As promised
@pood here is THE evolution thread to end all evolution threads. The most important evolution thread you will ever see. Even though pood has demonstrated remarkable patience it has also manifested a cross disposition of late. It seems like an insolent child. Petulant Poo. As it were.
Anyway, what I typically do since I post exclusively on atheist or in this case infidel forums, is I sympathize with the resident heathens having to discuss so much theology when they would much rather discuss science. I have little if any interest in science, but I'm fair.
Now, what you probably think is that the Bible creation account is contradictory to science. I don't believe it is, but I also think it doesn't matter. Science isn't the first Biblical contradictory endeavor of mankind. Prostitutes, fortune tellers, catamites, the precursor to the modern-day Olympics, for example. Et cetera. Ad Infinitum and Nauseum for good measure.
Nothing new under the sun.
Here I want you to either tell me where evolution differs from the Bible.
In very simple terms. Einstein supposedly said that if you can't explain something in simple terms you don't know it very well or words to that effect. No theological or scientific jargon is necessary and if you want a 500+ post thread spanning years make one because this isn't it.
But that isn't even really necessary for the purpose of my participation in this discussion. All I need from you is actual evidence, I mean show me or explain to me literally, not give me a link where someone says macroevolution contrary to the Bible is evident.
That's it. Don't show me a photograph of fractured bone fragments or similarities between apes and humans, arms on whales. Show me macroevolution.
I will warn you right now, most of what you show me will be bullshit.
Now, what you probably think is that dismissing evidence before it’s even offered makes your position sound bold or clever. But all it really shows is that you’ve already made up your mind and have no intention of engaging honestly. You say you’re fair. But fair-minded people don’t walk into a discussion, insult everyone involved, and then declare victory before the first fact hits the table.
Now, what you probably think is that the Bible creation account is not contradictory to science. I’m going to show you that it absolutely is, and I’m going to do it in simple terms. No theological or scientific jargon necessary.
Genesis — whether you interpret the “days” as literal or as long creative periods — still gets the order of creation wrong. According to Genesis, the Earth was created before the sun. That’s false. Science shows the sun formed first, and Earth formed from the leftover material orbiting it. Genesis says plants came before the sun. That’s false too — you need sunlight for photosynthesis. Genesis says birds were created before land animals. That’s also false. Birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs. Genesis says humans were created in their final form, separately from all other creatures. That’s false. We evolved gradually over millions of years from earlier hominins.
But that isn’t even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that there’s not just one creation story in Genesis — there are two. Genesis 1 says man and woman were created together, after the animals. Genesis 2 says man was created first, then animals, and then woman from man’s rib. These are not two perspectives on the same event. They are contradictory accounts. If the Bible can’t even keep its own creation story straight, how seriously should anyone take it as a scientific authority?
Now, here I want you to see what macroevolution actually looks like — literally — since that’s what you said you wanted. Not a link. Not fractured bone fragments. Not “similarities between apes and humans.” Not arms on whales. Just literal examples.
So here you go:
Greenish warblers form a ring of populations around the Himalayas. Each population can interbreed with its neighbors, but the ones at the ends of the ring — where the chain reconnects — can no longer interbreed. That’s one species turning into two. That’s macroevolution, observed in real time.
Then we have nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon is a synthetic material invented in the 20th century. Some bacteria evolved a completely new enzyme to digest it — a function that didn’t exist in any ancestor. That’s not variation within a kind. That’s the evolution of a brand-new function. That’s macroevolution, documented and replicated.
Then there’s Tiktaalik — a 375-million-year-old fossil with gills and lungs, fins and wrist bones, scales and a neck. It’s not fully fish, not fully amphibian. It’s an intermediate form, found in the exact rock layer predicted by evolutionary theory. Not a guess. Not a coincidence. A transitional species, plain as day.
Then there’s Lucy — Australopithecus afarensis. Upright-walking, small-brained, long-armed. Not an ape. Not a modern human. Something in between. Exactly what you’d expect from an evolutionary transition.
And if fossils don’t do it for you, let’s talk genetics. Your own DNA contains ancient viral insertions called endogenous retroviruses. You share them in the exact same locations with chimps and other primates. These insertions are random. They don’t land in the same place by chance. The only explanation is shared ancestry.
You also carry broken genes — pseudogenes. For example, the gene for making vitamin C. It doesn’t work in humans, and it doesn’t work in chimps — because it was broken in a common ancestor. Same gene. Same mutation. Same location. That’s not coincidence. That’s inheritance.
All I need from you now is some honesty. You said, “Show me macroevolution.” I just did — with direct observation, transitional fossils, and genetic evidence. You said, “Explain it in simple terms.” I did. You said, “Don’t give me a link.” I didn’t. You said, “Don’t show me fractured bone fragments.” I gave you complete fossils. You said, “Don’t show me similarities between apes and humans.” I gave you shared errors in our DNA.
You warned me ahead of time that you’d probably call everything I showed you bullshit. That’s not skepticism. That’s dogma. And that’s not new under the sun either.
But if you really want the truth — if even a small part of you is still open — then now you’ve got it.
Macroevolution has been shown to you. Literally. Exactly as you asked. If you still choose not to see it, that’s your choice.
But don’t pretend the evidence isn’t there. You just don’t want to accept it.
NHC
answersingenesis.org
www.oldearth.org
