After this comment, I am going to block you. I am sorry, but you are being deliberately disrespectful. I asked you quite nicely to keep things to yourself if you were going to debate, and you refused. I asked you to be civil; you refused. This is the last straw.
Genesis is not a "myth." You could at least have the decency to *pretend* that it DOES have some basis in fact. You could at least pretend to be respectful of my beliefs. But no, you can't.
As for your third paragraph, I still find it amazing that you think I know nothing about creation and evolution. Like I said in the original post, I have STUDIED this. I know exactly what evolution is. I know exactly what it does, and what it masquerades itself as. For the past few years, I have studied this, and know pretty much everything possible there is to know about it.
As for this:
"I am not attempting to disrespect your religious and philosophical beliefs, except where your religious and philosophical beliefs pretend to be empirical truth with support from empirical evidence."
How can you possibly think that that *isn't* disrespecting my beliefs. You are saying EXACTLY what New Scientist was saying--you are saying that creation has no basis in science, and that those who believe in Genesis are stupid and against science. My beliefs are NOT pretending. They have plenty of scientific backing, yet you can't or won't see it.
And I'm sorry, but modern science hasn't refuted the idea that someone CREATED life instead of it coming out of naturalistic processes. Science hasn't refuted the idea that a higher power created life. Science supports creation. It even supports natural selection, otherwise known as microevolution, even though it falls apart when trying to prove macroevolution.
As for your last paragraph, it is hard to accept because it is NOT the truth! Genesis was NOT meant to be taken metaphorically. Every single person who has truly studied Genesis, and even someone who looks at it with an open mind, knows that it should be taken literally. Genesis does not use metaphorical language--it is a written account, one that is supposed to take literally, whereas Psalms and the section in 1 Peter was POETIC language, MADE to be taken metaphorically. There is a world of difference between the two.
no subject
Genesis is not a "myth." You could at least have the decency to *pretend* that it DOES have some basis in fact. You could at least pretend to be respectful of my beliefs. But no, you can't.
As for your third paragraph, I still find it amazing that you think I know nothing about creation and evolution. Like I said in the original post, I have STUDIED this. I know exactly what evolution is. I know exactly what it does, and what it masquerades itself as. For the past few years, I have studied this, and know pretty much everything possible there is to know about it.
As for this:
"I am not attempting to disrespect your religious and philosophical beliefs, except where your religious and philosophical beliefs pretend to be empirical truth with support from empirical evidence."
How can you possibly think that that *isn't* disrespecting my beliefs. You are saying EXACTLY what New Scientist was saying--you are saying that creation has no basis in science, and that those who believe in Genesis are stupid and against science. My beliefs are NOT pretending. They have plenty of scientific backing, yet you can't or won't see it.
And I'm sorry, but modern science hasn't refuted the idea that someone CREATED life instead of it coming out of naturalistic processes. Science hasn't refuted the idea that a higher power created life. Science supports creation. It even supports natural selection, otherwise known as microevolution, even though it falls apart when trying to prove macroevolution.
As for your last paragraph, it is hard to accept because it is NOT the truth! Genesis was NOT meant to be taken metaphorically. Every single person who has truly studied Genesis, and even someone who looks at it with an open mind, knows that it should be taken literally. Genesis does not use metaphorical language--it is a written account, one that is supposed to take literally, whereas Psalms and the section in 1 Peter was POETIC language, MADE to be taken metaphorically. There is a world of difference between the two.