Quote: kirkstaller "No, Genesis 1 is quite clear that humans came after animals but not from animals.'"
I don't care what Genesis 1 says, however Genesis 1 is quite clearly wrong, as the evidence clearly show that we did evolve from other animals.
I also note that you didn't address my point regarding your comment that we can't be apes because we are humans which is the equivalent of saying that chimpanzees cannot be apes because they are chimpanzees. This line of reasoning may be acceptable from a six year old child but I cannot believe a fully grown adult could make such an argument.
Quote: kirkstaller "To say that we are animals now is pure lunacy.'"
Actually to to say we are animals is a fact just as it is a fact to say that dogs or whales are animals. To believe that your particular book of myths is the inerrant word of God however is lunacy.
Quote: kirkstaller "But your ‘scientific evidence’ is not consistent with scripture, nor is it necessarily the truth.'"
I don't care if the scientific evidence is consistent with scripture that is the problem of those who choose to believe in scripture. If, however the scientific evidence is inconsistent with scripture then those that reject the scientific evidence because it contradicts scripture end up making themselves look ridiculous.
I also made no reference to truth and nor does science. Science provides provisional and testable explanations for natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory does a great job of explaining the diversity of life around us whilst such evidence falsifies the biblical view of creation.
Quote: kirkstaller "For centuries scientists had us all convinced that the sun orbited the Earth. No doubt that was the ‘truth’ of the day.'"
Any it was scientists who were able to show that this view was incorrect and replaced it with a much better model which is consistent with the observational evidence. Just as scientists were able to show that the biblical view of creation is incorrect and replaced it with evolutionary theory which does a much better job of explaining the data.
Evolutionary theory may one day be overturned just like any other scientific theory however any theory that replaces Evolution has to explain the evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology.etc which the creationist position is incapable of explaining without those who hold it resorting to falsehoods & misrepresenting the evidence.
Quote: kirkstaller "Wanting something to be true does not necessarily mean you are biased.'"
Wanting something to be true doesn't mean you are biased, however it does often lead to confirmation bias where you reject data that does not conform to your particular position. This is why it is silly to start from the position that the bible is true and then find "evidence" to support this position post hoc.
Quote: kirkstaller "If that were the case, I could accuse atheists who hate religion of the same crime – they blaspheme against the Holy Spirit because they are stubborn and want to be their own masters'"
I can't speak for other atheists however I'm an atheist because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of gods. If evidence could be provided to show that a god existed then I would happily accept such evidence.
You on the other hand are suggested with your quote from Matthew 7:7 that we should start with the belief that the "Holy Spirit" exists and then we will be provided with the evidence, which is putting the cart before the horse.
