A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Lon]

I wouldn’t be so sure. Meaning is a product of your brain, and the functioning of your brain is a scientific question.

Not, if I'm made quite a bit higher than animals, and I am. It has a responsibility that should not be dismissed. Sciences: psychology, sociology, and etc. aren't able to keep up. It means you aren't quite correct. Science has not, in fact, kept up.

Obviously neuroscience is still in its infancy, so I’m not going to make grand claims for it yet. But watch that space for an eventual biochemical description of meaning.

More than obvious.

Not what bears do in forests, presumably.

Of course, whatever bears do, they obviously do in forests and others of their habitats, no?

Are you a ‘directed entity’? What of free will? (I don’t care at all about that synthetic concept, so please treat them as rhetorical questions!)

Nature vs. nurture. Is the jury back yet? This is one of those philosophical discussions, but it does indeed take intent and meaning to have intent and meaning. it is a closed system.

This is like the mendacious Kayleigh McEnany responding to furious and quite probing questioning from White House journalists with accusations that journalists have lacked curiosity.

I don't perceive homogeneity in the comparison. You've admitted:

I think the case is actually that I do not have a desire to wonder at the wheres and whys about which you wonder.

Not that it matters much, but I'm not seeing defense, but agreement on the observation.

But the questions aren’t interesting, and I think I’ve probably already considered them in rejecting them.

Yes, but don't take exception when I then say 'you are right, you aren't interested in these important questions." You are in agreement.

Don’t mistake my belief there are some questions that just aren’t worth asking for a lack of curiosity.

It carries a bit, in assessment. Being on a Theology website with no curiousity for it, causes stagnant conversations. I have seen a few of these come around nearly the same as they were 20 years ago. :think:

… they came from dinosaurs with feathers…

Speculation or assertion? :think:

You understate the case magnificently!

Another assertion? Do you believe any of this discussion stops any science? Any theology halted by science conversely? :think:

I would suggest that you owe it to yourself to consider the possibility that the experiences you attribute to supernatural causes could be effects from the history of human evolution.

:chuckle: Sorry, this is incredibly thin. As I've said, the ability of any to quantify/qualify have fallen flat, substantially inadequate. This 'scientific' speculation of yours is worse for the tendered.

Without getting too meta about it, I know for a fact my brain makes up stuff just so it can cope with the constant data input from the senses.

Like an instant healing? I was there. There is no question that the man was sick and no question, moments later was not. No question. There is no 'meta' that is going to go anywhere but seem dismal and flat, seems trite and contrived. As I've said, there are too many. Way too many. It may seem 'Charismatic Pentecostal' but I'm not. I just know, for a fact, that my prayers are incredibly/specifically answered. Think wheat/tares again. There is no way a double-blind is going to suffice to quantify any relationship. Science often kills what it tries to observe, then because the thing is dead, comes to a very wrong conclusion.

My understanding is that there is as much information coming from other parts of the brain into the visual cortex as there is information coming from the eyes. The brain models the world, then tests the model against data from the eyes. Then it models again, then checks again, and so on. I know I’m naturally bad at statistics, and I find coincidences surprising, but I’ve learned enough about maths to know to be surprised if I was never surprised (if you see what I mean).

Sure, but the objective of the magician IS to fool you. It means there is intelligence behind the conception of 'magic.' There is a desire to suspend belief. At the same time, I know that there is something, a Being, a something, that answers. It is as clear as that. There is no question.

The Prime Minister that my country has just re-elected was a member of the Mormon church about 15 years ago, but she turned her back on them and now calls herself agnostic because she could not reconcile her continuing membership with the mindless prejudice that church held against her gay friends and flatmates. I hope I would have the same courage in that situation.

The basic is this: If we are spiritual beings, we are responsible for spiritual actions and these are often against basal instincts centered on self. Furthermore, nearly all homosexuals were once classified as problematic, rightly so. The reason is that nearly all of these are abused as children. The three nephews/nieces I have that say they are gay, all had been abused badly as children.

I think I would have done the same as you. We don’t have snakes in my country, so whenever I have gone camping overseas I have always zipped up my tent very tightly, even when pitching it in a holiday camp. I’m not sure how this metaphor applies to belief in the supernatural…


I find it darky comical that christianity manages to invent problems for itself that don’t exist in practice. The so-called problem of evil doesn’t exist for atheists. It’s just a problem that arises from assuming there is an omnipotent, omniscient being capable of stopping ‘evil’ and so then having to invent excuses by describing the kind of games the omnipotent being is playing by allowing evil to happen. No gods, no problem of evil. Same with the Catholic obsession with so-called original sin: It’s not true that there was a time of only one human, or two, so it’s not true that a unique ancestor of all humans committed an act of rebellion for which we all bear responsibility through the doctrine of original sin. Why would everyone’s favourite evil empire, the Roman Catholic church, be motivated to maintain such a nasty dogma, especially knowing that they accept evolution by natural selection? Has to be self-interest and psychological control. There’s little else in it.

I'm not sure how deep this goes in you. I'd imagine the harm done to a child is 'evil.' You'd want to be tremendously careful in the future about conveying 'darkly comical' about evil that certainly exists and society abhors, regardless of how free you are, yourself, from such affiliation as abhorrence to harm done to children, as an instance.

Science throws out its old textbooks, except perhaps the ones with significance in the history of science. Science is the most widely respected epistemological method. How is it that theology hasn’t thrown away its old textbooks too?

Because 'notions' rather than it, are the problem? :think:

Yes. To keep the library relevant, books kept for traditional reasons should justify their places. I think Genesis doesn’t, except as an historical reference to how ancient Jews thought about the world. Then, it should be placed alongside all the other creation myths that have cultural meaning but contain no legitimate means to bring solidarity to humanity. That is something that science is in a unique position to achieve because its criteria are universal.

Its a value judgement. Perhaps you've been on TOL long enough to make the statement, but I've to date not seen the case for it. Perhaps a thread?

I note you have not demonstrated me wrong by proposing an example of a ‘why’ question that is worth asking!

Stuart

Take your above notion against Genesis: The question 'why' must be asked and answered or it'll never happen. It depends how dedicated you are to anything as to the 'why.' My daughter, getting her biology degree answered 'why.' For you? Why? would be 'interest, some importance attached, $ to exist, etc. There is, on this planet, a difference between 'survivors' and those who actually live with purpose that purposes their own lives in a direction of meaning. It is the 'why' of existence. If you are going through the motions without an inkling as to 'why' then you (frankly) don't count for anything because there is no 'purpose' in interaction with you. "Why" is paramount and more important than 'how.' How is simply the vehicle to 'why.'

 

[Right Divider]

Still no justification for your denial? Another afternoon at the movies watching the only movie that's on. Groundhog Day.

Stuart

Feel free to quit playing childish games and provide support for your claim.

P..S. I realize that you can't.

 

[Stuu]

Not, if I'm made quite a bit higher than animals, and I am. It has a responsibility that should not be dismissed. Sciences: psychology, sociology, and etc. aren't able to keep up. It means you aren't quite correct. Science has not, in fact, kept up.

You aren’t higher than animals, you are a member of an animal species. But are you saying that you have some specific responsibility regarding ‘meaning’, or philosophy? You’d have to be more specific about what you mean by different disciplines ‘not keeping up’. Not keeping up with you?

Nature vs. nurture. Is the jury back yet? This is one of those philosophical discussions, but it does indeed take intent and meaning to have intent and meaning. it is a closed system.

If you mean what proportion of your behaviours are influenced or driven by genetics, it has been determined to be about 45% in humans.

Yes, but don't take exception when I then say 'you are right, you aren't interested in these important questions." You are in agreement.

Are they important questions?

Being on a Theology website with no curiousity for it, causes stagnant conversations. I have seen a few of these come around nearly the same as they were 20 years ago.

Well I can work up a head of anger as a knee-jerk reaction to mindless dogma. That can work sometimes.

Stuu: [Birds] came from dinosaurs with feathers…

Speculation or assertion?

Fact. There is no serious doubt about it.

Sorry, this is incredibly thin. As I've said, the ability of any to quantify/qualify have fallen flat, substantially inadequate. This 'scientific' speculation of yours is worse for the tendered.

At least it is a model that is open to disproof.

Like an instant healing? I was there. There is no question that the man was sick and no question, moments later was not. No question. There is no 'meta' that is going to go anywhere but seem dismal and flat, seems trite and contrived. As I've said, there are too many. Way too many. It may seem 'Charismatic Pentecostal' but I'm not. I just know, for a fact, that my prayers are incredibly/specifically answered. Think wheat/tares again. There is no way a double-blind is going to suffice to quantify any relationship. Science often kills what it tries to observe, then because the thing is dead, comes to a very wrong conclusion.

You’ve lost me there. Your pace of metaphor has run several rings around me, and I’m not sure of its purpose in doing that.

Sure, but the objective of the magician IS to fool you. It means there is intelligence behind the conception of 'magic.' There is a desire to suspend belief.

I don’t think your visual cortex has any illusion of independent free will in order to be able to play games on you. Pretty much the back third of your brain is adapted to processing and interpreting visual information, and with that much computing required I don’t think it has the spare resources to play games with you. Anything less than optimum performance is a liability in terms of survival and reproduction, which are the ultimate criteria for any feature of your body.

You don’t go to a magician’s show because you think you are seeing the suspension of the laws of nature, you go because you know it is sleight of hand but it is entertaining to have your senses fooled in clever ways. I have to say I don’t find magicians’ shows entertaining.

At the same time, I know that there is something, a Being, a something, that answers. It is as clear as that. There is no question.

Your expectations have been culturally primed.

The basic is this: If we are spiritual beings, we are responsible for spiritual actions and these are often against basal instincts centered on self. Furthermore, nearly all homosexuals were once classified as problematic, rightly so. The reason is that nearly all of these are abused as children. The three nephews/nieces I have that say they are gay, all had been abused badly as children.

You could play your part in making life more comfortable for your gay relatives, and members of the rainbow community generally by taking some responsibility for your own actions. You have a religious book that tells you it’s not your place to judge, yet you judge. You have the power to do your bit to be inclusive yet apparently you have been exclusive. You claim to be in education yet you display ignorance. Look in the mirror to see who the problematic one is. I am sorry to hear your nephews and nieces have been abused: you seem to be willing to carry on a kind of abuse of them yourself, even just in the act of posting this here, now. If you don’t believe me, seek out the statistics for suicide rates among young gay people. It’s not about being abused as a causal factor, that's absurd. Loud, ignorant, self-righteous homophobes have a lot to answer for.

I'm not sure how deep this goes in you. I'd imagine the harm done to a child is 'evil.' You'd want to be tremendously careful in the future about conveying 'darkly comical' about evil that certainly exists and society abhors, regardless of how free you are, yourself, from such affiliation as abhorrence to harm done to children, as an instance.

Good grief. Not evil. The problem of evil.

Because 'notions' rather than it, are the problem?

Sure. People’s notions mean that the bible has motivated some of the worst acts of evil in history. I’m not in favour of banning books, but you can see what has motivated German-speaking countries to ban Mein Kampf.

Take your above notion against Genesis: The question 'why' must be asked and answered or it'll never happen. It depends how dedicated you are to anything as to the 'why.' My daughter, getting her biology degree answered 'why.' For you? Why? would be 'interest, some importance attached, $ to exist, etc. There is, on this planet, a difference between 'survivors' and those who actually live with purpose that purposes their own lives in a direction of meaning. It is the 'why' of existence. If you are going through the motions without an inkling as to 'why' then you (frankly) don't count for anything because there is no 'purpose' in interaction with you. "Why" is paramount and more important than 'how.' How is simply the vehicle to 'why.'

Was there a ‘why’ question in there? Was it worth the effort evidently required? The word ‘why’ is not a question.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

That would be a false dilemma fallacy you are promoting.

Stuart

Saying it doesn't make it so!

In what why is it a false dilemma?

Go ahead, explain it to us! If you can.

You've excluded the middle group that were, to use a pretty crude description, 'partly human'.

Let me know what you think a human is, and I'll see if I can work out which parts arose when.

Stuart

:rotfl:

Imagine that! An atheist who demonstrates a complete lack of familiarity with the laws of reason! The very laws he claims to base his entire worldview upon!

 

[Right Divider]

Imagine that! An atheist who demonstrates a complete lack of familiarity with the laws of reason! The very laws he claims to base his entire worldview upon!

You have to remember that he was created by random chance... all of the signals in his brain are just random impulses. :french:

 

[Right Divider]

You aren’t higher than animals, you are a member of an animal species.

If you cannot see a distinct and massive difference between human animals and the rest of the animal kingdom...

 

[Stuu]

Imagine that! An atheist who demonstrates a complete lack of familiarity with the laws of reason! The very laws he claims to base his entire worldview upon!

Had you forgotten you were replying to me and not to someone else?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

If you cannot see a distinct and massive difference between human animals and the rest of the animal kingdom...

You have acknowledged that we are animals, which I think was the idea misconceived by Lon. There is a 'distinct and massive difference' between giraffes and the rest of the animal kingdom too. Was there a point you wished to make that could have been clearer if you had completed your conditional statement?

Stuart

 

[Lon]

You aren’t higher than animals, you are a member of an animal species.

LOL, incredibly higher and I know it.

But are you saying that you have some specific responsibility regarding ‘meaning’, or philosophy?

Sure, in the sense that is is a closed system.

You’d have to be more specific about what you mean by different disciplines ‘not keeping up’. Not keeping up with you?

I don't know if you know the success rate of psychiatrists and psychologists. I'm saying there is plenty of room for growth. I'm not sure what your degree(s) are.

If you mean what proportion of your behaviours are influenced or driven by genetics, it has been determined to be about 45% in humans.

By some research reports. There is a lot of disagreement among peers on this.

Are they important questions?

Like health questions, if a guy is overweight, smokes, and drinks, he doesn't care about the questions, but yes, they are important whether he ignores his health questions or not.

Well I can work up a head of anger as a knee-jerk reaction to mindless dogma. That can work sometimes.

On TOL?

Stuu: [Birds] came from dinosaurs with feathers…

Fact. There is no serious doubt about it.

Er, as I said these have to do with family members and they disagree this is a 'fact.' The fossil, as I said, was seen as not a 'transition' but a species all its own like a duckbill platypus. I'm not privy to that class so would have to read up to find out why, but both aren't slouches. They know their subject matter.

At least it is a model that is open to disproof.

...or verification. Confirmation bias, if one is 'lucky' would produces awesome results. If completely wrong... This conversation is more important for one of us.

You’ve lost me there. Your pace of metaphor has run several rings around me, and I’m not sure of its purpose in doing that.

:think: Must be a wheat/tare thing. It was not a metaphor.

I don’t think your visual cortex has any illusion of independent free will in order to be able to play games on you. Pretty much the back third of your brain is adapted to processing and interpreting visual information, and with that much computing required I don’t think it has the spare resources to play games with you. Anything less than optimum performance is a liability in terms of survival and reproduction, which are the ultimate criteria for any feature of your body.

Having been in many science classes, I'm convinced strongly that science posits 'truth' as if it were. Science used to bleed people with leeches. There are plenty of lawsuits against science corporations such that you'd want to question what is known and what isn't quite up to scratch. There is precedence.

You don’t go to a magician’s show because you think you are seeing the suspension of the laws of nature, you go because you know it is sleight of hand but it is entertaining to have your senses fooled in clever ways. I have to say I don’t find magicians’ shows entertaining.

I do, in the sense that I want to figure out how it was done, but that's neither here nor there, just interesting between us.

Your expectations have been culturally primed.

Agreed. In and of itself, no bad thing.

You could play your part in making life more comfortable for your gay relatives, and members of the rainbow community generally by taking some responsibility for your own actions.

To what end? The 'why' questions must always be asked and if anything, in thread, getting you to at least see the 'why' questions is top of my list.

You have a religious book that tells you it’s not your place to judge, yet you judge.

First, I have a degree in this book. I'd correct your perception if possible. Language and context are important than a casual observance. Next? Where is the judgement? Did you see 'abuse' as a pronouncement? There is a difference between evaluation and a condemnation that shouldn't be confused. "Judgment" might be used for both, but the contextual meaning is clearly different. We either need a different word for each (evaluation/condemnation) or to be sure we don't take an English translated word without considering the scope of the term that was used.

You have the power to do your bit to be inclusive yet apparently you have been exclusive. You claim to be in education yet you display ignorance. Look in the mirror to see who the problematic one is. I am sorry to hear your nephews and nieces have been abused: you seem to be willing to carry on a kind of abuse of them yourself, even just in the act of posting this here, now. If you don’t believe me, seek out the statistics for suicide rates among young gay people. It’s not about being abused as a causal factor, that's absurd. Loud, ignorant, self-righteous homophobes have a lot to answer for.

Speaking of judgmental...and did you see any kind of it from me? At present I've told you rather what made them this way. I eluded that it probably should be still considered in psychology rather than 'accepting.' Would you blame me for 'trying to help' anybody with a background of abuse? Such doesn't make sense. I've never been a proponent of excusing behavior in the guise of 'live and let live.' My streets are unsafe for children because drug addicts live in tents and leave their needles in the park where children play.

Good grief. Not evil. The problem of evil.

C.S. Lewis, probably more intelligent than you and I put together penned the 'problem of evil' and his discussion was clear and cogent. By your exception, you illustrate his posit of truth, not detract from it. As I said, there is a need to be careful what is 'darkly humorous' in such a discussion, especially when you too believe evils exist.

Sure. People’s notions mean that the bible has motivated some of the worst acts of evil in history. I’m not in favour of banning books, but you can see what has motivated German-speaking countries to ban Mein Kampf.

Its an accusation. Such never has produced traction in discussion. The crooked cross was not at all Christian. I'm not sure if you knew that or not, but it is doing the very thing that Hitler did to Jews, to cast imagined blame for some perceived ill. I do agree with you, anything can be used by evil people to plan and execute evil and harm is still done today to those who follow charlatans.

Was there a ‘why’ question in there? Was it worth the effort evidently required? The word ‘why’ is not a question.

Stuart

Yes, there was a very strongly implied 'why' in that sentence: "Why do we need to ban Genesis?" There is no compelling directive otherwise. There is no meaning to life otherwise.

 

[Right Divider]

You have acknowledged that we are animals, which I think was the idea misconceived by Lon.

:duh:

There is a 'distinct and massive difference' between giraffes and the rest of the animal kingdom too.

Giraffe's don't:

• Study physics
• Build skyscrapers
• Write poetry
• Discover DNA
• Contemplate their own existence
• etc. etc. etc.

Was there a point you wished to make that could have been clearer if you had completed your conditional statement?

Stuart

Yes, my point is that you are very dumb indeed.

 

[7djengo7]

You've excluded the middle group that were, to use a pretty crude description, 'partly human'.

Is whatever you would refer to by your phrase, "partly human", a human? Yes (it is a human) or No (it is not a human)?

 

[Stuu]

Giraffe's don't:

• Study physics
• Build skyscrapers
• Write poetry
• Discover DNA
• Contemplate their own existence
• etc. etc. etc.

I see you managed to get to five then.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: But are you saying that you have some specific responsibility regarding ‘meaning’, or philosophy?

Sure, in the sense that is is a closed system.

Huh?

I don't know if you know the success rate of psychiatrists and psychologists. I'm saying there is plenty of room for growth. I'm not sure what your degree(s) are.

So you can’t be specific about what you mean?

Like health questions, if a guy is overweight, smokes, and drinks, he doesn't care about the questions, but yes, they are important whether he ignores his health questions or not.

You’ve completely lost me sorry. I have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

Er, as I said these have to do with family members and they disagree this is a 'fact.' The fossil, as I said, was seen as not a 'transition' but a species all its own like a duckbill platypus. I'm not privy to that class so would have to read up to find out why, but both aren't slouches. They know their subject matter.

Just as well science runs on evidence and not the opinions of your relatives.

Must be a wheat/tare thing. It was not a metaphor.

No, it’s a whirlwind of language that means very little to me. Do you do just ordinary English?

Having been in many science classes, I'm convinced strongly that science posits 'truth' as if it were. Science used to bleed people with leeches. There are plenty of lawsuits against science corporations such that you'd want to question what is known and what isn't quite up to scratch. There is precedence.

Doctors used to bleed people with leeches. And they still do in some cases, for good medical reasons.

Lawsuits? Precedence? Huh?

To what end? The 'why' questions must always be asked and if anything, in thread, getting you to at least see the 'why' questions is top of my list.

You haven’t actually asked one. All you write is ‘why’ as if it’s a question. It’s not.

First, I have a degree in this book. I'd correct your perception if possible. Language and context are important than a casual observance. Next? Where is the judgement? Did you see 'abuse' as a pronouncement? There is a difference between evaluation and a condemnation that shouldn't be confused. "Judgment" might be used for both, but the contextual meaning is clearly different. We either need a different word for each (evaluation/condemnation) or to be sure we don't take an English translated word without considering the scope of the term that was used.

Just to remind you of your abusive language:

nearly all homosexuals were once classified as problematic, rightly so. The reason is that nearly all of these are abused as children.

At present I've told you rather what made them this way.

And do you have any links to studies that back you up, or is it just 100% prejudice?

I eluded that it probably should be still considered in psychology rather than 'accepting.' Would you blame me for 'trying to help' anybody with a background of abuse? Such doesn't make sense. I've never been a proponent of excusing behavior in the guise of 'live and let live.'

Others need neither your condescension nor your tolerance. Gay people certainly don’t need the kind of help you would want to offer. When they come for the religious homophobes, who will you be relying on for solidarity?

My streets are unsafe for children because drug addicts live in tents and leave their needles in the park where children play.

What does that have to do with abuse claims regarding gay people?

C.S. Lewis, probably more intelligent than you and I put together penned the 'problem of evil' and his discussion was clear and cogent. By your exception, you illustrate his posit of truth, not detract from it. As I said, there is a need to be careful what is 'darkly humorous' in such a discussion, especially when you too believe evils exist.

Perhaps I can ignore his patronising tone and love of platitudes, but CS Lewis’s biggest failing was not being honest with children.

Its an accusation. Such never has produced traction in discussion. The crooked cross was not at all Christian.

In Mein Kampf Hitler claimed he was doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people.

I'm not sure if you knew that or not, but it is doing the very thing that Hitler did to Jews, to cast imagined blame for some perceived ill. I do agree with you, anything can be used by evil people to plan and execute evil and harm is still done today to those who follow charlatans.

But the damning reality is that christianity is a leading motivation for good people to do evil.

"Why do we need to ban Genesis?"

And you are saying this is a question worth asking? And can you quote anyone wishing to ‘ban’ Genesis?

There is no compelling directive otherwise. There is no meaning to life otherwise.

I’m sorry for you if the meaning of your life hinges on the contents of a book of mythology of ancient Palestine.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Is whatever you would refer to by your phrase, "partly human", a human? Yes (it is a human) or No (it is not a human)?

Your disdain for the middle is perverse. What is it like to see the world in high contrast monochrome?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

You're stalling.

Not at all. I'm more than willing to discuss the evidence you present. However, you have to provide something that isn't just an assertion of what you believe. You can't declare there to be a "universal" genetic code and use it as evidence for common descent. You could assert that all living things share DNA, which is your evidence for common descent.

That'd be fine, I reckon. :idunno:

All living things use the same system of storing and transmitting genetic information.

As we say: Give us a name for the system.

 

[Stripe]

A common CODING SYSTEM is not, ipso facto, evidence that all life on earth shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

Shared utility might be evidence for common descent. I just don't think Stuu is confident enough in it to present it in an unambiguous form.

We have to collectively get over the notion that because there is evidence for an idea, the idea has merit. In a discussion of a scientific nature, we have to assess the evidence presented in support of ideas, not insist that there can be no evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution by natural selection is not an issue. Creationism is fine with that.

Evolution — the notion that all things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection — is a physical impossibility. This creationists most certainly does have an issue with evolution by any means.

 

[Right Divider]

I see you managed to get to five then.

Stuart

Quit spamming and get real.

 

[Right Divider]

Shared utility might be evidence for common descent. I just don't think Stuu is confident enough in it to present it in an unambiguous form.

We have to collectively get over the notion that because there is evidence for an idea, the idea has merit. In a discussion of a scientific nature, we have to assess the evidence presented in support of ideas, not insist that there can be no evidence.

The real issue is that Stuu continues to claim that a common coding system is, BY ITSELF, evidence that all life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

 

[Right Divider]

Evolution — the notion that all things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection — is a physical impossibility. This creationists most certainly does have an issue with evolution by any means.

Multiple descents VS singular descent.

Creationism is fine with multiple descents.

Singular descent is an idea without support.