New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...

From your Naturalistic Evolution section on the chart, Mark. That man is an evolved (and evolving) animal according to the theory of evolution is true, but the ToE has absolutely nothing to say on whether or not man has a soul. It's about the material, biological world, and unless the soul is supposed to be a physical thing made of chemicals, like the brain, then it doesn't and cannot come into the realms of science at all.So you should take the three words "without a soul" out of your chart, as they're misleading.I'm not religious myself, but there are some religious people using this site who are firm supporters of naturalistic evolution, and also, I assume, firm believers in the human soul, and I'm sure they'd back me up on this.

I think you're confusing philisophical naturalism with scientific naturalism. Science deals with the material realities of the Universe. The soul, as you point out, isn't material, which means it cannot be studied scientifically. It's a subject for theoligicians and philosophers, not scientists, and science cannot possibly tell you one way or another whether or not humans have souls.The only one of the "theories" described on your chart which is scientific is the fourth one. The other three are religious faiths, which is why they can bring in things like gods and the human soul. They could also bring in goddesses, angels, fairies and anything else they wanted to into the equation, because with faith, you can believe in anything you want to.But science is a discipline which is supposed to base its theories on evidence, which is why you expect things like the transitional fossils to be shown, and you ask for them further up the thread. You could try asking the proponents of the other three theories to show concrete evidence of their three slightly different creator Gods, or evidence to back up the time when they believe the soul was introduced into humanity, but you won't get such evidence. You could try asking people who believe in elves and leprechauns for evidence of their existence, and the results would be the same. If you want to believe in such things, you'll have to take them on faith.

I've looked a bit more closely at your chart, and actually it's missing a column for pure science, and what you're describing are different religious/philosophical beliefs, in a sense. I'd suggest that you add a fifth column for what I called above "scientific naturalism" which is also more commonly known as "methodological naturalism", and that would be the best title for the column (or "methodological naturalistic evolution", in keeping with the way you're titling things). Then, in order to solve the "soul" problem, your existing naturalistic evolution column could be titled "philosophical (or ontological) naturalistic evolution" or better and probably more common "metaphysical naturalistic evolution". Metaphysical naturalism involves the belief that there's nothing supernatural, no souls , gods etc.Methodological naturalism is the basis of modern science and involves no beliefs about the supernatural or whether or not there are Gods or we have souls, and it is practised by theists, agnostics and atheists alike.Other people have pointed out faults elsewhere in your chart, like the old creationist chestnut about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. This is not a scientific objection to evolutionary theory or abiogenesis hypotheses/theories, and seems to be based on the blind faith that the earth is a closed or isolated system, which it isn't.But a point I would make is that as your chart seems to be dealing mainly with faith about origins of life, then it's very incomplete. Remember that most of the people you share the world with are not Christian or Jewish, and you should perhaps include columns devoted to the many other origins beliefs in the world, those with their roots in other religions than your own.I know you're from an area where many people are indoctrinated in their childhoods with a literal belief in ancient Jewish mythology, but there are many other creation mythologies that you could include in the interests of some cultural objectivity, don't you think?

Here's an attempt to help you understand the fossil record, if you really want to (although I suspect that, like most creationists, it's possible that you don't!) Let's say were're looking for something that gives a clear indication of our own ancestral line at the time they were moving from being fish to amphibians. An obvious thing that might show in the fossil record would be limbs that were halfway between being fins and legs, something that would have to have happened. As you probably know, a number of creatures with this characteristic have been found, including some samples last year of a creature that had rudimentary wrists.Now what I want to talk about is your 1%. Fish species at that time were not rushing around saying to each other "hey, let's move onto land". For this one line that did make the transition, there would've been thousands or tens of thousands of species that remained fish and are the ancestors of modern fish. So, what this means is that you would be liable to find only one such obvious example of a clear transitional for thousands or tens of thousands of fish fossils from that epoch. Certainly, one percent of fossils being obvious transitionals of that kind would astonish paleontologists.

It certainly could've been made more simply, and more correctly. When I looked into this about a year ago, I was actually surprised that there was so much between whole classes. The chances of finding even one sample of that single species of reptile that was on its way to being a mammal seemed to be slim, but there's quite a lot, if I remember rightly.Of course, I may not have been allowing for the fact that predictions of evolutionary theory combined with good geological dating means that fossil hunters may be getting very good at figuring out what are likely places to look for such things.I think that was the case with Tiktaalik, the fish with the wrists I mentioned above.