As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.
As a life long Christian raised in a Christian home and educated in a Christian school I am of course aware that there are errors, omissions and contradictions found throughout scripture as well as fantasy and "Just so Stories" and absurdities and evidence of the ignorance of the authors and folk tales and local legal practices and lots of other stuff. The Bible is simply an anthology of anthologies written by man and reflecting the people and era of the authors.
That does not change the fact that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only viable explanation presented so far.
Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, as described in Genesis?
Of course not. Genesis 2&3 is a "Just So" story meant to explain why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for humans than the other animals, why we are not still hunter gatherers, why we seem to have a moral based society and why women should be subject to men.
Creation is simply a plot device just like the God character in the story.
Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth?
Yes, honest Christians should understand that Genesis 1 & Genesis 2&3 are fictional.
First, Genesis is not one story but a collections of folk stories. Second, based on the overwhelming evidence found both in reality and in the Bible itself, of course the tales found in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2&3 should be understood as "not factual".
That does not mean they have no value or purpose but the fact the there are two entirely different and mutually exclusive creation tales should be the first clue that "creation" is not what is relevant, it is a plot device. When you add in the fact that two entirely different gods are described in the two stories any honest Christian should see clearly that the stories are folk tales, "Just So" stories and then look to see why two mutually exclusive stories were included.
Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that.
That's a great example of why Science is so superior to fantasy and mythology and of Creationist dishonesty. The footprints were always treated as separate evidence from the Australopithecus remains. While artists may well have drawn examples of what Lucy might have looked like the fact that the skeleton was incomplete was also not just acknowledged but documented.
As additional information becomes available the conclusions get revised. In the case of Australopithecus initial ideas claimed only bipedalism fairly like modern ones but as more samples have been discovered we know know that there were several species of Australopithecus and there may well have still been arboreal traits.
It is also fact as opposed to fantasy that the foot prints do exist, that the remains do exist, that both were found in proximity, that the foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints and the the foot prints and the remains are approximately the same age.
Science is self correcting where dogma simply perpetuates fantasy.
Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans." Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot.
I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape.
A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.
Except for the fact that they can be distinguished from modern footprints.
But your point as usual is still irrelevant and dishonest.
The footprints exist.
The fossils exist.
They were found in the same general area.
And as I pointed out, as additional evidence is found Science, unlike dogma, corrects its mistakes.
A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.
A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong.
Thank God scientists are not philosophers and don't simply come up with a theory but rather test it. In the case of the Theory of Evolution they have been testing it for hundreds of years and in fact EVERY new discovery, EVERY new testing method has shown that the Theory of Evolution is correct.
What you describe is the utter nonsense marketed by Creationists.
I've heard that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertebrates. Is this true?
While I really have to question if Dredge has actually heard that or is just making stuff up again.
But the issue is really silly anyway. The concept of a vertebrate and even the modern members of that classification include all the cartilaginous fish and as anyone who has ever collected shark teeth knows, cartilage does not fossilize often. Early members of the vertebrate lineage would be unlikely to leave fossilized skeletal evidence.
Evidence of early notochords does exist however despite what creationists might wish.
But this is all just another attempt by the Creationist Conmen to palm the pea, fool the rubes, misdirect attention for the pickpockets.
It has nothing to do with the fact that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, with the fact of evolution or the fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the variety of life seen in the past and in the present.
It's bad enough coming from an atheist but from someone who says he's a Christian it's more than offensive.]
What is offensive is hearing someone who professes to be a Christian say stuff like "The EVIDENCE for a genuine Christian is WHAT GOD SAYS."
What God said is not written in the Bible but rather in the rocks and stars and genetics and when those things disagree with what the Bible stories say then a genuine Christian knows it is the rocks and stars and genetics that superseded anything written in the Bible.
There is nothing anti-science about starting from a known truth.
But there is an explicit dishonesty in declaring the Bible to be a TRUTH.
Is the Bible evidence for the virgin birth? For the resurrection of Christ? For the miracles of Christ? Or in the OT for the parting of the Red Sea? For the miracles of Elijah? For the supernatural preservation of Daniel and his friends? If it is evidence for those things how about for the worldwide Flood? Does it SAY it covered the whole world? Is it evidence for there being no death in the world before the Fall? BY one man death entered...
Yes, the Bible says that the flood covered the whole Earth.
No that is not evidence that there was a Biblical flood.
And the answer for each of the other things you mention is a resounding "No, it is NOT evidence!"
You have no right to tell YECs we can't base our SCIENTIFIC thinking on the Bible's CLEAR EVIDENCE because it's GOD'S WORD.
We not only have every right to tell you you cannot base SCIENTIFIC thinking on what you believe is God's word. Sorry Faith but that is the fact. Science does not start with any conclusion.
That's tiresome and unfair because we do base our scientific thinking on the Bible and we're not going to stop. The Bible is our basic starting point. I hardly ever mention it in my arguments but it's there underneath my arguments for the Flood and against the ToE.
And that is why there can never be an honest Creation Scientist.
So I could not care less what YOU believe, but don't tell US what to believe and accuse us of not addressing evidence that you think should be put before the Bible. I don't and YECs don't and it isn't for you to dictate to us and call us unscientific.
You are not scientific or doing science or have a clue what science is.
You are wrong. The Bible is evidence of the things I listed. It's our only source of the information aboutr those things. Written documents, witness evidence, is evidence.
You are only partially right Faith. It is the only evidence for those claims but everything in reality, in real life refutes those claims.
As a Christian we can believe such thing but the only basis for those beliefs is faith. There is not actual evidence outside those claims to support them. In addition, the Bible itself is a poor and unreliable witness since it contains so many different versions of the tales, so many contradictory and mutually exclusive versions of the tales and so many incidents that are flatly refuted by reality.
To be scientific or even just honest, we MUST recognize and acknowledge those errors in the Bible that are simply factually false.