It's interesting that your basis for not taking it as a historical document is quite unfounded and wishful.
I wasn't discussing my basis for not taking the creation account as literal history, I was discussing your dismissal of metaphor and parable as 'fairy tale'. Of course when you haven't got a leg to stand on, it is easier for you to pretend I was saying something else.
I really didn't think you were actually determined to get a reply to the rest. But TE's never surprise me with that.
Is that because you keep changing the subject when you can't reply?
Genesis is too specific to not be true. What does the measurements of a boat have to do with a foundation of morals? How is the Earth being annihilated historically reveal itself as a parable?
Actually I take the flood story as an account describing a real but local event. But you should realise the bible is full of symbolic numbers, and very specific descriptions in symbolic and apocalyptic passages. Having numbers and specific descriptions does not make a passage literal.
What to you mean "fits metaphorically or poetically"? Fits with what? Do you mean fits with evolution? Haven't you realised by now? We don't try to. We are not meant to. The bible isn't a science book so trying to read it as one is misreading it. What we can do is look at what the creation stories are saying metaphorically and poetically, there is no need to make it 'fit' what it is already saying.
The questions defeat themselves. You cannot call something true and false at the same time. If evolution cannot fit into Genesis metaphorically or poetically, then evolution is wrong according to it.
Did Jesus really work as a shepherd and die for his sheep? If it isn't literally true how can it be true and false at the same time? If Genesis isn't talking about evolution metaphorically, how is that supposed to make evolution wrong? You argument doesn't make sense. I think it is probably because you don't really get how the bible speaks in metaphors, if you did you wouldn't confuse them with fairy tales.
I'll use the old TE approach and say 'prove it'. I did not know you were a paragon of truth ordained by God and to know how God would paint the universe. Why isn't space so diverse and surreal? Space is just a repeat of a repeat all the way from one end to the other.
Prove what? Prove there are transitional forms with features intermediate between other forms? All you have to do is look up the different hominids with features spanning between humans and other apes, or all the transitional forms from birds to feathered dinosaurs. You could look at the therapsids with jaws intermediate between early reptiles and mammals. Prove that they fit the evolutionary tree of life? You just have to look at where all these transitionals are found and compare it with what evolution says. Prove that there are no unlinks with features that combine those of animals that shouldn't be directly related, like bats with feathers and bird wings or dolphins with gills? But you already admit these unlinks have never been found.
So as long as no one reveals it to you, it's false?
No as long as you can't come up with an argument, you can't come up with an argument. Are you actually expecting me to address arguments you can't come up with?
That is why TE's are ridiculous.
wow
Creationists are required to consolidate their truth, and TE's just sit on their imaginary high horse.
Science has been confirming and consolidating evolution for the past 150 years, in all this time creationism hasn't come up with a single decent argument against it. Is creationism required to consolidate its arguments? Of course they are. The problem is they can't.
I issue the truth. You have to register it. I do not jump through hoops when it is a waste of time. Nothing will avail you, and you will clutch the theory as it falls apart, not the Bible. That is precisely why you demand others to tend to you when the truth of the matter can be found out in 2 minutes flat. It's a circular defense mechanism that all TE's share and is garbage because it's not as if one isn't going to go digging around looking for a refutation anyways no matter how true the latter is., which is the point.
If creationism was the truth, it would have a lot less difficulty trying to fit the real world God created. It is because TEs care about the truth that they cannot deny all the evidence that supports evolution.
So if you are looking for me to be extra-liberal to TE, then you are looking in vain. Theistic evolution is inherently dismissive of creationism, it's believers attack creationists, the theology is extremely extra-biblical and contradictory, and relies on the fallibility of man's suggestions.
Given the way you keep refusing to discuss theology we are not going to take your word for it.