It does not matter where it came from.
And yet Cosmas had more basis for calling geocentrism pagan than you have for calling evolution atheist. I am glad you agree it doesn't matter where round earth came from, the religious views of the scientists are completely irrelevant to the validity of the science.
It was accepted by the Christian church. You've attempted to detract form the fact that when Cosmas brought forward his assertion, it was rejected by the Church based on scientific evidence. There are all sorts of people who still adhered to a flat earth. All you had to do was find one with a Christian background, as youve done, and say that the Christianity though that the earth was flat. Failing to realize that Cosmas' interpretation was rejected.
I am not detracting from the fact the church rejected Cosmas's views. Do you even read my posts? I even thanked God in one of my posts that the Church rejected Cosmas's interpretation. Yet even though the Church rejected Cosmas's flat earth interpretation, the fact that there were writers like Cosmas and Lactantius in the Early Church was enough to bring the gospel into disrepute, it was made worse by the church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo.
The church rejected Cosmas on the basis of scientific evidence. Notice though, it wasn't Cosmas's scientific arguments they listened to, but mainstream science. When the church accepted heliocentrism, it was because of mainstream science too, though geocentrists could still argue science to support their literal interpretations. But mainstream science went with heliocentrism and the church slowly followed, because mainstream science was the best understanding of how God had made the solar system. And that is how the church needs to deal with evolution, to follow mainstream science not the scientific claims of literalists who disagree with the mainstream, because that has only ever brought the church and the gospel into disrepute.
Again, Cosmas' argument that the round earth was Pagan, though there were experimentational results showing that the earth was round, results which were already accepted by the church does not fit with Darwinism where experimentation shows that the bacteria remains bacteria, that adaptation is not a subject of random mutation, and creationism was and is already accepted by the church based on scientific evidence, while you and Cosmas are arguing that it is not science but Christianity's creationism in spite of the facts.
You are mixing up two arguments here, the scientific argument for flat earth and creationism, and the guilt by association claims round earth was pagan and evolution atheist from Cosmas and Creationists. I pointed out that Cosmas had more basis for his round earth is pagan fallacy, than you have for your claim evolution is atheist. You can't answer that the science supports you. That is a different issue. You cannot support on bad claim by hopping to another, though that seem all you ever try to do.
Darwin argued against the church that bacteria could indeed turn into men despite evidence that it could not. The round earth did not belong to the Pagans, it was experimentally shown, regardless of what Eratosthenes said. Bacteria remaining bacteria is not Christian, nor pagan, nor Greek, it is experimentally shown.
Cosmas would have disagreed. He called round earth pagan because it came from a pagan Greek and was accepted by pagan Greeks, if it was also accepted by Christians who bought into the worldly arguments of the pagans, it only mean the church was compromise, supping at the tale of demons. As I said, at least Cosmas could argue Eratosthenes was a pagan, Darwin wasn't an atheist.
Darwin's science may have contradicted an interpretation of scripture, so did round earth, so did heliocentrism. Round earth may only have contradicted the views of a handful, heliocentrism contradicted the interpretation of the entire church. But it doesn't matter how many people hold the interpretation that is contradicted by science, if an interpretation is contradicted by science, then the interpretation is wrong. That is the basis the church used to reject the flat earth interpretation, and after some wobbling, geocentric interpretation.
Even if evolution, round earth or heliocentrism contradict what people in the church think, that does not mean the science is arguing against the church, science is simply looking at the science. It is then up to the church how it deals with the science. Contradicting people's interpretation of scripture does not make science pagan or atheist. It is simply good science or bad, and round earth, heliocentrism and evolution have all been accepted into mainstream science because because good evidence backs them up.
A double helix does not belong to the atheist. Nor does Christianisty oppose the fact that there is a biological computer within living systems. First you bring the pagans forward, now you attempt to classify the Double Helix as atheism. Dobzhansky was not a creationist, but he was one of others who established the effect of long term random mutation.
I am just trying to find you basis for calling evolution atheist, you don't seem to have any.
I'm not the one claiming that this is real science. It is Darwinism which is claiming such. We have infact provided scientific results. Its game of finders keepers you guys attempt to play. If you can hijack science first, then you automatically obtain that position, regardless of what you can produce.
Ah the creationist paranoid claim mainstream science is hijacked. Unfortunately, 'hijacked' simply means the vast majority of scientists were convinced by the evidence and remain convinced by the evidence for evolution. You know flat earthers and geocentrists claim the evidence is a massive conspiracy too. If NASA can fake moon landing photos they can fake anything. People who argue against mainstream science usually come up with some reason mainstream science disagrees with them. Cosmas blamed it on compromise with the world. Doesn't make any difference to the fact creationists are setting their interpretation of scripture against mainstream science, and that has always been disastrous
If you can hijack the interpretation of Genesis first, then you autoatically possess that position, which gives the illusion that one must take it literally or uphold Darwinism when we already had the interpretation of Genesis.
Sorry I don't know what you are saying there.
You then proceed to claim that it is a battle between literalism and interpretation,
No literalism is an interpretation, and sometimes as we have seen it is the wrong interpretation.
and proceed to claim that any metaphor or simile in the bible is evidence for Darwinism,
No, I never claimed metaphors were evidence for evolution. However I do remember you appealing to simile to argue against a literal flat earth interpretation. Is this double standards? Metaphors and similes are ok for creationists to use to explain heliocentric and flat earth passages, but they mustn't be used on creationism?
when there is just the attempt of atheistic infiltration.
And back to the unsupported paranoia.
Designed organisms like all other designed structures have the ability to adapt. You claim adaptation is yours, it is science,
Indeed, adaptation, natural selection, evolution are all science.
you then use a previous attempt at flat earth to show that scientific discoveries are not a part of the church,
Never did. I said the rest of the church very wisely accepted the science instead of interpretation that said the science was wrong.
and then force people to choose between adaptation and creationism,
Between science and another literal interpretation claiming science got it wrong.
with the illusion that the scientific discovery of adaptation is automatically bacteria turning into men through random mutation, as it must be in conflict with man being created as man bolstered by your attempt to show that the church is in conflict with science.
Creationist are in conflict with science. There is much more evidence for evolution than adaptation. That was part of the evidence when Darwin wrote Origin, we have had 150 years of science since then finding more and more evidence supporting evolution.
Hopefully, people don't realize that it was a set up, that these are just guys in a "mine" phase who are rejecting science. But like a game of twister, if you put your hand on the "rejecting science" color, it will seem like a color which cannot be accessed and be used against Darwinism. An apt concealment which has gotten Darwinism this far. Real science is real science.
Just come up with convincing arguments and a better explanation for the evidence. That is how you overturn the scientific mainstream. It is how Einstein overtuned Newtonian Mechanics, it is how the weird ideas of quantum mechanics overcame widespread disbelief and opposition including Einstein, It is how the Big Bang Theory replaced the steady state model, in spite of atheist astronomers like Hoyle hating the Big Bang for being 'creationist'. You don't even have to produce a perfect theory, the Big Bang isn't, it just has to be a better explanation for the evidence than the one it is trying to replace. So far Creationism has failed to come up with any convincing arguments.
Still just claiming Creationism is science, and ignoring the fact that it is not mainstream science.
To be sure, when I refer to science, I am not referring to Darwinism. All that has been done is proven adaptation. Adaptation is not anti-creationism though it is a separation which is sought as you can claim that the church is rejecting adaptation, you show people adaptation, then attach atheism to the end as supposedly, we reject it. We reject Darwinism.
Evolution is still mainstream science, whatever Creationist think of the evidence supporting it. And even though you pick and choose which mainstream sciences to accept and reject, when you reject evolution you are rejecting mainstream science, as flat earthers and geocentrists before you have done.
You are the one's making up your own arguments. Science has its definition. And by that definition, it is science. It does not need to bee Darwinism for it to be science nor does science need Darwin's permission, to accept the fact that bacteria cannot turn into men.
Like I said if you want to start a thread on the scientific evidence for creationism go ahead, laconicstudent has been asking you to. In the meantime you don't get to decide what is mainstream science.
The interpretation does not belong to atheism.
Never said it was.
There has always been the interpretation, and it is confirmed with scientific evidence.
Or contradicted by the scientific evidence, like flat earth, geocentrism and creationism. Interpretation still belongs to Christians who need to get on with it when old interpretations turn out to be mistaken.
You use scientific arguments, cloaked in scientific terms backed up with adaptation, which you have somehow claim as yours for the aforementioned reasons, backed up with the inefficacy of random mutation, and the adaptation feature you will not accept as any intelligent proccess involved in adaptation completely defeats the reason it stands for. The exhaltaton of chance.
Can't make head nor tail of that.
We have gone far beyond the bible. This has nothing to do with literalism. It is already interpreted. You attempt to draw all the attention on a debate between literalism and interpretation, given that you have gone ahead with the false claim that the interpretation belongs to Darwinism, which detracts from the fact that we have provided scientific evidence for the interpretation and that your claim is unfounded
Nor that. Tell you what. Why not address my arguments instead of trying to compose a caricature of them that bears no relationship to what I have actually said?
Mainstream science may say that bacteria can turn into man through random mutations, but mainstream science is actually bacteria remaining bacteria, adaptation being a coded feature, and random mutation being sterile, among others.
Simply claiming creationism is mainstream science doesn't make it so, thinking it should be mainstream science doesn't make it so. Cosmas thought his science was right too.
You can stand here today and claim that creationism is not science only because of the side project through which you attempt to riddle creationism with insults, and attach a condition to the term. All thi work is actually so that when you say "creationist website", and "creationist term" and "creationist scientist" people's minds should already be conditioned to take that as a refutation of the "real science", without having to provide any kind of formal rebuttal. Mainstream science may say one thing, but mainstream science is another.
TEs can look at whether creationism is science if you ever get around to starting the thread for laconicstudent. But the issue here is that creationism is not mainstream science and that terrible damage done in the past when Christians opposed mainstream science because their interpretation of the bible says it is wrong.