Status Updates From The New Answers Book 2: Ove...
The New Answers Book 2: Over 30 Questions on Evolution/Creation and the Bible by
Status Updates Showing 1-30 of 374
Briar
is on page 111 of 374
I don't understand much about physics but this chapter has terrible explanations. Simplified and misrepresented. Nothing is explained beyond the one line in Genesis
— Jan 30, 2026 03:41PM
Add a comment
Briar
is on page 103 of 374
The Bible is the claim and it's not a science book. Lots of cherry picking to make some things fit while trying to explain away modern astronomy.
— Jan 05, 2026 05:14AM
Add a comment
Briar
is on page 95 of 374
They really need to define terms. We ARE apes. They bring up Piltdown and Nebraska men as if science did nothing to disprove them. One disproved after more evidence, the other not even widely accepted. Also, we have more fossils than Lucy...
— Dec 26, 2025 04:04PM
Add a comment
Briar
is on page 83 of 374
Poorly explains mutation, leaving out the neutral ones. Confuses abiogenesis with evolution. Hand waves away incest being okay until Leviticus. Explaining the opposition badly then giving us one source (the Bible) for your own idea does not prove your case.
— Dec 17, 2025 05:16AM
Add a comment
Briar
is on page 73 of 374
I think Riddle understands the Miller Urey experiment less than I do and misrepresents the findings. Amino acids are more important than he made them sound. Side note, O2 is VERY different than O3.
— Dec 15, 2025 05:12AM
Add a comment
Briar
is on page 63 of 374
So believe this one book without question? I don't think gymnastics for a literal interpretation is going to gain many concerts. This whole chapter was just how to interpret the begats a literally as possible.
— Dec 11, 2025 05:15AM
Add a comment
Markese Lee
is on page 219 of 374
Evolution=historical science (origin and development of life and earth cannot be observed, tested, or repeated because it happened in the past.(pg. 212).
My question is then, how are we getting “quantifiable” data on processes that we have not seen or been able to measure. Seems kinda fishy?!
— Oct 12, 2025 05:44PM
Add a comment
My question is then, how are we getting “quantifiable” data on processes that we have not seen or been able to measure. Seems kinda fishy?!


