A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[John Bauer]

Read Post # 237

Evolution, with a starting point of organisms that lived on water, sun and minerals, which the first organisms did, would not have evolved into the forms that we have.

AI
Evolution fundamentally relies on available resources and environmental pressures. If the very first organisms could sustain themselves using only sunlight, water, and minerals, the subsequent path of evolution would have been dramatically different, primarily by eliminating the need for predation and decomposition as primary energy acquisition strategies

In summary, the resulting biosphere would likely be a peaceful, green, and highly efficient world, but one lacking the complex behavioral and physical adaptations that drive much of the "drama" of current evolutionary history

I cannot account for your interaction with Google AI, but what I can tell you is that the opening hypothetical is false. The “very first organisms” were not phototrophs (i.e., sunlight-powered). The earliest life was almost certainly heterotrophic or chemoautotrophic, relying on organic molecules or chemical gradients. Anoxygenic photosynthesis appears later—hundreds of millions of years after life first appeared—and oxygenic photosynthesis even later still.

If the premise is false, all the would-haves that follow collapse.

Incidentally, even a fully phototrophic biosphere would require death, decomposition, and nutrient cycling. A biosphere without mortality would not be peaceful or efficient; it would be chemically, biologically, and ecologically stagnant and inert.

 

[EarlyActs]

I cannot account for your interaction with Google AI, but what I can tell you is that the opening hypothetical is false. The “very first organisms” were not phototrophs (i.e., sunlight-powered). The earliest life was almost certainly heterotrophic or chemoautotrophic, relying on organic molecules or chemical gradients. Anoxygenic photosynthesis appears later—hundreds of millions of years after life first appeared—and oxygenic photosynthesis even later still.

If the premise is false, all the would-haves that follow collapse.

Incidentally, even a fully phototrophic biosphere would require death, decomposition, and nutrient cycling. A biosphere without mortality would not be peaceful or efficient; it would be chemically, biologically, and ecologically stagnant and inert.

Which is a good reason to believe that it didn't happen that way. The same with some 150MY of environmental stability during which no evolution took place.

Why is modern science more adamant when more far-flung? It's a ridiculous position to get oneself into; it echoes Romans 1.

 

[QVQ]

If the premise is false, all the would-haves that follow collapse.

Now do you get it?
If the premise is false all the would-haves that follow collapse. YES
If the premise is false
If the premise of Evolution is FALSE then all the would-have collapse.

AI and every one agrees , according to evolutions self proclaimed own evidence, the earliest organisms consumed water sun and minerals then by the rules (Premise) of evolution, the results would be a completely different end biosphere.

Incidentally, even a fully phototrophic biosphere would require death, decomposition, and nutrient cycling. A biosphere without mortality would not be peaceful or efficient; it would be chemically, biologically, and ecologically stagnant and inert

Yes AND
Earlier in the thread @John Bauer stated that evolution is not a goal driven system.
Evoution operates according to rules.
OK, the rule precludes evolution from organisms that live on water, sun, minerals evolving into carnivors, vultures and such who live on death and decomposition. *see note
In fact, the rule would result in a different solution (biosphere)
The biosphere would be a peaceful, green, highly efficient without the tooth and claw

But @John Bauer most correctly points out, according to the rules and premises of Evolution the result would be a biosphere that is chemically ecologically stagnant and inert,
Then evolutionary model would collapse, Fail.

Now, if the Premise is False, the would-haves collapse.
So, according to the rules, the basic premise, Evolution could not have produced our current biospheres, according to it's own rules and premises
If it did produce a biosphere according to its own rules and premises, that biosphere. would have collapsed.
Oh My

Evolution is my favorite Joke.

*note There might be an attempt to recover the false premise by alleging that the biomass would have evolved to death and decomposition simply because there might be such a over-supply of biomass. However, there is dirt and more dirt around here. If I could not get organic substances to eat, burying me in dirt would not cause me to evolve into a dirt eating beastie.
Not now or in another million billion years.

 

[John Bauer]

Which is a good reason to believe that it didn't happen that way.

Exactly. Even according to the theory of evolution, that never happened.

The same with some 150 million years of environmental stability during which no evolution took place.

Again, according to the theory of evolution, that never happened.

Why is modern science more adamant when more far-flung? It's a ridiculous position to get oneself into.

You couldn’t be more wrong. As I already told you nearly two weeks ago (November 23), the complete opposite is the case:

Science is far more dogmatic about what can be observed or replicated (here and now) than about what can only be inferred (a billion years ago). Evolutionary theories and hypotheses about events hundreds of millions of years ago are chock full of hedging language like “plausibly,” “might have,” “it’s possible that,” and so on. This is especially true regarding possible high-energy conditions of the early universe—things like the “colliding sheets” of brane cosmology—ideas which are openly labeled as speculative and held provisionally and tentatively. They are debated, published, critiqued, and often abandoned.

 

[John Bauer]

Now do you get it? If the premise is false, all the would-haves that follow collapse. YES!

Of course I get it, which is why I said it. The premise (in your post), that the very first organisms were sunlight-powered, is false, which means everything built on that premise falls apart.

Evolution is untouched by this—because that isn’t one of its premises.

If the premise of evolution is FALSE, then all the would-have collapse.

Indeed. But that raises the question: Are any of its premises false? If so, which ones? Science thrives on questions like this, always seeking to uncover error in order to eliminate it.

Evolution rests on a number of well-defined propositions. Which ones are false, if any? Does genetic variation occur or not? Is it false that traits are heritable? Do populations respond to resource constraints? Does differential survival affect subsequent generations?

AI and everyone agrees: According to evolution’s self-proclaimed own evidence, the earliest organisms consumed water, sun, and minerals.

False, as I just finished explaining (here):

The “very first organisms” were not phototrophs (i.e., sunlight-powered). The earliest life was almost certainly heterotrophic or chemoautotrophic, relying on organic molecules or chemical gradients. Anoxygenic photosynthesis appears later—hundreds of millions of years after life first appeared—and oxygenic photosynthesis even later still.

You are more than welcome to prove that wrong, but you will need something far more credible than a hallucinating AI that blissfully gets things wrong if it means making the user happy (which routinely happens). You can start with Wikipedia, or Grokipedia if you distrust the former (and lots of people do). As nearly any source other than AI will tell you, the first sunlight-powered organisms did not appear until 600–800 million years after LUCA-adjacent life began (~4.0 Ga). In other words, the “very first organisms” were not sunlight-powered. That arose later.

Evolution could not have produced our current biospheres, according to its own rules and premises. If it did produce a biosphere according to its own rules and premises, that biosphere would have collapsed … [because], according to the rules and premises of evolution, the result would be a biosphere that is chemically ecologically stagnant and inert.

That is false. A chemically, biologically, and ecologically stagnant and inert biosphere would be the result if there was no death. That is NOT a premise of evolution. That is a premise of young-earth creationism—and it fails if the prelapsarian world endured for longer than a week because, as I showed, the mass of bacteria would equal the mass of the earth in just a matter of days if there was no death.

Evolution is my favorite Joke.

I will grant that what you’ve been describing is a joke, honestly—but you haven’t yet described evolution.

 

[John Bauer]

[MOD HAT: Even if I am the only person who accepts the theory of evolution here, please keep in mind that we have a rule against misrepresenting the views of other members. Any further distortions about the theory of evolution, which I affirm and defend, will be edited or removed as a violation of rule 2.2. Members should address opposing views as they actually exist, using definitions, claims, and sources that accurately reflect them.]

 

[EarlyActs]

In Sprouts lecture ‘The Aseity Of God’ on YT, 23rd min:

Sproul to Sagan: how can you call yourself a scientist and stop inquiry at the most important point of time (the moment before the Big Bang)?

Sagan: we don’t have to go there.

Sproul: Yes we do.


I find “Saganism” all through ‘science.’ I have not seen it in print like this , but have never doubted I would find it.

 

[QVQ]

Of course I get it, which is why I said it. The premise (in your post), that the very first organisms were sunlight-powered, is false, which means everything built on that premise falls apart.

The list of scientific articles attesting to the fact that earliest life forms were "water, sun, mineral" eaters is long
I have posted one source below:

Quote From Science Focus Magazine:
"For the first billion or so years of life on Earth, the only organisms were chemosynthetic bacteria, which grew as mats in shallow seas and by volcanic hydrothermal vents. The very first cells probably metabolised hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide. Eventually photosynthetic bacteria evolved and used sunlight to build sugars from carbon dioxide and water. Organisms that eat other organisms didn’t emerge until around 1.2 billion years ago – over two billion years after life first emerged."

What could the first-ever living organism have used for food? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

The earlist organisms converted minerals to energy. That is what I said. Water, Sun and Minerals.
Minerals (and gases) used as food is chemosynthesis.
Prokaryotes consumed pyrite, according to one source.
I am using "water, sun, and minerals" to indicate a generic menu, not specifically all the ingredients in the daily diets of the earliest life forms.
Those ingredients were inorganic, which is the point of my statements concerning same.

If your objection is "sunlight powered" then I hereby amend my statement to Inorganic Powered
The basic truth of my position is not altered thereby.

 

[QVQ]

Evolution rests on a number of well-defined propositions. Which ones are false, if any? Does genetic variation occur or not? Is it false that traits are heritable? Do populations respond to resource constraints? Does differential survival affect subsequent generations?

Returning to the OP. I will addrss the propositions that are within the scope of this OP
Death
Pestilence, War, Famine

The earliest life forms were free of pestilence and war

The items on the quoted list
Famine
1) Premise: Populations respond to resource constraints
Populations that for billions of years evolved to harvest mineral resources could and did evolve to exploit almost unlimited resources.
If earlier chemosynthesizers evolved to exploit sunlight, that would mean the resources are practically infinite for consumers of inorganics.

Natural Causes
2) Premise: Does differential survival affect subsequent generations
We do not know the life spans of organisms in those early eons.
We may be able to assume that if organism didn't or rarely died, everything would be covered in biomass maybe.
And evolution scientist note there is evidence of such mats.

Actually what happened, according to the theory, is the organic material was compressed into coal and oil
There wasn't any need for predators, decomposers or higher life forms.
Mobility at the cost of surviving by the sweat of the brow among thorns and thistles (inedible) is not according to the premise and rules of evolution. (differential survival)
Evolution, survival and natural selection were better served by dirt eaters (subsequent generations affected)
That, according to the premise and rule, is what predictably would have happened.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, Jesus did not state that Adam and Eve were created directly by God. You are reading far more into the text than is there. Jesus said only that the Creator God “made them” (Matt 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9), which states nothing about how he did so. You are injecting the idea from outside the text that it was a direct, instant de novo creation—and then making that do all the work for you.

For the record, I agree with every statement Jesus has ever made. However, I might disagree with how you’ve interpreted one of his statements—especially if something outside the text is doing all the work. That is eisegesis and ought to be rejected.



I don’t know what you were going for here. Yes, Genesis 1:24 says, “God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.’ It was so.”



True—I think? I am not entirely sure what your question is asking. I mean, yes, he created Adam first divinely, but he followed that with creating Eve divinely, too. It’s not as if he created Adam divinely but Eve undivinely. But then what is “divinely” even supposed to mean? It is a little vague here in a conversation that usually involves terms like “immediate de novo creation” (as opposed to mediated creation through ordinary providence).



Unknown, due to insufficient biblical data. Whilst I know how the different creationist interpretations answer that question, I am not convinced by any of them, so it remains an open question. I prefer the interpretation suggested by Walton, but it likewise doesn’t provide a definitive answer to that question; in other words, his interpretation doesn’t exclude either view, whether they had parents or were created de novo as adults.

Currently, I personally lean toward them having parents, but that’s speculative and tentative and I could easily be moved with a solid argument.

@John Bauer wrote:
Jesus said only that the Creator God “made them” (Matt 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9), which states nothing about how he did so. You are injecting the idea from outside the text that it was a direct, instant de novo creation—and then making that do all the work for you.

It is not 'outside the text' to put it in that 6th period of that week. You are doing injecting that is not there.

 

[John Bauer]

The list of scientific articles … I have posted one source below …

As I would expect to happen, your quote from Science Focus Magazine confirmed what I had said. The author agreed that the very first organisms were not sunlight-powered, that photosynthetic bacteria “eventually” evolved—that it “came later,” as I put it.

The earliest organisms converted minerals to energy. That is what I said. Water, sun, and minerals.

Let’s be honest, precise, and accurate: What you said was, “The first organisms were able to live on sun, water and earth (minerals)” (emphasis added). And when you asked AI about this, it understood your hypothetical to be that “the very first organisms could sustain themselves using only sunlight, water, and minerals” and answered accordingly.

And that was wrong, as I explained and your sources confirmed. The first organisms were not sunlight-powered. Phototrophy appeared several hundred million years later.

At least we are now agreed on that point. I will mark that issue as settled in my notes.

I am using "water, sun, and minerals" to indicate a generic menu, not specifically all the ingredients in the daily diets of the earliest lifeforms.

Fair enough—but still incorrect. Sunlight was not even generically part of the diet of the earliest lifeforms. That requires photosynthesis, which developed hundreds of millions of years later.

Those ingredients were inorganic, which is the point of my statements concerning same.

I cannot know what you intended, only what you actually said—which proved to be incorrect.

I am okay with you changing your original statement to say instead, “The first organisms were able to live on inorganic matter,” but I am pretty sure that would have changed the AI response. It might have said something like, “If the very first organisms could sustain themselves using only inorganic matter, the subsequent path of evolution would have looked like what the scientific literature describes.”

It only said “the subsequent path of evolution would have been dramatically different” because of that false opening hypothetical.

---

As for the opening post: If the question pertains to physical death, my response to QVQ (2025, December 4) answered that question.

---

I find it interesting and worth noting that literally nobody is addressing the biblical argument in my posts. I raised it once as a brief mention and again later as two full paragraphs—and I cannot help but notice my interlocutors avoiding it. They construct inaccurate caricatures of evolution and attack those while ignoring the biblical argument that criticizes their position.

Fascinating.

​

 

[John Bauer]

It is not 'outside the text' to put it in that 6th period of that week. You are doing injecting that is not there.

It is “outside the text” of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, to which you had referred. Nothing in that text says it was a direct, instant de novo creation—which was the point on which your claim hung (“making that do all the work for you”).

 

[QVQ]

I find it interesting and worth noting that literally nobody is addressing the biblical argument in my posts. I raised it once as a brief mention and again later as two full paragraphs—and I cannot help but notice my interlocutors avoiding it. They construct inaccurate caricatures of evolution and attack those while ignoring the biblical argument that criticizes their position.

Fascinating.

Any biblical argument presented by yourself would not be avoided so much as not recognized by myself.
My approach to Darwin in absolutely comparmentalized and distinct from any Biblical.
I am arguing strictly Darwin when talking about evolution as it is completely separate from the Bible in my miind.

I am not a believer in evolution but that is because, as you may have noticed, as an atheist, born and raised, it was the explanation of creation in my formative years. Darwin was the Gospel.
Being my favorite joke is familiarity with Darwin and the absurdities that abound. Say I am an apostate of the Gospel of Evolution

My Theology, as an adult Christian, is strictly Biblical. I found Genesis was the truth because Genesis corresponds to reality.
The brevity of fact presented in Genesis, I don't' attempt to guess or speculate or add to the story.
For instance, the question of time is not relevant, whether it was 6 days or 6,000 years or anybody's guess is not really pertinent.
I accept 6 days literally and leave it at that

The theory of evolution, I did discover an interesting tidbit about Death of earliest life forms. The earliest life forms procreated by division which makes the organism in some way immortal.
Now I will address your biblical references in Post #

Meanwhile, where did death come from?
Genesis 2: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The answers are all in the Bible.

Evolution is not relevent as evolution has nothing to do with the OP, death being introduced and explained in Genesis.

 

[John Bauer]

Interestingly, @QVQ, none of that answered my biblical argument—nor demonstrated any awareness of its core point. It may have helped to quote my argument, the part which you claimed to be answering.

 

[QVQ]

I hinted in my previous response that Scripture never describes the natural world or the predator–prey model in terms of censure or moral judgment the way you have, as if it is aberrant, evil, corrupt, savage, cruel, brutal, etc. There are no scriptures that describe it as evil (which is part of my reason for rejecting the concept of “natural evil” itself).

Look at Psalm 104, for example, which was in my previous response: “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. … All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things” (vv. 21-30). As even Jesus implied, God is not ignorant or powerless about death in the animal kingdom: “Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will” (Matt 10:29; cf. Luke 12:6. “not one of them is forgotten before God”).

Ok I will address this from the standpoint of evolution and death

There is a quote in Post #248

Organisms that eat other organisms didn’t emerge until around 1.2 billion years ago – over two billion years after life first emerged."
What could the first-ever living organism have used for food? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

In Post #249 I went through Death in the first 2 billion years
1) Famine was unlikely if chemosythesizers could evolve to eat dirt and live off energy sources of gases and sunlight
2) Pestilence did not evolve in the first 2 billion years
3) War (predation) not evolve until about the same time 1.2 billion years ago
4) Natural Causes: organisms divided and were virtually immortal.
For 2 Billion Years, according to Darwinian Evolutionist, the world was green, peaceful and highly efficient.
No Death!

There wasn't any death in Evolution until predators evolved 1.2 billion years ago.
Both man and lions evolved on divergent paths but at the same time 3.5 million years ago
Man and Lion became savage within the last 3.5 million years
If we are going to draw parallels to the Bible then Man and Lion being carnivores and top tier predators became so in the same time frame.
The Old Testament Lions are the Lions of the time after Fall in the Bible.
The fall of Adam corrupted all of creation so that pestilence (disease) came to all creation and war (predation) to lions and to man
That could be a parallel. The time of the green, dirt eaters before pestilence and predation of all creatures may have been analogous to Eden
I reject Evolution categorically.
However, the parallels between the two stories is remarkable.

Reality, after the Fall, is cruel brutal savage but I did not say or even hint that it was aberrant as it is the Will of God nor is it evil categorically as nature can only obey the Will of God.

 

[John Bauer]

All right, since you are still not answering my biblical argument, let’s try this:

I hinted in my previous response that Scripture never describes the natural world or the predator–prey model in terms of censure or moral judgment the way you have, as if it is aberrant, evil, corrupt, savage, cruel, brutal, etc. There are no scriptures that describe it as evil (which is part of my reason for rejecting the concept of “natural evil” itself).

Look at Psalm 104, for example, which was in my previous response: “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. … All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things” (vv. 21-30). As even Jesus implied, God is not ignorant or powerless about death in the animal kingdom: “Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will” (Matt 10:29; cf. Luke 12:6. “not one of them is forgotten before God”).

“… Scripture never describes the natural world or the predator–prey model … as if it is aberrant, evil, corrupt, savage, cruel, brutal, etc. …”

 

[QVQ]

“… Scripture never describes the natural world or the predator–prey model … as if it is aberrant, evil, corrupt, savage, cruel, brutal, etc. …”

I answered that I did not even hint that the natural world was aberrant as it is the Will of God and that is always exactly as it is Willed. It cannot be aberrant (definition of aberrant: not conforming to the accepted standard as the Standard is the Will of God)
And nature cannot be evil categorically as nature can only do the Will of God according to their God given nature
However reality is brutal, savage, cruel. That is the reality of East of Eden.
It is where we live, ordained by God after the nature of the world was corrupted by Adam.
Although the words are not specifically "brutal" "savage" "cruel" the nature of the beasts is told in a thousand different ways in a thousand different verses
Matthew 7: 6 “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

It is perhaps our judgement that being trampled and rend is "cruel, savage and brutal" but it is a fair estimation from our point of view
Nature may not be judged by God to be cruel, savage and brutal but it can be seen by God and man to be cruel, savage and brutal:
The predator-prey model is going to be removed "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox" (Isaiah 65:25)., The predator-prey is part of the East of Eden reality. And if it were absolutely cool with God, and meant to be eternally so, why is it going to be removed after the resurrection?

Meanwhile, evolution is a separate issue altogether.
Theories predict
The world was evolvinig along a certain path, organisms that lived on water, sunlight and minerals
The pestilence - predator model was not predicted
There aren't any rules in evolution to explain that abrupt deviation from the model
The world was not operating on the survival of the fittest or selective adaptation or any of that
It was evolving to the green, peaceful, highly efficient model and predictably so.
And then the sudden appearance of pestilence and predation.
Without rhyme or reason, an organism takes a bite out of his neighbor.
All of evolutions premises and rules are for a model that did not exist for the first 2 billion years of supposed evolution.

 

[EarlyActs]

Of course I get it, which is why I said it. The premise (in your post), that the very first organisms were sunlight-powered, is false, which means everything built on that premise falls apart.

Evolution is untouched by this—because that isn’t one of its premises.



Indeed. But that raises the question: Are any of its premises false? If so, which ones? Science thrives on questions like this, always seeking to uncover error in order to eliminate it.

Evolution rests on a number of well-defined propositions. Which ones are false, if any? Does genetic variation occur or not? Is it false that traits are heritable? Do populations respond to resource constraints? Does differential survival affect subsequent generations?



False, as I just finished explaining (here):

The “very first organisms” were not phototrophs (i.e., sunlight-powered). The earliest life was almost certainly heterotrophic or chemoautotrophic, relying on organic molecules or chemical gradients. Anoxygenic photosynthesis appears later—hundreds of millions of years after life first appeared—and oxygenic photosynthesis even later still.

You are more than welcome to prove that wrong, but you will need something far more credible than a hallucinating AI that blissfully gets things wrong if it means making the user happy (which routinely happens). You can start with Wikipedia, or Grokipedia if you distrust the former (and lots of people do). As nearly any source other than AI will tell you, the first sunlight-powered organisms did not appear until 600–800 million years after LUCA-adjacent life began (~4.0 Ga). In other words, the “very first organisms” were not sunlight-powered. That arose later.



That is false. A chemically, biologically, and ecologically stagnant and inert biosphere would be the result if there was no death. That is NOT a premise of evolution. That is a premise of young-earth creationism—and it fails if the prelapsarian world endured for longer than a week because, as I showed, the mass of bacteria would equal the mass of the earth in just a matter of days if there was no death.



I will grant that what you’ve been describing is a joke, honestly—but you haven’t yet described evolution.

The frustrating thing about talking to you is that “evolution” is ALWAYS correct and ‘science’ but Genesis is mere liturgy. We have been in touch for months and this month my platform was listed again and there is no response.

I have shown clearly why Genesis is not mere liturgy and the related support pieces to that.

In addition you just said above that ‘science’ never says things like 150 MY of environmental stability could go by without any need for development, which is a statement of far-flung adamant hooey. And was just in a quote of yours about LTEE or one of your many all -knowing declarations. Whether I can ‘cite’ it or not makes no difference.

I’ve never met someone so frustrating to talk to and am done. I see no value in it.

 

[JesusFan]

[MOD HAT: Even if I am the only person who accepts the theory of evolution here, please keep in mind that we have a rule against misrepresenting the views of other members. Any further distortions about the theory of evolution, which I affirm and defend, will be edited or removed as a violation of rule 2.2. Members should address opposing views as they actually exist, using definitions, claims, and sources that accurately reflect them.]

There is NO evolutionary explanation for the origin of the life forms upon the earth, unless you bring into this discussion God created life

 

[John Bauer]

The frustrating thing about talking to you is that “evolution” and “science” are ALWAYS correct, but Genesis is mere liturgy. … I have shown clearly why Genesis is not mere liturgy …

Three things.

First, I am floored that you characterized liturgy in that way, almost like it’s an inferior thing. Yes, in my view Genesis 1 is liturgical, but in my view that’s an elevation. I believe liturgy is one of the highest modes of truth-claim—certainly far superior to science. I can’t fathom a Christian treating liturgy like a lesser truth category (“mere liturgy”).

Second, evolution and science are not “always correct” in my view. In fact, they are very often wrong. Only the Word of God is inerrant and infallible.

Third, correcting misrepresentations of evolutionary science doesn’t mean the science is always correct. If it is wrong, so be it—but represent it accurately when demonstrating where and how it’s wrong.

We have been in touch for months and this month my platform was listed again and there is no response.

I don’t even know what that means, “my platform was listed again” (which may be why there was no response).

In addition, you just said above that ‘science’ never says things like 150 MY of environmental stability could go by without any need for development, which is a statement of far-flung adamant hooey.

In that other thread, you rhetorically asked, “Oh, so there is suddenly no trace of evolution in 150 million years, if they say so?”

To which I replied, “There has never been a 150-million-year span with ‘no trace of evolution’” (2025, Nov 23), which is what “they” say. If you think that is far-flung adamant hooey (whatever that means), so be it.

But it’s interesting and quite revealing that you can’t make the case without misrepresenting evolution. That’s just one difference between us, I guess. For example, I can refute Arminian theology without misrepresenting it.

… or one of your many all-knowing declarations.

That is a violation of rule 2.2.

I’ve never met someone so frustrating to talk to and am done. I see no value in it.

Your choice.