Now I am a firm theistic evolutionist considering the massive evidence in favour of evolution but I’ll also admit creationists, especially young earth creationists have a nice argument, which is: “If you don’t take Genesis literally how can you take the rest of the Bible literally?” and also “How could there be death before Adam fell and if that’s so it undermines the necessity of Jesus dying for our sins?”. Now many of our atheist members will think this is twiddle-dee or twiddle-dum but looking from a Christian perspective would you say these young earth creationist arguments are correct or wrong?
Wrong. Do you take Jesus’s parables literally? Do they convey truth despite not being literal accounts of actual occurrences? Do you understand the significance of story – “myth” and “legend” in the anthropological technical use, not in the casual man-on-the-street use – in conveying how a culture understands itself and its environment? If George Washington had no children, how is he the “Father of our Country”? Can you see the point I’m driving at in asking these questions?
And where is the “massive evidence” in favor of theism?
Nonexistent of course. Which is why the YEC types actually have a point in their own irrational way; there’s no reason beyond blind faith and denial of reality to take the Bible (or any other religion) seriously at all. If evidence and reason matter then you shouldn’t be religious at all; if they don’t matter, then YEC is just as good as any other irrational, fact free position. Theistic evolution is mainly superior from a weaseling standpoint; it is a position designed to be immune to factual investigation; a defensive position against science.
I am a Theist, but I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of evolution. You might as well deny gravity. I have no idea why people are offended by a reasonable explanation of the method used by God.
I don’t know; what is the source of all the straw you used to build that straw man?
Curtis LeMay is a believer in God.
Anyone who has seen him post knows this.
With that as a given, he then goes on to say that there is massive evidence for evolution, which you then twist, even while quoting him, to be a claim for evidence for God.
Stick to the topic, please.
Der Trihs, now that you have gotten your standard complaint out of the way, you can stick to the topic, as well.
I was sticking to the topic.
If you want me to pipe down, I will, but in a discussion about the validity of religious fundamentalists’ arguments started by someone who’s also religious, isn’t a comparison of the supposed invalidity of both those groups a natural part of the discussion? 
Eh, the OP specifically says he’s interested in arguing from a Christian perspective. Plus, its not like there aren’t enough threads devoted to debating the validity of such a perspective.
And so was I. If I say I believe in A and B, because of the massive evidence in favor of B, isn’t it reasonable for you to ask about the massive evidence in favor of A?
Read what I actually posted: I responded to a misleading attack that specifically (mis)quoted the OP to make a separate point.
As to your specific question: wandering into a discussion between two perspectives for the sole purpose of declaring, by personal fiat, that both sides are wrong is borderline hijacking and threadshitting. I am not going to say that such a post can never be justified, but one-liners thrown out this early in a thread have a tendency to disrupt threads and I would prefer that folks be allowed to discuss such topics without having them derailed b posterswho are not even interested in the topic.
No. No evidence was declared in favor of A. You are attacking a straw man.
My post was not a “misleading attack” or any other kind of attack. I was simply questioning the OP’s inconsistent allegiance to beliefs based on “evidence.” My intention was not to attack or hijack or threadshit, and rather than doing those things now, this is all I have to say. Except that you are being uncharacteristically combative here, for no reason whatsoever.
No, the topic was “Does Theistic Evolution and/or Old Earth Creationism Undermine the Bible”. The first sentence was introductory material, not the point. Addressing it’s not necessarily off topic, but in this case it was just a potshot.
Yeah, but there’s no reason to be obnoxious about it.
My take on the OP is that there is no unified view of the Bible. Theistic evolution undermines some views on the Bible, but not others. If you consider every single word of the Bible literally true, yeah, it undermines it (not that that’s hard). If you allow for metaphors, etc., it doesn’t necessarily. And there’s nothing inherently wrong about considering parts of the Bible metaphorical.
Though, I really don’t follow the logic behind “How could there be death before Adam fell and if that’s so it undermines the necessity of Jesus dying for our sins?”. I don’t see how those two things are connected.
It helps if you simply accept that the Bible isn’t perfect and it’s wrong about a few (many?) things. Genesis doesn’t really read like a parable to me, most it reads like it’s supposed to be a literal history, but that could be a problem with my English translations I admit.
Regardless, I see no problem with being convinced that Jesus Christ as described in the gospels was the saviour, because it works for you and makes sense to you spiritually etc. But basing that belief on the idea that the Bible is innerant isn’t useful at all.
I think it’s entirely possible to be a Christian and view much of the old testament as not entirely accurate truth. How could it be? I think it’s healthy to really criticise the Bible. Are you worried you’ll become an atheist? Well, your faith must not be worth anything if it relies on what a book tells you.
I agreeish with Polycarp, the argument "“If you don’t take Genesis literally how can you take the rest of the Bible literally?” is a good argument for not taking the rest of the bible literally, and a poor argument for taking Genesis literally. There’s plenty of things beyond Genesis that would require you to toss not just evolution, but a decent chunk of common sense as well. Its pretty clear that Jesus can’t have had four sets of last words, for example.
I think that the evidence for evolution, physics, astronomy, geology, biology and the rest of science undermines a literal interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, if I were religious I would think that a God who created our current universe by carefully setting up a set of physical laws and initial conditions is much more awesome than one who sat down and designed each animal and plant one by one. The idea that the relatively simple process of descent with modification can create the myriad of different species, which exploit the varied set of environments on earth, is truly amazing. Contrast that with a God who decides it would be fun to bury fossils in such a manner that would make it look like life evolved and create stars with light already on the way to earth.
Creationists are selling God short. Why rely on the Bible for which God had to use man as an intermediary when we can look at the “writing” of God himself in the physical world.
Never been married?
As someone between TE/OEC myself, I certainly don’t think so. I do think we have to confront some serious questions about the historicity of Adam & Eve (I do believe in them) and the existence & nature of “death before the Fall”. I think that instead of Adam & Eve’s Fall introducing death into Creation, the Fall instead resulted in their failing to introduce Immortality into Creation. If Adam & Eve had remained faithful to Father God, they could have transmitted that to their fellow emerging humans through evangelism & the intermarriage of their children with them.