Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

a very boring book, yes. don't read it, you might get the message.

"You must be born anew". Obtain into your being Zoe. Not something Burroughs experienced, which explains the misery he was stuck with. BTW: both sides my family were in Texas before 1845.

It cannot in any way- directly. But my inference is that man would: 1; Have to be capable of being responsible before receiving a spirit. 2. Such responsibility requires a free will. 3. Such a free will requires a certain (evolved, genetically determined) level of intelligence. 4. THAT
(3. above) IS amenable to empirical processes.

When faced with the fact of Venusian craters of recent- even potentially historic- origin, an astrophysicist refused to modify his belief in a uniformitarianism philosophy that excluded the possibility of such events. That is dogmatic, not logical or empirical. Uniformitarianism as a cosmological (pre-telescope) school of thought excluded the possibility of close interaction between planetary bodies.

Whatever else, I hope that you do arrive at the Truth..

The ability to choose (or reject) freely is intrinsic and unique to humanity. God is NOT capricious (all misunderstandings and misrepresentations to the contrary). Because man was made in God's image, we can thus extrapolate that God is a God of purpose, and is not arbitrary. He would NOT entrust man with any purpose unless man is capable of being responsible. and if man's decisions (will) are solely the result of either instinct or logic, then he cannot be responsible. A will that is a free will is necessary. And that has been shown to be resultant to a requisite level of intelligence, which is genetically determined.

Can you prove or disprove the Bible? If you think so, then you rate yourself more highly than Rousseau- which is not very likely except in your self-evaluation- which is always (for all of us) never 100% accurate. Will the validity of evolution answer the question 'What is the purpose of man?'. "Coming to a full knowledge of the Truth is a subjective experience of a living Person. NOT an objective philosophy based merely on logical proofs. If truth was obtainable through mental effort, there would be no room for faith, grace, mercy, or Love.

Read post #81. Again.

You make logical inferences. Then you draw logical extrapolations from them. Then you test those with the known, relevant facts.

All knowledge (except for axiomatic truths) begins with making premises, which are then tested to see whether or not they are viable theorems. I 100% (to reiterate what I have previously stated) that YES! evolution is the only viable explanation for life as we know it. Why? Was it an axiomatic truth? No. But its premises logically led to inferences, which were empirically testable. Some failed. What we have today is the explanation of the process indicated by the mechanisms which passed the tests.

Free will is dependent on a requisite level of intelligence, and not merely gross brain size but a high 'brain-to-body' ratio. These characteristics are genetically determined. I refer you to the book 'Extra-terrestrial Civilizations' by Isaac Asimov.

It's non-fiction, which puts it at an immediate disadvantage with fiction in the scale of boring. Plus, for cohesion and logical progression, it is written in a textbook style/format. Also, there is a readability problem resulting from inter-meshing logic, science, and scripture. But the scope of its field, and the relevance to mankind's fate, are considerable none-the-less.

Knowledge, indeed all of the physical universe, points seeking persons in the right direction. But the answer is deeper than knowledge- than a mere arrangement of neuronic pathways. The answer is an eternal Person received into the center of the seeker who opens to receive Him. But received into an organ- the human spirit- in the center of their being, deeper than their mind.

Believe what you like, it won't change the future. Many persons of high intellectual and educational attainment and capacity have thought otherwise. Pascal, Rousseau, ad infinitum. What did they know? After all, we have so much more reams of details, and such greater technological advancement.

I cannot 'prove' the Bible. Nor can a superficial understanding of it justify concluding that it is false. Fact of the matter is, it predicts certain events which have not yet transpired. And indications are favorable that most people here now will see, experience, and witness many of them. And when your own life is at stake, it will be hard even for the most dubious of skeptics to assert with 100% conviction that it is merely coincidence.