Evolution V Creation

[rjh4 is back]

I pointed out to you that the chances of their being many first ancestors were almost impossible, and this is why the accepted view of science is that there was only one.

I thought I explained myself clearly, it is sad you had to twist my words to try and make it seem like I am working on assumptions here. Please don't do it again.

Adrian, I am really not trying to twist your words. Apologies.

Please explain why you think that the chances of their being many first ancestors is almost impossible.

It was my interpretation of this statement of yours that may have resulted in my inadvertent twisting of your words. Let me explain. As a creationist, I believe that God created plants, animals, and humans in the beginning with all of them based on the used of DNA/RNA. All changes that have occurred since then have been a result of variations built into the systems and mutations to the DNA/RNA caused by other things (e.g., radiation)(to this degree I have no problem with evolution). So while I believe all humans have first anscestors, I also believe that all cats had first anscestors, and all dogs had first anscestors, etc. but I do not believe that all the first anscestors are the same. Any evidence you have presented so far is not inconsistent with this. The only thing that you have said that would address this in any negative way is that "the chances of their being many first ancestors were almost impossible", and from this you appear to conclude that there was a single anscestor. This statement of yours must be either based on some evidence, or based on some assumptions you are making, or both. I took it as you saying it was impossible because of the odds of more than one anscestor of the same type (RNA/DNA) coming to be naturalistically is too much. Since this would at least appear to be refering to abiogenesis (as there does not appear to be any reason to say it would be impossible when God is considered the source of all the initial life), that is why I said what I did.

Given all of this, I am interested in your explanation as to what you meant by your statement.

---

What in the real world is convincing support for the version of events portrayed in the Bible?

I.e evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Incontrovertible evidence of the "Great Flood".

A Dinosaur fossil with a saddle, stuff like that.

Or do you consider the bible to be sufficent in itself.

I do not think there is incontrovertible evidence for any of it (from my side or yours). Anything I could throw at you, evidence wise, you would merely reinterpret based on your own worldview and likewise with you throwing evidence my way. (Maybe I would be wrong on this if we did find a dinosaur fossil with a saddle , but no such thing has been found as far as I know.) Anyway, take your reference to the flood, I think that the great majority of the geologic column is evidence of the Biblical flood whereas I would guess that you would interpret the geologic column as evidence of millions of years of uniformitarian processing. So while I look at the geologic column as confirming what the Bible said about the flood, I am guessing that you look at it as evidence that the Bible is wrong. It is because we are looking at the same thing but with different starting points.

While I do consider the Bible to be sufficient in itself, I am not left with that as I think there are things that confirm what the Bible says (note my comments about the flood). But that doesn't mean that someone who does not believe in the Bible cannot come up with some other explanation for anything I take as confirming the Bible either.

I hope this explains my position better for you.

Are you ever going to address my question as to how your first principles accounts for logic, mathematics, and morals?