KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 326 by Still small]

Was it actual observational evidence to the contrary or did it just not meet someone’s ‘statement of faith’?

Is this a more or less firm rejection of those who do have statements of faith, a recognition that having one is not one doing science?

Are you now going to disavow those sites you've linked to in the past that have statements of faith?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 327 by DrNoGods]

(should have been "but naturalism itself makes no specific statement ..." in post 327 comment after 3rd quote).

[Still small]

And I never suggested that you did. I gave that as an example of a scientific "fact" to be compared with purely faith-based beliefs such as religion.

That being the case, then it was a very poor example.

This part I agree with as it is a straightforward definition. But this part:

Naturalism, by definition, excludes any Supernatural Agent or activity. Thus, naturalism is atheism.

is wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods. Nothing more. It does not claim that gods don't exist, or that they have been proven not to exist. It is simply the position of not believing that they exist.

So you’re saying that you don’t believe ‘gods’ exist but you don’t claim that ‘gods’ don’t exist. That’s basically saying that ‘gods’ may exist but you choose not to believe it. Do you, personally, think that ‘gods’ exist but are not willing to believe it?

You can infer that a naturalist might be an atheist as the position is consistent with naturalism, but naturalism itself makes [no] (sic) specific statement concerning gods of any kind, or their existence. This part is also completely wrong:

So ‘gods’ may exist but you don’t believe that they had anything to do with the creation or origin of the universe. Is that what you are saying? (certainly sounds like it)

Good morals do not come from religion. All social groups (humans or otherwise) must understand the basics of living successfully together and the various "rules" associated with that. I've never seen a field of cows or sheep all fighting and killing each other and their offspring because they don't have the 10 commandments or a religious book to teach them morals. Good morals are necessary for social animals to survive, and most social animals have better morals than humans given the wars, genocides, etc. that humans have been involved with since our appearance on this planet. Religion often makes things worse.

Firstly, that was not my definition but, out of full disclosure, I included the entire quote from the link. Secondly, man’s lack of moral behaviour usually stems from a failure to heed God’s Word, to follow His plan.

Nagasaki was not a fusion bomb. It was also a fission bomb just like Hiroshima. It used plutonium in an implosion-type design rather than U-235, but both were fission bombs. The first fusion bombs were hydrogen bombs.

My mistake, you are correct, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs.

But back the point. Radioactive decay rates have been measured since the early 1900s and no significant deviations from constant rates have ever been confirmed. My point was that the theory underlying radioactive decay of atoms, including rates of decay, are well understood and radiometric dating has been proven to be reliable when performed correctly on uncontaminated samples.

And back to my point, while the theory of radioactive decay may be well understood, the articles which I linked showed that they are not immune to deviation. And as the true cause of the deviation has not yet been confirmed, we have no understanding of how great an effect it may have caused previously (before human observation) or at a different location (beyond the labs). Any adherence to a constancy of decay rates is speculation, being beyond the observed evidence. Also, proof of reliability, if reliant upon comparison to other decay rates would not be reliable if the cause of deviation is universal and possibly affecting all decay rates.

Is this kind of silliness taught in creationism school? Virtually all creationists do this where the same sentence is returned with a words replaced to cast it with the other point of view. I think we did this sort of thing in 6th grade, but it doesn't do anything to help your argument ... expecially when it makes absolutely no sense when turned around.

I apologise if my response appeared somewhat childish but I needed to make it as simple as possible for you to understand that your statement which I was addressing applies both ways. “That’s just your excuse. . . “ “No, that’s just your excuse . . .�

And more of the same ... trying to assign a "statement of faith" to scientific facts as if there were any similarities at all. Can you really not see the difference between the religious statements of faith which explicitly exclude any science that doesn't agree with biblical stories, and actual science that is based on direct observations, measurements, etc.?

To which actual ‘scientific facts’ (being an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)) that disagree with the Bible are you referring? (This being opposed to ‘theories’ which may or may not be correct and are open to change if needed.)

It is (sic) a very good thing creationists are a dwindling, tiny minority or we'd still be hunter-gatherers lucky to make it to age 30.

You mean those ‘hunter-gatherer’ types like Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Galileo, Steno, and Pasteur—scientists famous enough to be referred to by one name all of whom believed in the Creator. Also, those modern ‘hunter-gatherer’ types like Dr Russell Humphreys, of whom I wrote about in a previous post. Scientists such as Ph.D geneticist, John Sanford, the inventor of the gene gun. Then there’s the inventor of the MRI, Raymond Damadian. Don’t forget John Hartnett, who co-developed the world’s most precise clock, ultra-high-stability cryogenic sapphire oscillator (a classical ‘clock’), whilst being a physics professor at University of Western Australia. Gee, . . . could you imagine it, if we all had the level of ‘scientific understanding’ of these guys, we’d still be using sticks and stones to catch our dinner. Yeah . . .nah. Not to mention those in this list. Fortunately, some, such as those mentioned, have seen past the indoctrination, questioning the naturalistic/materialistic fairytale story. Majority vs minority, numbers do not determine truth nor facts. It is often those that questioned the status quo that brought about the greatest developments in the world of science.

So again, as mentioned in post 326 -
“Now to get back to the topic of this thread, ‘Kinds and Adaptations’, I have linked two papers. One from Academia Journal of Scientific Research being �Speciation in real time and historical-archaeological and its absence in geological time.�. It outlines the problems with both gradualism and Punctuated equilibrium in relation to ToE.�

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

Is this a more or less firm rejection of those who do have statements of faith, a recognition that having one is not one doing science?

Certainly not. It was just to show that both sides interpret the evidence according to their own biases. These biases would be equivalent to a ’statement of faith’ whether formally stated or just accepted. These biases are often ‘just accepted’ without careful examination of the foundation upon which they are based just because they are told to not question it.

Are you now going to disavow those sites you've linked to in the past that have statements of faith?

No, but will the sites which you link admit to their own a priori being based, to some degree, on unproven speculation and “don’t know, hope so� philosophies.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 330 by Still small]

That being the case, then it was a very poor example.

Then you misunderstood it. The heliocentric theory of our solar system is a very good example of something that disrupted existing thought that was driven mostly by religion (ie. earth and man are the center of the universe and the purpose of creation). Scientific observation and analysis proved that this view was wrong, but there are still people who won't believe it because of faith, just like there are still people who believe Noah's flood actually happened as described in the bible when science has shown conclusively, with 100% certainty, that it could not have happened as described. It can only be believed because of faith, and refusal to accept the clear scientific conclusions.

So you’re saying that you don’t believe ‘gods’ exist but you don’t claim that ‘gods’ don’t exist. That’s basically saying that ‘gods’ may exist but you choose not to believe it. Do you, personally, think that ‘gods’ exist but are not willing to believe it?

It's very simple. I don't believe that gods exist because not one of them has ever been seen, heard, directly revealed in any way, etc. They are no different than leprechauns or fairies. If one were to pop out of the sky and become visible, or in some other way allow itself to be observed, I'd change my mind. But until then they are nothing but imaginary beings invented by humans. So I personally don't believe they exist simply because there is zero evidence for their existence. I'm in the camp "I'll believe it when I see it."

So ‘gods’ may exist but you don’t believe that they had anything to do with the creation or origin of the universe. Is that what you are saying? (certainly sounds like it)

My point was that naturalism makes no comment one way or the other about gods existing, or not, just like evolution makes no comment one way or the other about the mechanism for HOW life first arose, or chemistry makes no comment on whether Game of Thrones was a good television event . I don't believe that gods had anything to do with the creation or origin of the universe because I don't believe that gods exist. If one of these beings were to reveal itself and show that it does exist, then it would make sense to put it into the mix for possible explanations of things. But so far that has never happened, so why believe that any of the thousands of god concepts humans have come up with are legitimate?

Secondly, man’s lack of moral behaviour usually stems from a failure to heed God’s Word, to follow His plan.

Or, directly FROM following his plan. Check out the old testament for some examples, or god himself (eg. Noah's flood).

Any adherence to a constancy of decay rates is speculation, being beyond the observed evidence.

It is from a preponderance of the evidence and not pure speculation. The cumulative evidence indicates that radioactive decay rates are constant over time. Atomic emission spectra from distant stars (ie. radiation emitted millions and billions of years ago) also support this conclusion, eg.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4317303822

To which actual ‘scientific facts’ (being an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)) that disagree with the Bible are you referring?

The recent example of the Answers in Genesis meteorite dating articles is one. They do a good job of summarizing the measurements, then refuse to believe the dates they produce because it contradicts biblical chronology.

You mean those ‘hunter-gatherer’ types like Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Galileo, Steno, and Pasteur—scientists famous enough to be referred to by one name all of whom believed in the Creator ...

There is big difference in believing in a creator like these guys (and many other scientists), and letting that belief influence their scientific conclusions. Newton also practiced alchemy but neither that, nor his religious beliefs, changed his results in mathematics, physics, optics, etc. My comment related not to accomplished scientists of the past (or present) who happened to be religious, but to those who let their religious beliefs guide their science. An example of that kind of person is someone like Russell Humphreys, who was a failure as a "real" physicist (based on his lousy publication record) and decided to join up with creation "scientists" to try and legitimize biblical accounts. His "paper" on planetary magnetic fields, which has been discussed on this forum many times, is a perfect example of this type of outright fraud and pseudoscience. It is based on demonstrably false assumptions (the planets all started out as balls of H2O, god swooped in and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins, the universe is 6000 years old), yet many people buy into the conclusions (on faith) despite his nonsensical assumptions. And, of course, this nonsense was never published in any legitimate scientific journal because it is not science.

Fortunately, some, such as those mentioned, have seen past the indoctrination, questioning the naturalistic/materialistic fairytale story. Majority vs minority, numbers do not determine truth nor facts. It is often those that questioned the status quo that brought about the greatest developments in the world of science.

Fairytale story? Of course majority and numbers alone do not determine truth or facts. That is the big difference between real science, and the pseudoscience garbage the creation "scientists" put forth. Real science requires that observations confirm hypotheses, measurements and analyses are consistent and reproducible, etc. This is the bedrock of experimental and observational science to confirm a hypothesis. It is anything but a fairytale, and the fact that you seem to think it is only shows that you don't understand how the process works.

Humphreys' planetary magnetic field article is the exact opposite of a legitimate scientific process. He is allowed to make up completely false assumptions and initial conditions ... demonstrably false ... and religious people believe the conclusions only because of pure coincidence and curve fitting (his k value) he happens to get a few numbers roughly close (while completely missing others, such as Venus). Yet you seem to buy into that sort of complete nonsense, and call actual science a fairytale. My comment related to this kind of approach, not actual science, and being thankful that people like Humphreys have no influence on scientific funding, policy making, etc. If they did, we would still be in the dark ages. The comment had nothing to do with scientists who happened to be religious, but nonetheless practiced real science.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 331 by Still small]

Certainly not. It was just to show that both sides interpret the evidence according to their own biases. These biases would be equivalent to a ’statement of faith’ whether formally stated or just accepted.

So you're still not doing science properly if you're not disavowing statements of faith. There are biases in all people and in all groups yes...but a statement of faith is a literal proclamation that one will always hold to their preconceived biases .
You're going after the wrong people. The scientists, even if they have biases that impact their work, can hopefully be shown where they're going wrong, they'll hopefully accept the correction and improve themselves.
Your SoF creationist friends...?

These biases are often ‘just accepted’ without careful examination of the foundation upon which they are based just because they are told to not question it.

You're describing your SoF creationist sites just fine...oh wait, this is something you accuse the non creationists of doing...and without any evidence. You presume that non-creationist evolutionist proponents are saying not to question evolution...and all without any evidence.
Projection, thy name is Creationist.

No, but will the sites which you link admit to their own a priori being based, to some degree, on unproven speculation and “don’t know, hope so� philosophies.

Again, you're describing your SoF friends just fine. Everything you accuse your ideological opponents of doing, you yourself are guilty of to a far greater degree. Check out my conversation with Volbrigade from a couple years ago
viewtopic.php?t=32959

[Still small]

Then you misunderstood it. The heliocentric theory of our solar system is a very good example of something that disrupted existing thought that was driven mostly by religion (ie. earth and man are the center of the universe and the purpose of creation). Scientific observation and analysis proved that this view was wrong, but there are still people who won't believe it because of faith, . . .

Then you have misunderstood the idea of “earth and man are the center of the universe and the purpose of creation�. Scientific observation may have proved that, physically, the Earth is not the centre of the universe but ‘scientific observation’ is restricted to observing only the physical. The idea that the Earth and man are the centre is speaking metaphorically as to their importance in the eyes of God, an idea which science cannot observe, not being physical.

. . . just like there are still people who believe Noah's flood actually happened as described in the bible when science has shown conclusively, with 100% certainty, that it could not have happened as described. It can only be believed because of faith, and refusal to accept the clear scientific conclusions.

“. . with 100% certainly� is certainly, by far, an exaggeration, a view that is held by those that believe in the a priori (assumption) of uniformitarianism. It is not believed “. . with 100% certainly� by those that hold to catastrophism but that’s a topic for another thread.

It's very simple. I don't believe that gods exist because not one of them has ever been seen, heard, directly revealed in any way, etc. They are no different than leprechauns or fairies. If one were to pop out of the sky and become visible, or in some other way allow itself to be observed, I'd change my mind. But until then they are nothing but imaginary beings invented by humans. So I personally don't believe they exist simply because there is zero evidence for their existence. I'm in the camp "I'll believe it when I see it."

You just need to look around you, just as the scriptures say "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"  Romans 1:19-20
Though you haven’t seen Him, His works, His creation is all around you. We don’t know who built Stonehenge but we certainly know that it didn’t built itself. Just because we have not seen the creator of Stonehenge or the Creator of the entire cosmos, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. As one professor said, regarding this “mysterious�, it “holds the Universe together, yet no one has seen it; or heard, smelled, tasted or touched it either.� His creativity and design can be seen throughout all of creation, from the precise coding in DNA to precise balance of various forces that “holds the Universe together, yet no one has seen it; or heard, smelled, tasted or touched it either.�
Oh. . . hang on a minute, my mistake, I need to make a slight correction here. That quote was from a professor, Dr Daryl Holland, University of Melbourne but it was the opening line in relation to dark matter - “Dark matter is the mysterious material that holds the Universe together, yet no one has seen it; or heard, smelled, tasted or touched it either.� (link). Funny that, science will accept the existence of things like dark matter (& dark energy) even though “no one has seen it; or heard, smelled, tasted or touched it either.� But they cannot accept the equally obvious evidence of the Grand Designer. Funny that . . . though some may say hypocritical.

My point was that naturalism makes no comment one way or the other about gods existing, or not, just like evolution makes no comment one way or the other about the mechanism for HOW life first arose, . . .

How convenient that is, though obvious. Otherwise ‘naturalistic science’ would have to contradict some well established scientific laws which have been subject to extensive testing and observation, such as the Law of Biogenesis

. . . chemistry makes no comment on whether Game of Thrones was a good television event . I don't believe that gods had anything to do with the creation or origin of the universe because I don't believe that gods exist. If one of these beings were to reveal itself and show that it does exist, then it would make sense to put it into the mix for possible explanations of things. But so far that has never happened, so why believe that any of the thousands of god concepts humans have come up with are legitimate?

Actually, it has happened. The historical person Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of the Living God who appeared to many that then chose to believe Him. Or do you require Him to appear and do some ‘party tricks’ for you, personally.

Secondly, man’s lack of moral behaviour usually stems from a failure to heed God’s Word, to follow His plan.

Or, directly FROM following his plan. Check out the old testament for some examples, or god himself (eg. Noah's flood).

What are you saying? That God should not correct or ‘cut out’ those that would corrupt others, leading them to miss out on all that God had planned for them? Heaven forbid that you should every get gangrene on your foot or a cancerous tumour. Regardless, He gives everyone a clear choice of the path they wish to follow with ample knowledge of the consequences. Unfortunately, the possibility of some making bad or poor choices is a consequence (the two-edged sword, so to speak) of have been given ‘free choice’.

It is from a preponderance of the evidence and not pure speculation. The cumulative evidence indicates that radioactive decay rates are constant over time. Atomic emission spectra from distant stars (ie. radiation emitted millions and billions of years ago) also support this conclusion, eg.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4317303822

I submit these two links (link & link) which would contradict your opinion of constancy. How past events may effect decay rates are unknown such as the unknown cause of the inflation epoch, etc. Holding onto a uniformitarian perspective, that the present explains the past, may be convenient but convenience does not determine truth (fact). Variance in decay rates is shown, via experiments, to be true. Therefore uniformitarian thinking is not necessarily true.

The recent example of the Answers in Genesis meteorite dating articles is one. They do a good job of summarizing the measurements, then refuse to believe the dates they produce because it contradicts biblical chronology.

Where does the Bible refer to meteorites? Also, did you know radiometric dating can be overestimated?

You mean those ‘hunter-gatherer’ types like Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Galileo, Steno, and Pasteur—scientists famous enough to be referred to by one name all of whom believed in the Creator ...

There is big difference in believing in a creator like these guys (and many other scientists), and letting that belief influence their scientific conclusions.

No different than those holding to a naturalistic materialist belief allowing it to “influence their scientific conclusions�. It was their belief in a Creator God that allowed them to hold to the ideas that scientific laws would remain consistent and reliable. Such as the First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed by naturalistic means. And the Law of Biogenesis which states that in nature, life comes only from life. Also, that there was a purpose behind every natural process rather than reliance upon random chance.

Fortunately, some, such as those mentioned, have seen past the indoctrination, questioning the naturalistic/materialistic fairytale story. Majority vs minority, numbers do not determine truth nor facts. It is often those that questioned the status quo that brought about the greatest developments in the world of science.

Fairytale story? Of course majority and numbers alone do not determine truth or facts. That is the big difference between real science, and the pseudoscience garbage the creation "scientists" put forth.

And that would be the typical response from one who has succumbed to the naturalistic/materialistic fairytale story. Both sides work in the same labs with the same evidence but draw different conclusions based upon one’s a priori.

Real science requires that observations confirm hypotheses, measurements and analyses are consistent and reproducible, etc. This is the bedrock of experimental and observational science to confirm a hypothesis. It is anything but a fairytale, and the fact that you seem to think it is only shows that you don't understand how the process works.

And what has been observed from repeated experiments trying to create life from non-living matter, (even given the entire chemical make-up of a human body)? What has been observed from the repeated experiments on E. coli over thousands of generations, or fruit flies even after genetic manipulation? Lenski’s observations show that while bacteria might mutate, it remains bacteria. Just as fruit fly may mutate, they still remain as flies. Yes, there may be speciation but all observations indicate that living things ‘reproduce after their own kind’. Oh, I understand how your ‘process works’, it’s seems to be mainly based upon the “don’t know, hope so� conclusion.

Humphreys' planetary magnetic field article is the exact opposite of a legitimate scientific process. He is allowed to make up completely false assumptions and initial conditions ... demonstrably false ...

Humphreys’ process was no different to that of anyone formulating an hypothesis on an unobservable or unrepeatable event such as the creation of the cosmos. They observe the evidence around them and formulate an hypothesis to explain it. ‘Big Bang’ theorists observed the expanding universe and theorised that it must have been more compact at some point, a point at which all physical laws breakdown and then expanded through some unknown cause or force. How the matter/energy came to be in existence in the first place is, again, beyond the limits of the laws of physics and science.
Humphreys observed the abundance of hydrogen in the universe. Even naturalistic science accepts that hydrogen was the first element to form. Humphreys then, with an understanding of the electromagnetic force formulated his hypothesis following on from the previously suggested formation of original matter as water. His predictions according to his hypothesis are just as accurate, if not more so, than any other scientific predictions. Or do you consider all ‘predictions’ are just coincidence.

If you wish to uphold the scientific method of “observations confirm hypotheses, measurements and analyses are consistent and reproducible, etc�, then you, too, must be consistent. What are the observations concerning the creation or destruction of energy/matter? What are the observations concerning life? Your naturalistic thinking may cause you to believe there must be a naturalistic explanation for the formation of energy/matter and the cosmos, or the creation of life from non-life. This, then, leads you (naturalistic scientists) to search for that explanation. Just as I believe in the plain reading explanation as given in Genesis and elsewhere, I, too, search for explanations for what-at-first appear to be difficulties, often finding them upon closer examination of the actual evidence, albeit, from a different a priori.
Now let’s see if we can return to the actual topic of this thread, ‘Kinds and Adaptation’, rather than chasing ‘rabbits’.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

(Relocated from “The Myth of radioactive dating.� thread)

OK, how about you presenting any kind of experiment that proves:
1: Your god exists.
2: The material that your god created the universe from.
3: What you god is made of.
4: How your gods brain works and what material it is made from.
5: From what material did your god create life.

Keep in mind that you need experimental proof before =you belive in stuff.

So, bet you come up with nothing but your bible to supply proof.

If by ‘experiment’ you mean producing evidence via an experiment which follows the principles of the scientific method, I’m afraid that cannot be done. Why? Because scientific experiments, as does science itself, can only investigate the 4D space-time which we refer to as the physical universe. God, the Creator of the physical universe, as such cannot be investigated scientifically as He is not part of the physical universe. For Him to be so would require the existence of the physical universe prior to His creating it. God is metaphysical or supernatural. I don’t mean in a spooky sense but rather being ‘beyond the physical’ or ‘beyond the natural’. Naturalistic materialists only accept the existence of the physical realm, whereas I also accept the possibility of the metaphysical realm. Hence my prior statement - “So, again, Donray (& others), you are asking me to explain how a supernatural/metaphysical Creator God supernaturally/metaphysically created the universe and all living creatures but you’ll only accept mechanisms which are natural/physical explanations. And again, good luck with that one.�

Again, you want experiments so supply some that back up your mythical creation ideas.

No, you appear to misunderstand my point being that you (and others) as naturalistic materialists, insist upon scientific evidence from repeatable experimentation as per the scientific method. Yet, you appear to accept ‘by faith’ (without evidence) the naturalistic creation of the two basics of existence, being the entire physical universe and life itself. To some that may appear somewhat hypocritical.

PS: You have never explained how your Kind and Adaptation works. You gave an example of a bear kind that evolved into all the current bear types. You never said what the original bear type looked like, where its fossil evidence is, etc. So no you did not answer my question.

My apologies for assuming that you might do a little research for yourself. The bear kind can be traced back to the oldest genus, the Ursavus. Here is a link which gives somewhat of an explanation, (though going beyond the actual physical evidence so as to align it with ToE).

You again supplied links to try to dis prove evolution. I asked you to prove your idea of Kinds and adaptation. Gives timeframes about your bear and trace its adaptation with fossil evidence that explains your time frame.

The links I provided, which you appear not to have read, were scientific research papers which actually explain adaptation via the process known as epigenetics. Is this not what you wanted? Though, if they raise doubts or disprove ToE, so be it, we must follow the evidence where it leads.

YOU NEVER HAVE GIVEN ANY TIME FRAME FROM ANY OF YOUR MYTHICAL CREATION IDEAS.

Oh . . . sorry, the original bear kind was created on Day 6 of the Creation Week approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Approximately 1,500 years later, a pair (male and female) of the original bear kind entered the Ark and commenced reproducing 1 year later upon leaving the Ark. As the bear kind migrated to different environments, they adapted via epigenetics, giving rise to the various species we see today.

Have a good day!
Still small

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 335 by Still small]

....we must follow the evidence where it leads.

Precisely. That is how and why we have the theory of evolution.

God is metaphysical or supernatural. I don’t mean in a spooky sense but rather being ‘beyond the physical’ or ‘beyond the natural’.

We must follow the evidence where it leads and there isn't a shred of empirical evidence for any metaphysical or supernatural realm. It remains firmly planted in the vivid imaginations of credulous people.

[Clownboat]

Oh . . . sorry, the original bear kind was created on Day 6 of the Creation Week approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Approximately 1,500 years later, a pair (male and female) of the original bear kind entered the Ark and commenced reproducing 1 year later upon leaving the Ark. As the bear kind migrated to different environments, they adapted via epigenetics, giving rise to the various species we see today.

Have a good day!
Still small

This is the science subforum. You should be in the Holy Huddle forum for this kind of proclomation.

To discuss this proclomations here without any kind of evidence would be to give this idea credit it does not deserve.

It's all fair though. No religion gets to pretend that its holy book knows how life came about and then allowed to post in a science subforum as if the idea has merit for being in a holy book.

Parts of the OP that it would be amazing if they were addressed IMO are:
"How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA."