“You seriously need to step back and be analytical about what a belief in macro evolution entails.”
Okay.
Betcha you’re wrong, but g’head.
“It essentially demands your utter rejection of Genesis chapter 1, the story of how we came to be.”
Well, no. It demands that i reject any interpretation of Genesis as literal history. If i consider the Fall to refer to man’s CAPACITY for sinning, rather than a specific act of sin, it works fine as a metaphor.
"The two are not compatible.”
Neither is the Bible with the concept of Earth as an oblate spheroid, but that seems to be okay for most.
"God was not guessing when he inspired Moses to write it.”
I don’t think it’s really Kosher to question God’s motives for why something is in the Bible.
“He had a solid grasp on what a day was, what years are, and what millennia is.”
Yes, but did his stenographer?
“God specifically said 6 days then he rested. He didn’t spend millions of years between each day and just call it a day, it literally was a day.”
How do yuo know this? How do you determine it was not a metaphor?
“For you to accept macro evolution, you must accept the Bible is incorrect at this point.”
No. I must accept that some people attempting to impose their interpretation upon the Bible MUST be incorrect.
“If it’s incorrect in the first chapter of the first book, where else is it invalid? See where this goes?”
Yeah, but there’s evidence for macroevolution and none at all of your skyfairy, so that’s where THAT goes.
“Your rejection of what God clearly states is in effect a rejection of God Himself.”
UMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … Okay.
