Do you believe Evolution

[Melchior]

I’ll keep that in mind, but seeing how your single cell thesis is only conjecture that developed into all forms of life to include human is fanciful and without merit. I remember tracing those branches back in grade school and found them illogical then. High school biology did little to support your view either, and college biology only proved the many gaps in the theory of evolution.

You need to learn more about God to conclude relevant answers. Life was created pretty much as described and known if not fully understood. If you consider the near global life ending events that have taken place in Earths history, some as recent (comparably) as a few million years ago- the time it takes for your view of adaptaion/evolution is illogical and unsupported. If approximately two-thirds of animal species, including the dinosaurs were killed by a comet/meteor impact 65 million years ago- how did that process revert to make such life as we know today? All those branches you follow do not take into account these events because they would disprove the theory of evolution as presented.

Sorry to cheerlead, but that is an excellent point.

I am constantlly reminded by the pro-speciation side how the miss or ignore some obvious things that do great damage to some of their assumptions. Assuming the brilliance of those who work in the field, I find it true the most intelligent, educated people are usually the ones with the biggest blindspots who miss the obvious. Being book smart and having common sense often conflict. I guess us we humans can’t have it all. Something always has to give.

 

[rossum]

Are they different kinds?

You tell me. “Kind” in this context is a creationist concept, not a scientific one. If you can find a rigorous definition of “kind” (a.k.a. baramin) I would be grateful.

By “rigorous” I mean one that can be applied before rather than after I answer a question.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’ll keep that in mind, but seeing how your single cell thesis is only conjecture that developed into all forms of life to include human is fanciful and without merit.

It is far more than conjecture. Many of the enzymes found in single celled eukaryotes are functionally the same as enzymes in our cells, both have Cytochrome-C for example. Our cells meet all the criteria for eukaryotic cells: neucleus, mitochondria etc. We are eukaryotes, along with every other metazoan on this planet. It is far from without merit because it enable us to find drugs that kill non-eukaryotes, such as bacteria, and not kill eukaryotes like ourselves.

I remember tracing those branches back in grade school and found them illogical then.

I have learned a lot since I was in Primary School.

You need to learn more about God to conclude relevant answers.

So do I study the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon? There are a lot of claimants to the title of “God”. Personally I thought that the Bhagavad Gita was a good read.

Life was created pretty much as described and known if not fully understood.

Not as per a literal description from Genesis. We have no evidence of humans [Gen 1:27], cattle [Gen 1:24], sheep [Gen 4:2] or cities [Gen 4:17] from early rocks. Do you have any such evidence? It is not enough to say “evolution is wrong”, you also have to produce evidence to show that Genesis is right, as opposed to the Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita etc.

If you consider the near global life ending events that have taken place in Earths history, some as recent (comparably) as a few million years ago- the time it takes for your view of adaptaion/evolution is illogical and unsupported. If approximately two-thirds of animal species, including the dinosaurs were killed by a comet/meteor impact 65 million years ago- how did that process revert to make such life as we know today?

Mammals had evolved before the end of the Cretaceous, when the meteorite hit. After the non-avian dinosaurs were gone the surviving mammals evolved to fill the large animal spaces left by the missing dinosaurs. The mammals and dinosaurs had separated a long time before, we are synapsids and they are diapsids.

All those branches you follow do not take into account these events because they would disprove the theory of evolution as presented.

No, the theory has taken all this into account. Scientific theories are adjusted to fit the data so it is very difficult to find data that does not fit the theory. Something well known, such as the K/T impact, has long been incorporated into the theory and is not a problem. You cannot always trust creationist sources on this, they have an axe to grind and explicitly say that they ignore data 6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Source: AiG Statement of Faith

rossum

 

[buffalo]

You tell me. “Kind” in this context is a creationist concept, not a scientific one. If you can find a rigorous definition of “kind” (a.k.a. baramin) I would be grateful.

By “rigorous” I mean one that can be applied before rather than after I answer a question.

rossum

Kinds

KINDS OF KINDS: INDIVIDUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL SPECIES

 

[rbarcia]

Between 1859 and about 1900 it became clear that evolution was by far the

…
For evolution this is easy to explain. A common ancestor of all primates got a mutation that knocked out this particular gene. Being a plant eater this ancestor got enough vitamin C from its diet and passed on exactly the same faulty gene with the same mutation to all its descendants.

This is speculation and imagination and not ‘proof.’

For a Designer this is more difficult to explain. Why did the designer copy exactly the same mistake into all primates? We know that there can be other mistakes - Guines Pigs also have a broken vitamin C synthesis system but that is a different mutation in a different gene. Why did the designer duplicate its mistake into all primates?

The designer made the first, the creation from his free will introduced external factors affecting the self or others. Humans doing things to the ozone for example can mess up things for plants, etc…

On that basis (and this is not the only example of a pseudogene) I prefer the evolutionary explanation.

I do not think you have given any logical evidence. You have not proven one species giving birth to another. My Father is taller than me and my Mom is shorter. We are still the same kind. You have not proven one species giving birth to another.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

(Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)

rossum

The Second Commandment Says:

**

Exodus 20

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

**

By choosing Malunkyaputta as your god, you have violated the commandment by making/choosing a god that best suites your personal beliefs. The Bible says.

The 9th command is

**

Exodus 20

16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

**

You are lying by saying you have proof for evolution

The Bible says:

**

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

**

Repent from your sins (the real reason you deny God) and put your trust in Jesus Christ as your Maker, Lord, and Savior.

**

John 3

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

**

 

[Verisimilitude]

I have learned a lot since I was in Primary School.

My dog has learned a lot since we brought him home 3 years ago too. Dropping the rest of my statement to make your little jab is telling.

Mammals had evolved before the end of the Cretaceous, when the meteorite hit. After the non-avian dinosaurs were gone the surviving mammals evolved to fill the large animal spaces left by the missing dinosaurs. The mammals and dinosaurs had separated a long time before, we are synapsids and they are diapsids.

Talk about a leap of faith…

Darwin did not take the global dying accounts into consideration because they were unknown to him. Dawkins has not addressed them as far as I had seen, but even if he did, like your response above…it is contrary to the ultra long periods of time required for evolution to happen. As in my first post to this thread with it’s link, the theory is being crushed by the very evidence it was built upon.

As far as learning more about God- I suggest your nearest Catholic Church.

 

[Ahimsa]

Evolution is God’s way of doing things.

 

[Jesusstreet]

We understand that there are rules which are reproducible anywhere in the known universe, which are scientific facts. All of these scientific facts are sense perceptible. though people theorize about them, they require validation through experiment. The senses could be augmented with instrumentation, but must be perceived ultimately and satisfy experiment. Therefore we can make concrete statements about how things work. This method is limited to a description of the physical sense perceptible universe within space-time. But we can make certain concrete statements which satisfy “theory” and “experimentation” such as a the Earth is four billion years old.

By the same token we can make certain concrete statements about the animals such as the genetic character of flesh. That all flesh has a unique genetic code which describes the flesh. So man has come so far as to understand, in part, something as to how GOD made things. That the entire animal flesh is described within each cell by a program or “blue print” for how the animal is built. and that copulation produces variations to this genetic code.

GOD created teh animals, that is a fact, that is given to us by DIVINE REVELATION and is a self-evident fact. There is a process of change by the reproductive cycle which produces a dynamic symbiosis within the biological life of the Earth. (or we could suppose any ecosystem, but it isn’t necessarily the only way that life may exist, but we should recognize the fingerpring of GOD on all HIS creations). All the biological creations work together that the entire system may continue through generations and change with time, one generation dying and a new being born, seasons coming and going and new blooms coming with each new spring. In equatorial regions the seasons may differ, as a rainy seaons and a growing season, etc . … they recently discovered that some life exists on the sea floor from the energy of volcanic activity but have no sunlight . …

We know GOD created all LIFE, GOD guides all LIFE, and that there is nothing that is but that it was created by GOD. To what extent is there anything random in the ecosystem. I personally don’t think any of it is random. But that GOD created and guides all evolution. We do see that the comeptitiveness of nature, creates an environment of the “survival of the fitest” but GOD has told us that it is not the fitest tha HE will save, but those who do HIS will, this suggests a birth right, or adoptive right into the family of GOD. Thus if you are born into the top of the food chain these animals have a birth right to hunt the animals lower on the food chain. Which gives is an idea for the hierarchial rights that GOD creates.

We are also taught we are less than the least in HEAVEN, but then we if we overcome will be made as the Angels. Thus we can be “evolutionarily” promoted if we do what GOD wants. And for what reason are we worthy? None whatso ever, other than an adoptive right in JESUS CHRIST. Which is like a Birth right to be a human being above the animals. Or the right of a tiger to hunt a gazelle, or a lion to hunt a hyena . … or the Birth Right of a man to be king . … or GOD’s DIVINE RIGHT to make the law we must obey. . .

My point is we can see GOD in nature, because GOD made nature, and GOD guides nature which bares the signature of GOD THE CREATOR. Then we can’t say that all these things are just random. The snake is because GOD made the snake and it has the signature of its author GOD. We should then be able to acknowledge that GOD made things in a process which is discernable, but also GOD himself is discernable, how GOD thinks, and how GOD is, and the meaning of LIFE, is symbolized within the creations of GOD, which is why we can understand DIVINE MYSTERIES through natural parables. The natural world being easily and intuitively understood by people, where as the mysteries of the DIVINE are often more difficult to understand for their seeming abstract nature, because they are not sense perceptible, but must be believed in the heart.

Our repsonse to the physical creation is also a response to SPIRITual CREATION but isn’t always as perceptible except by faith. But these mysteries will eventually be understood by all in the KINGDOM TO COME when GOD writes the law upon their hearts.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Catholic teaching is that God created the first humans Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them into the timeline wherever He wished with preternatural gifts. As far as evolution goes it doesn’t matter what may have been happening in the universe at the time evolutionwise.

Always the contrarian, I have to ask, which OFFICIAL teaching document of the Catholic Church teaches this (remembering that the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT an official teaching document of the Church).

My understanding of Catholic Teaching on the creation of life is that we must beleive that God Created and that we must believe in a first pair…other than that…creation, or evolution, or anything in between is OK.

My personal belief is that the mechanics of evolution are probably correct…that the world is 4 1/2 billion years old and that humans evolved from a common ancestor with modern apes…that at some time God…who DIRECTED this “evolution” gave man an immortal soul. God is POWERFUL enough to have created the world in six days…heck, he could do it in one…my belief is that he probably took much longer to do it…but was the one that guided the whole process.

 

[Jesusstreet]

Always the contrarian, I have to ask, which OFFICIAL teaching document of the Catholic Church teaches this (remembering that the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT an official teaching document of the Church).

My understanding of Catholic Teaching on the creation of life is that we must beleive that God Created and that we must believe in a first pair…other than that…creation, or evolution, or anything in between is OK.

My personal belief is that the mechanics of evolution are probably correct…that the world is 4 1/2 billion years old and that humans evolved from a common ancestor with modern apes…that at some time God…who DIRECTED this “evolution” gave man an immortal soul. God is POWERFUL enough to have created the world in six days…heck, he could do it in one…my belief is that he probably took much longer to do it…but was the one that guided the whole process.

I think you are right, that the CATHOLIC CHURCH doesn’t hold a firm evolutionary opinion on how exactly GOD created man in the GARDEN OF EDEN only that GOD did as it is said in Sacred Scripture. But the nature and character of Genesis doesn’t lend itself to any literal or figurative interpretation, so i don’t think the Catholic Church holds any particular position on how exactly the events happened . … There’s however plenty of theology being written these days about this, such as to say Adam was supposed to be a HIGH PRIEST, which is a role fulfilled by JESUS CHRIST . … JESUS simultaneously becomes the NEW ADAM and the NEW ABLE . … we can see this clearly in Gospel of Luke where there were two annunciations.

John the Baptist clearly takes the role of Caine, and JESUS is Able, where as Caine slew Able, John the Baptist living in the wilderness on locusts and honey is Caine living in Exile and comes out of exile of the wilderness to anoint JESUS in the Jordan River, giving LIFE to Able whom Caine Slew . … this would reverse the sin of the first murder of the Bible restoring LIFE to Able. This continues the pattern of JESUS reversing the fall in the Garden, the apocolyptic nature of the half of Genesis, and of course Able’s Sacrifice was taken up to GOD, just as JESUS’ Sacrifice was worthy, but no other sacrifice is worthy before GOD.

As we see Scripture has a very symbolic nature in its description, and JESUS is overcoming sin reversing the errors of the Bible, and fulfilling Scripture to redeem us . … because we see that GOD had intended the flood of people’s should come . … which we see described in Noah . … where from Adam comes many but they are destroyed in the flood, and so we are back to one in Noah, and then we again see the flood of people on the Earth today comes from Abraham, and is called a “sea of peoples” in Revelation. So Noah appears not literal but an early Apocolypse, as perhaps the entire first half of Genesis, which describes the SPIRITual nature of what happened, but not necessarily literal.

Some have looked for a literal flood, not discerning teh flood is today, in the riegn (rain) of GOD . … at the end of which is a Rainbow when JESUS returns like a dove with an olive branch in HIS mouth. . . We see the Description of the Ark also as the CHURCH in Augustines “The City of GOD” The measure of the Ark is the covenant . . . as i sthe measure of the ark of the Covenant with Moses . … JESUS is our measure and our covenant . … MOTHER MARY being the ark of that covenant made not by man, but by GOD.

My point being i don’t think we can hold a literal scientific view point on a text which is only authoritative on faith and morals, and some history, but not on science, or is a complete history text.

 

[Melchior]

Evolution is God’s way of doing things.

Which scripture, saint, theologian or church father teaches that again?

 

[Melchior]

Always the contrarian, I have to ask, which OFFICIAL teaching document of the Catholic Church teaches this (remembering that the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT an official teaching document of the Church).

My understanding of Catholic Teaching on the creation of life is that we must beleive that God Created and that we must believe in a first pair…other than that…creation, or evolution, or anything in between is OK.

Actually church teaching is more specific, it does note simply refer to a generic pair, but an actual Adam and Eve. If one believes the former via revelation, it is down right silly to deny the latter.

My personal belief is that the mechanics of evolution are probably correct…that the world is 4 1/2 billion years old and that humans evolved from a common ancestor with modern apes…that at some time God…who DIRECTED this “evolution” gave man an immortal soul. God is POWERFUL enough to have created the world in six days…heck, he could do it in one…my belief is that he probably took much longer to do it…but was the one that guided the whole process

.

The question this begs of course, is why would God create man this way? Did Jesus turn water into wine by putting everyone in suspended animation, switching water to grapes, pressing them and waiting 20 years for a good vintage? Or did he do the more obvious miracle? In creation why would God do such an bizarre, brutal means of creating man through cycle death and chaos? Also death must have entered the world before the Fall if this is true. This is not at all compatable with church teaching. Again the details matter, over generalizing allows for a purely naturalistic view, but actually being theologically specific, what is actually an acceptable view of evolution must become much narrower.

 

[Nevarlander]

Yeah. I see no reason to disbelieve it - when it comes to scientific questions the Bible is here to tell us why things happened, not necessarily exactly how, and much of evolutionary theory is scientifically sound.

 

[edwest2]

I would say the crux of the matter is “who do we believe”? Rossum is clearly from the “all those mythical gods are mythical” camp. Christians know by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ exists, even at this moment, because the Holy Spirit was sent to bear witness of Him.

The Big Bang has to be accepted on faith. Abiogenesis has to be accepted on faith, regardless of the fact that life cannot be created in a lab.

Evolution, on the other hand, is all guesswork. Look, everything’s related! Of course, if I was designing organisms to live on the same planet, in the same temperature range and gravity, yes, there will be similarities. Cladistics, nested heirarchies? Really. The Coelocanth did quite well over millions of years and supposedly changing environment and ecological pressure.

Can’t make our own Vitamin C? Boy, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve run across that one. In Christian belief, God created Adam. If you don’t want to believe Genesis creation, look a little further on to see how long Adam lived. After sin entered the world, all Creation is still groaning under the weight of it. Didn’t Jesus say to the one on the pallet. “You sins are forgiven. Take up your pallet and go home.”? No physical therapy for atrophied muscles, none!

And since the focus, the concentration, and all the mental energy must be focused on science, What did God do again? Nothing?

Theistic evolutionists. What did God do to guide evolution? Examine the theory closely. Sure, it says nothing about God explicitly, but it’s very, very clear that everything happened without supernatural intervention. And that will always be my point - no God needed.

And that would explain the constant, non-stop comments here that are designed to show us science, which, by direct implication, is superior to all that God mythology. So throw away your Bible, Science will take over from here. God forbid.

II Peter 2:1 “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

I John 5: 19 “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”

Pope John Paull II said truth cannot contradict truth, but evolution, as presented here, denies the supernatural power of the living God, and places itself first before God as an idol, not science. When I took chemistry in college, I didn’t have to know zero about evolution, but here, its followers petition us daily and to what end?

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Kinds

KINDS OF KINDS: INDIVIDUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL SPECIES

You will have to be more specific. How do I tell in advance whether or not two different organisms are the same kind or a different kind?

rossum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I accept evolution because the scientific evidence supports it. Belief does not enter into it. If the evidence changes then my acceptance will change.

Evolution is science and should be taught in science class. Creationism is religion and should be taught in religion class.

About 4.5 billion years.

Jews, Christinas and Muslims believed that. Hindus, Buddhists and Jains believed that the world was either many hundreds of billions of years old, or was infinitely old and had always existed. I am not sure about other religions.

Yes, the creationists. Some of the rocks in the Grand Canyon are sub-aerial, they were formed wy wind, not water. A bit difficult to do that in a worldwide flood.

rossum

The only detail I would argue with, is that about creationism (in the sense it now bears, of a cosmological doctrine; it used to refer to a doctrine about the origin of the human soul) - I don’t think it should be taught at all.​

Evolution cannot disagree with the Bible or the teaching of the Church - there is no common ground to have a disagreement about, because similar things, or some of the same things, are being looked at under entirely different aspects. If the God of Christians were “a god”, IOW, a being within, & not infinitely greater than, the order of “all things visible and invisible”, rather than their Transcendent Creator - ***if ***that were so, then there would be common ground, & room for disagreement. It is not so - so there is not

AFAICS, the whole disagreement is a massive pseudo-problem.

 

[buffalo]

Always the contrarian, I have to ask, which OFFICIAL teaching document of the Catholic Church teaches this (remembering that the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT an official teaching document of the Church).

My understanding of Catholic Teaching on the creation of life is that we must beleive that God Created and that we must believe in a first pair…other than that…creation, or evolution, or anything in between is OK.

My personal belief is that the mechanics of evolution are probably correct…that the world is 4 1/2 billion years old and that humans evolved from a common ancestor with modern apes…that at some time God…who DIRECTED this “evolution” gave man an immortal soul. God is POWERFUL enough to have created the world in six days…heck, he could do it in one…my belief is that he probably took much longer to do it…but was the one that guided the whole process.

Dogma

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *]

 

[Edward62]

I definitely believe that evolution is true… there is a lot of evidence to support it and it generally makes more sense. In studying biology, it has given me so much more appreciation of our Creator’s work… sure it is amazing to create the “old school” stuff, but to deal with all the minute intricacies of evolution… WOW! That’s just more proof to me that God exists and is so very, very cool.

 

[Techno2000]

I definitely believe that evolution is true… there is a lot of evidence to support it and it generally makes more sense. In studying biology, it has given me so much more appreciation of our Creator’s work… sure it is amazing to create the “old school” stuff, but to deal with all the minute intricacies of evolution… WOW! That’s just more proof to me that God exists and is so very, very cool.

I think its cooler to Believe that God didn’t need Evolution at all to
Create anything !

 

[Pariah]

Evolution has a mountain of evidence. We can observe bacteria evolving to resist antibiotics in the lab. We can observe mosquitos evolving to resist insecticides in the lab. We can observe elephants evolving smaller, or no, tusks to avoid being shot by poachers. We can observe Australian snakes evolving smaller mouths to avoid being poisoned by large Cane Toads.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution.

Until you can provide evidence, or proof if you could, that our structures change in function and nature rather than in just size and color, this does not serve as evidence.

Natural Selection is an observable phenomenon. Observable phenomenon cannot be used as its own evidence.

Furthermore, this kind of argument tres to conscript inheritence as an evolutionary cornerstone when it is, in reality, mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory. This is another observable phenomenon and cannot be used as its own evidence.

Astrology is only a science under the definition used to try to get that other non-science Intelligent Design into science classes. I refer to Professor Behe’s testimony at the Kitzmiller trial. Under the standard definition, neither Astrology nor Intelligent Design is science.

You greatly constrict the definition of “science.” The term simply means to approach a situation with a certain algorithm. The act of observation does not assign legitimacy to the theory it studies. This is where the phrase “junk science” came from.

How do you know? Homer recorded the history of Troy and Mycenae, which have both been found by archaeologists - does that make the greek gods real? Parts of both Homer and the Bible are history; other parts are not. Genesis is neither history not science.

Please to note: Not only does Genesis first tell us about the Great Deluge, dinosaurs, and document our fore fathers before other historian elements were able to find the evidence that pointed to these things, but also provides its own direct link to the archeological evidence at Jericho, Sodom and Gammorah, and Mt. Ararat. Homer modeling his fantasy around a real war doesn’t even compare.

No REAL person was ever been posited as talking to the Olympians, which is why their existence is considered mythology. The same goes for the Hindis (I would mention figures such as Azreal, but since Muhammed was a real person who made the claim of seeing him, I’m unable–Even if I find his lip-service dubious). Considering their status as fictional cultural icons, they serve more as a cultural allegory to Greece more than anything else. As opposed to God who’s of a completely different nature.

Even if you were to argue that evidence points to Adam and Eve being fictional people (see also: Absence of proof is proof of absence), you’d still have the obstacle of every other confirmably real person in the Old Testament to deal with. Through empirical logic, it only makes sense to consider the Bible historically credible.

So please refrain from referring to scripture as “mythology.”

If you think that Genesis is history then Genesis 2:20 mentions cattle. What is your evidence for the existence of cattle from the early geological record? A Cambrian cow would blow a huge hole in the theory of evolution - so let us see your evidence. If you do not have evidence for cattle then you can use sheep [Gen 4:2], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29] or seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29].

I pay very little attention to the scientific community’s expectations of what would have been alive at what point in time seeing as how geologic columns and the fossil record are assumed scientific structures with hundreds of blank spots. However, if you look at the Pre-Cambria fossils (see also: Explosion of life) and the fact that Genesis documents history from, roughly, 18,000 years ago, those things would still be present using your timeline.