intelligent source .

I was trained to look at these specified complex informational systems naturally for so long in my college biology courses that it had come as second nature to me . I must admit its tough to look at life this way because we never were taught in the educational system to do so , but it's very intuitive and makes complete sense .

But like I said there are ID'sts that believe in common descent like michael behe. He is what I call a hybrid, but he doesn't believe they arose without a mind behind them.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Notice no evidence life evolves and yet it is OK to interpret the evidence in the earth from this perspective even though nobody even knows if it really happens based on evidence.They tell you it is true and you believe them.I don't believe them because I want evidence life evolves but they've got the cart before the horse.

Based on the available evidence, yes life evolves. That's what all the historical evidence says.
If you can provide an alternative explanation of the evidence that can make predictions we can test for and has a better explanatory power than evolution then I am all ears. Until that time ACB I dismiss your assertions, because that's all they are, nothing you have said is based on any fact.

The car analogy works perfectly again for intelligent design . The trilobite eye (or eyes lol)fly in the face of the evidence . The Cambrian explosion also is tough to explain by evolution .

Macroevolution has never been empirically proven and all major lab experiments (bacteria and fruit flies ) failed miserably and have shown to have an enormous stubborness to revert back to their kind . We can breed dogs forever but they will always stay dogs . We might one day create a dog through genetics that can no longer be called a dog but again that's intelligent design.

In some of the evidences is and guided evolution overlap and I have no problem with this , but the evidence for kinds changing into other kinds is not that strong . This is why Eldridge and Gould came up with the punctuated equilibrium theirs , because Darwinian evolution wasn't fitting into the fossil record .

It's all how you look at the data . 7 years back I would just shake my head at anyone who denied evolution . Now it's not as black and white anymore .

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:
Every normal, high iq intellectual knows from our experience as human beings knows that specified complex information can never come about from anything other the. Blind undirected natural forces .

and to that I say ""BRING on that magic show !!!!!!""

Could you provide us with precise scientific definitions of these words, and explain what they mean in the phrase? Best if you dont refer to anything but your own understanding.

Considering how much of what has been learned about physics and other areas of research is very counter intuitive, and very difficult to understand even with a
deep background in higher math, its not reasonable to say that normal human experience will tell everyone how to spot what is impossible.

Well I do not prescribe to the many worlds interpretation as I see idealism as being able to explain reality in a much simpler way , but that's another topic

Why yes, that is a different topic, what those at the office where they review grant applications would call "non responsive".

or as someone recently put it, " so no answer huh ? "

Oh i have given many scientific examples of how ID can be tested . Since life itself is a historical science I am going by the only known provable examples of the only things we have seen to have caused specified complex information to form and that's a mind .
Perry marshall has a great blog that isn't that active anymore where he showed this and proved it by going into the infidels forum over months to the point where even some of the atheists even came on his side .

The magnetic letters on my fridge for example .they consist of the magnets and the letters but there is no specified complex information until we rearrange them into a specific message . Doctor meyer gave. A great example when he arranged them to say "the double helix rocks ".

A book consists of paper , ink and wood but there is much more there then paper , ink and wood right ?
Now everyone knows that this book cannot have arisen naturally without a purposeful mind that willed it .

These are examples that have been and are tested and we see them throughout our every day life .
ID doesn't answer to the identity of the designer , it just shows evidence of design in life .

Audie , now since you are asking for scientific explanations please show us how the specified complex information residing within DNA can arise without invoking chemical interactions and blind chance , because as doctor meyer explained that information isn't dependent on those 2 mechanisms .as meyer put it, the information appears to be coming from outside DNA .

Audi , just appealing to popularity and saying "because the scientists say it , therefore it happened " doesn't explain a thing .

Now if someday it was proven that some kind of intelligent evolution took place then I would be ok with that , but to invoke Darwinian evolution with no evidence for its 2 major grandiose claims isn't how I'm used to researching claims .

abelcainsbrother wrote:If evolution was true and everything evolved the older rocks should be on top instead of on bottom.

Why do you say that? I dont see your logic.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
What date would you assign to Adam and Eve?

Bible students vary a bit, but 6000 to possibly 10,000 years ago?

That's not entirely accurate. Bible students of the Young Earth variety date Adam to around 6,000 years ago(some even older). "Bible students" who are old earth creationists, date Adam up to 100,000 years ago.

And just about every "creationist", young earth or old, believes Adam was a literal historical person that God created from the dust of the earth. And most believe he was the first real human being. Although belief among theistic evolutionists, about who Adam was, varies greatly.

Thought you were not talking to me? Glad to see you changed your mind.

Thanks for the clarification, I didnt know anyone dated Adam to that long ago.

What would you mean by first "real" human?

I can go along with "dust" as long as a lot of water is added. And maybe a couple other provisos.

Despite being unconvinced, btw, with phil. arguments to prove that there has to be a god, I could go along with it.. assuming I got convinced... and be a creationist myself.

But not in the sense of the god having to tinker with the creation. Looks to me as if the universe runs itself fine and can do what it does with no micromanaging past the
establishment of mass energy, and laws.

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:
Every normal, high iq intellectual knows from our experience as human beings knows that specified complex information can never come about from anything other the. Blind undirected natural forces .

and to that I say ""BRING on that magic show !!!!!!""

Could you provide us with precise scientific definitions of these words, and explain what they mean in the phrase? Best if you dont refer to anything but your own understanding.

Considering how much of what has been learned about physics and other areas of research is very counter intuitive, and very difficult to understand even with a
deep background in higher math, its not reasonable to say that normal human experience will tell everyone how to spot what is impossible.

Well I do not prescribe to the many worlds interpretation as I see idealism as being able to explain reality in a much simpler way , but that's another topic

Why yes, that is a different topic, what those at the office where they review grant applications would call "non responsive".

or as someone recently put it, " so no answer huh ? "

Oh i have given many scientific examples of how ID can be tested . Since life itself is a historical science I am going by the only known provable examples of the only things we have seen to have caused specified complex information to form and that's a mind .
Perry marshall has a great blog that isn't that active anymore where he showed this and proved it by going into the infidels forum over months to the point where even some of the atheists even came on his side .

The magnetic letters on my fridge for example .they consist of the magnets and the letters but there is no specified complex information until we rearrange them into a specific message . Doctor meyer gave. A great example when he arranged them to say "the double helix rocks ".

A book consists of paper , ink and wood but there is much more there then paper , ink and wood right ?
Now everyone knows that this book cannot have arisen naturally without a purposeful mind that willed it .

These are examples that have been and are tested and we see them throughout our every day life .
ID doesn't answer to the identity of the designer , it just shows evidence of design in life .

Audie , now since you are asking for scientific explanations please show us how the specified complex information residing within DNA can arise without invoking chemical interactions and blind chance , because as doctor meyer explained that information isn't dependent on those 2 mechanisms .as meyer put it, the information appears to be coming from outside DNA .

Audi , just appealing to popularity and saying "because the scientists say it , therefore it happened " doesn't explain a thing .

Now if someday it was proven that some kind of intelligent evolution took place then I would be ok with that , but to invoke Darwinian evolution with no evidence for its 2 major grandiose claims isn't how I'm used to researching claims .

I said this, Could you provide us with precise scientific definitions of these words, and explain what they mean in the phrase? Best if you dont refer to anything but your own understanding.

Considering how much of what has been learned about physics and other areas of research is very counter intuitive, and very difficult to understand even with a
deep background in higher math, its not reasonable to say that normal human experience will tell everyone how to spot what is impossible.


And you responded with something about idealism. Non responsive, as is the case with this current post.

IF "ID" is ever demonstrated, fine. It has not been, and as for bias..
Look at who it is promoting it.

Audi , just appealing to popularity and saying "because the scientists say it , therefore it happened " doesn't explain a thing .

I neither said nor implied that, nor was it proposed as an explanation. Playing gotcha with something you either misunderstood or deliberately changed... well, you did change it, you wording is not at all like mine..is not my idea of a decent discussion.

Lets try it this way. Do you feel you have a qualified opinion that is correct, tho it is radically different from that of say, 99% of the worlds researchers, who devote their lives to their respective fields?

Do you not think that someone somewhere, doing basic research, would have long since
found at least one fatal flaw in the theory of evolution, if the whole things is just wrong? What do you suppose it would take to avoid it?

Thats not about "popularity', its about a massive amount of research all around the world in all the hard sciences any one of which would be in a position to find that flaw, well, those millions of flaws. One experiment, Einsten said, can disprove my theory.

Abe proposed that the oldest sediments are on top, a somewhat weird idea, but lets say he was right. Easy to prove. Ok; there goes ToE, there goes dating, there goes....



As for " invoke Darwinian evolution with no evidence for its 2 major grandiose claims isn't how I'm used to researching claims "

"Darwinian evolution" is a quaint term, loaded with innuendo. Why use it?
"Grandiose", likewise, the innuendo. Can we just have a straight forward discussion without the editorial, ah, grandstanding?

I dont know what "claim" you refer to, but ToE does not do unevidenced "claims".

How are you accustomed to doing research? Surely you avoid conclusion before data, but as for hours in lab and field, original research papers...?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Notice no evidence life evolves and yet it is OK to interpret the evidence in the earth from this perspective even though nobody even knows if it really happens based on evidence.They tell you it is true and you believe them.I don't believe them because I want evidence life evolves but they've got the cart before the horse.

Based on the available evidence, yes life evolves. That's what all the historical evidence says.
If you can provide an alternative explanation of the evidence that can make predictions we can test for and has a better explanatory power than evolution then I am all ears. Until that time ACB I dismiss your assertions, because that's all they are, nothing you have said is based on any fact.

I admire your persistence but dude...

Audie wrote:
Thought you were not talking to me? Glad to see you changed your mind.

Technically, I wasn't talking to you. I was just clearing that up for Annette.

Audie wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I didnt know anyone dated Adam to that long ago.

The main reason that Young Earth Creationists go with the 6000 years ago date for Adam, is that they take the biblical chronology as having no gaps, or little gaps. But as far as creationists go, that's usually just YECs. Old earth creationists and Theistic evolutionists(both technically creationists) don't assume there are no gaps in the geneaology. The bible doesn't set a date on Adam. It's just human interpretation of chronology that sets dates.

What would you mean by first "real" human?

Sorry. Modern human. Homo sapiens sapiens. If Adam wasn't the first modern human(with a spirit), then it becomes a problem biblically, because of the whole "sin, and need for a redeemer" deal. Although some Theistic Evolutionists don't believe Adam was the first modern, spiritual human. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to how those TEs deal with the problem of original sin, and the need for a redeemer. Which if can't be addressed properly, makes the whole message of the bible worthless. (And to clarify, I'm not saying those TEs don't deal with the issue. I'm just saying that I personally, haven't sen a satisfactory answer).

I can go along with "dust" as long as a lot of water is added. And maybe a couple other provisos.

Yes, It's like "instant human". Just take the dust of the earth, and add water.

Humans bodies aren't made up of any elements that are any different than other animals. I know you know that. I'm just saying it to explain that what humans are made of physically, isn't what make us different from the animals, especially other bipedal animals.

Despite being unconvinced, btw, with phil. arguments to prove that there has to be a god, I could go along with it.. assuming I got convinced... and be a creationist myself.

It's not really a big step Audie. Technically, all you'd have to do to be a creationist, is believe God or a god created the building blocks for life, then life evolved from there.