Adam and Eve are only fictitious if you accept man’s fallible interpretations over the Bible. It comes down to an issue of ultimate authory–rather, who holds it.
Well Mr Ruse, when you can produce evidence that Adam and Eve were fictitious and that the genealogy given in the Gospels from Jesus to them was allegedly all made up, then get back to me.
Sources are very important indeed DrREC!!! That’s why I’m very happy ‘The Source’ of the entire universe and all life in it, and indeed the possessor of all wisdom, has accepted me, as insignificant and inconsequential as I am, into His everlasting family through the work of His Son Jesus Christ!!!
Hillsong United – Lord of Lords – With Subtitles/Lyrics
‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.’
DrREC, it matters not one iota to me that you refuse to accept the evidence we now have in hand!!! You testify to your own dogmatic atheistic beliefs when you do as such, and further the case against neo-Darwinists when you do as such, so as far as I’m concerned RANT AWAY!!!
And then there's Elizabeth Liddle, a scientist, trying to educate the IDiots about natural selection (and other scientific things). Here's just one of her posts and the response from the IDiot Ilion:
tbh, while I know why Darwin chose the term (as an analog of the “selection” practiced by farmers), “differential reproduction” would have been a better term.
It amounts to no more or less than that. Differential reproduction means, automatically, that traits that result in more efficient/probable reproduction are going to be better represented in the subsequent generation.
It’s precisely that mechanism that Darwin dubbed “natural selection”.
As you imply, natural selection isn’t a cause, it’s an effect. However it also has an effect, which is the repeated concentration (distillation if you like) of the most fecund traits over generations.
And if new traits are also being spontaneously generated, those few that endow their bearers with increased fecundity will feature in the new distillate.
Ilíon: “As was pointed out well over a century ago, the “survival of the fittest” does not explain the arrival” of “the fittest.”
Silly DarwinDefender: “I don’t think that has eluded anyone, least of all Darwin.”
And yet, you silly people keep up the tradition started by Saint Chuckie Himself to pretend and assert that it does … and to, at best, ingore the people who point out that you haven’t explained anything; and, more generally, you all don’t merely ignore, but rather actively demonize those who point out that there is no there there in Darwinist “explanations.”
Hey Ilion, you stupid slobbering bible-thumping jesus-sucking fool, calling Elizabeth Liddle "Silly" and a "DarwinDefender", and Darwin "Saint Chuckie" when it's YOU who has absolutely NO clue about evolutionary theory, just makes YOU look SILLY. You and the other god-pushing IDiots on UD are the dumbest, most uneducated morons the world has ever seen, and your religion is a bunch of retarded fairy tales, thought up by flea-ridden goat fuckers. And you IDiots are the ones demonizing people; People who actually know something about science and reality and don't need an imaginary sky friend.