Loc:

Evolution is just a theory.   Problem: So is gravity.

If you had read the article I linked to (4th paragraph) you would have seen why this argument does not work.  Gravity, or the example used in the article, magnetism, is in fact a scientific principle because it is testable, evolution is not.  He concludes a little farther down:

Loc:
I'm afraid there isn't much I can do for you there. If that's your outlook on life, no one can change it but you. I for one enjoy life, and find no despair in the fact of death. I would find myself unable to live as a Christian again:

We are not discussing this as if we could choose which world view we like and that will somehow become reality.  It is not a popularity contest.  One is true, the other is not.  The whole basis of my point is that evolution is inconsistent with the way people live their lives.  (If we had evolved and were in fact animals, we would not be like we are.)  This was an observation I made as a teenager.  If you live your life purely as a hedonist, then you might be somewhat consistent with evolution, because evolution is all about self and self preservation.  If you spend your life, as the majority of people do, fore going pleasure and immediate gratification for the benefit of others, and even life itself, as in the case of Michael A. Monsoor, (which is the only path to true happiness) then you are inconsistent with evolution itself and as a rational response to evolution as a world view, i.e. ashes to ashes.  This line is not gaining traction, so I will let it go.  Post 24 ronin-dog seems to think that we have become so complex as evolved animals that even non-animal behavior is quite expectable.  This, by the way, is the second deficiency of evolution that is mentioned in the article.

Loc:
God created me. I did not ask to be, but I am.
Now I will go to heaven or hell. God knows which one. I do not
I will live my life fraught with fear and guilt, always afraid I will go to hell.
Most of my friends and family will go to hell.
One day god will come back and destroy the earth, everything anyone has ever done will be meaningless
End result-we're all going to die and the earth be destroyed, most will go to hell. If anybody should be killing babies, it's you. Then they are guaranteed heaven. Please point out where I'm wrong.

God created you.

You will go to heaven or hell. 

God knows.   You can know that you have eternal life if you believe in Him.  (John 3:15; 1 John 5:13) 

God will hold you accountable for how you live your life.  You can confess your guilt and be forgiven or continue to rebel.  If you believe in the Lord, you will never come into condemnation, but you will pass from death to life.  (John 5:24)  You will never see the final state of being dead because the Lord Jesus has done that for you.  (Hebrews 2:9) 

Your friends and family are accountable to their creator same as you. 

One day, the Lord Jesus Christ will come back to judge those living on the Earth at that time.  Ultimately everyone will be judged according to their works. (Revelation 20:12-13) At no point will anything ever be meaningless.  Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment.  (Matthew 12:36) 

We are not all going to die (sleep).  (1 Corinthians 15:51-57)  When Christ, who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in Glory.  (Colossians 3:4)

The Earth and the (physical) works will be burned up, never the less we, according to His promise look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein righteousness dwells.  (2 Peter 3:10-13)

Sadly, it seems most will choose the broad path that leads to destruction.  (Matthew 7:13-14)  God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9)

Abortion does indeed kill babies about which the Bible is perfectly clear.  Thou shalt not kill.  But even this sin the Lord took upon Himself at the cross and there is forgiveness with Him. 

Whether they are guaranteed heaven or not brings us back to the case of the Eskimos.  There is no scripture that I can think of guaranteeing heaven to children, born or unborn, of unbelievers.  That is not saying they will burn in hell.  They will not be in heaven as far as I can understand it.

Ronin-dog wrote:

Hay that's great for you.And perhaps I was a bit quick to judge there.Apologies then.

Well I've been starting to read Dawkins' stuff,and other articles.But like I saw,I'm no expert.Oh and I also read the Stobel stuff

I admit I only skimmed that article.However I'm sure the more learned here will tell you evolution can be tested.But since I really am not an expert on evolution,I don't want to get too bogged down on it.I hope you will understand that is merely because of my personal lack of knowledge,not because I don't think it has the answers.

I will read it,and here's a funny for you: http://www.rationalresponders.com/warning_gravity_is_only_a_theory

Ok so after all that,we still get that god created us and we're all going to die.Say what you will, but the fact that the majority of people are going to burn for eternity doesn't seem particularly despair-less.I'd really rather just know that they're not existing after they die.

By the way, I HAVE read the bible.Posting verses here isn't going to convince anyone. it's called circualar reasoning

Hi again !

I'm sure somebody else already gave you the definition of "just" a scientific theory, but I noticed this claim about evolution being untestable and thought I'd give you my opinion on that one.

Eh..well, I'm no expert either, but if by testable you mean "can be tested", then evolution is definitely testable. See, all the things you'd need to test it actually exist. It would take a damn long time, true, but it's possible. In contrast, intelligent design is completely untestable. All the things you'd need to test that one don't actually exist.

And anyways, can't they prove micro-evolution in a lab these days ?

Still no eskimos ? Darn.

Evolution is definately testable. There is a massive volume of evidence from observation that has tested it. Human breeding of domestic animals and plants has tested it. Selective breeding of bacteria based on nutrients and/or pollutants in the lab has tested it (I did this at uni). Observations of bacterial populations in response to antibiotics has tested it. Genetic studies showing the genetic link between organisms and gene evolution has tested it. The list goes on.

Evolution is not always about individual survival, we are a pack animal. You seem to forget that we are animals (that is a fact, not theory), yes we differ in intelligence, but if you observe animals closely you can see many "human" traits such as love and caring for each other.

Straight after Moses was given the "thou shalt not kill" commandment he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of people.

You could give this a try and perhaps gain a little more time:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/11/56482?currentPage=all

Could you explain this a little more?  Are you using the "peppered moth' explanation?

Here's some:

If evolution happens, there should be observable differences in a population over generations, with poorly survivable traits disappearing and advantageous ones becoming more common.  This is borne out: look up the Ames test, where an advantageous mutation occurs in a portion of a population, which become the only ones that survive to reproduce.

If evolution happens, we should find common genetic material in related species.  This is borne out: proteins can be traced back through species to help illustrate common descent.  We have some of the same structural proteins as rodents because very far back we came from the same stock of proto-mammals which had this protein.

If evolution happens, a colony of organisms split between differing habitats will change in different ways, eventually becoming so different that they cannot interbreed (i.e., becoming different species). This is borne out: look up "ring species", or the mosquitoes that evolved in the London Underground.

Scientists have been testing the theory of evolution for a while now, and it's scoring rather well.

This was exactly the conclusion I reached - and it makes perfect logical sense.  Just stop spreading the word of god, and everyone will be saved, due to their ignorance or him/her/it (if it exists).  If that's the loophole, then why not use it?  Ironically, such a loophole is enough evidence (to me) for a non-omniscient god.  It shows lack of thorough planning on the part of any "creator", which immediately proves the bible false.

One does not need religion to spread love and good-will.  In fact, the spreading of religion often results in hate and war.  It's pretty obvious to me...

You mean you have never heard of it or you’re not sure what I would be specifically thinking about it?  It is worthy of investigation (Google ‘peppered moth’ ).  Read arguments from both sides of the debate.  At best it is an example of microevolution, which apparently most creations accept, and at worst, it is an example of the seemingly outright fraud sometimes perpetrated by overzealous Darwinists.  Wikipedia is slanted toward the defense of Darwinism and concludes with this propaganda statement: “there are no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species”.  I would say there are no barriers known to science preventing such changes etc.  Their statement goes beyond current scientific knowledge.  The bible states that each animal reproduces “after their kind” which is both a barrier and consistent with current knowledge.

Microevolution is not capable of injecting new genetic information into genes which is required if new species are to emerge.  Natural selection can only favor one preexisting genetic trait over another and thus produces loss of information if one or more traits are eliminated from a population.  Such is the case of the peppered moth vs. pollution and bacteria vs. antibiotics.  What you call a “random mutation” is in most cases (if not all) a preexisting genetic trait.  Your term sounds more Darwinian friendly but in fact is inconceivable that such improbable randomness could affect enough individuals to preserve the germ in widely diverse populations. 

But this is far from our topic of Eskimos and eternity or is it? 

Watch this:

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/

"Why don't we just teach the truth: We don't know how life came about?"

Nice response.  Thank you.  Leeboy is questioning the fairness of God.  I attempted a biblical answer but in this environment that naturally leads us to this discussion.  I have tried to address the issue by demonstrating how reason (since the bible is not considered evidence) led me to recognizing the existence of a god, both as creator and judge, primarily by observing the degree of non Darwinian behavior in people.  Richard Dawkins (via the article linked to in post 63) made the point for me stating that religion, niceness and even contraception (not to mention abortion, what could possibly be more anti-evolutionary than that?) are certainly contrary behaviors to evolution.  I have often wondered what human behavior does conform to Darwinism.

In evolutionary terms, every know species is a dead end.  Certainly the Cheetah is.  A recent Smithsonian Magazine article informed me that they are so genetically un-diverse that every individual is a virtual clone.  Skin grafts can be taken from one animal to another without rejection because their system cannot distinguish it from their own tissue.  I guess the design tolerances for an animal that goes from 0 to 70 mph in 4 seconds doesn’t leave much room for sloppiness in DNA replication.  So how did they evolve that way and how could they continue to evolve?  They are on a genetic island.  Perfection cannot be improved and a cheetah is perfection.  So are peregrine falcons, ospreys, owls, every animal is perfectly fitted to its ecological niche.  But it is not about improvement, just survival.  It’s not about color, design, or behavior.  Just about the brutal need for survival. 

In the video, post 72, the interview was taken from the trailer to EXPELLED and it was obtained under false pretenses to the shame of the producer, but was not “out of context”.  Dawkins meant what he said.  He uses the example of a murder scene with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence.  Such evidence is only useful if there is only one suspect.  If there are two possible suspects to whom the evidence could apply, then you have to prove beyond any doubt that one of them either did or did not do it.  Science is very good in the witness stand, but when it moves itself to the judge’s bench, it has gone beyond its function.  The evidence (the data that science collects) is neutral towards the defendants but if they take it to the First Galactic Bank of Cosmic Supposition and use it and their own bias as collateral to borrow a verdict from possible future evidence then we, as the jury, need to be skeptical to say the least.  But this isn’t a real murder trial and “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer.  Skepticism is reserved for religion and science walks. 

It is pretty tough to talk about evolution and not attribute some type of intelligence or purpose to it!   Sorry, but that is just not allowed.  Can you re-state that in acceptable terms?

That is another point about evolution.  The huge diversity of life on the planet has evidence that something is going on beyond just the need for the “capacity to survive”.  Consider for just a moment the methods of propulsion used by diverse sea life.  Turtles, squid, fish, eels, jellyfish, sea horses, lobsters.  They all live in the same environment, why don’t they all use the same propulsion?  Clearly survival is not the defining factor.     

A while back you said something about watching animal shows on TV.  I watched those shows for years and years.  I read Discover magazine cover to cover and I still get Smithsonian as a gift subscription.  I am a little encyclopedia of animal knowledge.  I finally got to the place of not watching them at all because they do not give glory to the Creator for what He has done.  They always talk about evolution this and evolution that but there is never any proof.  All the evidence is circumstantial which is not conclusive in and of its self.  Turn your skepticism on science.  First put on a pair of your highest boots, waders if you have them. 

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound so pro-evolutionary.  Sometimes (for the sake of argument) I cast myself so much in the opposing views side that I seem to be arguing both sides at once.  It is very confusing to my wife. 

Shikko (post 45) made a similar observation.  (I think both statements are actually neutral.  The first quote says most people neither have the truth, nor do they genuinely seek it, though it is readily available and the second that when they are confronted with the truth, they see no need for it.)  

Speciation is not rare in the sense of people being struck by lightning.  We have lots of living accounts of that, though we are generally not eye witnesses to it.  It is rare in the sense that we have no record of it happening ever.  It is only supposition.  

How about turtles?  You don’t think they evolved do you? 
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-2-2005_pg9_1

You have to at least admit that they have some pretty stabile DNA!  Not much possibility for sloppy replication in there.  The interesting thing about turtles is that there is nothing they could have evolved from.  (Are there other animals that have their pelvic bone inside their rib cage?)  “They cracked the winning code 110 million years ago?”  WOW, why didn’t they take over the world?  Un-evolved for 110 million years, they sure didn’t contribute much to the diversity of life on the planet.   Would you call that a ‘dead end’ for evolution?  But wait a minute, how do they know they are 110 million years old?  The type of rocks they were found in and they couldn’t possibly wrong about that could they? 

Time to move on.  Change gears. 
 

Wrong.  Not only do we have a record, we have a record of it happening within the last century.  Good try, though.  I already mentioned the mosquito speciation observed in London.

You want to see it in action?  Next time you get a bacterial infection, take antibiotics for three days, and then stop.  Do this with every antibiotic you get every time the infection comes back.  You will eventually evolve a strain of this infectious bacteria that might kill you, and anyone who catches it from you.  Sound like a good idea?  After all, if evolution doesn't happen, the above scenario can't happen.

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Ah, now I see another problem you are having: you are ascribing intent or an end goal to evolution.  It doesn't work that way; there is no "highest point" to which Life aspires.  Things stop evolving when there are no changes which make one set of offspring more likely to survive to reproduce than another.  Sharks have been fairly unchanged for 150 million years.  Why?  Their current form is quite well suited to their niche and so deviations from this form may not lead to increased survivability for offspring.

Sure, if a shark evolved frickin' lasers, they'd probably take over, but I don't see that happening.

I guess I’m just not smart enough to be an infidel.  I tried reading a couple of articles about these mosquitoes and the Ames test.  They are quite confusing and beyond my ability to truly comprehend.  Even if I did understand them, I would still have no means to verify their truthfulness.  The entire system of evolution is totally dependent on the conjecture and testimony of men.  There is absolutely nothing that I can do to personally confirm its truth.  The whole thing is nothing but a confidence trick.  No matter what is observed, we can devise “an appropriate evolutionary explanation.”

Here is how I see it.  You have these little barely substantiated facts that are like push pins.  Then you have this huge bowl of jell-o that you are going to try to stick on the wall.  There is more than just the theory of evolution in the bowl.  You can’t have evolution if there is no life.  So a means of spontaneous generation must be invented.  And there is the universe itself.  All you have to hold that piece of jell-o up is Sagan’s comment.  But he said it on TV so it must be true. 

As for the bible, it does at first come by the testimony of men but after that a person can read it and test its veracity for themselves.   Some here have suggested they could write a book as good as the bible.  If that is true and you haven’t done it, then you are missing a very lucrative career.  The bible wasn’t written by just one man though.  There are about forty authors and it took about 1500 years to complete.  Yes they all hold a uniform testimony about creation but that is not the purpose of the book.  God could create as many worlds like this one as there are electrons in it, in a heartbeat.  The real work that is described in the bible is redemption. 

Men have been writing books since the very beginning of their existence.  There isn’t anything like the bible.  If it is just another of man’s books, then why isn’t it seeing similar circulation to something like Bulfinch’s Mythology for example?  There is design and structure and internal evidence supporting the claims it makes for itself that has held sway in the minds of men from all walks of life throughout the centuries, in spite of all the attacks against it. 

If it had any fatal flaws, don’t you think they would be well known and men would treat it like other literature?  I have been personally reading and studying the bible for thirty five years and I haven’t found any.  I see tons of internal evidence but the real test is in personally knowing the risen Lord. 

And that is Not a confidence trick! 

Hey RtB,I'm back.

Well here's some flaws to start with,let me know the answers.

a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
 c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:Cool, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:Cool, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
 (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
 (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
 (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
 (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
 (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:Cool, tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

Plants were made on the third day before the sun,making photosynthesis impossible.

Rabbits don't chew the cud-Leviticus 11:5-6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.''

Bats aren't birds.Lev 11:13,19 ''And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.''

Insects don't have four legs.Lev 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The sun doesn't go around the earth Judges 5:31 ''So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.''(indicated the sun moves.)

The earth doesn't move. 1 Chronicles 16:30 ''Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.''

Here's plenty more:http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/47

Maybe I'm not smart enough to be a believer.But I don't expect such a marvelous book as you describe to have these problems.Even if they aren't fatal flaws,they aren't very convincing of a perfect god.

The value of PI.  I’m not going to give answers to all the points but this one came up twice and the answer is quite interesting.  Using this method of interpretation, the text is actually correct to .015 in.  for the circumference and PI is accurate to the fifth decimal. 

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/pi.html

A more detailed answer:
http://ldolphin.org/pi/

The added letter is the same used when Abram was changed to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah.  (Gen. 17)
Compare that to other records.  (The first page, I have just shown to be false, but read the rest of it.)
http://pidayinternational.org/Pi_History/HISTORY_OF_PI_Biblical_Pi.htm

The yeast experiment is the same as the antibiotic experiment (though much safer and cheaper) which is the same as the peppered moth scenario which, like the video said, they didn’t turn into birds or bees. 

To the lay person and kids in school that is all it is.

You missed what I said.  Evolution does not cover origins.  I know that, but there has to be a beginning.  For evolution to be true, it is contingent on other events.  For discussion, I would like to get some feedback on this chapter.  It is only 4 pages in Word.  Check the bio on this guy too.

http://www.newble.co.uk/anderson/doubters/doubt1.html
 

Numerology is not exactly what I would call strong support for a rebuttal.

The bible code and all associated claptrap is meaningless to anyone who does not already ascribe mystical significance to the source text.  I'm sure you've heard the adage about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare; this is the corollary: meaningful patterns can be found in any sufficiently large data set.  Ascribing meaning to coincidences or random patterns is called apophenia, and is a recognized mental condition.  You can find messages in a thesaurus, the classified ads or the phone book if you look hard enough or have the right formula.  Does this make the Yellow Pages an alien message?

The odds of that math randomly working out are not really low:

ways to write 111 with three letters: 5

ways to write 106 with two letters: 1

total possible combinations: 5

So there are five word combinations that would give this ratio.  I can't speak to relative chance of any one, since I don't speak Hebrew.  Do you?

Never mind the fact that the approximation used is still rather poor for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient being...

Well, it probably eventually would turn into something non-yeast-like; just hang on several million years. 

Are you a believer in the micro/macro difference, or "kinds" of evolution?  The difference between them is the same as "trees" and "forest": when does one become the other?  You can plant one, or twenty or a hundred trees and still not have a forest.  But if you plant a few every day, eventually anyone looking at it would say "that's a forest", and it's nothing but a lot of trees.

The religious who got tired of thinking people thought they were stupid when they said "I don't believe in evolution", so they started saying "well, sure I believe in microevolution..." as if there was a difference in kind.  The problem is, like so many other things in popular discourse, that it sounds good and is utterly meaningless.

As an aside, you do of course realize that you are demanding a level of proof that your own beliefs are incapable of living up to, right?  That's another logical fallacy called a "double standard".

By your reasoning, so does the weak nuclear force.  Does that exist?  Have you ever seen evidence or records of the weak nuclear force?  No?  Well, it must not exist then, especially if you don't think you're smart enough to understand it and are left with trusting a mere "physics teacher" who also just got "told about it".

Come on, I already said it once: don't sell yourself short.  You are smart enough to understand this stuff.

No, no, no.  The reason it saw the 20th century (and is still doing well early in the 21st) is that the "observable facts" actually concur with evolutionary theory.  Actually creation theory does make several predictions:

- no evidence common descent. (there would be none if every organism was purpose-built)

- no transitional forms (ditto).

- no fossil striation (fossils would simply not exist).

- no vestigial organs or structures in any organism (why would a perfect god build organisms with parts it does not use or need?).

Of course, those predictions are all wrong but they were at least implied by creation theory/intelligent design.

Here's my favourite part, bolded and in context:

My longer critique of this piece is: do you know what an "argument from ignorance" is?  This article is a very good example of it: If I don't know how something happened, god must have done it.  I don't know how life came to be, therefore god must have created it.

In the article you linked to, it looks like this:

Question: how did the first life start?

Susie Scientist: I don't know.

Timmy Theist: Creation.

The scientist gave an answer she could back up: she literally has no idea how it happened, just that it did (because here we are).  The theist asserts "creation" with no backup (and please don't tell me it has been proven, because the bible says it happened.  You can't use the bible to prove the bible.).  Asserting an answer in the face of a lack of information is an argument from ignorance.

Secondly, he made several logical errors in his first sentence:

- loaded terms: "enslaved", "determination to refuse belief", "stand like fools", "impotency", "elementary".

- shifting the burden of proof: "refuse the belief in God", as if it had been conclusively proven and anyone who disagreed with him was simply being pigheaded.

So what did you find convincing about this piece?

I am not claiming the significance of this coincidence; you are, so you have to support your claim that the coincidence is somehow more than just statistics.  I've argued against the "what are the odds?" position, but it's not up to me to disprove it; you have to prove it.

Isn't to the fifth decimal place a bit slapdash for an omnipotent and omniscient being?  Isn't "good enough" falling a bit short of the mark for a being of supposed perfection?

What I was attempting to point out is that for the situation you describe, there are five total combinations that would give the same result.  One of five isn't as unlikely as one of 10 million, and even that isn't exactly huge.

Yes, exactly my point.  Life has been evolving on this planet for thousands of millions of years, so why do you think it reasonable to demand something akin to bumblebees turning into antelopes in a time frame humans can directly experience?  This isn't a dodge of the question, it's a recognition that large amounts of change take large amounts of time; why don't evolution deniers make the same admittance?

Okay, that's fine.  However, if you agree that a few trees aren't a forest, but a million would be, how else can you make a forest but to let a million trees grow?

Then you seem to have few choices: either disregard anything that speaks against the bible, or disregard what the bible says when it comes into conflict with verifiable evidence.  Is there another way?

No, it doesn't.  Words like "evidence" and "proof" have specific meanings that are not open to interpretation, and the bible is incapable of offering much of it at all.

Actually I read the whole thing, closely enough to have a couple of reactions and form an opinion.  I'll have to read it again. before I can comment fully on this section below.

However, I can say: this section details what is called a False Dilemma: that's where someone says "the only answers are either A or B.  A can't be true, therefore B" when in fact the person does not deal with other possible answers.

What situation?  Are you trying to tell me there have been no confirmatory results in biology, chemistry or genetics in the last 100 years?

No, it is not equivalent; "God did it" is what people say instead of being honest and saying "I don't know."  When you say "God did it" you're asserting as fact something that should be testable.  This assertion is not testable, and therefore it is worse off than "I don't know" because it is asserting an uncertainty.

Mine did.  It then went on to say "current hypotheses are: ...".  Maybe I was just lucky; I was in schools that weren't beholden to any conservative religion, be they Dominionist Christians or orthodox Jews.

Correction: a verifiable, accurate answer is never a bad scientific answer.  If the answer is "I don't know", the question gets asked in the "future work" section of the paper.

I think I am beginning to see what this is about: there is a very well-known mindset that hates uncertainty, and will do everything in its power to avoid and eradicate it.  These are also the people that would seemingly rather shoot themselves than be forced to "confess" that they didn't know something.  It's a security issue; they are made to feel insecure if they don't have an answer about something, so they take any answer, regardless of its veracity, as long as it makes them feel secure or cared for.

Scientists deal with uncertainty all the time, because they accept that it's impossible to know everything.

I disagree with the above: the main obstacle to peace on earth is irrationality.  Unfortunately, religion often asserts the irrational, so religion is often an obstacle to peace.

How do you figure?  If you wouldn't take your car to a mechanic that thought it was powered by gremlins, why would you go to a doctor that didn't hold with evolution?  I wouldn't trust a physicist that denied the physical forces, nor a pilot who was a flat earther.

The role of public education in the United States is best left to a separate thread (as is the stated vs actual aims of the war in Iraq), but my feeling on the matter is that it's more about supplying industry with cheap labour than having a well-educated populace.  Thinkers are harder to control than non-thinkers; they have a tendency to question what you tell them, which makes getting what the politicians (actually, their owners) want done harder to accomplish.

Just to pick two morsels from this dog's breakfast...

There are many other alternative Creation "answers" to be found in the world's various religions, past and present. There are also different ways of reading Genesis within a Christian context.

If you propose that a specific reading of one religion's creation story is true, the burden of proof is upon you.

Which has exactly zero to do with evolution, since evolution by definition involves intra-organic changes and not abiogenetic transitions.

I call it a coincidence for the reasons I gave: there are four other combinations of Hebrew letters that would give that ratio.  The bible actually has quite a bit to prove: the text of the bible makes several specific claims which can be checked.  However, when we check them against the knowledge we have gained in the last dozen or so centuries, what is written does not match the facts we have.  Why is that?  Believers will say our understanding (either of their holy texts or of our facts) is somehow wrong.  Scientists say the claims are wrong.

I know what significant figures are, and what is too much.  I think a whole number (circumeference stated as 30 instead of 31, which is a much closer approximation than the one used in the bible) is quite signifigant when measuring a distance equivalent to the distance from your elbow to the tip of your middle finger.

The text you linked to explained this away with "hey, how are we to know what rounding entailed in those days?  Maybe 31 was routinely rounded to 30"  But that doesn't jive with a culture that was careful enough with numbers that they routinely wrote out a specific number in two different ways to keep from spelling out the name of god.

Untrue; it can very easily be falsified, as I believe I've already mentioned.  Evolution makes several claims, all of which have been borne out by research.  The claims of creationism have all been falsified by research.  Actually, I take that back: the testable claims of creationism have all been falsified by research, and the untestable claims aren't worth much.

So let me put it to you: what would falsify your belief in a god?  What would it take to make you say "you know what, I believed that, but now I don't; I was wrong."  Would anything make you say that?  This is a serious question.

I think you need to admit that people who have "actually investigated the evidence provided in the bible" and come to a "different opinion" are believers.  Why do you suppose that is?

I didn't take offence at the racist content; I took it as a hallmark for when it was written.  He was arguing against a position that has matured since then, so many of his arguments no longer apply.

The Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Cree, Egyptians, Sioux, Aborigines, Santerians, Jains, Hindus, Celts, Vikings, Mayans, Incans, Chinese and Africans would all disagree with your second sentence.  The false dichotomy offered is "evolution or (Christian) creation".  There are countless creation myths; what evidence do you have (other than the bible, which says to trust it because it's trustworthy) that the Christian creation story is right, but those others (along with evolution) are all wrong?  Every religion has their creation myth, and every religion thinks they're right.  It is impossible for them to all be right, but it is entirely possible for them to all be wrong.

This is the same reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work (well, there's more than one reason): he is assuming the only two possibilities are "no god or the Christian god, specifically the Catholic version of the Christian god".

In order for Kelvin to alter that statement, science would also have to discover how to reanimate the dead.

Using the state of a science from 100+ years ago as its current state is not a good argument.  The conclusions reached in the 19th century do not automatically still hold; new data either confirms predictions of the theory or forces the theory to be modified so that it can account for the data.

When people who "know the lord say 'god did it'", the are being perfectly honest, but they are NOT stating the truth; they are stating their opinion, since the truth is backed up by data, which faith is not.  There is a difference between the truth and an opinion; sometimes they coincide, often they do not.

But if a biologist claims that something evolved, they have just come up with a way to test the claim; that test will either support or refute their claim.  If I claim that a form of insect evolved due to a change in environment, the immediate tests are: find a form of this insect elsewhere that did not evolve; see if the change can be duplicated.  Genetic studies of these organisms can help pinpoint their point of divergence from the main branch.