For creationists: give me your arguments against evolution.

[FreedByte]

The Bible rejects evolution, therefore I reject evolution.

If the bible rejects evolution, then you should reject the bible. If you interpret genesis as metaphorical instead, you can join the majority of christians who also understand evolution to be true.

Do you also interpret John 6 literally and therefore believe in transubstantiation?

If the bible said 1+1=3, would you reject arithmetic?

 

[FreedByte]

Lot's of things and people 'fell' in the bible story.

The theory of gravity explains why people fall, it doesn't merely state that they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

 

[Blue Wren]

If the bible rejects evolution, then you should reject the bible. If you interpret genesis as metaphorical instead, you can join the majority of christians who also understand evolution to be true.

Do you also interpret John 6 literally and therefore believe in transubstantiation?

If the bible said 1+1=3, would you reject arithmetic?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Bible rejects evolution, therefore I reject evolution.

We've seen that movie before. It was played when Copernicus, Gallileo, and others announced it was actually the revolution of the earth that caused the sun to appear to move. All the clerics, both protestant and catholic, proclaimed this had to be false because the bible asserts it is the sun that moves, instead.

They were wrong.

Today, you are just as wrong, just as surely. Your repeat their error.

 

[SkyWriting]

We've seen that movie before. It was played when Copernicus, Gallileo, and others announced it was actually the revolution of the earth that caused the sun to appear to move. All the clerics, both protestant and catholic, proclaimed this had to be false because the bible asserts it is the sun that moves, instead.
They were wrong. Today, you are just as wrong, just as surely. Your repeat their error.

Court of appeals ruled that:
Fact - All masses in the universe orbit around each other.

 

[SkyWriting]

The sun rules the day (Gen 1). But for practical purposes the earth is the center of the universe.
.

Unless we off-world by Terra-forming a planet we can reach
within the distance we can safely traverse, yes.

It is the center and practically speaking, flat. (1 inch of curve/8000 inches)
Few humans would need to pay attention to such a curve.

 

[SkyWriting]

No it is not. What you fail to understand is that the majority of differences are irrelevant to function and phenotype. One can take a human gene and stick it in a mouse and it will work fine. This is why genetic engineering works. The only explanation for the differences that makes any sense is genetic descent.

So "the only explanation for the differences that makes any sense is genetic descent."

And the only explanation for the similarities that makes any sense is genetic descent?

Hmmm. I'm stuck.
It seems that everything needs to fit your assumptions and faith right away.

 

[Shemjaza]

So "the only explanation for the differences that makes any sense is genetic descent."

And the only explanation for the similarities that makes any sense is genetic descent?

Hmmm. I'm stuck.
It seems that everything needs to fit your assumptions and faith right away.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Like we always say: it's the pattern of similarities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Unless we off-world by Terra-forming a planet we can reach
within the distance we can safely traverse, yes.

It is the center and practically speaking, flat. (1 inch of curve/8000 inches)
Few humans would need to pay attention to such a curve.

True. We still use the term sunrise and sunset. I once heard an (university educated) agronomist describe some land area in South America this way; "The soil is eight feet deep and flat as a table".

Of course these are literary expressions; something not allowed in the bible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Court of appeals ruled that:
Fact - All masses in the universe orbit around each other.

Well, that doesn't square with the cosmology the clerics were defending. It still allows for a moving sun and accepts a rotating earth. Those are the things the clerics denied, based on scripture. And they were wrong to do that, they were just as sincere in their day as the evolution deniers are today, they had exactly the same justification, and so we see how empty that same justification really is. It fails today as it did then. They fail to see that today as they failed to see that then.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the bible rejects evolution, then you should reject the bible.

No, sir.

It'll take a lot more than evolution to get me to reject the Bible.

If you interpret genesis as metaphorical instead, you can join the majority of christians who also understand evolution to be true.

I'll pass.

Do you also interpret John 6 literally and therefore believe in transubstantiation?

No.

Knowing what is literal and what is metaphorical in the Bible is what we call Biblical maturity.

If the bible said 1+1=3, would you reject arithmetic?

It depends on the context.

According to the Triunity of the Godhead, 1+1+1=1.

 

[AV1611VET]

All the clerics, both protestant and catholic, proclaimed this had to be false because the bible asserts it is the sun that moves, instead.

They were wrong.

Indeed they were.

But you're not giving them enough credit.

When such a great discovery is made in science, that a major belief is overturned, whether in the scientific realm or the ecclesiastical realm -- such as geocentrism giving way to heliocentrism -- you have to give the churches (and the opposing scientists) some leeway during this incubation period.

Expecting churches to accept this new paradigm overnight is expecting too much.

I'm sure even Galileo's contemporary scientists thought he was looney -- for awhile.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Indeed they were.

But you're not giving them enough credit.

When such a great discovery is made in science, that a major belief is overturned, whether in the scientific realm or the ecclesiastical realm -- such as geocentrism giving way to heliocentrism -- you have to give the churches (and the opposing scientists) some leeway during this incubation period.

Expecting churches to accept this new paradigm overnight is expecting too much.

I'm sure even Galileo's contemporary scientists thought he was looney -- for awhile.

How about the churches - including you, as a member of one such church - giving the scientists a little leeway during the incubation period?

 

[AV1611VET]

They fail to see that today as they failed to see that then.

Our church doesn't espouse geocentrism, so I'm not going to give whatever point you're make much thought.

I'm an independent Baptist; not affiliated with denominations whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about the churches - including you, as a member of one such church - giving the scientists a little leeway during the incubation period?

I have no comment worth stating about today's scientists.

 

[Strathos]

Not.



Judas' rope broke and he "fell," Wormwood will "fall to earth".

Saying things fall is not the same at the ToG, which wasn't formulated until much later. That's like saying that since animals are said to give birth in the Bible then it supports evolution.

If you're referring to Leviticus 14, you need to re-read that chapter.

The blood applied by the priests (ceremoniously) was done after the leprosy was healed.

Nope, I'm just referring to the lack of mention of microorganisms as a cause of disease.

Ignoring relativity laws to interpret the Bible, are we?

Not at all. Try bringing this up with the several geocentrists we have here.

-- Huh?

The American continents aren't mentioned in the Bible. I take this to mean they simply weren't considered relevant at the time to the message the Bible was trying to convey, same as the ToE.

 

[Strathos]

Knowing what is literal and what is metaphorical in the Bible is what we call Biblical maturity.

Funny how billions of Christians are so supposedly immature then, and only those who believe exactly as you do have it right.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have no comment worth stating about today's scientists.

Lord in heaven, I want to think you for delivering me from the temptation presented by this post.

 

[FreedByte]

No, sir.

It'll take a lot more than evolution to get me to reject the Bible.

What would it take?

I'll pass.

Why?

Knowing what is literal and what is metaphorical in the Bible is what we call Biblical maturity.

And evidently whatever is literal/metaphorical in your subjective opinion is correct and "biblically mature". This means that christians were all "biblically immature" for more than a thousand years, and that kind of a statement is unbelievably arrogant.

According to the Triunity of the Godhead, 1+1+1=1.

How do you know it isn't 1*1*1=1?

Your equation seems arbitrary.

 

[Audacious]

It depends on the context.

According to the Triunity of the Godhead, 1+1+1=1.

Freedom is the freedom to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.