Evolution or Intelligent Design

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No one knows whom is out there, alien or terrestrial life that maybe light years above us, but every civilization have attempted to try to find out .

But the Bible follows history. Moses and the Egyptians and Hebrews had a civilization together and Arabs as well, and had mixed marriages and Negroid, Caucasians and Mongloid resulted from them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

I think that you, or rather whoever you're cribbing your notes from, has been confused by the use of water for neutron shielding. Water is an effective, cheap, shield for baryonic radiation (protons and neutrons) which is one reason it's used to cover nuclear reactor fuel elements held in storage. But as a shield for leptonic and bosonic radiation, it's effectively useless, and those are the radiations which are of primary concern for those who travel outside Earth's atmosphere. (Water is effective at absorbing a few particular frequencies of photons, which we take advantage of to produce microwave ovens.)

I suppose you mentioned the fact that at some times of Earth's existence, there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, such as the Carboniferous period, which was used as a possible explanation of why dragonflies were so much larger then, but there's several problems with using that as an explanation of gigantism as posited by some Biblical literalists.

First off, let me use something from the Bible itself. If those high oxygen levels were necessary for giants, then what about Goliath?

Second, over geologic history, there have been wide differences in oxygen levels, from much higher than today to much lower. That's really odd if all those layers were supposedly laid down at the same time, and you're going to use the oxygen levels as estimated by mainstream science to advance your theories. This exemplifies what I despise most about usual Biblical literalist attempts to misuse science. They cherry-pick those facts that are useful to the narrative they wish to construct and ignore everything else.

Third, it's generally accepted by mainstream scientists these days that the primary reason we once had gigantic dragonflies but no longer do, is that we now have flying vertebrates that would happily chow down on large lumbering dragonflies if they hadn't already gone extinct.

Whenever you resort to using an argument from majority opinion, and you resort to using attacks and rescue devices, you just show how wrong and desperate you are. I no longer have any interest in this debate with you as a result.

Pot, kettle. And thanks for exemplifying once again how Biblical literalists will generally cherry-pick results from mainstream science that back up their narrative, and ignore results that don't align with their interpretation of the Bible.

You've also shown that you apparently don't understand how science works.  It's not, come up with a hypothesis and use only those data that support the hypothesis; rather it's come up up with a hypothesis, see which data supports the hypothesis, which does not preclude the hypothesis, and then which has no relevance to the hypothesis, and then subject it to peer review to see if others agree with your interpretation of how the data relate to the hypothesis.  Furthermore, ideally the data should be reproducible, which in the context of geology typically means you can get consistent results from multiple sites and/or methods.  That use of peer review inherently means that science is based on "majority opinion" so if you want to say you are using science, it means you are stuck with majority opinion being relevant. (Incidentally, the various ecumenical councils, such as the First Council of Nicaea which gave us the Nicene Creed, also made decisions based on "majority opinion" so it's not an idea foreign to Christian thought.)

Does science sometimes make mistakes? Of course it does, but nothing done by man, including interpretation of religious texts, happens without error. However, science has shown itself as a method of evaluating and developing knowledge that can robustly, albeit sometimes slowly, correct errors and detect frauds.

[RFayette]

Jamison, I'd encourage you to check this out:
https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

This reconciles the Biblical need we see for Adam and Eve to be direct ancestors of all humans (from verses like 1 Corinthians 15:22, Romans 5:12, and the nature of original sin) with the scientific data suggesting that humans and apes share a common ancestor by pointing out that while we all descend from Adam and Eve, we do not only descend from them.  I think this is a better approach to take than the traditional YEC position.   The YEC view is indeed logically possible; however, is very unparsimonious and should be abandoned if another framework compatible with scripture is available to us, which it is.