Why are Some Christians Upset that Other Theists Accept Darwin?

[Tcg]

.

Here is the reaction of one Christian when it was pointed out that some theists accept evolution:

"There are also plenty of theists that don't read the Bible nor attend Church, but they certainly like Darwin."

viewtopic.php?p=1142308#p1142308

Why would the fact that some theists accept reality bother a Christian? What drives this evolution phobia?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Questioning "the narrative" and providing methodology and data that provide a better or new "narrative" is the entire point of science. You seem to have this idea that all scientists are in this type of club and won't go against their fellow scientists....

I mean political narrative. Scientists, like also politicians, do what their masters tell them to do. If the masters want support for insane climate change cult, then they will provide it, in fear of losing money and position. And those who don't submit, are ridiculed and silenced.

You really have a skewed idea of the way things work. Again (not that I expect an answer) where does this snipe come from, that scientists only come up with the answers required by some Authority they are beholden to?

When you think of it, that kind of cult behavior only leads to failure in the end. Some boss (financial or political) who tells scientists or technicians on a project what they have to find, will end up with a clunk product that will fail. It behooves them to let the experts do their job and produce reliable results.

Leave the obsessives who insist that 'science' should produce only the answers they are willing to accept to the Creationist "Science".

[1213]

...Even apart from demanding that speciation be done in one lifetime rats to whales takes millions of years ...

Yes, of course, it is similar to why we can't see your invisible dragon in your basement.

...This thing about breeding whales from rats in a laboratory, did you think that up yourself or is it (as I suspect) a rejection from some creationists source?

But why? Will it change the question?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Even apart from demanding that speciation be done in one lifetime rats to whales takes millions of years ...

Yes, of course, it is similar to why we can't see your invisible dragon in your basement.

...This thing about breeding whales from rats in a laboratory, did you think that up yourself or is it (as I suspect) a rejection from some creationists source?

But why? Will it change the question?

It couldn't make it any worse, but I'm just curious, whether the Bibe apologists thinks this stuff up themselves or borrowsit from apologists sources. For example,the Marys splitting up. First time I heard it I though that was an ingenious invention by the apologists, but it came up again and lately with you and I just wonder whether some apologetics Authority came up with it or whether you thought it up yourself.

The problem is that you deny evidence that is valid. If criminal investigation ran on the parameters you demand, no crime could be proved. Archaeology would be invalid. And of course the Bible would be invalid because you can't reproduce what the Bible says happened.

Your argument isn't the valid objection you think it is, but a way of making unreasonable demands so as to dismiss it.

The funny thing is that Christian apologetics works with the same evidence parameters as evolution - trace evidence, which actually adds up to nothing. A synagogue in Capernaum, A coin with Caesar's head on or an inscription mentioning Pilate.

Well 'you too' is a fallacy so ok, we cannot speed up the evolutionary process from one species to another, (even fruit flies remain fruit flies, as the doubters say). So I guess it's up to the individual, whether to dismiss the evidence unless speciation can be magicked in the laboratory or credit the hypothesis or theory that fits the evidence, rather than believe an old book that is demonstrably wrong.

The lopsided and biased theist reasoning and double standards and special pleading should be obvious. We (or I) have seen dismissal of what the Bible says, on whether the daylight appeared before the sun was made, whether prayer is guaranteed to be answered even with trees being uprooted and of course Matthew saying the women saw Jesus while Luke maintains they didn't.

This isn't even me demanding that you make the sun stand still, regrow someone's arm or Jesus to appear before I credit your belief, but you inventing stuff and denying what the Bible clearly says. It is evidence denial on your part as regards the Bible as well as evolution, while I follow the evidence in both cases. You just don't like the answers, so you make demands you reckon are impossible or the case fails in a way the Bible supposedly doesn't just because (as you know) prayers don't get answered.

Also i know that even if your demands were met, you'd still dismiss them. I know because a former poster who demanded that Life be created in a laboratory thought science had done it, so he shifted the denial - goalposts and said 'Doesn't prove it happened that way'. I'm sure that even if science could breed mammoths from butterflies, you'd just say 'Doesn't mean that was the way it happened'.

But at the end, no, we can't speed up evolution beyond modifying breeds, though ring species comes close to speciation. So hands held up; we cannot show you speciation in real time or in a lab, but can only point to the evidence, fossil, DNA and morphalogical; and if that isn't good enough, I just leave you to your denial, which I guess is all you wanted anyway.

[1213]

The problem is that you deny evidence that is valid.

Please show one example of evidence that I have denied.

If criminal investigation ran on the parameters you demand, no crime could be proved. Archaeology would be invalid. And of course the Bible would be invalid because you can't reproduce what the Bible says happened.

Things that can't be reproduced are matters of belief.

The funny thing is that Christian apologetics works with the same evidence parameters as evolution - trace evidence, which actually adds up to nothing. A synagogue in Capernaum, A coin with Caesar's head on or an inscription mentioning Pilate.

I think the problem here is that you think that the solid evidence is as good as the interpretations and imaginations people draw from it. Solid evidence is for example a synagogue. Imagination is what happened there and who used it, unless there is something that shows it clearly.

Well 'you too' is a fallacy so ok, we cannot speed up the evolutionary process from one species to another, (even fruit flies remain fruit flies, as the doubters say). So I guess it's up to the individual, whether to dismiss the evidence unless speciation can be magicked in the laboratory or credit the hypothesis or theory that fits the evidence, rather than believe an old book that is demonstrably wrong.

Evolution theory suggests that species can evolve for example from a land animal to a sea creature. And it says it can happen through mutations, or by nature picking the fittest, meaning, those who fit to the environment better, procreate more, which then leads to increasing number of the fittest. It doesn't necessary require a long time period, only that certain changes happen.

If the goal would be to breed rats to whales, it would require, if the theory is true, that we pick in every generation those that are closest to a whale. Obviously this would require conditions that increasingly change towards ocean life. This could be done in a big room that has decreasing dry conditions. And, to make the experiment faster, it could be possible to examine, what changes there should happen for the rats to evolve into mini whales and cause events that would make necessary mutations in a similar way that could perhaps happen in nature.

I believe the problem with that experiment is, scientists have no idea what changes there should happen for rats to evolve into mini whales. To confirm evolution theory possible, they should have even some kind of reasonable idea how it in theory would happen. That requires more than shiny imaginary pictures that dazzles those who want to believe in godless world.

...but you inventing stuff and denying what the Bible clearly says. It is evidence denial on your part as regards the Bible as well as evolution, while I follow the evidence in both cases. You just don't like the answers, so you make demands you reckon are impossible or the case fails in a way the Bible supposedly doesn't just because (as you know) prayers don't get answered.

By what I see, you are doing that.

...a former poster who demanded that Life be created in a laboratory thought science had done it, so he shifted the denial -

I don't think that has really happened. Please provide a link to study where life was created in laboratory.

But at the end, no, we can't speed up evolution beyond modifying breeds, though ring species comes close to speciation. So hands held up; we cannot show you speciation in real time or in a lab, but can only point to the evidence, fossil, DNA and morphalogical; and if that isn't good enough, I just leave you to your denial, which I guess is all you wanted anyway.

So, if I say, we have enough evidence for that God is real, for example the Bible and world as told in the Bible, if it is not good enough for you, we just leave you to your denial, which I guess is all you wanted anyway?

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem is that you deny evidence that is valid.

Please show one example of evidence that I have denied.

The cetan sequence that I explained. The geological sequence of the related fossils would be significant, but the appearance of the same specific ear -bones in all the sequential fossils show them to be related. On top of which the skeleton shows they once used to be land animals.

If criminal investigation ran on the parameters you demand, no crime could be proved. Archaeology would be invalid. And of course the Bible would be invalid because you can't reproduce what the Bible says happened.

Things that can't be reproduced are matters of belief.

No they are matters of evidence. That's where you not only do it all wrong, you apply a double standard. You ..or We, at least...rely on evidence all the time in a court of law, even if we can't reproduce the crime or whatever. Archaeology tells us what happened in the past even if we can't see the events happening all over again. And doesn't Christianity rely on evidence - what is recorded as having happened in the Bible, give or take Genesis, at least for some Christians who are quite willing to accept that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

The funny thing is that Christian apologetics works with the same evidence parameters as evolution - trace evidence, which actually adds up to nothing. A synagogue in Capernaum, A coin with Caesar's head on or an inscription mentioning Pilate.

I think the problem here is that you think that the solid evidence is as good as the interpretations and imaginations people draw from it. Solid evidence is for example a synagogue. Imagination is what happened there and who used it, unless there is something that shows it clearly.

I think I agree.The evidence for a Capernaum Synagogue is overwhelming. The archaeology is there. Imagination (or Faith rather) sees it as validating the stories in the Bible, which it does not. Thus what the Believers think is evidence is really Faith. The cetan sequence would be significant even without the evolving blow -holeand the ear -bones which connect the sequence.
It gets worse. Old Tyre is there; the archaeology proves it. But Faith dismisses any part of it that contradicts the Bible (Tyre was rebuilt on top) and even fiddle (knowingly or in ignorance) the archaeology of some unconnected masonry in the sea or outside the city as proof of the prophecy. This is called fiddling the evidence to fit the faith. It happens with NT matters, too, such as the 'evidence' of the nativity (1). And indeed you have done this yourself with denying what the Bible actually says about the resurrection and making up some story of the Marys splitting up just to make it work. And I'd still like to know where you heard that one. It doesn't in itself make any difference - Christian apologists get so touchy about using arguments from other places which is quite legitimate.I suspect they think (deep down) that God should be putting the answers in their heads. We goddless don't mind at all using the arguments of experts. We do it all the time.

Well 'you too' is a fallacy so ok, we cannot speed up the evolutionary process from one species to another, (even fruit flies remain fruit flies, as the doubters say). So I guess it's up to the individual, whether to dismiss the evidence unless speciation can be magicked in the laboratory or credit the hypothesis or theory that fits the evidence, rather than believe an old book that is demonstrably wrong.

Evolution theory suggests that species can evolve for example from a land animal to a sea creature. And it says it can happen through mutations, or by nature picking the fittest, meaning, those who fit to the environment better, procreate more, which then leads to increasing number of the fittest. It doesn't necessary require a long time period, only that certain changes happen.

If the goal would be to breed rats to whales, it would require, if the theory is true, that we pick in every generation those that are closest to a whale. Obviously this would require conditions that increasingly change towards ocean life. This could be done in a big room that has decreasing dry conditions. And, to make the experiment faster, it could be possible to examine, what changes there should happen for the rats to evolve into mini whales and cause events that would make necessary mutations in a similar way that could perhaps happen in nature.

I believe the problem with that experiment is, scientists have no idea what changes there should happen for rats to evolve into mini whales. To confirm evolution theory possible, they should have even some kind of reasonable idea how it in theory would happen. That requires more than shiny imaginary pictures that dazzles those who want to believe in godless world.

I think your fallacy here is the usual one - you think an end objective is in view wheras the theory is adaptation to the environment wherever it ends up. Nature does not have to know where the adaptation is going to lead; Creationism (or Directed evolution) does.

You mistake the amount of time required for these changes. Just evolutionary changes within species (horse evolution for example) takes tens of thousands of years. Giving you a slight point - it would be good if science could fast breed speciation in the Lab. But the evidence is that speciation did happen and the cetan sequence is the strongest evidence that it did. The demand that it be done in a lab (which wouldn't prove anything after all) is just your way of picking an 'impossible' demand and pretending that is the evidence and the evidence is not.

I need hardly comment on your deprecating remark about shiny imaginary pictures for those who want to believe in a goddless world -because all they do is put flesh on fossil bones and put them in the world that the strata tells us existed at the time. Rather this evidence is dismissed as deprecatingly as you do, while surrounding yourself with imaginary pictures of the resurrection, god and angels and humans riding on the backs of dinosaurs. All for the bias confirmation of those who want to live in a world run according to an ancient book of myths.

...but you inventing stuff and denying what the Bible clearly says. It is evidence denial on your part as regards the Bible as well as evolution, while I follow the evidence in both cases. You just don't like the answers, so you make demands you reckon are impossible or the case fails in a way the Bible supposedly doesn't just because (as you know) prayers don't get answered.

By what I see, you are doing that.

As usual, what you see doesn't exists, on all evidence; not a background cosmic light that imitates daylight, nor a Marys splitting up which isn't in the Bible and of course in a god and the stories of the Bible which on the evidence aren't true.v

...a former poster who demanded that Life be created in a laboratory thought science had done it, so he shifted the denial -

I don't think that has really happened. Please provide a link to study where life was created in laboratory.

Synthetic life researcher Dr. Craig Venter has created living things with a completely synthetic genome, but the organism does use some parts of existing cells. With each passing year, his team creates new synthetic organisms with fewer and fewer pre-existing parts. The point is they had only re-created a living blob of a different kind from others. The point is my opponent thought they had done what he demanded, so he shifted the goalposts. That is why your demand wouldn't persuade you even if it was reasonable.

But at the end, no, we can't speed up evolution beyond modifying breeds, though ring species comes close to speciation. So hands held up; we cannot show you speciation in real time or in a lab, but can only point to the evidence, fossil, DNA and morphalogical; and if that isn't good enough, I just leave you to your denial, which I guess is all you wanted anyway.

So, if I say, we have enough evidence for that God is real, for example the Bible and world as told in the Bible, if it is not good enough for you, we just leave you to your denial, which I guess is all you wanted anyway?

Your attempt at a pot -kettle fails as much as your other arguments. The world of the Bible (a people making sacrifices to a god and killing its' supposed enemies) is no evidence for that god. The world of Hinduism in - say the 8th c BC is no evidence at all for gods they worshipped, you reject that but beleive as fact, your own myths. Your argument was dead in the laboratory before the experiment started. I need hardly point up the shabby trick of 'Here is my rubbishy evidence; if you don't accept it, it means you are so biased, all your arguments must be wrong". Thanks for the laugh

(1) not just the census order from Egypt which actually says people register in their own city where they live and work, not some ancestral city, but really silly stuff like an ancient coin that had a star on supposedly commemorating a remarkable star which nobody else in history mentions or records. The fiddling of 'evidence' to try to make the Bible more than tall stories is often shocking.

[Mae von H]

.

Here is the reaction of one Christian when it was pointed out that some theists accept evolution:

"There are also plenty of theists that don't read the Bible nor attend Church, but they certainly like Darwin."

viewtopic.php?p=1142308#p1142308

Why would the fact that some theists accept reality bother a Christian? What drives this evolution phobia?


Tcg

First, the framing of the question assumes accusations without any evidence. That is, you do not accept that some christians disagree but charge them with a gut emotional nonsensical knee jerk reaction, being upset. You do not credit them with INTELLECTUAL reasons for their position. So at the start, it is a trap to lurk christians to engage in the argument under terms that paints them as emotional illogical people. Is it possible to frame this without the knee jerk accusation?

[TRANSPONDER]

.

Here is the reaction of one Christian when it was pointed out that some theists accept evolution:

"There are also plenty of theists that don't read the Bible nor attend Church, but they certainly like Darwin."

viewtopic.php?p=1142308#p1142308

Why would the fact that some theists accept reality bother a Christian? What drives this evolution phobia?


Tcg

First, the framing of the question assumes accusations without any evidence. That is, you do not accept that some christians disagree but charge them with a gut emotional nonsensical knee jerk reaction, being upset. You do not credit them with INTELLECTUAL reasons for their position. So at the start, it is a trap to lurk christians to engage in the argument under terms that paints them as emotional illogical people. Is it possible to frame this without the knee jerk accusation?

I think I agree. I do get the impression that the creationist -end of Christians are rather uncomfortable with Christians who accept evolution, just as (I suppose) Christian evolutionists are with evolution -denying creationists. It undermined their credibility (by association) when Creationists repeatedly get discredited, debunked and even shown unprincipled. But then Christians are not always comfortable with other sects of Christians. Sometimes they ignore differences, but quietly leave it to later when all the others get damned for false doctrine, or they may denounce them here and now like Jack Chick attacking Catholicism or Christians on my Other board who were told to stop telling each other they weren't Real Christian under pain of Banning.

Evolution phobia - I think I held forth on this recently, but again, It comes to choosing the lesser evil - stop trying to believe what cannot be believed (just as my opponent and later friend (1)switched from ET to UR) and wave it away as metaphorical, or cling to Genesis (and now Exodus) literalism and have to sink deeper into science denial, and even denial of what the Bible says and pretend it 'Really' means something else. A fine example recently being the scrabble of excuses about the sun made after daylight. A truly Good Bad example. Creationists usually go for the cloud cover excuse (sometime ice -shell cover) but our pal opted for the 'light' said to be snapped on before God rolled up his sleeves and started making heaven and earth. This of course fails because the Bible says 'day and night morning an evening which is why we goddless often find that apologists do not seem to know what is in their own Bible - and deny it when they find out.

The fear seems to be in accepted that ANYTHING in the Bible is wrong (that can't be waved away as copyist error) for fear this is the start of a slippery slope to.... Ay-theeisam!!

Which happens - not often. Another funny story - only Other piano,a theist deconverted, and he started a thread to apologise for his rudeness to atheists when a theist. We said he didn't need to apologise. But he'd started a thread specifically for the purpose of apologising and by golly he was going to, and it got quite heated for a while as we all said he didn't have to.

(1) a funny story - my fiercest and most implacable opponent and I bot got into a tussle with a Christian poster called McClennan (banned for persistent personals) and we opponents found ourselves standing shoulder to shoulder. I call this this a 'Friendship forged in the fires of Mount McClennan' While we still fought like mad on the forum,we were pals in DM.

[1213]

...The geological sequence of the related fossils would be significant, but the appearance of the same specific ear -bones in all the sequential fossils show them to be related...

That is like saying, all cars must have been made by same company, because all of them have tires. Sorry, that is just wistful thinking from you, nothing substantial.

...On top of which the skeleton shows they once used to be land animals....

That is just a subjective opinion and also wistful thinking, without anything solid to support it.

Archaeology tells us what happened in the past even if we can't see the events happening all over again. And doesn't Christianity rely on evidence - what is recorded as having happened in the Bible, give or take Genesis, at least for some Christians who are quite willing to accept that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

Yes, archaeologists tells us what happened in the past. They can be wrong, because they are most of the time just imagining what their findings can mean.

To me evidence for the Bible to be right is that things go as told in the Bible. However, I think it is still a matter of belief. I don't think Bible is a fact that I could prove to be true. But, there is a way for everyone to see, was Jesus just speaking from himself.

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

.... Old Tyre is there; the archaeology proves it. But Faith dismisses any part of it that contradicts the Bible (Tyre was rebuilt on top) and even fiddle (knowingly or in ignorance) the archaeology of some unconnected masonry in the sea or outside the city as proof of the prophecy.

The Tyre Bible is speaking of, is the Tyre that is still ruins on the island. The cities on the coast were not back then called the Tyre. But, mixing up them is a nice way to misled people. Why do you need to do so? Is there really any real error in the Bible, when you have to make up silly stuff to make it look wrong?

Synthetic life researcher Dr. Craig Venter has created living things with a completely synthetic genome, but the organism does use some parts of existing cells....

I don't think we have enough evidence to believe the story, but thank you. Meddling with existing cells is not in my opinion same as creating life. To be counted creating life, it would require that person takes non-organic material and then builds from it some kind of living thing and makes it work.

...The world of Hinduism in - say the 8th c BC is no evidence at all for gods they worshipped, you reject that but beleive as fact, your own myths....

I actually think that people have a very poor imagination. That is why I believe there really was something real that led to the stories. I have no problem in believing that many things, that people called gods, really existed. I just think people should not keep those as their gods, even if they really exist.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The geological sequence of the related fossils would be significant, but the appearance of the same specific ear -bones in all the sequential fossils show them to be related...

That is like saying, all cars must have been made by same company, because all of them have tires. Sorry, that is just wistful thinking from you, nothing substantial.

...On top of which the skeleton shows they once used to be land animals....

That is just a subjective opinion and also wistful thinking, without anything solid to support it.

Archaeology tells us what happened in the past even if we can't see the events happening all over again. And doesn't Christianity rely on evidence - what is recorded as having happened in the Bible, give or take Genesis, at least for some Christians who are quite willing to accept that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?

Yes, archaeologists tells us what happened in the past. They can be wrong, because they are most of the time just imagining what their findings can mean.

To me evidence for the Bible to be right is that things go as told in the Bible. However, I think it is still a matter of belief. I don't think Bible is a fact that I could prove to be true. But, there is a way for everyone to see, was Jesus just speaking from himself.

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

.... Old Tyre is there; the archaeology proves it. But Faith dismisses any part of it that contradicts the Bible (Tyre was rebuilt on top) and even fiddle (knowingly or in ignorance) the archaeology of some unconnected masonry in the sea or outside the city as proof of the prophecy.

The Tyre Bible is speaking of, is the Tyre that is still ruins on the island. The cities on the coast were not back then called the Tyre. But, mixing up them is a nice way to misled people. Why do you need to do so? Is there really any real error in the Bible, when you have to make up silly stuff to make it look wrong?

Synthetic life researcher Dr. Craig Venter has created living things with a completely synthetic genome, but the organism does use some parts of existing cells....

I don't think we have enough evidence to believe the story, but thank you. Meddling with existing cells is not in my opinion same as creating life. To be counted creating life, it would require that person takes non-organic material and then builds from it some kind of living thing and makes it work.

...The world of Hinduism in - say the 8th c BC is no evidence at all for gods they worshipped, you reject that but beleive as fact, your own myths....

I actually think that people have a very poor imagination. That is why I believe there really was something real that led to the stories. I have no problem in believing that many things, that people called gods, really existed. I just think people should not keep those as their gods, even if they really exist.

This is all terribly denialist. Your analogy about tyres on cars is inept. A better one would be the Rolls Royce nose art from one car to another but you can tell they are the same line of related cars. Your analogy would better fit water paddles with the skeletal structure of hands. They are not necessarily the same line of critters, but (like the tyres) are there to do the same job.

You also reject that the skeleton of flippers (showing hand bones) does not show they used to be land animals. What other explanation have you for that? And for the connected sequence of fossils showing progressive development of the legs to flippers? And the evolution of the nostrils? Don't you think that is evidence of speciation that deserves better then just dismissal with nothing better than an inept analogy? Are you also going to dismiss the skeletons of bird wings showing they were once arms? I don't suppose you will agree but just to show how the dismissal of a better explanation in favor of the faithbased one works.

Your science -denial related to archaeology also shows up how Creationism works - denying validated science when it doesn't suit them. Archaeology works on logic and evidence. For example, Biblical Tyre is under modern Tyre. This is evidently true. That cannot credibly be wrong and the excuse is simply denial of inconvenient facts.

Your wretched attempt to evade the fact that Tyre was rebuilt is wrong even if your claim about naming Tyre was correct. ALL of Tyre was rebuilt and present Tyre covers all of old Tyre. Your attempts at evading unwelcome facts is plain to see. But let me ask - where is your evidence that Tyre on the mainland wasn't also called Tyre? What was it called? You have to answer this or you are the one making very silly stuff up just to excuse the Bible making a false prophecy.

You poor fellow. Do try to keep up with the argument. I know (and said) that the Ventner experiment was NOT 'really' making life in the lab, but my opponent thought (like you) that this had been done and thus shifted the goalposts from 'Make life in the laboratory' to 'Just because that was done, doesn't mean it happened that way'. My point was not about making butterflies into mammoths but even if that could be done, it would be dismissed. Just as you are dismissing all the other evidence, plainly without understanding it, or wanting to.

Of course you think you win if you deny the better explanation never mind compelling evidence, but in fact it shows why Bible apologists claim there is no good evidence to doubt it. They deny, invent and fiddle to make their case and trust their listeners do not know any better. This must be plain to anyone whose mind is not already made up.

Finally, you can credit other gods as existing if you like. But tell us all - why do you think one particular god should be 'kept'as you say? Why for instance should you not have moved on from the NT revelation to the Quranic revelation? Or for that matter to the Joseph Smith Revelation? I can see why; you pick one religion and reject all the others out of sheer Faithbased bias, just as you reject compelling evidence and fiddle and muddle the arguments just as an excuse to dismiss them.

As I have said, you are a good Bad example of the methods of Creationism and Fundamentalist religion.

And as an aside, isn't that horribly familiar as the denialism, excuses and fiddling of a Particular Party in current US politics?

[1213]

...You also reject that the skeleton of flippers (showing hand bones) does not show they used to be land animals. What other explanation have you for that?

They may be there just for the body to work better, for example balancing the body so that it works better in the environment. However, if I don't know explanation for them, it doesn't mean your poor explanation is then automatically correct.

And for the connected sequence of fossils showing progressive development of the legs to flippers? And the evolution of the nostrils? Don't you think that is evidence of speciation that deserves better then just dismissal with nothing better than an inept analogy? Are you also going to dismiss the skeletons of bird wings showing they were once arms? I don't suppose you will agree but just to show how the dismissal of a better explanation in favor of the faithbased one works.

I don't think there are enough sequences to show evolution theory could be correct.

But, I can believe there are different variations of different species. For example we have humans that are about 2 feet and also humans that are over 8 feet. If we would found their skeletons from ancient sediments, the evolutionists would claim they are different species and results of evolution. There can be lot of variation within one species and it seems evolutionists make that to mean there happens evolution. I think it is not reasonable.

Biblical Tyre is under modern Tyre... ...where is your evidence that Tyre on the mainland wasn't also called Tyre? What was it called?

The Tyre Bible is speaking of, is in the midst of the sea, meaning it is an island. On the mainland there were daughter towns that apparently are rebuilt and nowadays called Tyre. But, it is not the same, all though it seems the other towns have expanded so that they now are connected to the island making the old Tyre a point of peninsula.

They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock. She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, says the Lord Yahweh; and she shall become a spoil to the nations. Her daughters who are in the field [daughter towns on the continent] shall be slain with the sword: and they shall know that I am Yahweh… …I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall be built no more: for I Yahweh have spoken it, says the Lord Yahweh.
Ezek. 26:4-6,14
In their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for you, and lament over you, [saying], Who is there like Tyre, like her who is brought to silence in the midst of the sea?
Ezek. 27:32

Does this look like rebuilt to you?

But tell us all - why do you think one particular god should be 'kept'as you say? Why for instance should you not have moved on from the NT revelation to the Quranic revelation?

Why would I move to Quran? It says people should believe Jesus, so I think I do rightly, if I believe Jesus.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

I keep Bible God as my God, because He has shown greatness unlike any other. Also, the others don't seem to have anything to say to me.

Or for that matter to the Joseph Smith Revelation?

Do you know what is the main point of Joseph Smith Revelation?