All or nothing

Originally posted by dj2becker
Who does not take the Adam and Eve account literally? And what compelling reason do you think they have for not doing so?

The Pope.
All Christians that I know (in real life)

Originally posted by dj2becker
You not being satisfied with an answer doesn't mean I haven't answered it. By the way I don't even think you know what answer would satisfy you since you are a skeptic and a skeptic by nature doubts all accepted opinions.

I'm asking you questions about what you know about your religion.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes you do.

If you pressuppose uniformatarianism, the Grand Canyon (and every other canyon for that matter) was formed over billions of years but that rules out without question that it could have been caused by a global flood in a matter of days. So yes go with the popular opinion and give yourself a pat on the back for being 'educated'.

When someone can demonstrate water carving through rock at the rate required o make the Grand Canyon .....

get back to us!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Honestly, it's like conversing with a 3 year old. (Who has mastered access to Wikipedia).

Here, have some of this:

"The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis. Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archeology. Modern geol ...[text shortened]... flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, and it is, therefore, a pseudoscience."

No surprise that any scientist who finds evidence that supports the Bible is labelled a pseudoscientist, and any said evidence is labelled pseudoscience. Nothing new there.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The Pope.
All Christians that I know (in real life)

And I am still waiting for you to tell me how taking the story of Adam and Eve literally or not changes the overall message of the Bible.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm asking [b]you questions about what you know about your religion.[/b]

If you are claiming that two contradictory Bibles exist just come out and say it. All the Bibles I know contain the same message. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise feel free to share it.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
When someone can demonstrate water carving through rock at the rate required o make the Grand Canyon .....

get back to us!

Water cutting through rock and even steel has been demonstrated. Add the volume of water that you would have during a global flood, bingo.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Honestly, it's like conversing with a 3 year old. (Who has mastered access to Wikipedia).

Here, have some of this:

"The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis. Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archeology. Modern geol ...[text shortened]... flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, and it is, therefore, a pseudoscience."

🙂

Originally posted by dj2becker
And I am still waiting for you to tell me how taking the story of Adam and Eve literally or not changes the overall message of the Bible.

Your last question was asking who doesn't take the Adam n Eve story literally.

I answered it.

Now any rational person would see a huge difference between taking Genesis as
history or allegory.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Water cutting through rock and even steel has been demonstrated. Add the volume of water that you would have during a global flood, bingo.

No BINGO
It has not.
If you think it has - reference the paper or book.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you are claiming that two contradictory Bibles exist just come out and say it. All the Bibles I know contain the same message. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise feel free to share it.

When have I said that?

I'm debating your opening premise.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Your last question was asking who doesn't take the Adam n Eve story literally.

I answered it.

Now any rational person would see a huge difference between taking Genesis as
history or allegory.

A huge difference to the overall message of the Bible?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No BINGO
It has not.
If you think it has - reference the paper or book.

So because you aren't aware of a scientific paper it means you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that no global flood occurred?

Go on YouTube you will find lots of footage of high pressure water cutting through rock in a matter of seconds.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
When have I said that?

I'm debating your opening premise.

So because some Bibles have more books than others I cannot believe any of them? 🙄

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you believe the Bible is trustworthy and is God's revelation to mankind it means you have to believe all of it.

well ... you don't have to believe ALL of it.
You could;

1. Choose a bible you like.
2. Assume that passages you find unbelievable are allegorical.

Genesis? Take your pick.
The Flood? Allegory
Resurrection of Jesus? Just a metaphor.

LOL