Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[TRANSPONDER]

Evidence doesn't mean anything.

Tell me you're a creationist without telling me you're a creationist.

Tell me you use the word evidence without knowing what the word evidence means.

It may seem that way when you don't know what you don't know.

It may also seem that way when you do.

Odd that a child knows what evidence is - information that tells us something. Of course the 'evidence of our eyes' may mislead us like a 6 year old thinking a whale is a "Kind" of fish or a Babylonian Bible -writer thinking a bat is a bird. Which is why investigative evidence can give better answers than the 'what I can see' kind of evidence. But we can look up the dictionary, I suppose.


evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Didn't we know that?

Your last snap back...the familiar response of those who know they lost... could be referring to the unknowns. Which would be irrelevant as the massive amount of what we don't know makes no difference to what we do know, or rather the best model of reality we have, using the best data we have interpreted using the best methods, which are not "I don't understand it, therefore it isn't true", which is why pious hopes that one day evidence will turn up totally debunking evolution (which is why evolution - deniers keep picking at remaining problems and questions hoping they will discredit evolution, when they don't) .
The method was perhaps best shown by a opponent on my Other forum whose line is a brand of Christianity he invented depending on the cosmic mind of which our mind/soul is a part. That the thoughts of God which are ours are all different around the world was excused (to himself at any rate) by the analogy of garbled radio messages (aside that the Better explanation is that they are all thought up by the individual brain (1). But his argument that the human Mind/consciousness was different and distinct from animals was debunked (I argued) by animal minds and consciousness that appears to have evolved along with complexity of life-forms and instinct. In fact, consciousness is the product of evolution, not a spiritual pseudopod of God into our skulls. His response was to demand 'proof'of this back to abiogenesis (of course) and back through stellar evolution and the big bang and Cosmic origins, and if I couldn't 'prove' (produce the evidence -based better explanation) any one thing, then all the rest was apparently false or unproven.

And this was an intelligent fellow; so are they all, all intelligent fellows. But Faith had made him denialist.

Point is (ass Al Murray says) he tried to use appeal to unknowns as though it somehow debunked what we do do know or, on evidence assessed with the best methods (science) the best model of reality on the present Data.

Of course, if one were to concede that we can really be sure of nothing, I'd say that if we really can't be sure of Whale evolution, we sure as hell can't be sure of God, the Bible and Creationism.

(1) but the thinking of the faithbased is always "My belief is true until 100% disproved down to the last nanoparticle, before my very eyes in real time, and getting me to accept it, which i will never do, because of my Faith. Evidence based probabilities are never the way it is done.

[Data]

Odd that a child knows what evidence is - information that tells us something. Of course the 'evidence of our eyes' may mislead us like a 6 year old thinking a whale is a "Kind" of fish or a Babylonian Bible -writer thinking a bat is a bird. Which is why investigative evidence can give better answers than the 'what I can see' kind of evidence. But we can look up the dictionary, I suppose.

Here is the evidence on the Bible writer's perspective on the subject of bats and birds. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.

The Hebrew word for bat is ataleph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsippohr.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ayit.

The Hebrew word sherets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3; Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20

Fowl do not swarm in the waters.

The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multi-legged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).

The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle.

It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.

[The Tanager]

Yes, I have said (I recall) that Exodus is being debated, but the evidence is piling up that debunks the 'evidence for' that was claimed and raises more and more reasons to doubt it ever happened, at least as shown in the Bible….I already explained how agnosticism is conditioned by the weight of credible evidence. And it is piling up against Exodus. There is already enough reason to NOT credit the Bible claim unless the believers come up with more than evasion and denial.

To me something can’t both be a ‘debated’ topic (e.g., scholars of the field disagree on whether X is the correct theory or if Y or Z are to where there is no consensus) and one of those theories be ‘debunked’. If it is still in the ‘debated’ category, one theory can have a better case, but there is still a bit of uncertainty that allows for two (or more) theories to be accepted by rational thinkers. I don’t think it is irrational to believe the Exodus event happened as the current scholarly discussion stands, even if your view has a higher probability given the archaeological evidence (as I said in that thread, I haven’t delved deeply into this so I’m not saying one way or the other). It should, then, also be obvious that I’m not here saying that the only rational option to take is that the story happened as the Bible says.

I personally lean towards the Exodus still happening not because of the archaeological evidence, but because there seems to be scholarly debate with enough uncertainty to where I think other philosophical considerations (the case for theism over atheism, the case for the historicity of the resurrection…which I know you don’t think are strong, but I do for rational reasons) outweigh that uncertainty. When I get to looking into the debate more closely, I might change my mind on this. The thread on it recently was not a deep dive. It included a video that had some obvious errors in reasoning and then you and some others (I think you were a part of that, I might be mistaken) offering a stronger case than that video did, but not going into much depth of support.

...I rather think you know this as you are trying the old 'we can be sure of nothjing' trick….

Now the part I left out of the first quote. What I am saying here is that archaeology, by its very nature, will have difficulty in proving theories over the others. We are talking about thousands of years removed from events in cases like this with limited evidence and tons of evidence lost to history. Are you saying archaeology, in general, is an exact science? If so, I’ll listen to a case for that, but as I see it, uncertainty is built into the field to where it is very hard to debunk claims.

With the Exodus, we have scholars debating what time period the event would have occurred in. Those that pick one time say “there’s a lack of evidence” and then others say it’s because their dates (based on other assumptions) are wrong and there is evidence (although not logically compelling) of a possible Exodus in this other time slot. And that side will have arguments against. Debate but nothing debunked either way.

Well I'm just saying that Job reads like a parable - not intended to be a real event. I could explain why (e.g who overheard the discussion between God and Lucifer? It looks like a storytelling device) but it's a personal feeling. I don't mind if you want to claim it was a s real as Genesis. They are both ludicrous and they both stink.

Personal feelings aren’t rational reasons to interpret any text, much less ancient ones from a culture different from your own. I agree Job reads like a parable for various reasons. I also believe that at least the first 11 chapters of Genesis reads like myth (technical term, not a synonym for ‘false’). Your case against the claims of Genesis 1 relies on it being meant as literal, historical-scientific claims about the order of creation and all of that. Your support for that assumption has got to be more than “it just reads that way” or your “personal feelings”.

Evidence of speciation does undermine the Biblical claim that God made all the critters pretty much as they are now.

Why do you think Genesis says speciation didn't happen?

[The Tanager]

Because maybe there are reason(s) outside the Bible's mere say-so alone, and I would like to know. Unless it's because of the Bible's say-so alone?

I believe it because of the scholarly debate around the Exodus resulting in uncertainty, but the philosophical considerations (the case for theism over atheism, the case for the historicity of the resurrection, etc.) pushing me towards Exodus being a literal, historical event.

I've narrowed this down to "the Exodus", thus far, because you somehow remain 'agnostic' to the claims of "Adam and Eve" and "the flood". And sure, silence may be applicable to many claims. But the reason I raise this topic, is because the silence is deafening towards the claims for 'the Exodus'. Why? The video, where a gentleman put in quite a bit of sweat and effort, explains exactly why in extensive detail.

But not all scholars think there is silence. Those that don’t think there is silence believe those that do are usually looking in the wrong time period. That video was not a strong support for your side. The comments that followed in that thread were much stronger, if true. Those comments, though, were more conclusions than support for believing those conclusions.

What I find curious though, is that it was an unnecessary observation for you to make. Of course, we both already know he was a fantasy writer. And of course, we already know he did not believe he was writing non-fiction.

That’s the point. We know those things because of certain reasons that don’t need to be shared because we are aware of them and very close to the time when they are written. But the reasons are there. They are not here for your interpretation of the Bible; you haven’t shared them.

For the same reasons I do not need to go into great detail on why we both know Tolkien’s works are fiction. Again, if I was to check out the Bible in the library, would I look in the fictional section, or the non-fictional section? As you would say, "come on".

Yes, you do need to share the reasons for your belief when disagreeing on an issue with someone. Otherwise you are irrationally begging the question. And libraries are more complex than just fiction and non-fiction sections. Some put the Bible in the reference section, the Dewey Decimal system has a section for religious texts, in the 200s.

Aren't we just wasting time here again? Do I really need to elaborate further, really? Why? Haven't I laid down enough of a case to adequately justify this position, using common sense alone?

No, you haven’t.

Why is the default genre literal history if not specified otherwise?

Because the Bible is not intended to be a fictional collection of writings.

Literal history and fiction aren't the only two genres. The Bible has various genres within it. If you believe otherwise, then give actual support.

[alexxcJRO]

Off course you are not gonna address the evidence.

Q: Why come here to debate if its too hard ?

I advice maybe do not post on a debate site if you are not going to engage and actually debate.

I'm not religious. There isn't any debate. If there was, you would lose. Unless I argued your point for you. Fish changing into fish is completely in line with the Bible. No debate. If you have a fish farm you know that what the Bible says is true. Observable. Everyone knows it. Fish make fish. Not monkey-squirrel-fish-frogs. That seems silly? Yeah. Because it is. If religion has taught us anything it's that people love believing in silly things for little if any real reason other than everyone else does. That's why no one who ever lived has seen a monkey-squirrel-fish-frog. No matter what science says, for whatever reason. Drawings of dragons and ape-men skulls and Jesus - no. I'm not going to debate that in the astonishingly, hysterically funny proposition that the similarities between ape skulls and human skulls mean anything other than that they look similar. It's like higher criticism. The documentary theory. You understand, don't you? Just think of it like theology.

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

[Data]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

I'm not avoiding the evidence; I'm agreeing with a good portion of it while saying that it is irrelevant in the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to get sucked into an endless toxic debate with ideologues - believers or unbelievers, especially one that has more to do with science than the Bible, which I have virtually no interest in. I did that for two decades. That's enough for me.

Evolution means change. It doesn't create a conflict with my Biblical understanding until you say something changes into something else. The biological term and the Biblical term kind differ. Many biological kinds can be a part of the Biblical kind. So, there we have some idiomatic confusion.

A drawing, a video, fossils, and bones aren't evidence for evolution if they only show speculation of how bones change, in the case presented against the Bible because the Bible doesn't have a problem with that. If those drawings and videos show something changing into something else then it presents a conflict, but those are conjectural, speculative. Fossils and bones don't do that. Only drawings and videos and theoretical science. It isn't my place to debate those. Carry on with the speculation. That is science. That is knowledge. I do the same with my Biblical studies. I say "is this true, or is this true. I think this is true and the other isn't." Then I have to hold that up to the Bible and see if, that is if I can come to some sound but fallible conclusion. That's how I learn. The toxicity from these sorts of debates, in my opinion, comes from the unreasonable refusal to do that. But I'm not a scientist and neither are you. So, all we can do is get sucked into that toxic exchange. Because people think that if there is disagreement it has to be squashed. That isn't a scientific behavior.

So, in my experience, the evolutionist takes the idea of change, evolution, which isn't contradictory to the Bible, and with it move seamlessly into the Biblically contradictory evolution (something changing into something else) as if they were the same. They can demonstrate a fossil, bones being similar in the sense that Biblical kinds would be, but if they go beyond that they have to use speculation.

Here's some fish bones.
Okay.
Here's some other fish bones.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the fish changed into something else?
No.
Well, they're similar.
So?
Well, that bone became something else because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a fish.
Oh, well, see this (fill in the blank) land animal has this bone here.
Okay.
See how that came from the fish?
No.
Well, let me explain it . . . (fill in the blank) does that make sense? See it?
No.
Science says that's the way it happened.
Great. So?
The Bible says it didn't happen that way.
Great. So?
So, science debunks the Bible.
No, it disagrees with it. Boy that was a waste of time.
Science is better than the Bible.
That's subjective, but no it isn't.
You creationist! You think the Bible is better than science!
It's subjective, but no it isn't. What, do you want to waste our time and fight it out? To what end? Wars, killing, destruction? It would be much quicker and easier, not to mention safer, if I just adopted your "science" teaching into my religion like was done with the immortal soul of Socrates and the Trinity from Plato or is that what you were doing with Empedocles and Anaximander? You're so smart!
[Walks away shaking his head]

[TRANSPONDER]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

I'm not avoiding the evidence; I'm agreeing with a good portion of it while saying that it is irrelevant in the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to get sucked into an endless toxic debate with ideologues - believers or unbelievers, especially one that has more to do with science than the Bible, which I have virtually no interest in. I did that for two decades. That's enough for me.

Evolution means change. It doesn't create a conflict with my Biblical understanding until you say something changes into something else. The biological term and the Biblical term kind differ. Many biological kinds can be a part of the Biblical kind. So, there we have some idiomatic confusion.

A drawing, a video, fossils, and bones aren't evidence for evolution if they only show speculation of how bones change, in the case presented against the Bible because the Bible doesn't have a problem with that. If those drawings and videos show something changing into something else then it presents a conflict, but those are conjectural, speculative. Fossils and bones don't do that. Only drawings and videos and theoretical science. It isn't my place to debate those. Carry on with the speculation. That is science. That is knowledge. I do the same with my Biblical studies. I say "is this true, or is this true. I think this is true and the other isn't." Then I have to hold that up to the Bible and see if, that is if I can come to some sound but fallible conclusion. That's how I learn. The toxicity from these sorts of debates, in my opinion, comes from the unreasonable refusal to do that. But I'm not a scientist and neither are you. So, all we can do is get sucked into that toxic exchange. Because people think that if there is disagreement it has to be squashed. That isn't a scientific behavior.

So, in my experience, the evolutionist takes the idea of change, evolution, which isn't contradictory to the Bible, and with it move seamlessly into the Biblically contradictory evolution (something changing into something else) as if they were the same. They can demonstrate a fossil, bones being similar in the sense that Biblical kinds would be, but if they go beyond that they have to use speculation.

Here's some fish bones.
Okay.
Here's some other fish bones.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the fish changed into something else?
No.
Well, they're similar.
So?
Well, that bone became something else because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a fish.
Oh, well, see this (fill in the blank) land animal has this bone here.
Okay.
See how that came from the fish?
No.
Well, let me explain it . . . (fill in the blank) does that make sense? See it?
No.
Science says that's the way it happened.
Great. So?
The Bible says it didn't happen that way.
Great. So?
So, science debunks the Bible.
No, it disagrees with it. Boy that was a waste of time.
Science is better than the Bible.
That's subjective, but no it isn't.
You creationist! You think the Bible is better than science!
It's subjective, but no it isn't. What, do you want to waste our time and fight it out? To what end? Wars, killing, destruction? It would be much quicker and easier, not to mention safer, if I just adopted your "science" teaching into my religion like was done with the immortal soul of Socrates and the Trinity from Plato or is that what you were doing with Empedocles and Anaximander? You're so smart!
[Walks away shaking his head]

This is just science denial.You don't see it, even when it is explained so simply a child could see it? It is simply refusing to understand the evidence and say there is none. Your setting out the argument shows grotesque misrepresentation of the evidence presented. Tiktaalik is neither fish nor land critter it is a transitional form. 'it's still a fish'' is denial of the evidence of evolutionary change and making 'Kinds' the operative category. It's just a way of saying 'species'
- so one Kind evolves into another. It gets your denial nowhere.

It is everything to do with the Bible, because if Genesis fails, then the Bible credibility has lost a leg. And the more legs the Bible loses - failed prophecy, wrong history, contradictions, (That's a quadruped left floundering) the more it loses.

"All right - we'll call it a draw".



At least the Black Knight conceded he'd lost a bit of ground.
But you carry on, the usual thinking if you deny everything, you win. No, it just makes it obvious how denial of science, denial of evidence, denial of everything but Biblefaith just shows a Good Bad example. It does you and the Bible no credit and I don't know how many times I've found myself saying that to Believers who think, if they deny everything, they win.. I often think in the end it isn't even about the Bible but the apologist refusing to admit they had it wrong.

[alexxcJRO]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

I'm not avoiding the evidence; I'm agreeing with a good portion of it while saying that it is irrelevant in the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to get sucked into an endless toxic debate with ideologues - believers or unbelievers, especially one that has more to do with science than the Bible, which I have virtually no interest in. I did that for two decades. That's enough for me.

Evolution means change. It doesn't create a conflict with my Biblical understanding until you say something changes into something else. The biological term and the Biblical term kind differ. Many biological kinds can be a part of the Biblical kind. So, there we have some idiomatic confusion.

A drawing, a video, fossils, and bones aren't evidence for evolution if they only show speculation of how bones change, in the case presented against the Bible because the Bible doesn't have a problem with that. If those drawings and videos show something changing into something else then it presents a conflict, but those are conjectural, speculative. Fossils and bones don't do that. Only drawings and videos and theoretical science. It isn't my place to debate those. Carry on with the speculation. That is science. That is knowledge. I do the same with my Biblical studies. I say "is this true, or is this true. I think this is true and the other isn't." Then I have to hold that up to the Bible and see if, that is if I can come to some sound but fallible conclusion. That's how I learn. The toxicity from these sorts of debates, in my opinion, comes from the unreasonable refusal to do that. But I'm not a scientist and neither are you. So, all we can do is get sucked into that toxic exchange. Because people think that if there is disagreement it has to be squashed. That isn't a scientific behavior.

So, in my experience, the evolutionist takes the idea of change, evolution, which isn't contradictory to the Bible, and with it move seamlessly into the Biblically contradictory evolution (something changing into something else) as if they were the same. They can demonstrate a fossil, bones being similar in the sense that Biblical kinds would be, but if they go beyond that they have to use speculation.

Here's some fish bones.
Okay.
Here's some other fish bones.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the fish changed into something else?
No.
Well, they're similar.
So?
Well, that bone became something else because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a fish.
Oh, well, see this (fill in the blank) land animal has this bone here.
Okay.
See how that came from the fish?
No.
Well, let me explain it . . . (fill in the blank) does that make sense? See it?
No.
Science says that's the way it happened.
Great. So?
The Bible says it didn't happen that way.
Great. So?
So, science debunks the Bible.
No, it disagrees with it. Boy that was a waste of time.
Science is better than the Bible.
That's subjective, but no it isn't.
You creationist! You think the Bible is better than science!
It's subjective, but no it isn't. What, do you want to waste our time and fight it out? To what end? Wars, killing, destruction? It would be much quicker and easier, not to mention safer, if I just adopted your "science" teaching into my religion like was done with the immortal soul of Socrates and the Trinity from Plato or is that what you were doing with Empedocles and Anaximander? You're so smart!
[Walks away shaking his head]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence in post beside the morphological and fossil evidence. Don't need to play it like there is not other stuff there beside the morphological and fossil evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

[TRANSPONDER]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

I'm not avoiding the evidence; I'm agreeing with a good portion of it while saying that it is irrelevant in the purpose of this discussion. I'm not going to get sucked into an endless toxic debate with ideologues - believers or unbelievers, especially one that has more to do with science than the Bible, which I have virtually no interest in. I did that for two decades. That's enough for me.

Evolution means change. It doesn't create a conflict with my Biblical understanding until you say something changes into something else. The biological term and the Biblical term kind differ. Many biological kinds can be a part of the Biblical kind. So, there we have some idiomatic confusion.

A drawing, a video, fossils, and bones aren't evidence for evolution if they only show speculation of how bones change, in the case presented against the Bible because the Bible doesn't have a problem with that. If those drawings and videos show something changing into something else then it presents a conflict, but those are conjectural, speculative. Fossils and bones don't do that. Only drawings and videos and theoretical science. It isn't my place to debate those. Carry on with the speculation. That is science. That is knowledge. I do the same with my Biblical studies. I say "is this true, or is this true. I think this is true and the other isn't." Then I have to hold that up to the Bible and see if, that is if I can come to some sound but fallible conclusion. That's how I learn. The toxicity from these sorts of debates, in my opinion, comes from the unreasonable refusal to do that. But I'm not a scientist and neither are you. So, all we can do is get sucked into that toxic exchange. Because people think that if there is disagreement it has to be squashed. That isn't a scientific behavior.

So, in my experience, the evolutionist takes the idea of change, evolution, which isn't contradictory to the Bible, and with it move seamlessly into the Biblically contradictory evolution (something changing into something else) as if they were the same. They can demonstrate a fossil, bones being similar in the sense that Biblical kinds would be, but if they go beyond that they have to use speculation.

Here's some fish bones.
Okay.
Here's some other fish bones.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the fish changed into something else?
No.
Well, they're similar.
So?
Well, that bone became something else because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a fish.
Oh, well, see this (fill in the blank) land animal has this bone here.
Okay.
See how that came from the fish?
No.
Well, let me explain it . . . (fill in the blank) does that make sense? See it?
No.
Science says that's the way it happened.
Great. So?
The Bible says it didn't happen that way.
Great. So?
So, science debunks the Bible.
No, it disagrees with it. Boy that was a waste of time.
Science is better than the Bible.
That's subjective, but no it isn't.
You creationist! You think the Bible is better than science!
It's subjective, but no it isn't. What, do you want to waste our time and fight it out? To what end? Wars, killing, destruction? It would be much quicker and easier, not to mention safer, if I just adopted your "science" teaching into my religion like was done with the immortal soul of Socrates and the Trinity from Plato or is that what you were doing with Empedocles and Anaximander? You're so smart!
[Walks away shaking his head]

Irrelevant ramblings in a pathetic attempt to avoid the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence in post beside the morphological and fossil evidence. Don't need to play it like there is not other stuff there beside the morphological and fossil evidence.
Please dear sir.
Address the evidence from post #64 of this thread.
Here is a debate site not an obfuscate site.

Tiktaalik aside, the cetan sequence is the 'undeniable' evidence of speciation. Let's take our pal's format
Here's some cetan sequence fossil bones. Land animal form
Okay.
Here's some other cetan sequence fossil bones, adapting to water.
Okay.
See the evolution?
Yes.
See how the land animal changed into a sea animal?
No.
Well, they show a change of features, body, limbs, even breathing arrangement.
So?
Well, that land animal became a sea animal because of the environment.
Yes.
Then what's the problem?
It's still a whale. - kind.

A child could look at the land animal and even Doradon or Baslileosauris and say 'They are different kinds'.

A six year old could see they are different critters, why can't a Creationist? We know why.

[Data]

This is just science denial.

I don't care. I don't care about science. Transponder, your response to my posts are just Bible denial. Do you understand?

You don't see it, even when it is explained so simply a child could see it?

Same thing as above.

It is simply refusing to understand the evidence and say there is none.

You're looking for dogma from me. Don't do that. Instead, show me where I disagree with the science.