I have reread your sentence and can’t see any other way to take it.
Replace theology in my comment with interpretation.
The Roman Inquisition said his idea was, “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” If that isn’t a challenge to interpretation and authority I don’t know what is.
Google it. Really pretty easy. Main point was that it contradicted scripture. Funny how that is not now seen as a problem by literalists.
Well, of course it presents challenges to theology. If it didn’t Christians wouldn’t be arguing about it. How is this “admitting” anything?
@jpm
The reason I’m asking is not because I am too lazy to Google something, it is because I want to see if you really know what you are talking about, or if you are “spouting off” things you have heard elsewhere.
I would like to see these specific passages of scripture so as to evaluate them personally. However, to my understanding, there are no Bible passages that explicitly support geocentrism!
I look forward to hearing back from you, and @Bill_II
-Jonathan
@Christy
I didn’t mean it in a hostile sense, I simply thought that the BioLogos position was that evolution did not present any theological problems…I suppose that could have been me interpreting “challenges” to mean “problems,” so it may be an error on my part…
No, BioLogos pretty much exists to talk about the theological problems and potential ways of addressing them. It’s important to keep in mind the YEC interpretation is not theological problem-free, though I think it is the scientific problems that are more salient.
The problem of evil, the problem of divine action, the problem of historical Adam, the problem of innerancy…there wouldn’t be much to talk about if we didn’t acknowledge there were theological problems.
It isn’t a minor topic. But discussion over the mechanical methods employed by God is theologically trivial at the salvation or “arc-of-Scripture” levels. But it is just theologically interesting enough at lesser levels to keep web sites like this one busy enough today --mainly trying to help folks keep from inflating it up to major stumbling block levels.
Regarding how atheists should (or rather should not) be driving your theologies: You have to keep in mind that “hard-core atheists” have been holding funerals for God on and off for at least two thousand years now. It’s a time-honored tradition. Eventually some of us catch on that others are just good at crying “wolf” a lot and learn not to be overly concerned about it any more. Our own Christian proclivities (in affluent nations) to swing wildly between being driven by comfort/apathy and then alternately by fear – all that is a much greater threat to our faith than strident mockeries coming from nonbelievers.
Very well put.The only thing Evolution contradicts is one’s narrow interpretation of the Bible.
Here you go. Sixty-Seven References which tell us that it is the sun and not the earth that moves
Enjoy. I hope the site doesn’t convert you to the flat earth model. 
Sounds like you need an intern to do your research for you
[quote=“J.E.S, post:132, topic:36407”]
Do I now (consciously choose not to investigate it)?[/quote]
Clearly that is the case.
Frankly, you support it in spades, and actually, it is quite correct.
Yet you asked 3d ago, were provided evidence, but have not engaged.
What is the evidence against evolution, btw?
[quote]The reason (or, one of the reasons) I ask people to list their evidence for evolution is because I like to cut to the chase, and hear what other people think is the best evidence for evolution, and then question them about it in an effort to learn more, and see if they are actually putting thought into what they say instead of echoing things they have read or been told (links etc.).
[/quote]But you’re not doing any of that. You’re doing the Gish Gallop.
@Bill_II, @jpm
Do you mean the Geocentric model? [quote=“jpm, post:151, topic:36407, full:true”]
Sounds like you need an intern to do your research for you
[/quote]
Unfortunately, it is I that must do the research myself. One thing that I feel merits an investigation is these “twin nested hierarchies”…Do you know of any good books?
A book that lays out the multiple lines of evidence for an ancient earth and the evolutionary model of biodiversity is Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk. It is accessible to someone without a specialized background in science and it isn’t written in a way that comes across as condescending to the typical Evangelical.
It seems like you would prefer people to reiterate every argument they have found convincing in their own words here. Frankly, that is a waste of time. Most of us were not convinced by a couple general ideas that could be articulated in a paragraph or two, but by lots and lots of fairly detailed examples and explanations. Although I can grasp the meat of these examples and explanations and follow the arguments, they aren’t things anyone is going to memorize verbatim in case someone asks. They are things you look up and refer to. Lots of resources exist that document these examples, calculations, and observations in a responsible, organized, academically documented way, so it comes across as kind ridiculous when you assert that unless people can recreate the wheel for you personally here, they are just parroting propaganda and don’t really have any personal experience muddling through the issues firsthand. When people provide you with links and resources, that is providing you with arguments. Many of them aren’t things that can be summarized in any meaningful way in a few sentences.
I’m not saying any of this to be antagonistic. I think it’s great that you are seriously looking into things with an open mind. I just think some of your stipulations about the kinds of interactions you would find convincing are wildly unrealistic. Many of the people here who changed their minds about evolution did so after reading thousands of pages and mulling things over for years. There is a learning curve and a lot of things have been completely misrepresented by creationist resources and need to be unlearned and re-learned, and it takes a while. It wasn’t like a light bulb went off because of a single thing someone said or a single article in a magazine really made sense and addressed every possible issue. I have been thinking about this stuff for ten years or so, and there are still open questions for me, especially on the trickier theological issues.
@J.E.S
From Wikipedia, “geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the universe with Earth at the centre.” Does that answer your question?
@Christy
That is, pretty much, what I am looking for…But I see your point…Perhaps it would be interesting to have a pinned discussion filled with all of the best posts codifying and explaining evolution and the BioLogos view. Then, the evidences would all be listed in one place so that people such as I can peruse it without following hundreds of links…Also, the authors of the posts would, ideally, still be available on the forum if the reader had questions etc.
What do you think of this idea?
I think @BradKramer is supposedly working on it already. 
Meanwhile, have you tried using the “Common Questions” directory on the BioLogos website? That is the existing attempt to provide a short version to the most commonly heard objections, problems, issues, etc. and each short explanation has multiple links at the bottom and a bibliography to further explore a given topic.
You can’t accept MicroEvolution and ignore Macro Evolution. Just one more thing that lets us know you don’t understand Evolution.
Not sure whether this is something you’re looking for, @J.E.S, or whether you’ve already read it, but I have been reading through Evolution Basics on BioLogos, which is an introduction to the basics of evolution. It’s not really about “arguments” per se, but just gives an overview of many aspects of how the theory came about, what it predicts, etc., and it’s written in a way that non-science-majors like me can understand. I find that the YEC organizations often focus so much on “arguments” or “gotcha” statements which left me with an incomplete understanding of what was even being argued in the first place. So in order to understand arguments from either side, I first had to understand evolution… what it is, isn’t, etc. Again, maybe you’ve already come across it (it’s quite long all together), but I am finding it useful.
You can’t accept MicroEvolution and ignore Macro Evolution. Just one more thing that lets us know you don’t understand Evolution.
I am not ignoring Macroevolution. I am simply adhering to the creationist approach that microevolutionary adaptation, while it does indeed happen, has limits to the variation it can create. For example, the initial breed of dogs from Noah’s ark could, through the generations, give rise to all of the different dog breeds we see today through natural selection. However, We will not see dogs evolving into giraffes etc.
To say “since microevolution is true, macroevolution must be as well” seems to be flawed logic, as the two are fairly different.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.