You're missing the point. It's about people believing themselves infallible in their interpretations of scripture, not being humble, and their pride leading to a downfall.
No. It is about interpreting what we see through the lens of what God has told us (like using binoculars the right way), instead of viewing what God told us through the lens of what we see in the natural world (turning binoculars backwards). The first helps us to see further, and gives better clarity to what we see. The second makes the truth harder to see, and shows us less true detail.
No, that's not true at all. You don't have to accept it, but you don't need to make false claims like that. We are beholden to the truth, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
I completely accept ADAPTATION within a species as a truth. But evolution holds forth that birds came from reptiles, reptiles came from fish, fish came from some primitive sea life, and that came from bacteria that was formed in a pool of slime with the right mix of chemicals that was struck by lightning billions of years ago (I know I am skipping steps in their theoretical chain of change).
But "science" tells us that one animal does not change into another animal (or plant). The number of chromosomes in a cell do not change from one generation to another, no matter how many generations you progress through, or what environmental changes occur to cause adaptive change in the physiology of the organism.
You're kinda presenting a situation here where it seems you think anyone who disagrees with you and your interpretations isn't a Christian. As I said before, disagreeing with your interpretations is not disagreeing with God or scripture. You're a fallible human, just like the rest of us.
Not at all. Scripture says that we can disagree on many things and still both be correct (ie: eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8). But there are some things that are absolutely essential or we are not Christian at all (belief in the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus, and His death and resurrection (1 Cor 15).
Yet Jews don't interpret Genesis like a science paper or history report.
As a "science paper"? No. As a "history report"? Yes, they do. They have accepted the Torah (the Law), and the Prophets (the Histories) as exactly that, the law and the history of their nation. Up until the Temple was destroyed in AD70, every Jew could recite his genealogy all the way back to Adam, and could prove it with the documents stored in the Temple. And those genealogies were exactly what is found in the Scriptures.
Seriously, please stop. The layers at Mt. St. Helens aren't rock, they're mud and volcanic ash. The layers at the GC are shale, limestone, sandstone, etc.
When they were laid down after the Flood, the layers of the GC were also mud, ash, etc. There were the pulverized earth from the breakup of Pangea into the continents we know today, and the erosion caused by the tsunamis that resulted from the rapid movement of the land masses beneath the water. The coal beds found in several places in the world are the result of the bark from the billions of trees falling off the floating remains and piling up on the bottom, as happened in a lake near Mt St. Helens after the eruption. The "petrified forest" is the result of those floating trees becoming saturated with water and sinking in a standing position so that they appear to have grown where they land (as happened in that same lake.
If you don't know the actual science, at least have the humility to not try and act like you're an expert in it. There's a reason why scripture teaches against such pride.
Granted, I am not a paleontologist, nor am I a geologist. But I have listened to several of them, and have seen the pictures, and read the analysis of the sites from several different geologists. And they are where I get this information. Am I infallible? No. Are they infallible? No. But does their analysis reflect what we read in Scripture? Yes, much better than does the "evolutionist's" analysis.
