Replies

suggest that most "biblical schlolars" don't take Genesis literally is just nuts!
I respectfully disagree. Only a small minority of (mostly) American bible literalist scholars view the Genesis account as anything more than myth.

suggest that there werent' creationists before the early 1600s is equally nuts.
I would probably agree with this, actually. But this hardly bolsters your viewpoint, since the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

I'm providing evidence that counters the theory of evolution.
I won't pretend that I read every post, so perhaps I missed this revolutionary post. In the future, do please use the bold tag when you are posting Time's Man of the Year worthy posts.

That is, non-living minerals can somehow join together, by chance... and form living matter.
However, when you do make the Time's Man of the Year worthy ground breaking science re-defining post, do please try to avoid such glaring errors. For the record, "non-living minerals" have only "joined together" to form non-living mineral clusters, or more commonly, "rocks."

If physics says that a monkey can mate with a human and get a cross-species
It does not.

Because I say that God caused life to exist, I'm considered closed-minded.

Even though I don't believe in a diety, I would not say this of you. You are a christian and you believe in the Christian God. That's fine by me. In fact, several of the evolutionists here also believe in the same Christian God and also believe said Christian God created the heavens and the earth. They just happen to accept evolution, that's all. It's the Young Earth stuff and the bible literalism that people may have an issue with, because none of it jives with what we know, or in your case, what is readily available to you to learn.

suggest that most "biblical schlolars" don't take Genesis literally is just nuts! I respectfully disagree. Only a small minority of (mostly) American bible literalist scholars view the Genesis account as anything more than myth.
Site your sources please.

suggest that there werent' creationists before the early 1600s is equally nuts. I would probably agree with this, actually. But this hardly bolsters your viewpoint, since the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

Jesus and Paul believed in a literal creation account. Guess they were in the dark too. Sorry for the sarcasm here, however, it does bolster my point that Aric was way off base with his post.

That is, non-living minerals can somehow join together, by chance... and form living matter. However, when you do make the Time's Man of the Year worthy ground breaking science re-defining post, do please try to avoid such glaring errors. For the record, "non-living minerals" have only "joined together" to form non-living mineral clusters, or more commonly, "rocks."
You have given me a specific instance of non-living phenomena creating non-living phenomena. Show me where, by chance, non-living phenomena have joined together and made something living and personal.

If physics says that a monkey can mate with a human and get a cross-species It does not.
Because I say that God caused life to exist, I'm considered closed-minded.
Even though I don't believe in a diety, I would not say this of you. You are a christian and you believe in the Christian God. That's fine by me. In fact, several of the evolutionists here also believe in the same Christian God and also believe said Christian God created the heavens and the earth. They just happen to accept evolution, that's all. It's the Young Earth stuff and the bible literalism that people may have an issue with, because none of it jives with what we know, or in your case, what is readily available to you to learn.
I've seen an awful lot of oversimplifications of the creationist case and use of adjectives such as "most" and quantifiers such as none. This creates a case for evolution which is much stronger than it is in reality. It discounts opposing viewpoints and pushes forward the current atmosphere of scientific elitism which disregards evidence that doesn't support a theory.