I forgot to use the word “credible.”
As in, there aren’t any that actually make sense to anyone that hasn’t already accepted this theory.
I didn’t see it. Though I’m ready for a break from insanity here generally. 
That was actually funny. 
Observational - we’ve observed it happen
Theoretical - credible ideas of how we get from a cell to humans besides drawing lines and fancy math.
Anyways, I want to take a break from the madness but the back-and-forth gets kinda addicting. 
I think we all reach that juncture every now and then!
While on the topic of madness, I some times recall I’m talking with a person who believes she can see “The Holy Spirit” in another person, or who describes what some people say as “it sounds demonic”.
Yeah none of that describes what evidence even is.
This is of course trivially wrong, as that very evidence is convincing people to accept the theory of biological evolution, and the age of the Earth and universe, every single day. That’s how the scientific fields of geology, physics, and biology, all became convinced of these things in the first place.
So no Valerie. I think instead what is actually going on here is that there are people who have been strongly indoctrinated in YEC theology who have had their views so thoroughly poisoned by misinformation on the subject of evolution that they’ve become emotionally instead of rationally opposed to it.
I continue to argue against it only using the Bible. The theory clashes with a comprehensive biblical philosophy. I haven’t found anyone answering my questions satisfactorily in this regard. I didn’t start looking into YEC science until after I read GAE and realized that if a genealogical origin argument can be made, maybe there’s other evidence out there. I never needed more than the Bible though.
Then we have no reason to argue evidence from actual genetics, physics, or geology. It seems that ultimately these things are irrelevant to you.
The Bible is not a science textbook. It’s not designed to teach science. If you argue only from the Bible, you’ll miss a whole lot of cool science. Germ theory is out. Only casting out demons and drinking a little wine for your stomach to cure you of sickness. 
re: Todd Wood’s “Ask a Creationist: Evidence AGAINST Evolution???”
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Wood but I was frustrated that after some thirteen minutes when he finally got to the question “Is there evidence against evolution?”, he had run out of time and promised to cover it next time. I’m genuinely interested in his answer—so perhaps you could start a new thread along with a link to his next video when it comes out.
Keep in mind that a lot of us got weary long ago of investing time in YECist and anti-evolution videos which made big promises but never came through. That’s why many of us would prefer to read a transcript and spare ourselves investing time in hopes that maybe this time they will finally provide an evidence-based argument.
Thus, I actually feel that Todd Wood disappointed us again. The title of the video is tempting but it fails to deliver.
This is 11 years old, so I wonder if he’s changed on any of it yet:
Have you read @jongarvey’s book yet? Maybe he will have some of the answers you are looking for.
Sure, I can do that but again, read about why I linked it. It was specifically refuting this idea
He specifically said each model has data that doesn’t fit it.
Both. It is obvious from Genesis 1 that God separated the waters of the earth from the heavens so that we would NOT think we came from stardust. He emphasized taking care to create the earth separately and specially.
That highly complex molecular processes and machines somehow came about through random mutational or replicational processes and built themselves.
Do I really need to explain this over again? I like science. It is cool; it is useful.
But all scientific models that are true should fit within a biblical framework or philosophy. Or we will be chasing down dead ends and wasting our time like we are with our current understanding of evolution. Scientists are confused, the media is confused, and IMO this is a gigantic waste of talent and a sad indictment on our culture.
No. Everyone here already is confused about disease and how it fits into biblical thinking. I don’t feel like reading anything else that is confused. 
It does. I see no conflict between what the author of Genesis says and what we see in science, when taking genre and culture into account.
I’m guessing you haven’t checked out any of the books I recommended earlier that address these things in great detail. Or if you like videos, the Bible Project classroom courses are good. I’m currently doing the Intro to the Hebrew Bible one, which gets into understanding the Hebrew poetry and Hebrew narrative. You’d probably enjoy the course. He has a course on Genesis 1-11 after that, which I haven’t done yet, but I’m pretty sure he has similar thoughts to John Walton on that.
I can’t think of a single Biblical scholar or evangelical theologian who considers Genesis 1 to have been purposed to prevent our thinking that we came from stardust. In any case, Genesis 1 says nothing about HOW various aspects of the universe were created.
So I’m surprised that you consider your position “obvious.” (However, I’m not denying that it seems obvious to you.)
Keep in mind that the Hebrew text talks about the SKY and the LAND. In the cosmology of the ancient world it made sense that God would be described as creating the SKY and the LAND in accordance with the idiom the words represented. (That is, the Hebrew phrase for the sky and the land is basically an idiom referring to the entire world as they knew it.)
As to Genesis 1 I don’t see any evidence in the Hebrew text that separate creation of the ERETZ (earth) was emphasized at all. I don’t know where you are getting this—even from the English text.
It’s called physics and chemistry. These processes build complex things all the time. (Lots of that is happening in our bodies at this very moment.) I don’t understand why it would be shocking to anyone that God would create a world where this happens quite commonly.
Do mountains build themselves? Yes (in the sense that geologic forces do the building.) Does a fetus build itself from an embryo yes? The biosphere is filled with all sorts of “machines” building themselves through amazing processes—including those involving “random mutational processes.”
Perhaps we have different views on God and what omnipotence means.
Yes. And that was very frustrating. He was talking in the abstract without us knowing what models he was talking about. It wasn’t even clear what he means by “model”.
There is nothing obvious about that. Perhaps you are making it up.
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
The separating of the waters is not until Genesis 1:6. You are reading stuff into Genesis that is not actually there.
Please turn off your computer. And never turn it on again. And turn off your lights, and use candles. Live like the Amish. I do have respect for the Amish who try to live a life consistent with their beliefs.
If a Biblical framework is a prerequisite for science, we would never have advanced beyond the kind of lives that the Amish live.
Evidence suggests otherwise.
The evidence tells us that there was no flood.
Incidentally, can you offer any evidence that a worldwide flood happened, particularly around 5000 years ago, give or take?
Fair enough but when this comprehensive biblical worldview is challenged with scriptural evidence you acknowledge it so how it that different from how you deal with the evidence. Anything contrasting your specific hermeneutic and goal is rejected regardless of the source whether science or the bible.
Here’s a pretty good one. Documented human history is better than unobservable science. Sumerian King List - Wikipedia
If you think this list is accurate, doesn’t that demonstrate that the earth is older than 6,000 years?
among other things…
So you believe that Dumuzid the Shepherd reigned for 36,000 years?
Also, could you please provide some examples of science which is “unobservable”?