So we are on the same page...

First I realize that in many ways we will never solve this problem on here for many reasons but we all enjoy the intellectual challenge and discussion as long as it doesn't become personal which I see too often on forums like this against someone with varying degree from your own.

Couple of questions to try and get understanding then I must go to Dr. appts again.

1. What do you think is the absolute best way, if searching for truth, to find it?
I realize most on here already have their version of the truth, hence opposite viewpoints. So basically I mean this, What method of study, research did or do you use to get your answers as to which side is correct and that determined which side of this you fell on?

2. Is anyone on here actually open to finding out the other side could be correct. For example, It seems to me, tell me if you disagree, that evolutionist will never consider the possibility of ID or a God no matter what. If that is the case then was debate as you have become set in your thoughts and are therefore unwilling to change no matter what so you are not really looking for truth.

3. Creationist on the other hand are just as set, any possibility of there not being ID or God, which honestly mean the same thing but ID is less offensive I guess and more PC in today's time.

4. What this means to me is this. Both sides will interpret the same data and info through their own bias and agenda, evolutionist see evolution, creationist see creation, God, ID same thing.

5. This leads me to this. In each of our search is we did a genuine search must read the points from both sides and read the answers both sides give to the same question or interpretation of the same data. Then decide which side we think is stronger.

6. Yet if we only read the answers from our own point of view then both sides are not truly open or seeking a answer for the truth. It therefore leads a big hole in our ability to find truth. Now it may never be possible as different worldviews exist on this. Liberal, Socialist and Conservative for example. I don't need to isolate my research or I am not totally informed.

7. So how many on here actually read both sides and answers from both sides from scientist that have opposing views on same thing.

8. For example, In my studies I have found lists of scientist that were originally evolutionist but as they got deeper into science they became creationist due to the science not religion. But what I don't get is this. It seems that evolutionist automatically make it as if one minute the scientist was credible since they were evolutionist but once they changed their science knowledge and interpretation lost all credibility. Ironically not all of them are Christian or even became Christian but suddenly their creds are no longer valid. How can that be?

9. If any of us due to our credentials have personal credibility and if upon more and new information decided we were incorrect and needed to change our view, until possibly more info came to light to change us back. Did we lose all of our schooling and knowledge and credibility due to change in view?

10. Why should that be the case? Also should not in search for truth we always be open to more and new info that could make us reconsider our side?

11. Yet, if we are so committed to one view regardless then we are wasting our time as it won't matter as apparently this person has a vested interest for some reason to never change. That case means they no longer are truly seeking the truth but just arguing for arguments sake not search for truth.

12. I propose that all of us say and tell what we do in reading both sides and the answers from both sides on same questions to illustrate we are serious and open to chance either of us could be wrong. If we are not open to that possibility then why bother our view is tainted by bias and agenda. This makes it impossible to be open to truth for either side iMHO.

13. Much of he info I present is what I get from the recent text books I have dedicated to evolution and its teaching and I then will ask for an explanation for how evolution explains the question that info made me ask.

14. As a Christian it truly doesn't matter on my salvation of going to heaven or hell what I believe on this subject. It only depends on Christ and my beliefs and what I do with it. NO where in the Bible does it say I must believe in Creationism. Now I have done many studies from both sides on what the length of days in Genesis means and from all that I do believe it means 24 hour days not eons of time. I was open either way as I knew it wouldn't effect my decision to believe in Christ.

15. Which as a Christian, if you knew my background you would know how hard it was for me to accept that as I had every reason to not do so.

If this needs clarification you can PM me or post and I will get back to this as soon as I can.

God Bless Us All as we all search for truth whether you believe in Him or not. Ironically it seems when tragedy strikes a call goes out in prayer to God even if an agnostic or atheist who don't even believe in one. I do find that a little amusing, why pray or call for it to someone or something you don't believe it. That to me is like praying to a man made piece of something, knowing it was man made and it is a GOD yet was man made. I find that non (sequitor). (spelling) but I must go now or I will be late so I don't have time to get it correctly. I do think you know what I meant anyway.

ttechsan said:

1. What do you think is the absolute best way, if searching for truth, to find it?

Click to expand...

The best (or, I should say, most successful) means of attaining truth we currently have is the scientific method.

ttechsan said:

2. Is anyone on here actually open to finding out the other side could be correct. For example, It seems to me, tell me if you disagree, that evolutionist will never consider the possibility of ID or a God no matter what. If that is the case then was debate as you have become set in your thoughts and are therefore unwilling to change no matter what so you are not really looking for truth.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely not the case. Many people who accept evolution are theists. This is not a two-sided debate with evolutionist and theists one opposite sides - this is strictly a debate coming from a very specific group of predominantly religious individuals against a well-established scientific theory championed by many people of various beliefs. This is not atheism vs. theism, and to misrepresent this debate as being such is woefully dishonest.

ttechsan said:

3. Creationist on the other hand are just as set, any possibility of there not being ID or God, which honestly mean the same thing but ID is less offensive I guess and more PC in today's time.

Click to expand...

It is important that the two are equated, yes.

ttechsan said:

4. What this means to me is this. Both sides will interpret the same data and info through their own bias and agenda, evolutionist see evolution, creationist see creation, God, ID same thing.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple. The conclusion of evolution is reached through the scientific method and observation of the available evidence. No scientific method is applied when reaching a creaitonist conclusion whatsoever - just baseless assumptions. No studies or discoveries have ever been made in the field of "ID research", and ID has already been thrown out of court as being pseudo-science. This is not a case of two groups of people looking at the same information and reaching different conclusions via bias: this is a case of scientists looking at the facts and reaching a conclusion based on those facts that a particular group of religious individuals do not feel comfortable accepting, and rather than chaning their beliefs those individuals dissminate misinformation to try and disparage or dismiss the science.

ttechsan said:

5. This leads me to this. In each of our search is we did a genuine search must read the points from both sides and read the answers both sides give to the same question or interpretation of the same data. Then decide which side we think is stronger.

Click to expand...

Which is evolution.

ttechsan said:

6. Yet if we only read the answers from our own point of view then both sides are not truly open or seeking a answer for the truth. It therefore leads a big hole in our ability to find truth. Now it may never be possible as different worldviews exist on this. Liberal, Socialist and Conservative for example. I don't need to isolate my research or I am not totally informed.

Click to expand...

The problem is that on this very forum alone you have desmontrated wilfull ignorance of the subject at hand in favour of a biased, ID-leaning view of the facts. Case in point: the thread you started recently in which you claimed various fossils were "frauds" which were not, and that other fossils that actually were frauds were "still being taught as evidence of evolution". Such statements are pure and simple dishonesty.

ttechsan said:

7. So how many on here actually read both sides and answers from both sides from scientist that have opposing views on same thing.

Click to expand...

I have.

ttechsan said:

8. For example, In my studies I have found lists of scientist that were originally evolutionist but as they got deeper into science they became creationist due to the science not religion. But what I don't get is this. It seems that evolutionist automatically make it as if one minute the scientist was credible since they were evolutionist but once they changed their science knowledge and interpretation lost all credibility. Ironically not all of them are Christian or even became Christian but suddenly their creds are no longer valid. How can that be?

Click to expand...

Can you provide this list of scientists and how they were suddenly discredited?

It's really no different to a geologist suddenly choosing to believe the world is flat. Such people are not realiable because everything they claims goes completely contradictory to all the facts that science currently has.

ttechsan said:

9. If any of us due to our credentials have personal credibility and if upon more and new information decided we were incorrect and needed to change our view, until possibly more info came to light to change us back. Did we lose all of our schooling and knowledge and credibility due to change in view?

Click to expand...

Possibly, I wouldn't claim to know. But, like I said, it's no different two a geologist suddenly believing the world was flat.

ttechsan said:

10. Why should that be the case? Also should not in search for truth we always be open to more and new info that could make us reconsider our side?

Click to expand...

See above.

ttechsan said:

11. Yet, if we are so committed to one view regardless then we are wasting our time as it won't matter as apparently this person has a vested interest for some reason to never change. That case means they no longer are truly seeking the truth but just arguing for arguments sake not search for truth.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree, and I find that this kind of attitude exists almost entirely on the ID side of the debate.

ttechsan said:

12. I propose that all of us say and tell what we do in reading both sides and the answers from both sides on same questions to illustrate we are serious and open to chance either of us could be wrong. If we are not open to that possibility then why bother our view is tainted by bias and agenda. This makes it impossible to be open to truth for either side iMHO.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree, but in my experience the people who understand both sides of the debate the most are almost exclusively people who accept and understand evolution and the science behind it. The ID movement is based almost entirely on ignorance or misinformation.

ttechsan said:

13. Much of he info I present is what I get from the recent text books I have dedicated to evolution and its teaching and I then will ask for an explanation for how evolution explains the question that info made me ask.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're being entirely honest here. Can you present a single evolution textbook which claims Piltdown man is evidence of evolution?

ttechsan said:

14. As a Christian it truly doesn't matter on my salvation of going to heaven or hell what I believe on this subject. It only depends on Christ and my beliefs and what I do with it. NO where in the Bible does it say I must believe in Creationism. Now I have done many studies from both sides on what the length of days in Genesis means and from all that I do believe it means 24 hour days not eons of time. I was open either way as I knew it wouldn't effect my decision to believe in Christ.

Click to expand...

So you're willing to accept that the Bible is wrong in this account of creation?

ttechsan said:

1. What do you think is the absolute best way, if searching for truth, to find it?
I realize most on here already have their version of the truth, hence opposite viewpoints. So basically I mean this, What method of study, research did or do you use to get your answers as to which side is correct and that determined which side of this you fell on?

Click to expand...

Scientific method.

2. Is anyone on here actually open to finding out the other side could be correct. For example, It seems to me, tell me if you disagree, that evolutionist will never consider the possibility of ID or a God no matter what. If that is the case then was debate as you have become set in your thoughts and are therefore unwilling to change no matter what so you are not really looking for truth.

Click to expand...

If there was any evidence pointing towards ID/creationism being true, then I could accept it, yes. I'm not bound by an agenda, but rather a passion for truth. All good scientists accept when they're proven wrong. It would be a sign of dishonesty to hold on to something that has been disproven.

3. Creationist on the other hand are just as set, any possibility of there not being ID or God, which honestly mean the same thing but ID is less offensive I guess and more PC in today's time.

Click to expand...

Yes, creationists often ignore anything that goes agains their beliefs.

4. What this means to me is this. Both sides will interpret the same data and info through their own bias and agenda, evolutionist see evolution, creationist see creation, God, ID same thing.

Click to expand...

I don't like the term evolutionist (as we would need gravitationists and heliocentrists too). There should be no bias or agenda in science, the existence of such a sign of dishonesty and will be a hinderance in the scientific process.

5. This leads me to this. In each of our search is we did a genuine search must read the points from both sides and read the answers both sides give to the same question or interpretation of the same data. Then decide which side we think is stronger.

Click to expand...

We must, of course, look at all possible outcomes, but the arguments for creationism are often based on misinterpreted readings.

6. Yet if we only read the answers from our own point of view then both sides are not truly open or seeking a answer for the truth. It therefore leads a big hole in our ability to find truth. Now it may never be possible as different worldviews exist on this. Liberal, Socialist and Conservative for example. I don't need to isolate my research or I am not totally informed.

Click to expand...

As above, I'm willing to accept that creationism is true, if any actual evidence is presented.

7. So how many on here actually read both sides and answers from both sides from scientist that have opposing views on same thing.

Click to expand...

I do, for one. You must get to know the opinions of the people you debate.

8. For example, In my studies I have found lists of scientist that were originally evolutionist but as they got deeper into science they became creationist due to the science not religion. But what I don't get is this. It seems that evolutionist automatically make it as if one minute the scientist was credible since they were evolutionist but once they changed their science knowledge and interpretation lost all credibility. Ironically not all of them are Christian or even became Christian but suddenly their creds are no longer valid. How can that be?

Click to expand...

I have seen similar lists and they seldom include scientists in the relevant fields and they're so short that they're quite insignificant. Could you show me five non-religious scientists that believe in creationism? I have yet to see a single case being presented.

If there were lists of people who abandoned creationism after learning more about evolution, those lists would be much longer.

9. If any of us due to our credentials have personal credibility and if upon more and new information decided we were incorrect and needed to change our view, until possibly more info came to light to change us back. Did we lose all of our schooling and knowledge and credibility due to change in view?

Click to expand...

Not unless the change was due to deliberate misinterpretation or wasn't supported by evidence.

10. Why should that be the case? Also should not in search for truth we always be open to more and new info that could make us reconsider our side?

Click to expand...

We should always be open-minded, but we shouldn't shift over to another view until that view is properly supported by evidence.

11. Yet, if we are so committed to one view regardless then we are wasting our time as it won't matter as apparently this person has a vested interest for some reason to never change. That case means they no longer are truly seeking the truth but just arguing for arguments sake not search for truth.

Click to expand...

Correct. As I have yet to see any evidence for creationism, this doesn't apply to the "evolutionists" though.

12. I propose that all of us say and tell what we do in reading both sides and the answers from both sides on same questions to illustrate we are serious and open to chance either of us could be wrong. If we are not open to that possibility then why bother our view is tainted by bias and agenda. This makes it impossible to be open to truth for either side iMHO.

Click to expand...

Sounds good. I would like to see more creationists that do this instead of relying on their agenda, though.

13. Much of he info I present is what I get from the recent text books I have dedicated to evolution and its teaching and I then will ask for an explanation for how evolution explains the question that info made me ask.

Click to expand...

It would be nice if you showed which these text books are, since you did not do so in the other thread.

14. As a Christian it truly doesn't matter on my salvation of going to heaven or hell what I believe on this subject. It only depends on Christ and my beliefs and what I do with it. NO where in the Bible does it say I must believe in Creationism. Now I have done many studies from both sides on what the length of days in Genesis means and from all that I do believe it means 24 hour days not eons of time. I was open either way as I knew it wouldn't effect my decision to believe in Christ.

Click to expand...

Good!

God Bless Us All as we all search for truth whether you believe in Him or not. Ironically it seems when tragedy strikes a call goes out in prayer to God even if an agnostic or atheist who don't even believe in one. I do find that a little amusing, why pray or call for it to someone or something you don't believe it. That to me is like praying to a man made piece of something, knowing it was man made and it is a GOD yet was man made.

Click to expand...

Instinct to call upon something higher to protect you, even though you don't believe in such a being. I don't pray when faced with tragedy and there are many atheists who don't. [/quote]

Just so we are on the same page....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2979994-post13.html

Evolutionary theories and creationism are not opposite sides of anything. They're not mutually exclusive and neither describe a single statement so you can't really talk about them being simply right or wrong. The reality of the universe could include something within the scope of evolution and/or something within the scope of creationism.

The terms can (and are used to, rightly or wrongly) mean a whole load of different things. Evolutionary theory though does refer to a set of long standing and rigorously studied scientific theories about the development of live on this planet. There are still plenty of questions and debates but there are also plenty on strong core themes and concepts.

Creationism is very different, a casual term revering to a general idea of something intelligent actively causing something to come in to being in some way. It lumps together a whole load of often contradictory religious beliefs and a few more recent ones nominally distanced from them. While there have been some efforts to address the concept via scientific method, there is still nothing structured or consistent presented.

The whole "debate" is wrong headed and I don't think can come to any truthful conclusion. The two things can be studied entirely independently and probably should be if there is a true desire to learn anything about where we are. Of course, the truth (hah!) of it is that none of this, including this thread, has much to do with truth and everything to do with faith. Some people see evolution as a threat to their beliefs so attack it with creationism. Some people see religion as a threat and attack it with evolution. They (you?) are all wrong and wouldn't be worthy of any attention were there not so many of them (on both "sides") in so many powerful places.

IMO, a good start to discovering the truth would be deleting this whole section of the forum.

I'm looking forward to the day when evolution finally puts paid to creationism. It's not a never-ending debate or matter of faith as some would wish it.

ttechsan said:

2. Is anyone on here actually open to finding out the other side could be correct. For example, It seems to me, tell me if you disagree, that evolutionist will never consider the possibility of ID or a God no matter what. If that is the case then was debate as you have become set in your thoughts and are therefore unwilling to change no matter what so you are not really looking for truth.

Click to expand...

Hypothetical question: imagine a person who starts out not accepting ID or creationism. If he's a reasonable person, what sorts of evidence do you think he should find convincing? Does this evidence actually exist?

Why is there this ridiculous idea that someone who accepts evolution for the fact that it is does not or cannot believe in Deity? One can accept both and accept mythological creation stories for the allegories they are. There is such a thing as balance. Doesn't have to be just one or the other.

ttechsan said:

1. What do you think is the absolute best way, if searching for truth, to find it?

Click to expand...

"Truth" is invariably determined by the ability of a proposition to seemingly accomplish the purpose to which a piece of information is being put. Many of those purposes function on a subconscious psychological level - the "functions" of the behavior in collecting and assessing information. So there is no one "best purpose for everyone" by which we might determine an objective truth. Rather, psychological needs vary from person to person and therefore so do the purposes for obtaining and employing information. These psychological functions of behavior determine the framework by which a given piece of information will be perceived as true. This answers all of your remaining questions, as well, I think.

ttechsan said:

It seems to me, tell me if you disagree, that evolutionist will never consider the possibility of ID or a God no matter what.

Click to expand...

Since the majority of "evolutionists" (BTW, they prefer to be called biologists) are theists, I would have to disagree with you. It is only the atheist biologists who won't consider the possibility of ID or a God, but if they did they wouldn't be atheists.

duplicate

ttechsan said:

4. What this means to me is this. Both sides will interpret the same data and info through their own bias and agenda, evolutionist see evolution, creationist see creation, God, ID same thing.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's a matter of approach.

Draka said:

Why is there this ridiculous idea that someone who accepts evolution for the fact that it is does not or cannot believe in Deity? One can accept both and accept mythological creation stories for the allegories they are. There is such a thing as balance. Doesn't have to be just one or the other.

Click to expand...

I think it more comes down to the fact that one cannot accept evolution, and also accept a literal interpretation of the bible.

ttechsan said:

Couple of questions to try and get understanding then I must go to Dr. appts again.

Click to expand...

You'd get somewhere a lot faster if you asked relevant questions.

angellous_evangellous said:

You'd get somewhere a lot faster if you asked relevant questions.

Click to expand...

or at least honest ones.

wa:do

ttechsan said:

First I realize that in many ways we will never solve this problem on here for many reasons but we all enjoy the intellectual challenge and discussion as long as it doesn't become personal which I see too often on forums like this against someone with varying degree from your own.

Couple of questions to try and get understanding then I must go to Dr. appts again.

1. What do you think is the absolute best way, if searching for truth, to find it?
I realize most on here already have their version of the truth, hence opposite viewpoints. So basically I mean this, What method of study, research did or do you use to get your answers as to which side is correct and that determined which side of this you fell on?

Click to expand...

Depends on the type of truth you are looking for. If you want to understand how the world works, you use the scientific method. If you want to understand yourself then spirituality is fine.

2. Is anyone on here actually open to finding out the other side could be correct. For example, It seems to me, tell me if you disagree, that evolutionist will never consider the possibility of ID or a God no matter what. If that is the case then was debate as you have become set in your thoughts and are therefore unwilling to change no matter what so you are not really looking for truth.

Click to expand...

I have honestly investigated both creationism/ID and Science... it was in large part, my investigation of creationism/ID that lead to me becoming a scientist.

Having said that, there is no reason you can't be a scientist and a theist. Science tells you how the world works not how the heavens go. To badly paraphrase a much smarter person than myself.

3. Creationist on the other hand are just as set, any possibility of there not being ID or God, which honestly mean the same thing but ID is less offensive I guess and more PC in today's time.

Click to expand...

Creationists/IDers are set as you say. But they are unwilling to make the distinction between science and religion. Which is an intellectually toxic mistake.

4. What this means to me is this. Both sides will interpret the same data and info through their own bias and agenda, evolutionist see evolution, creationist see creation, God, ID same thing.

Click to expand...

Except that this is not how it works. Creationists/IDers are not "interpreting the same data" they are outright refusing the existence of the data a priori.

5. This leads me to this. In each of our search is we did a genuine search must read the points from both sides and read the answers both sides give to the same question or interpretation of the same data. Then decide which side we think is stronger.

Click to expand...

No... you don't judge by talking points you judge by evidence. The reason I gave up on Creationism/ID is that they never once provided any evidence for their side... just talking points against the other.

6. Yet if we only read the answers from our own point of view then both sides are not truly open or seeking a answer for the truth. It therefore leads a big hole in our ability to find truth. Now it may never be possible as different worldviews exist on this. Liberal, Socialist and Conservative for example. I don't need to isolate my research or I am not totally informed.

7. So how many on here actually read both sides and answers from both sides from scientist that have opposing views on same thing.

Click to expand...

I do... but there are very few scientists to listen to on the creationism/ID side. I ignore non-scientists because I find they make too many gross errors and wonky talking point based ... well, verbal garbage.

8. For example, In my studies I have found lists of scientist that were originally evolutionist but as they got deeper into science they became creationist due to the science not religion. But what I don't get is this. It seems that evolutionist automatically make it as if one minute the scientist was credible since they were evolutionist but once they changed their science knowledge and interpretation lost all credibility. Ironically not all of them are Christian or even became Christian but suddenly their creds are no longer valid. How can that be?

Click to expand...

You have been asked to produce this list several times... yet you either refuse to or can not... this does not bode well for your credibility.
And that has nothing to do with your Christianity.... Your religion has nothing to do with it. There are a significant number of very prominent (and not prominent) evolutionary biologists who are Christian among other faiths.

To claim that simply being Christian invalidates your credibility is grossly inaccurate. And such inaccuracies are what hurts your credibility.

9. If any of us due to our credentials have personal credibility and if upon more and new information decided we were incorrect and needed to change our view, until possibly more info came to light to change us back. Did we lose all of our schooling and knowledge and credibility due to change in view?

Click to expand...

Apparently some of us did... if they are going to peddle nonsense like " Ironically not all of them are Christian or even became Christian but suddenly their creds are no longer valid."

10. Why should that be the case? Also should not in search for truth we always be open to more and new info that could make us reconsider our side?

Click to expand...

it is... but some people don't want to question their reliance on a literal interpretation of a book of scriptural stories.

11. Yet, if we are so committed to one view regardless then we are wasting our time as it won't matter as apparently this person has a vested interest for some reason to never change. That case means they no longer are truly seeking the truth but just arguing for arguments sake not search for truth.

12. I propose that all of us say and tell what we do in reading both sides and the answers from both sides on same questions to illustrate we are serious and open to chance either of us could be wrong. If we are not open to that possibility then why bother our view is tainted by bias and agenda. This makes it impossible to be open to truth for either side iMHO.

13. Much of he info I present is what I get from the recent text books I have dedicated to evolution and its teaching and I then will ask for an explanation for how evolution explains the question that info made me ask.

Click to expand...

The fact that you refuse to answer any questions put to you shows that you are not taking this intellectually honestly and are instead attempting to preach your faith to us.

For example you still refuse to list these "modern text books" despite being asked repeatedly for them.

14. As a Christian it truly doesn't matter on my salvation of going to heaven or hell what I believe on this subject. It only depends on Christ and my beliefs and what I do with it. NO where in the Bible does it say I must believe in Creationism. Now I have done many studies from both sides on what the length of days in Genesis means and from all that I do believe it means 24 hour days not eons of time. I was open either way as I knew it wouldn't effect my decision to believe in Christ.

Click to expand...

That is very commendable and it's the attitude that leading evolutionary biologists like Ken Miller have. :yes:

15. Which as a Christian, if you knew my background you would know how hard it was for me to accept that as I had every reason to not do so.

If this needs clarification you can PM me or post and I will get back to this as soon as I can.

God Bless Us All as we all search for truth whether you believe in Him or not. Ironically it seems when tragedy strikes a call goes out in prayer to God even if an agnostic or atheist who don't even believe in one. I do find that a little amusing, why pray or call for it to someone or something you don't believe it. That to me is like praying to a man made piece of something, knowing it was man made and it is a GOD yet was man made. I find that non (sequitor). (spelling) but I must go now or I will be late so I don't have time to get it correctly. I do think you know what I meant anyway.

Click to expand...

Good words here at the end... now if you can back them up with action you will be alright.

well, except for that part about atheists.... that was way off.

wa:do

Shuddhasattva said:

I think it more comes down to the fact that one cannot accept evolution, and also accept a literal interpretation of the bible.

Click to expand...

Hey, I accept evolution and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I just don't believe in the traditional interpretation of the Bible.

greentwiga said:

Hey, I accept evolution and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I just don't believe in the traditional interpretation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Just how does that work?

I read the original Hebrew. The Story of Adam and Eve in the Garden pops out as the occurring at the point that agriculture was invented. The Bible and Science even agree to the exact location. Then I saw that nothing said that Adam (a man) of Genesis 2 was the same as Adam (men and women) of Genesis 1. In fact, There appears to have been some unknown number of generations between the two events. Then I looked at the Biblical definition of Day in Gen 1 and 2 and saw that it is not limited to 24 hours. Therefore, creation was not in 6 24 hour days. As such, I have no problem with evolution and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Similarly, the flood, an amazing regional event doesn't violate any scientific laws. The miracle claimed is that 8 people were saved.

greentwiga said:

I read the original Hebrew. The Story of Adam and Eve in the Garden pops out as the occurring at the point that agriculture was invented. The Bible and Science even agree to the exact location. Then I saw that nothing said that Adam (a man) of Genesis 2 was the same as Adam (men and women) of Genesis 1. In fact, There appears to have been some unknown number of generations between the two events. Then I looked at the Biblical definition of Day in Gen 1 and 2 and saw that it is not limited to 24 hours. Therefore, creation was not in 6 24 hour days. As such, I have no problem with evolution and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Similarly, the flood, an amazing regional event doesn't violate any scientific laws. The miracle claimed is that 8 people were saved.

Click to expand...

But that's not taking it literally; that's taking it allegorically. To take something literally is to take it word-for-word at face value. To take something as an allegory is to take the words as symbolic and to have a deeper and/or different meaning than they do literally. The tale, the words, represent something other than they do at face value. So, in fact, you do not take the bible literally, you take it as allegory.