A little disappointed here, I just replied and lost it all when I went to post it. I'll try again but it may not be as long.....
You said it, it's the opinion of scientists, not everybody else.
Not everything has to be concluded in a science lab for evidence. As in my previous post, step outside of the science closet and you'll see everything and all the possibilities, the numerous dino (?) artwork, UFO footage/photos, Bible prophecy (whose fulfillment can only be through observations and while it doesn't prove God, it is hard/strong evidence, especially with so much prophecy fulfilled makes it too remarkable to at the least, not ignore), etc.....
How do we know those are possibilities as opposed to simple people's fancies? Where is the evidence? Why is science a closet, with its mass of evidence from the real world? What Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled that they serve as evidence of Christian truth claims? What about the claims of other faiths that are contradictory? Are we to also consider them? If UFO phenomena has evidence, fine, but where is it?
The only micro and macro and speciation that I can tell you I believe has happened is changes inside of a family or species, that is, a new breed of dog or fruit fly, but they all remain what they already were. This has been observed. Anything else like a change to a complete new family or species, I don't think has happened and so everything has only changed "after it's kind."
There's no such thing as micro speciation, and changes inside a species is not speciation. Evolutionary processes by which new species arise -- this is speciation, and whatever you believe, there are documented instances of speciation. This contradicts the Bible's "after its kind" model as you have defined it.
Christians are deceived all the time, that's why I said no christian is perfect. But at least usually, a christian would recognize it and change from it. That said (and there can be exceptions), a christian won't be deceived as much as non-Christians.
How does that answer as to why Satan is deceiving people of other faiths but not Christians? I don't mean sometimes, I mean deceiving them into believing in their faiths? If Satan is not, why are the truth claims of Christianity superior to those of other faiths with which Christianity cannot be squared?
You keep making the claim that Job is not literal but just myth and/or fair tale. Since you make that claim, can you provide any evidence from Job himself, not anybody else, as to what you claim of the book because it is of my belief that all the Bible (including Job) is to be taken literally.
Job is a story -- cobbled together from a poem and a framing folk tale found in another source -- about a man who stripped of everything after God tells the Adversary (Satan) to test him. That is evidence enough that the story is mythological. But if you need more, read Robert Alter's introduction to his translation of the book. Try:
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation where fragment variants of the book at different ages are documented. Try the introduction tot he Anchor Bible Job where all the problems of dating and composition are outlined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is your evidence that Job is historical, particularly since the poem itself makes no such claim? Does Beowulf have to prove it is a fairy tale? The Iliad?
You keep saying the strped dino is not evidence but that agian is inside the science closet, outside, it is evidence since it can't be proven not to be a dino. I mean, worst case, if it isn't evidence, it can't be ignored either. Remember, science said a striped dino didn't exit but alas, a striped dino was found. Of course scienctists have dsimissed this artwork still simply because if it is literal, then evolution just might be in jeopardy. That's why the thousands of pieces of artwork out there are dismissed by science but just like UFO footage/photos, there are just to many too dismiss and so chances are, some could be legit.
There is no science "closet," unless the science Baugh used to date the artwork is also suspect. How else does he know how old the artwork is? One can't have it both ways, using science when it says what one wants it to say but then rejecting those same methods as being in a closet when it doesn't. It is upon him and other supporters to prove that the artwork depicts a dinosaur, not for others to prove that it does not. But if one requires such proof, the mass of paleontological evidence goes a very long way. So hard scientific data can be looked at whereas "This looks like that" without evidence and contrary to the evidence already dug up can be ignored. Scientists did not dismiss it because it threatens evolution -- they dismiss it because it provides no evidence to back it up. Massive evidence vs. "lots of pictures" (apparently dated using unscientific methods, since science means being "in a closet") "look like a dinosaur -- no scientist would take that seriously. It is Baugh and his followers who need this "evidence" from the artwork, to confirm their belief -- a belief without evidence.
Finally, you mentioned the cave artwork as being something the artist may have saw on a fossil but equally, it could be something the artist saw with his own eyes. Funny how you accept the one side that is convenient to your evolution thought but deny the one that is of the creation thought.
The difference is, one side has a mass of fossil evidence independently verifiable, while the other has "this looks like that" without any corroborative evidence. According to the evidence, it is much more likely that a prehistoric person saw a dinosaur fossil and decided to depict it (again, assuming he IS depicting a dino -- for which there is no evidence) than that humans shared the earth with dinosaurs.
I tend not to get into debates with them anymore. They usually take a swing at me after awhile.
