(January 26, 2010 at 12:17 pm)chatpilot Wrote: The typical Christian lure to drag anyone who refutes their claims into a senseless discussion of those things they already know. The various disciplines of science completely refute everything the biblical version of creation has to say about our origins etc. For the literalist the Earth cannot be older than 6 or maybe 7 thousand years old, this includes the universe as we know it since creation itself was completed in 6 days since the seventh day doesn't count because that was the day that the lord rested.
Taking the biblical creation story literally makes no sense at all and has been utterly crushed by modern day scientific discoveries. So this rjh4 is where all of the "mental gymnastics" comes into play. There is the famous gap theory where an undetermined amount of time has passed between verses one and two of Genesis chapter 1. Or that the seven days were not literal they could have been 700, 7,000, or 7 million years. The order of the seven days of creation are not meant to be interpreted chronologically but are rather descriptive etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on and I have heard them all before.
Evolution through the process of natural selection is an established scientific fact that has plenty of data and evidence to back it up. I voted for evolution as opposed to the nonsensical creation stories based on faith.
So if someone has a starting point for answering questions regarding origins other than the scientific method, they are going through "mental gymnastics"? Is that what you are trying to say?
Your comments are kind of funny, too, CP. In another thread you claimed you were unbiased. Yet your comments here are riddled with biased language. Just because you claimed to be a Christian once does not make you unbiased.
Relative to your last paragraph, if you are merely talking about change through the process of natural selection, as I said, I agree with this. You do realize CP that one can hold to this definition of evolution and still hold to creation, don't you? It is common descent that I disagree with.
