Evolution

Never mind about that let's keep on the subject, shall we?

Fee fi fo fum.

Is that directed at me?

yep

Well, you're quite right, I am an Englishman but it's not my blood you smell. I am very healthy, thanks.
Or are you mixing up your references? The GIANT from Jack and the Beanstalk said that. It has nothing to do with Trolls, which live under bridges if I'm not mistaken.
Now let's get back on track, shall we?

You are the troll im referring to and I for one am done feeding you.

Oh I see, you can't answer my point so you just throw a tantrum.
Ciao then x

I am with almost all the way here but Christians have to accept some of the blame. If they continue to promote anti-science silliness it's hardly surprising that many scientists get somewhat alienated.

Good to hear a voice of reason. Have you got any thoughts on Genesis 3:20?

I have evidence for creation from the Creator Himself.

You asked the question and now you have your answer. You can challenge that perspective or accept it as a valid interpretation.

So you don't need observed evidence for the things you believe but you feel justified to pontificate on what evidence other people must have to justify their beliefs even though you have yourself happily and proudly said you don't feel it necessary or even desirable to learn anything about what they believe or why they believe it? I seem to detect a flaw somewhere in that logic.

God breathed His Spirit into Adam. What was Adam? Man, fish? Monkey? If God created man at the creation of all things it gets a bit sticky to claim man evolved billions of years after creation. Unless of course you believe the universe was created by a series of impossible accidents happening at the correct time in the correct order. Then of course yhat would question the very existance of God.

I see time and time again people applying reason and logic to their life outside the Church, only to turn it all backwards when discussing their faith.

One guy I knew, who (ironically) is a financial advisor, basically thought that it didn't matter that the Church was running out of money "because God would provide what is needed".
That Church is now in the red and things aren't looking good.

On the issue of evolution and creation:
So many people don't believe in evolution despite the evidence because they believe it goes against their faith (which it doesn't). But then these same people will demand evidence when discussing different points of view on scripture.
They burn the wick from both ends.

As regards Genesis 3:20, what about it?

I notice you've side-stepped my point. Well done.

It's not out of context, either Genesis 1 is figurative or Psalm 90:4 is figurative. You can choose to interpret (hermeneutic/exegesis) that Psalm 90:4 is figurative, but it is not a necessarily interpretation. I'm not proposing that it is necessarily either case, but we cannot reduce to only one of those interpretations at the expense of the other (without further reasoning that compels one interpretation over the other).

Thomas Aquinas often approached questions in that manner: first demonstrate internal consistency of an interpretation, and then demonstrate why that interpretation is more compelling than other competing, internally consistent, interpretations. I have a lot of appreciation for that approach.

So far I agree that Gen=literal/Psa=figurative is internally consistent, but I content that Gen=figurative/Psa=literal is also internally consistent. The next question is how to demonstrate which hermeneutic/exegesis is more compelling. I am completely open to changing my mind given the right scripture, but so far I find G=F/P=L more compelling. In either case whether G=L/P=F or G=F/P=L, it does not rule out the concept of future macroevolution, the question pertains more to models that apply to past events. In the end there is no reason to commit definitively to either interpretation. One may leave it simply as a mystery if one so chooses.

The same could be said of choosing a hermeneutic/exegesis. You can declare your interpretation as fact, but ultimately it is speculative inasmuch as any science.

Adam only gave Eve her name after the fall, up to then she had only been named "woman". What do you think this means if anything?

Genesis 3:20
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living".

To be honest I'm not sure that Adam giving his wife a name has anything to do with the subject of evolution.

Very interesting point, see also 2 Peter 3:8.
I wonder if you see more than you're letting on!

First God creates plants, animals, beasts... Then God takes dust from the ground, forms Adam, and once Adam is in a desirable form, breathes life into his nostrils. The form exists before the breath of life was placed in Adam. It is interesting that dust from the ground would also be rich in microbial life. From microbe, to the form of man, and then a breath of life (soul). If this is an illustration of evolution from simple form to more complex, this shows that a long chain of creatures existed until a form emerged that was the perfected vessel to bear the soul. This hinges on the idea that Adam translates as mankind, and that Adam himself is a metaphor for a people.

Impossible accidents? You mean God playing pool and landing 20 billiard balls with one shot? There is no reason to believe that God could not guide an evolutionary process directly along the way either by making subtle changes that push the process to where it needs to go. There is nothing in the science that says that God had no part in the process. The science just comments on the observation that the process exists. If someone has said that science says "there is no God" they have twisted the truth and speak falsely.