Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

In the OP you argue that evolution is based on Uniformitarianism and that Uniformitarianism is invalid. So why would it be improper to reject evolution on that basis.Second you argue that relaxing the literal 24-hour days makes the Genesis account compatible with evolution. But even if the 6 days were different from 24-hour days, there is still the problem that the order of creation in Genesis is not compatible with the scientific view.Perhaps you are the one erroneously jumping to a conclusion that religious people and scientists are idiots.

A crater on Venus, or any other planet, may have been formed by any number of known and observed mechanisms including impact by a meteor. We also believe that there are no plate tectonics or Venus. Explain how some random feature found on Venus, that may or may not be formed by a catastrophic event, rules out whatever you mean by uniformitarianism as an explanation for other features, either on Venus or on earth.

Did even the old discarded versions of uniformitarianism ever imply that no features on earth were formed during catastrophic events such as volcano eruptions and meteor impacts?Secondly, what story is PaulGL using to explain Venus craters?Thirdly, is this thread just a plug for a book?

Well, the OP did reference some chapter of some book that I don't see on my shelf. I've been trying to determine if there is some reason to read the book.

Don't drink and post.

That's quite obviously not the point.The point of Coragyps argument is that your assumption that the first Homo with 23 pairs of chromosomes would not be able to find a mate has not been established. You cannot establish that assumption without producing his 22 paired ancestor or peers.Your failing is that you believe your assumption is proven by the fact that modern man cannot mate with chimpanzees.

This is the point at which your line of reasoning is being challenged. And you should not need me to point that out. But instead you went on about horses. Do you really think an argument that Genesis must not only be literally correct, but also complete is a viable argument? Nobody thinks that every thing that happened to mankind is told in the Bible.

Yes, that would have been great. But such a desirable event is not absolutely required. In fact, given that evolution does not have a desired outcome, that something would be "highly desirable" in order to accomplish a desired outcome is irrelevant.

I am going to defer to PaulK and Coragyps who have handled this question in the same way I would have.

If we follow this suggestion, then there is no reason why the first living ancestor to have 23 pairs of chromosomes needed to be Adam or even anything we would call homo sapiens.You've picked one way to interpret the allegory, namely that Eve was cloned from Adam; surely there are countless others allegorical interpretations that others could generate.And that's assuming that the story in Genesis bears any relation whatsoever to how the humans evolved that any of us would recognize.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Do you understand the objection that has been raised? Just because you find some mechanism or process to be efficient, desireable, or advantageous in propagating evolved traits does not mean that the mechanism or process is even possible, let alone that it actually occurred. It's not that no one understands your argument. Your argument simply is not persuasive.

There is no need for the trait to show up in 100 percent of the offspring. You require this only because you favor some allegory based on your interpretation of Genesis.But evolution does not require all offspring to have trait X. If trait X is advantageous, offspring having the trait will have an advantage that leads to the trait propagating.That is the objection that has been raised several times. I don't see any attempt on your part to address it.