"There is nothing in actual science that contradicts the Bible"
There are plenty of things in "actual" science that contradict the bible. That's why I'm not a literalist. However, I'm guessing you are so arguing against you will get us nowhere, as we're both probably pretty set in our beliefs, which is fine.
This gives me the impression that you've already researched these claims about science supposedly contradicting the Bible, and you know that they're wrong. As I said, there's nothing in actual science that contradicts the Bible, and by actual science I'm talking about things that are supported by evidence.
Can you give me some examples of these holes you poked in evolution? Because if they're saying "that's not what evolution is", maybe you're misunderstanding evolution?
We'll do one at a time. According to the theory of evolution, life started with a single living cell and then branched off and evolved into every species of animal we have today. If this is true, then that would mean that the single cell, which reproduced asexually, evolved to have male and female reproductive organs. However, this is not backed up by any observations or experiements, not to mention that evolving male and female reproductive organs over millions of years makes no sense. You have to assume that asexual organisms evolved to have male and female reproductive organs, because there's no evidence to suggest that this is even possible, there's only assumptions.
Well we've seen macro evolution through the study of fossils. This shows us the transitioning from one species to another via micro evolution.
No, I've even had evolutionists admit that fossils don't prove that something evolved. Likewise, you have no proof that these fossils evolved into one another, you just have to assume that they did. I don't have enough faith for evolution.
1) There is plenty of evidence. It's not "assuming it's true", it's taking evidence that we have and forming conclusions. There are fossils and rocks that demonstrate a time frame for life on earth, which is very easily researched. It took roughly 2.5 billion years for the single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-celled organisms, and then another 400 million years or so until small, basic animals were formed.
This also doesn't make sense. You say it took 2.5 billion years to go from single-celled to multi-celled organisms, but then it somehow miraculously took much less time to go from multi-celled organisms into "basic animals" which would be much more complex than the multi-celled organism.
I'd also like you to prove that it took 2.5 billion years to go from single-celled to multi-celled organisms. If it's never been observed, then how do you KNOW that it takes 2.5 billion years? See, this is just another thing that we have to assume is true with no evidence to support it.
This isn't something that happens over night. It takes a really, really long time.
Going back to the asexual to sexual transition, this is something else that doesn't make sense. You're telling me to believe that asexual reproducing organisms were developing these male and female reproductive parts over millions of years, but why would they continue to devolope something that is unfunctional and useless throughout those millions of years? According to natural selection, the parts that are useless should be dissipating, not developing.
However, evidence suggests that this did, indeed happen. Why on earth would scientists "need to believe this stuff and ASSUME it's true?" They study the earth to learn, not to form conclusions they already have their mind set on.
And where is this evidence? So far, all you've said is "fossils," but you have to assume that those fossils evolved into each other, since there's no repeated experiement that confirms that such a thing is possible.
2) Some people use evolution to try and dispute the existence of god. I think this is ridiculous, personally.
Finally, somthing we can agree on. But yet, evolutionists will fight tooth and nail to cling to this belief system despite evidence to the contrary, or the lack of evidence for the claims of evolution.
Also evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang, and abiogenesis is not proven and really doesn't have a ton to do with evolution, either.
I know that, that's why I used the phrase "coupled with the big bang and abiogenesis."
When I speak to atheists they say there is no evidence to support god either, which I tend to agree with. That's why people have faith. Atheists just don't understand faith. They'd rather have evidence. Both are fine but they are certainly different.
Faith is not "belief without any evidence whatsoever," that's just some nonsense that denialists came up with to mock those who believe in God. Whenever the Bible talks about faith, it's talking about a reasonable faith, one that is supported with evidence, and you can look up the greek word/definition of how the Bible uses faith to verify that.
3) Well this is just plain wrong, at least where I'm from in Missouri. We were taught evolution, but it was not taught as "absolutely unquestionable truth". In fact, we were encouraged to question it. Many people did, and we had classroom discussions about whether it was true or not. In the end NOTHING was forced on us, and kids were welcome to leave the room if they were uncomfortable. Christianity is religion, evolution is science, that's why it's taught in a science classroom and Christianity is taught in religion and geography and philosophy classes.
If evolution is science, then where's the evidence? Why does it always have to be assumed to be true? Why do you have to take so much of evolution on the basis of blind faith?
