Guess who has the burden of proof!

[Orangecat]

How life began is not addressed by biological evolution.

Nor is it adequately address by your silly expanding universe dogma.

I’m surprised you didn’t learn such things beginning in grade school.

I'm surprised you even attended grade school, much less any higher education.

The term “fitness for survival” represents an entire body of knowledge about survival and reproduction.

Come on, dumbass, that doesn't explain in the slightest why organisms fight to survive.

 

[Orangecat]

Shiva is personified as male. The inventors of Shiva and your gods are a male dominated and controlled society, thus the gods are male.

Similarly, the western portrayal of Jeebus is a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned Caucasian looking guy. Which makes some sense as Jeebus is maintained in the image of those who are comfortable with that look,

Angry feminist alert.

 

[Ringtone]

Why would he be the Creator of all things? Think about that very carefully before you answer.

Why wouldn't he be? It seems to me that people arbitrarily assign whatever powers they'd like to their idea of "God", the most common being the omniscient and omnipotent creator of heaven and earth.

God did not create God, and why would you assume that God created evil? By the way, Judeo-Christianity is the only religious tradition that gives a rational account of the origin of evil.

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

 

[Hollie]

Shiva is personified as male. The inventors of Shiva and your gods are a male dominated and controlled society, thus the gods are male.

Similarly, the western portrayal of Jeebus is a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned Caucasian looking guy. Which makes some sense as Jeebus is maintained in the image of those who are comfortable with that look,

Angry feminist alert.

Drop ten and... drop another ten and skedaddle alert.

 

[Orangecat]

God did not create God, and why would you assume that God created evil?

I Assume nothing, but you wrote this:

By God, we mean an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.

Why would you assume that God is an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness?
Just guessing?

 

[Orangecat]

Drop ten and... drop another ten and skedaddle alert.

Post nonsense to hide your lack of intellect and reasoning ability.

 

[Hollie]

Drop ten and... drop another ten and skedaddle alert.

Post nonsense to hide your lack of intellect and reasoning ability.

I can see you’re angry and emotive. There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

Let me help. There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

Allahu Akbar.

 

[Orangecat]

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

Again, while humans have adapted through technological advancements. I'm resolved to question their ability to survive without them. It is clear that men like Goliath once existed. And certainly would be a (humanly speaking) formidable match physically to most people living today. And the simple fact is, that if all the abortions worldwide were calculated along with our statistic for life expectancy, I imagine the average age would drop to the levels of previous generations--- perhaps even more. AND If there were no FLOOD, we would have few if any fossil remains.

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

Again, while humans have adapted through technological advancements. I'm resolved to question their ability to survive without them. It is clear that men like Goliath once existed. And certainly would be a (humanly speaking) formidable match physically to most people living today. And the simple fact is, that if all the abortions worldwide were calculated along with our statistic for life expectancy, I imagine the average age would drop to the levels of previous generations--- perhaps even more. AND If there were no FLOOD, we would have few if any fossil remains.

Why is it clear that men like Goliath once existed? There are certainly people who suffer from “gigantism”, a pituitary gland issue. That condition is rare though and the more extreme cases lead to people with myriad bone, ligament and other health issues.

Legend building, tales and fables told and re-told over time could easily account for the fable of giants.

You know that Robin Hood wasn’t a real character, right?

 

[ding]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

So your answer to the universe popping into existence predisposed to creating intelligence is what?

My answer is simple
Shit happens and we are the result

Yes, shit happens. But shit happens according to the confines of nature which has life and intelligence written into it's fabric. It's no accident that beings that know and create exist.

 

[rightwinger]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

So your answer to the universe popping into existence predisposed to creating intelligence is what?

My answer is simple
Shit happens and we are the result

Yes, shit happens. But shit happens according to the confines of nature which has life and intelligence written into it's fabric. It's no accident that beings that know and create exist.

Absolutely
We have a Periodic Table of elements that are building blocks of our Solar System.
Those elements combine to make more complex compounds

When two molecules of Hydrogen combine with a molecule of Oxygen to form water....it does not mean that God is managing the process

 

[ding]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

So your answer to the universe popping into existence predisposed to creating intelligence is what?

My answer is simple
Shit happens and we are the result

Yes, shit happens. But shit happens according to the confines of nature which has life and intelligence written into it's fabric. It's no accident that beings that know and create exist.

Absolutely
We have a Periodic Table of elements that are building blocks of our Solar System.
Those elements combine to make more complex compounds

When two molecules of Hydrogen combine with a molecule of Oxygen to form water....it does not mean that God is managing the process

It goes way beyond that. The very makeup up of the atom predisposes life and intelligence. Life and intelligence are literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

 

[LittleNipper]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

Again, while humans have adapted through technological advancements. I'm resolved to question their ability to survive without them. It is clear that men like Goliath once existed. And certainly would be a (humanly speaking) formidable match physically to most people living today. And the simple fact is, that if all the abortions worldwide were calculated along with our statistic for life expectancy, I imagine the average age would drop to the levels of previous generations--- perhaps even more. AND If there were no FLOOD, we would have few if any fossil remains.

Why is it clear that men like Goliath once existed? There are certainly people who suffer from “gigantism”, a pituitary gland issue. That condition is rare though and the more extreme cases lead to people with myriad bone, ligament and other health issues.

Legend building, tales and fables told and re-told over time could easily account for the fable of giants.

You know that Robin Hood wasn’t a real character, right?

There are also bones/fossils that suggest that everything once not only grew bigger, but lived longer. It is logical that the levels of oxygen were once higher than today. Clearly, humans knew about dinosaurs/dragons, and they also knew of giants. They existed as described in the Bible.

 

[Orangecat]

Good question. I don't assume. I know . . . just as you do. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness tells us what God necessarily is. Behold:

The only think I know is that no one knows how life began. It's all theory and supposition.