Biblical literalism vs. science - Why is evolution the sticking point?

[AV1611VET]

I just want to be perfectly clear on what your claims are,

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

There's my claim.

It would be helpful for me if you could describe in detail what you believe the chain of events was in Galileo's incarceration,

I can't right now.

I'm waiting for the days of the week to be verified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My raisin bread challenge shows otherwise.

Nope, your challenge only shows that you limit your own ability to debate.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

There's my claim.

I see no need to become antagonistic. I've said more than once that whether or not you wish to participate is entirely your choice.

I can't right now.

I'm waiting for the days of the week to be verified.

I very specifically said that I wasn't asking you to.

 

[Yennora]

Excellent responses to all the issues raised!

Thank you! I was even a bit depressed before seeing that thread and when i saw it my depression increased, i asked God why is that? Since i know that such topics can be exhaustive to a lot of people but i prayed to God to support me and hopefully i even got out of my depression, thanks God for that.

 

[Radrook]

Thank you! I was even a bit depressed before seeing that thread and when i saw it my depression increased, i asked God why is that? Since i know that such topics can be exhaustive to a lot of people but i prayed to God to support me and hopefully i even got out of my depression, thanks God for that.

Well, the compliment is certainly well-deserved since the response is indeed very effective. In fact, its effectiveness can be seen by the way that it was evaded-a favorite atheist tactic when their unsound hasty claims are conclusively proven false. Looking forward to seeing you contribute more often in relation to such matters. Good to hear that the depression is less. God bless!

 

[Yennora]

Well, the compliment is certainly well-deserved since the response is indeed very effective. In fact, its effectiveness can be seen by the way that it was evaded-a favorite atheist tactic when their unsound hasty claims are conclusively proven false. Looking forward to seeing you contribute more often in relation to such matters. Good to hear that the depression is less. God bless!

Oh how wonderful those words are! They even boosted my mood more than it was. God bless you too! Proverbs 12:25

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In fact, its effectiveness can be seen by the way that it was evaded-a favorite atheist tactic when their unsound hasty claims are conclusively proven false.

Having just read the last few posts, I've gone back to look at page 1 of this thread again. If you'll look at all the information contained in the first few posts of page 1 you'll see that the post you're complimenting was edited after I replied to it. When I replied to it, I replied to all the content it contained, which was just referencing Pi. You'll also note that the next reply from Micropero comes after the edit, but doesn't draw my attention to the fact that he's edited his previous post to contain a lot of material that it hadn't previously. Since this board's software automatically takes you to the first unread post when you open a thread, and therefore always automatically skipped me over that post, I think it entirely unreasonable of you to characterise that as me "evad[ing]" anything.

I'm prepared to give both Micropero the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was an honest mistake on both of your parts, rather than deliberate deception on his and intentional bad faith on yours, but you should really ensure that you're in possession of all the facts before uncharitably accusing people of wrong-doing.

Now, I'm having computer issues at the moment so can't devote as much time or attention as I'd like to this thread, but when that's not true (maybe today, maybe as late as Wednesday/Thursday), I'll give that post a proper read and see what, if any, substantive points there are to answer. Hopefully Micropero will have not just discussed the minutiae of the OP, but will have answered the questions and requests in that post, too.

As a show of good faith in the mean time both you and he could have a go at answering the questions in post #23, if you were so minded.

 

[Radrook]

Having just read the last few posts, I've gone back to look at page 1 of this thread again. If you'll look at all the information contained in the first few posts of page 1 you'll see that the post you're complimenting was edited after I replied to it. When I replied to it, I replied to all the content it contained, which was just referencing Pi. You'll also note that the next reply from Micropero comes after the edit, but doesn't draw my attention to the fact that he's edited his previous post to contain a lot of material that it hadn't previously. Since this board's software automatically takes you to the first unread post when you open a thread, and therefore always automatically skipped me over that post, I think it entirely unreasonable of you to characterise that as me "evad[ing]" anything.

I'm prepared to give both Micropero the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was an honest mistake on both of your parts, rather than deliberate deception on his and intentional bad faith on yours, but you should really ensure that you're in possession of all the facts before uncharitably accusing people of wrong-doing.

Now, I'm having computer issues at the moment so can't devote as much time or attention as I'd like to this thread, but when that's not true (maybe today, maybe as late as Wednesday/Thursday), I'll give that post a proper read and see what, if any, substantive points there are to answer. Hopefully Micropero will have not just discussed the minutiae of the OP, but will have answered the questions and requests in that post, too.

As a show of good faith in the mean time both you and he could have a go at answering the questions in post #23, if you were so minded.

I will read post 23# as suggested.
Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Radrook]

Anyway, the last several posts have been getting hung up on the details which I have already said are not the important aspect of this discussion.

To save time and to avoid taking the thread down a path which leads it too far away from the central questions, let me instead just ask a simple question of any Bible literalist who may be reading - do you believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific theory or concept which is at odds with a literal reading of the Bible?

If the answer is yes, then why do you suppose this to be the case? I ask that in both senses - namely; why do you believe this to be the case, and how do you imagine this has come to pass? Also, would this mean that you believe the trial and imprisonment of Galileo for heresy to be unjust, and based on the Church's misunderstanding of the Bible?

If the answer is no, then could you explain what other passages of the Bible you consider to be incompatible with science, and detail what in science you believe they are at odds with?

These kinds of questions are precisely why in the OP I asked Biblical literalists to explain their position.

The answer is no.
Atheistic abiogenesis is obviously contrary to what Genesis tells us which is that all life proceeds from an ID.

BTW
No, I am not saying that the Genesis account is at odds with science since I don't consider the conclusion that atheistic abiogenesis happened and happens scientifically justified. However, there are those who claim the ID used it to produce life. However, that isn't what Genesis describes.

 

[Yennora]

Having just read the last few posts, I've gone back to look at page 1 of this thread again. If you'll look at all the information contained in the first few posts of page 1 you'll see that the post you're complimenting was edited after I replied to it. When I replied to it, I replied to all the content it contained, which was just referencing Pi. You'll also note that the next reply from Micropero comes after the edit, but doesn't draw my attention to the fact that he's edited his previous post to contain a lot of material that it hadn't previously. Since this board's software automatically takes you to the first unread post when you open a thread, and therefore always automatically skipped me over that post, I think it entirely unreasonable of you to characterise that as me "evad[ing]" anything.

That is true, I only posted about Pi as the main post but I wrote in the bottom that I will come back later in the next points, I didn't want to write them in separate posts to make my answer clear for everyone who joins the thread, i'm sorry that I didn't notify you of my edit, i also was not aware that you had to open the thread from the notifications, i myself open threads from the "New Threads" on the right of the page, sorry again.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That is true, I only posted about Pi as the main post but I wrote in the bottom that I will come back later in the next points, I didn't want to write them in separate posts to make my answer clear for everyone who joins the thread, i'm sorry that I didn't notify you of my edit, i also was not aware that you had to open the thread from the notifications, i myself open threads from the "New Threads" on the right of the page, sorry again.

Don't worry about it. As I said, I was sure it was unintentional, and no harm is done.

I may seem like I'm not paying much attention to this thread for the next few days. As I said above, I'm having some quite serious computer issues that are making browsing and reading difficult. I will probably be reading and paying attention to other threads in that time as I'm looking at them in a more casual manner, but I give this thread more weight and I want to give it my full attention when I can, so I'm not going to be delving in to it with any depth until I can give it the attention I feel it deserves.

 

[Yennora]

Don't worry about it. As I said, I was sure it was unintentional, and no harm is done.

I may seem like I'm not paying much attention to this thread for the next few days. As I said above, I'm having some quite serious computer issues that are making browsing and reading difficult. I will probably be reading and paying attention to other threads in that time as I'm looking at them in a more casual manner, but I give this thread more weight and I want to give it my full attention when I can, so I'm not going to be delving in to it with any depth until I can give it the attention I feel it deserves.

I hope your problems will be solved soon enough and i will try to answer post #23, thanks for understanding.

 

[Yennora]

do you believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific theory or concept which is at odds with a literal reading of the Bible?

The bold words are my answers in short, followed by explanations.

Of course not, reading Joshua 10:13 literally would bring another conflict with Astronomy, it may be understandable for the moon to stop but the sun? If we go back a verse, Joshua 10:12, we will see that Joshua is the one who spoke to God and requested that the sun would stand still, so from his simple POV he thought that the Sun revolved around the earth, and he observed his request being answered by God also from the same simple POV, we don't know how it happened, did God stop motion/time completely except for them until it all finished? At the end God is the one who lays the foundations of the earth (Absolute Science), he can change them anytime. (So to read the Bible literally and call it science directly is the mistake, so the best way to read the Bible literally and prevent confliction with science is to put yourself into the writer's position in that time, unless that Genesis is a direct account of creation that's why Christians cannot reject it, it cites the time intervals between main characters as from Adam-> His descendants-> Noah-> etc..)

Check: http://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/chronology_chart_from_adam_to_abraham.jpg

For the trial of Galileo, I feel that I want to answer this even though I gave a No, forgive me for that; I think as @RDKirk mentioned, Galileo was targeted for his attitude against the pope referring to the geocentrist who used the quotes/arguments of the pope as simpleton, and hence the relationship between Galileo and the pope was ruined, you can read more here: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5839933/did-...-for-being-right-or-for-being-a-jerk-about-it