nygreenguy wrote:otseng wrote: Evolution has abiogenesis as its starting point, which is untestable. Or if you believe in panspermia instead, that is also untestable.
All we need to show is it was possible, and that has been done several times over.
What has been done several times over?
You tell me. Does human evolutionary theory posit that humans arose from one couple?
No. Evolution works on populations.
The creation model doesnt say anything about location. The bible does.
You are right, my bad. I left that out assuming readers are familiar with the Bible. I’ll amend the model to state that Noah’s ark landed in the Mount Ararat region.
Home sapiens is a broad term and is not consistently used. If it cannot be accurately defined, no accurate dating can be placed on it. From your same source:
“The category archaic Homo sapiens is disputed. There is no single agreed upon definition of archaic Homo sapiens.”
Go ahead and present “almost every ecological principal known to man” that it violates.
Why? Its been repeatedly shown how the flood was absolutely impossible in many different ways. If you didnt believe it then, why should I try again?
If you present a claim that cannot be supported, it must be retracted.
We should start off at some higher, enlightened point.
What do you mean by “some higher, enlightened point”?
– A gradual transition is found from animals to humans in the fossil record.
– Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.
Present your evidence.
Its been done ad nauseum here. You can only fault yourself for not looking objectively.
Show where in this thread where “a gradual transition is found from animals to humans in the fossil record”. The only thing I’ve seen is a purported list of human ancestors, which I’ve already addressed.
Also show where the “genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified” has been presented “ad nauseum”. We don’t even know the genetic changes necessary from just one species to another.