The dead don't evolve, they decompose.
Okay, let me rephrease "Where does evolution say that, or that it's impossible for a species to evolve to a point where death is no longer a certainty?"
Natural selection requires death to limit the spread of inferior genetics.
But wouldn't a creature that was immune to death therefore have SUPERIOR genetics? I mean, the whole point is to survive to pass on the genes ...
If there is no death, there is no such thing as a survival benifit from any mutation since they would all survive without it.
Well, faster breeding, larger litters, etc. could all be "superior" mutations at that point for the spread of genetics.
Not with intellectual honesty about both. You have to create rather tortured interpretations of the Bible that takes evolution as a premise,
What is the perfectly correct interpretation of the Bible, may I ask? Please point out exactly which words are allegory, turns of phrase, parables, and which are absolutely factual (versus truthful ... it's all truthful ... but what is FACT?).
thus creating a circular argument. A handy skill for people who want to have it both ways.
Only if one considers the Bible to be a book of absolute facts, as opposed to a book of absolute truths.
XenuDidit placemark
"Okay, let me rephrease "Where does evolution say that, or that it's impossible for a species to evolve to a point where death is no longer a certainty?""
That has nothing to do with it. The point is that without death you don't have natural selection and the Bible put the earth's initial state as being one where there is no death. Going by that, evolution could only take place over the past 6000 years.
"What is the perfectly correct interpretation of the Bible, may I ask?"
You don't have to have a perfectly correct interpretation of the Bible to know that deliberately interpreting it to reach a pre-chosen conclusion is intellectually dishonest.