My Creationist friend refuses to acknowledge that I'm Christian (self.Christianity)

Christianity

12 ups - 4 downs = 8 votes

Because I believe in evolution. It makes me sick the level of indoctrination his dad (a preacher) puts him through. What can I say to him?

179 comments submitted at 01:16:40 on Apr 22, 2014 by dtg108

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -28 Points
  • 01:21:52, 22 April

Your belief is unBiblical and anti-Biblical, even heretical and blasphemous. It is denial of the Word of God.

  • [-]
  • dtg108
  • 14 Points
  • 01:23:00, 22 April

Is that not how the Pharisees talked to Jesus?

  • [-]
  • EACCES
  • 10 Points
  • 01:27:28, 22 April

Come on now, Pharisees aren't that bad...

  • [-]
  • tommles
  • 6 Points
  • 01:31:13, 22 April

Christians have examined the creation myth in both literal and allegorical methods for the past 2,000 years. The idea of creationism has never been considered a doctrinal issue, and if we go with Saint Augustine then it is not a salvation issue either.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -5 Points
  • 01:26:53, 22 April

I believe in the Word of God.

  • [-]
  • DoomedAndGloomed
  • 10 Points
  • 01:28:17, 22 April

You think you do, but you don't take God at his literal word. You don't literally believe Jesus was a lamb.

I do. The bible is literal and you're heretical.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -4 Points
  • 01:29:30, 22 April

Genesis was quoted and referenced by every single New Testament author. Even Jesus Christ directly quoted events in Genesis literally.

  • [-]
  • DoomedAndGloomed
  • 7 Points
  • 02:04:18, 22 April

Quoting something as a truth isn't the same thing as quoting it literally.

Either God used the Big Bang to create the universe, or he did it exactly how it's said in Genesis and deceptively made it look like the big bang and evolution occurred. Besides, the way it's done in Genesis is so childlike and silly compared to the awesomeness of a single flash of creation.

  • [-]
  • JakeC1597
  • -1 Points
  • 04:15:32, 22 April

Please provide said evidence of evolution and the Big Bang please.

  • [-]
  • AbstergoSupplier
  • 3 Points
  • 04:33:27, 22 April

I mean really? You can just google it

  • [-]
  • JakeC1597
  • 0 Points
  • 04:36:00, 22 April

What I'm saying is there's no evidence. There are some things that make people speculate that it may be how it happened, but no evidence.

  • [-]
  • AbstergoSupplier
  • 3 Points
  • 04:38:39, 22 April

That's patently false.

Is this where you say "Were you there?" because I hope so

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 1 Points
  • 04:50:24, 22 April

> What I'm saying is there's no evidence. There are some things that make people speculate that it may be how it happened, but no evidence.

Facepalm

>Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

--Saint Augustine

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 1 Points
  • 04:48:51, 22 April

>Please provide said evidence of evolution

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

>The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

Andddd....

>and the Big Bang please.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3985

>We report results from the BICEP2 experiment, a Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) polarimeter specifically designed to search for the signal of inflationary gravitational waves in the B-mode power spectrum around l=80. The telescope comprised a 26 cm aperture all-cold refracting optical system equipped with a focal plane of 512 antenna coupled transition edge sensor (TES) 150 GHz bolometers each with temperature sensitivity of approx. 300 uk.sqrt(s). BICEP2 observed from the South Pole for three seasons from 2010 to 2012. A low-foreground region of sky with an effective area of 380 square degrees was observed to a depth of 87 nK-degrees in Stokes Q and U. In this paper we describe the observations, data reduction, maps, simulations and results. We find an excess of B-mode power over the base lensed-LCDM expectation in the range 30<l<150, inconsistent with the null hypothesis at a significance of >5σ. Through jackknife tests and simulations based on detailed calibration measurements we show that systematic contamination is much smaller than the observed excess. We also estimate potential foreground signals and find that available models predict these to be considerably smaller than the observed signal. These foreground models possess no significant cross-correlation with our maps. Additionally, cross-correlating BICEP2 against 100 GHz maps from the BICEP1 experiment, the excess signal is confirmed with 3σ significance and its spectral index is found to be consistent with that of the CMB, disfavoring synchrotron or dust at 2.3σ and 2.2σ, respectively. The observed B-mode power spectrum is well-fit by a lensed-LCDM + tensor theoretical model with tensor/scalar ratio r=0.20+0.07−0.05, with r=0 disfavored at 7.0σ. Subtracting the best available estimate for foreground dust modifies the likelihood slightly so that r=0 is disfavored at 5.9σ.

This.

>"Immediately after General Relativity became known, Willem de Sitter (1872-1934) found and published an exponentially expanding solution to Einstein's equations (13) for the special case of empty spacetime. In 1922 Alexandr Friedmann (1888-1925) found a range of solutions, intermediate to Einstein's static solution and de Sitter's solution. Friedmann's solutions did not gain general recognition until after his death when they were con firmed by an independent derivation (in 1927) by Georges Lematre (1894-1966). The latter is considered to be the father of the Big Bang model rather than Friedmann. Only in 1934 did Robertson and Walker construct the RW metric (8) to match the general geometrical structure of the Einstein's tensor Guv. Today the standard model of cosmology is based on the Friedmann-Lematre equations (FL) and the RW metric. For acomoving observer with velocity four-vector v= (1;0;0;0) in a homogeneous and isotropic Universe only two of the 16 differential equations in the tensor equation (13) are needed:

(a'/a) = H^2 = -(kc^2 /a^2 ) + (8[pi]G/3 ) * [rho] , ( 2a''/a ) + H^2 = (kc^2 /a^2 ) - (8[pi]Gp/c^2 ). (17)

The expansion or contraction of the Universe is inherent to these equations. The first equation shows that the rate of expansion, a', increases with the density of matter, [rho], and the second equation shows that [rho] and the pressure, p, decelerate the expansion. Eliminating a'' from the second equation by using the first, one obtains the covariant conservation equation of the energy-momentum tensor in an homogeneous and isotropic spacetime,

[rho]' + 3H ([rho] +pc^-2 ) = 0 (18)

Assuming that [rho] and p are linearly related by an equation of state, w = p/[rho]c^2 , one conveniently replaces ([rho] + pc^-2 ) by [rho](1 + w).

Equation (18) is the tool to find the a-dependence of an energy density. In the present matter-dominated universe fi lled (to a good approximation) with non-relativistic cold, pressureless, non-radiating dust, one has w = 0, and the density evolves as [rho]m (a) [alpha] a^-3 = (1 + z)^3 .

In an earlier radiation-dominated universe filled with an ultra-relativistic hot gas composed of elastically scattering particles, statistical mechanics tells us that the equation of state was pr = [rho]r/3. This corresponds to w = 1/3, so that the radiation density evolves as [rho]m (a) [alpha] a^-4 = (1 + z)^4 .

The fi rst equation (17) can easily be integrated to give the scale-dependence of time, t(a). However, to solve by algebraic methods the time-dependence of the scale, a(t), is only possible in at space when k = 0. During matter-domination the scale evolves as a(t) [alpha] t^1/2 . The two scales must then have been equal at some specific time in the past, the time of matter-radiation equality, teq = 60,000 years after Big Bang.

Note that as one approaches t =~ 0, also the scale goes to zero, and the radiation energy density approaches infinity. This singularity is termed the Big Bang. Intuitively it is a meaningless and unphysical result, given the knowledge that quantum mechanics does not allow an exactly zero scale nor time. But it is an understandable result, because GR does not contain quantum mechanics, so it must break down as a description when the size of the Universe approaches atomic scales. A better future theory must combine GR and quantum mechanics."

  • [-]
  • DoomedAndGloomed
  • 1 Points
  • 05:47:39, 22 April

Just google "evidence for _______." That'll be easier. You might be able to find some stuff on wikipedia.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -4 Points
  • 02:05:15, 22 April

There's no deception. He told us the truth in His Word. He never said we'd be able to find the truth of all things outside of His Word. In fact we are not meant to.

  • [-]
  • frogbrooks
  • 1 Points
  • 05:48:56, 22 April

Doesn't [Romans 1:20] directly contradict what you just said?

  • [-]
  • VerseBot
  • 1 Points
  • 05:49:24, 22 April

Romans 1:20 (ESV) >[20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.


[Source Code] [Feedback] [Contact Dev] [FAQ] [Changelog]

  • [-]
  • dtg108
  • 4 Points
  • 01:31:53, 22 April

Because Genesis couldn't have been metaphorical and put into words that common people could understand?

He couldn't have "dumbed it down" for the people who thought the earth was flat?

  • [-]
  • US_Hiker
  • 6 Points
  • 01:34:02, 22 April

Or it's a story telling a theological meaning, and the details of the creation don't matter except inasmuch as they further that theological meaning.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -5 Points
  • 01:32:13, 22 April

Genesis was quoted and referenced by every single New Testament author. Even Jesus Christ directly quoted events in Genesis literally.

  • [-]
  • Kanshan
  • 20 Points
  • 01:23:09, 22 April

No it isn't.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -13 Points
  • 01:26:23, 22 April

Yes, it is.

  • [-]
  • Kanshan
  • 5 Points
  • 01:29:00, 22 April

According to what verse in the Bible?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -6 Points
  • 01:31:49, 22 April

Genesis was quoted and referenced by every single New Testament author. Even Jesus Christ directly quoted events in Genesis literally.

  • [-]
  • Kanshan
  • 6 Points
  • 01:40:22, 22 April

What if Genesis is literal and evolution is true?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -7 Points
  • 01:43:18, 22 April

Genesis and evolution are incompatible.

  • [-]
  • Kanshan
  • 5 Points
  • 01:44:41, 22 April

Where does it say that?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -4 Points
  • 01:45:02, 22 April

It's plainly clear when you read Genesis. For one thing the order of creation is completely different from evolutionary theory. Light comes before the stars and plants exist before the sun. Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, not from lower lifeforms.

  • [-]
  • Kanshan
  • 9 Points
  • 01:47:51, 22 April

What if Adam was formed and other human evolved under God's guidance. The Bible never says Adam was the first human.

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 3 Points
  • 03:26:58, 22 April

When I read Genesis, it's pretty clear that I'm reading literature that isn't meant to be taken literally, but tells the story of mankind's spiritual fall, and is compatible with evolutionary theory.

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 1 Points
  • 03:26:18, 22 April

No, they aren't.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 0 Points
  • 03:41:16, 22 April

The Bible speaks of plants existing before the sun and light before the sun and stars. Man was created from the dust of the earth and woman was created from man's rib. Eve was the mother of all living. It is not compatible with evolution.

  • [-]
  • Cjones1560
  • 1 Points
  • 04:07:56, 22 April

> It is not compatible with evolution.

It is not compatible with reality, at least when taken literally.

God may be infallible, but you most certainly are not. You, who are fallible, still have to interpret the words that another fallible human wrote (even if they were inspired by God to write what they wrote, they're still imperfect and very fallible humans).

Considering that a good portion of the bible is written in a more symbolic and metaphorical fashion, and that your interpretation is not compatible with how we know the world works, you've probably got the wrong interpretation.

  • [-]
  • outsider
  • 1 Points
  • 04:02:59, 22 April

The only thing directly referred to as an allegory is in Genesis.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 1 Points
  • 04:08:20, 22 April

Where does this happen?

  • [-]
  • outsider
  • 1 Points
  • 04:09:33, 22 April

In Galatians.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 1 Points
  • 04:09:54, 22 April

Specific verse?

  • [-]
  • US_Hiker
  • 10 Points
  • 01:28:21, 22 April

No, it's not.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -6 Points
  • 01:29:46, 22 April

Genesis was quoted and referenced by every single New Testament author. Even Jesus Christ directly quoted events in Genesis literally.

  • [-]
  • Ceannairceach
  • 12 Points
  • 01:40:04, 22 April

Jesus, the man who speaks in parables, can't have quoted something that wasn't literal?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -4 Points
  • 01:43:30, 22 April

He spoke as though it were true.

  • [-]
  • Ceannairceach
  • 8 Points
  • 01:46:11, 22 April

He also spoke as if the parable of the Good Samaritan was an actual event that happened a couple days previous, but in actuality it was a story to prove a point based generally on things that actually happened. Why can the same not be said of the Book of Genesis? Because unless God has set out to deceive us by putting the evidence for an old earth all around us, the earth is certainly billions of years old.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -6 Points
  • 01:47:10, 22 April

I do not agree with your supposition from its premise. If Jesus said there was a Good Samaritan, then I believe there was one. Jesus Christ isn't a liar.

  • [-]
  • Ceannairceach
  • 7 Points
  • 01:49:33, 22 April

There are good Samaritans. But the reason we call his words "parables" is because they are instructive stories that carry a theme or message to the listener from the reciter. The story of the Good Samaritan isn't something that Jesus literally witnessed; it is a tale he told that makes a statement about the way the world is according to Jesus. That doesn't make him a liar.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -6 Points
  • 01:52:21, 22 April

If He says there was a man, then there was a man. The fact that there is also a teaching to be extracted from the story of that man does not mean that that man did not exist. Jesus witnessed the lives and deaths of every man who lived and died. He is omniscient. He was in a position to know the stories of every man who ever lived or died. Why would He make up stories and speak of them with literal wording when He could just use real stories to convey what He was teaching? God is not a liar. Jesus Christ is not a liar. If He says something happened, then it did happen.

  • [-]
  • Ceannairceach
  • 7 Points
  • 01:53:11, 22 April

Then you aren't reading the Bible correctly. Simple as that.

  • [-]
  • rapscalian
  • 2 Points
  • 03:58:30, 22 April

This is a perfect example of why a thoroughgoing and complete biblical literalism is absurd and foolish!

  • [-]
  • Detsuahxe
  • 12 Points
  • 01:24:42, 22 April

No, it really isn't. In fact, you're denying one of God's greatest, most intricate, and most glorious works by denying evolution. So there!

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • 2 Points
  • 02:09:43, 22 April

> In fact, you're denying one of God's greatest, most intricate, and most glorious works by denying evolution.

?????????????

  • [-]
  • Detsuahxe
  • 5 Points
  • 02:12:37, 22 April

This is kind of a nerd thing. Procedural generation is a big deal these days- creating big, elaborate things by predefining rules and allowing a system to play out.

God created the systems on Earth in such a way that all the diversity of life came from a few simple strands of self-replicating RNA. It's amazing.

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • -4 Points
  • 02:17:32, 22 April

I agree that life is amazing. I disagree that evolution is responsible for the bulk of the diversity of life we see. One type of dog evolving into another type of dog over the years, that I can believe. A dog evolving into a primate? The universe isn't nearly old enough for such a teensy probability to play out.

  • [-]
  • Detsuahxe
  • 7 Points
  • 02:19:03, 22 April

You're factually incorrect. Sorry.

Dogs didn't evolve into primates. But both animals had common ancestors. And evolution isn't based on random chance, as you seem to think. Evolution relies on natural selection, which is a directed process.

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • 0 Points
  • 02:39:14, 22 April

>You're factually incorrect. Sorry. Dogs didn't evolve into primates.

That's completely beside the point. It was an arbitrary example. The main point is the odds against it.

>And evolution isn't based on random chance, as you seem to think. Evolution relies on natural selection, which is a directed process.

Natural selection is not a directed process. The evolution of a river is a directed process, directed by physical laws. The evolution of a solar system is a directed process, directed by physical laws. Natural selection is circumstances determining who lives and dies.

And natural selection has nothing to select from without the inherently random process of genetic mutations giving it options.

Cross-breeding only gets you so far. If evolution played out the way modern biologists think it does, then a hypothetical immortal being could cross-breed (and take advantage of whatever information-destroying mutations may arise) generation after generation after generation after generation after generation of fish and eventually get a land-borne mammal. That's while purposefully keeping them alive all of that time rather than letting nature take its course. Believing that this process is feasible seems as crazy to me as believing that the thermal energy in a floor on which a ball is resting could spontaneously align and provide an impulse to the ball, sending it flying upward, and reversing time's arrow.

Actually, I'm much more likely to believe that the second law of thermodynamics could be broken than I am to believe in the type of evolution you are discussing.

  • [-]
  • Cjones1560
  • 3 Points
  • 04:20:08, 22 April

> Natural selection is not a directed process. The evolution of a river is a directed process, directed by physical laws. The evolution of a solar system is a directed process, directed by physical laws. Natural selection is circumstances determining who lives and dies.

And what creates those circumstances? physical laws.

> And natural selection has nothing to select from without the inherently random process of genetic mutations giving it options.

And this is a problem for the theory?

> Cross-breeding only gets you so far. If evolution played out the way modern biologists think it does, then a hypothetical immortal being could cross-breed (and take advantage of whatever information-destroying mutations may arise) generation after generation after generation after generation after generation of fish and eventually get a land-borne mammal. That's while purposefully keeping them alive all of that time rather than letting nature take its course.

I'm not sure that made sense, could you put it differently? > > Believing that this process is feasible seems as crazy to me as believing that the thermal energy in a floor on which a ball is resting could spontaneously align and provide an impulse to the ball, sending it flying upward, and reversing time's arrow. > > Actually, I'm much more likely to believe that the second law of thermodynamics could be broken than I am to believe in the type of evolution you are discussing.

Are you implying that evolution conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics? If you are, would you please tell me what that law says?

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • 1 Points
  • 05:08:41, 22 April

>And what creates those circumstances? physical laws.

By this argument, everything is reducible to physics. I don't believe that--and I'm a physics major.

>And this is a problem for the theory?

Mathematically, yes. But I said this in response to somebody who said evolution wasn't random.

>I'm not sure that made sense, could you put it differently?

I was presenting a hypothetical scenario where a conscious mind was making breeding selection choices for successive generations--rather than circumstance--and expressing my doubt that even under these more favorable conditions, mammals could be produced from an initial population of fish. Which makes natural selection more doubtful.

>Are you implying that evolution conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics? If you are, would you please tell me what that law says?

That's not what I was saying, but the second law of thermodynamics says that total entropy of a closed system will increase over time, not decrease. I am aware that there is a creationist argument about the second law of thermodynamics but I am making a comparison, not an argument about evolution violating the second law.

The second law has a mathematical, probabilistic basis, rather than a physical one. It's called a "law" because an event which would violate it is EXTREMELY unlikely to occur, but still technically possible. I see Darwinian, "macro" evolution the same way. Technically possible but so unlikely it's virtually impossible. My point is that biologists have not faced these mathematical difficulties head-on.

  • [-]
  • Cjones1560
  • 1 Points
  • 05:51:43, 22 April

> By this argument, everything is reducible to physics. I don't believe that--and I'm a physics major.

May I ask what non-physical forces work to produce the various environments on Earth?

> I was presenting a hypothetical scenario where a conscious mind was making breeding selection choices for successive generations--rather than circumstance--and expressing my doubt that even under these more favorable conditions, mammals could be produced from an initial population of fish. Which makes natural selection more doubtful.

Given a few million years to perform selective breeding, I don't doubt that you could produce a radically different species than what you started out with.

I can understand how evolution seems unlikely. So did Darwin:

> To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Not only do we observe random mutations arising, we observe those mutations undergo non-random selection and we observe these traits propagating throughout the gene pool due to the effects of that selection. That is evolution. It happens, no questions.

You still probably don't see how that can lead to the evolution of two radically different species but, you are not understanding the full idea of what is going on here;

A fish didn't one day give birth to a tetrapod; the transition happened over millions of years and generations with changes so small that the process would have resembled your transition from embryo to adult in subtlety.

You were there every step of the way, yet I doubt you can remember exactly when you stopped being an infant and became an adult. Now imagine how difficult a time someone else, who had never experienced this transition before, would have accepting your transition from zygote to adult.

The best part is that we also have the fossil record, which is exactly as we would expect it to be if evolution was the driving force behind our planet's biodiversity. Seriously, you probably know of the big names in fossils (tiktaalik, etc...) but there are loads more species and specimens than most people never notice, probably because they weren't as big of finds as the other fossils. We have transitional fossils everywhere!

You accept that 'macro'-evolution is possible yet unlikely, but you seem to be unaware of what the theory actually predicts we should observe and that that's what we actually are observing. It's a whole lot more likely than you think.

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 1 Points
  • 03:34:22, 22 April

Hell to the yes!

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -12 Points
  • 01:26:12, 22 April

You're denying His Word. The Bible clearly teaches six-day-creation.

  • [-]
  • Detsuahxe
  • 4 Points
  • 01:29:22, 22 April

Do you believe that the firmament literally exists?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -2 Points
  • 01:31:34, 22 April

Of course it is something. I'm not entirely sure what it is though.

  • [-]
  • Detsuahxe
  • 11 Points
  • 01:34:33, 22 April

It's a ceiling in the heavens that separated the waters above from the waters below. The stars are holes in it, just like the Sun. And they both directly emit light, just like the Moon. Right there in the book.

Biblical literalism is factually absurd and indefensible on every count. Please stop.

  • [-]
  • albygeorge
  • 1 Points
  • 05:30:37, 22 April

Don't forget the moon is the light for the night, even though physics and orbital mechanics require it to be out in the day for about half the month.

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 1 Points
  • 03:35:09, 22 April

>The Bible clearly

Except not, since the majority of Christians disagree with you.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 0 Points
  • 03:43:02, 22 April

They are wrong.

  • [-]
  • dolphins3
  • 2 Points
  • 03:45:49, 22 April

I think it's enormously more likely that you're wrong.

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 1 Points
  • 03:50:21, 22 April

That the majority of people who identify as Christians compromise with the world and go along with it over God doesn't make the compromisers right.

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • 5 Points
  • 02:11:10, 22 April

You're a troll, aren't you?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -4 Points
  • 02:11:46, 22 April

No.

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • 9 Points
  • 02:15:01, 22 April

It's just that you have almost 2,000 downvotes, usually people who are trolls have excessively high down-vote counts. Plus you aren't really making arguments, you're just repeating platitudes and taking a highly defensive stance. It seems a lot like trolling.

So what kind of church do you go to?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • -1 Points
  • 02:24:59, 22 April

I make arguments, people just generally don't like what I have to say. I'm not the only non-troll with many downvotes. Tripletrules has a lot of downvotes too.

I haven't been to a church in a while. I generally feel most at home among Baptists or reformed churches.

  • [-]
  • TakeOffYourMask
  • 4 Points
  • 02:41:34, 22 April

People usually don't like being called blasphemous and heretical.

I'm a creationist, and I think that theistic evolution is playing with fire, but I'm not going to say that believing in it disqualifies somebody as a Christian. What was the most important commandment? And what was the second most important commandment?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 1 Points
  • 03:32:13, 22 April

All of the Word of God is important. It is all true.

  • [-]
  • rapscalian
  • 1 Points
  • 03:59:54, 22 April

That is not the question you were asked. What does Jesus say are the two most important commandments?

  • [-]
  • generallabourer
  • 1 Points
  • 04:04:38, 22 April

I know what they are. These two commandments being important does not mean that they are the only important things in the Bible. For example you can love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself, but what's necessary for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

  • [-]
  • US_Hiker
  • 3 Points
  • 04:01:33, 22 April

> I haven't been to a church in a while.

Does this bother you?