There is no basis for conflict with Evolution.

[Jamza]

Good quote. Darwin was not an athiest. Evolution is entirely reasonable and does not contradict the Bible. There are problems reading the Bible in a fundementalist way.

For the literalists; why is Exodus and Deuteronomy are there two entirely different and contraditory customs for celebrating passover?

Its possible that evolution is not true, but only if our entire understanding of everything in biology is entirely wrong.

 

[Critias]

God does not divide His church. Therefore those who believe that they are doing God's bidding do not divide the church. If they do it is only by believing that those on the other side of the divide are not in the church, and therefore they are not dividing the church but between those who are in the church and those who are not. It is my contention that whatever our differences, most TEs on this forum (not all, granted) are indeed within God's church, by His grace. It is therefore wrong to divide them from the church and ungodly since God does not divide His body.

Ok, so you agree that God does not divide against Himself. Yet, you argue that the Creationary Theory that points to God as the Creator of this universe should be removed and replaced with the Evolutionary Theory that does not point to God as the Creator of this universe.

Tell me, why would God want the origins of this world to not point to Him as the Creator?

 

[CaiperLane]

There's only really one thing on CaiperLane's site that bears noting.

Evolution: -
9. Based on atheistic philosophies of naturalism and materialism. A world view and man-made false religion

To support this site fully is tantamount to saying that all evolutionists are not Christians. Do you dare to make that claim?

Unless the glory of Creation according to the scriptural account is given to Almighty God on High by evolutionists and they proclaim Christ as God in human flesh who walked the earth, was executed for doing nothing wrong but to take the sins of the world upon himself, then rose after 3 days in the grave where he sits at the right hand of the Father then....................Yes. I'm making that claim.

 

[shernren]

Ok, so you agree that God does not divide against Himself. Yet, you argue that the Creationary Theory that points to God as the Creator of this universe should be removed and replaced with the Evolutionary Theory that does not point to God as the Creator of this universe.

Tell me, why would God want the origins of this world to not point to Him as the Creator?

Did I just see a non sequitur?

God does not divide

therefore

creationism is right.

Why?

Maybe we should also adapt the theoclimactic model of lightning, which says that there is no scientific way to understand the weather other than as God's instruments of wrath ; the theoautocentric model of cosmology, which says that there is no force besides the powerful words of Jesus holding the universe together (oh, the heathens and their naturalist imaginations of gravity!) ; etc.

And you still wouldn't get anywhere with that in a quarrel with, say, a fundamentalist Muslim.

The only reason you think evolutionary theory does not point to God is because you are too busy pointing fingers at it.

 

[gluadys]

Unless the glory of Creation according to the scriptural account is given to Almighty God on High by evolutionists and they proclaim Christ as God in human flesh who walked the earth, was executed for doing nothing wrong but to take the sins of the world upon himself, then rose after 3 days in the grave where he sits at the right hand of the Father then....................Yes. I'm making that claim.

Then your claim is incorrect. Millions of Christians who fully accept the scientific account of evolution also do all of the above.

 

[shernren]

Unless the glory of Creation according to the scriptural account is given to Almighty God on High by evolutionists and they proclaim Christ as God in human flesh who walked the earth, was executed for doing nothing wrong but to take the sins of the world upon himself, then rose after 3 days in the grave where he sits at the right hand of the Father then....................Yes. I'm making that claim.

It's far easier to claim that everybody who disagrees with you only do so because they've burned their Bibles, than to take the trouble to actually understand why they believe what they believe. If we were really Christians do you think we would believe something that is not Christian?

 

[CaiperLane]

Then your claim is incorrect. Millions of Christians who fully accept the scientific account of evolution also do all of the above.

Millions of Christians? Real Christians? Where are your statistics? I doubt millions of born again believers believe in evolution over creationism.

If they fully accept Evolution and claim to be Christians, A) they don't fully know ALL the aspects of Darwism and Evolution Theory because if they did they would not adhere to this ungodly theory and B) Remember just because someone says their a Christian and may think their a Christian doesn't make them a Christian.

They've done national surveys and polls asking who believes in Creation over Evolution. Creation always won out even among people who said they were not religious! Ministry organization, state polls, independant polls, magazine polls......I've seen them for years!

Every poll or research done on people's perspective of the origins of man that I've seen showed that these peole believed that a Higher Power/God Created the world to be higher ranked than Evolution when given the two choices in Americans from ALL backgrounds. Not just so-called Christian backgrounds.

Evolution DOES NOT point to a Creator. Genesis clearly describes Creation and what took place. If anyone calling themselves a Christian reading the Genesis account still chooses NOT to believe what The Word of God says....then yes we can "question" the authenticity of their motives.

The God of the Bible is the same yesterday today and forever. He created the world as stated in Genesis. If a believer reads the Genesis account and STILL says he doesn't believe it, how can you not question the authenticity of their motives?

 

[notto]

Evolution deals with the change in species and life over time. Perhaps you are thinking about some other scientific theory but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world. You may want to familiarize yourself with the scientific theory of evolution and what it actually claims before you slander those Christians who accept it based on its validity and multiple independent lines of scientific evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

it based on its validity and multiple independent lines of scientific evidence.

Oh really?

Increasingly we are getting TE's on this forum making the claim that God somehow intervened in the process of evolution and guided the outcome. This conflicts with one of the most basic tennets of evolution accepted by the majority of scientists in the field ie. the mustions that give rise to variations in populations are the result of random genetic mutation. Interesting how TE's berate YEC's for not accepting the almost unanimous conclusions of the scientific community, yet do the same thing.

 

[Micaiah]

Good quote. Darwin was not an athiest. Evolution is entirely reasonable and does not contradict the Bible. There are problems reading the Bible in a fundementalist way.

For the literalists; why is Exodus and Deuteronomy are there two entirely different and contraditory customs for celebrating passover?

Its possible that evolution is not true, but only if our entire understanding of everything in biology is entirely wrong.

If you read the Scriptures in a way that makes void the meaning of most of what it says about Creation, then I'll agree that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible.

Some questions

1. Do you have any evidence from Scripture that God did use the process of evolution when He created the world?

2. Lets just suppose that Genesis is a historical record of Creation and the facts asserted are historically and scientifically correct. Can you give me one reason that would prevent God from telling us these facts?

 

[notto]

Oh really?

Increasingly we are getting TE's on this forum making the claim that God somehow intervened in the process of evolution and guided the outcome. This conflicts with one of the most basic tennets of evolution accepted by the majority of scientists in the field ie. the mustions that give rise to variations in populations are the result of random genetic mutation. Interesting how TE's berate YEC's for not accepting the almost unanimous conclusions of the scientific community, yet do the same thing.

How this applies to or relates to the multiple independent lines of evidence that support the scientific theory of evolution is a mystery to me. As for the TE's you are referring to, I guess I would have to see their comments in context to comment on them.

My comment was simply to suggest that before claiming that those that accept science and the theory of evolution are not Christian that the person making the claims actually be familiar with the theory as well instead of commenting on a bunch of things that have no real relation to the theory. I would hope that would be a reasonable request.

 

[shernren]

If they fully accept Evolution and claim to be Christians, A) they don't fully know ALL the aspects of Darwism and Evolution Theory because if they did they would not adhere to this ungodly theory and B) Remember just because someone says their a Christian and may think their a Christian doesn't make them a Christian.

Basically, a Christian evolutionist is either stupid or unholy. Am I supposed to feel insulted or what?

Increasingly we are getting TE's on this forum making the claim that God somehow intervened in the process of evolution and guided the outcome. This conflicts with one of the most basic tennets of evolution accepted by the majority of scientists in the field ie. the mustions that give rise to variations in populations are the result of random genetic mutation. Interesting how TE's berate YEC's for not accepting the almost unanimous conclusions of the scientific community, yet do the same thing.

Random =/= purposeless unless you define it as such. Atheists have fun defining it that way, and creationists help them along. TEs don't. For example, one might say that the exile of Israel was a completely natural event. The Assyrians and Babylonians expanded, Israel got in the way, and poof! there goes the Promised people's possession of the promised land. Now, this is completely explainable in terms of the motives of the human agents involved. It is completely natural for strong empires to expand and engulf weak empires. So, just because it is completely explainable as an action taken by human against human - does that mean that it was not something God planned to punish His people?

History is less than 1% miracle, I would allege. Does that mean that less than 1% of history was under God's control? Less than 1% of history will glorify God at the end of days?

Creationists who allege that evolution cannot possibly be controlled by God, also allege that no other natural process or event in history can possibly be controlled by God by the very same argument. Tread carefully, please.

 

[gluadys]

Millions of Christians? Real Christians?

As far as I am concerned Christians are those who call themselves Christians. It is not for me to judge their hearts. If you only call "Christian" those who agree with your version of Christianity, and your version of Christianity denies evolution, then your statement becomes a tautology.

If they fully accept Evolution and claim to be Christians, A) they don't fully know ALL the aspects of Darwism and Evolution Theory because if they did they would not adhere to this ungodly theory

I think a Christian (Catholic) biologist like Kenneth Miller and a Christian (Pentecostalist) paleontologist like the Rev. Bob Bakker and a Christian (denomination unknown to me) geo-physicist like Glenn Morton are fully conversant with all the aspects of the theory of evolution.

What is your definition of Darwinism?

There is nothing ungodly about the theory of evolution. That is why most Christians accept it.

They've done national surveys and polls asking who believes in Creation over Evolution. Creation always won out even among people who said they were not religious! Ministry organization, state polls, independant polls, magazine polls......I've seen them for years!

Precisely. National polls in the US. Ever seen the statistics for Canada, the UK, Italy, Brazil, etc.? Or did you think all Christians live in America?

Evolution DOES NOT point to a Creator.

A matter of opinion. I find it does.

Genesis clearly describes Creation and what took place. If anyone calling themselves a Christian reading the Genesis account still chooses NOT to believe what The Word of God says....then yes we can "question" the authenticity of their salvation.

Sorry, but neither you or anyone else has any right to question the authenticity of my salvation on grounds that have nothing to do with accepting the Lord Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, as Lord and Saviour.

This is just another form of the evolution = atheism lie. And it is an underhanded way of implying that the Christian theistic evolutionists on this board are not "really" Christians.

Before this gets nasty and leads to reporting violations of the rules and a thread shut-down, please read the board rules about saying members in the Christian Only section of this board are not Christian.

The God of the Bible is the same yesterday today and forever. He created the world as stated in Genesis. If a believer reads the Genesis account and STILL says he doesn't believe it, how can you not question the authenticity of their salvation experience?

I do not know of any Christian theistic evolutionist who doubts the Genesis account of creation. All of us profess belief in creation and in the God who created us and this universe we live in. What we do not believe is that the Genesis account is or was ever intended to be a literal historical description of creation.

 

[CaiperLane]

Evolution deals with the change in species and life over time. Perhaps you are thinking about some other scientific theory but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world. You may want to familiarize yourself with the scientific theory of evolution and what it actually claims before you slander those Christians who accept it based on its validity and multiple independent lines of scientific evidence.

It also involves species evolving one from another. God created ALL the animals and said it was good. It was complete. They would from that point on carry on with reproduction.

The same with man. Evolution holds that we "evolved" from Apes or Ape-like beings. That isn't scriptural either. We are to believe God not man.

In part, Darwin theorised that the world was begat by a spontaneous explosion and species and life slowly evolved over millions of years.

This condradicts the Biblical account in Genesis. You either believe the Bible in it's entirety or you don't.

I was NOT slandering any "Christians." I was stating my answer to "if a Christian could believe in Evolution and not the Creation account in the Bible" question.

I'm sorry if you took me for being harsh. I didn't mean to sound that way. But Genesis is very clear about how our universe, earth and living organisms came to be.

And I am familiar with Darwisim and Evolution. I did graduate high school and college. I've been a Christian for over 30 years. I've been studying the scriptures for as long and have studies theologies and many other various religions and Christian subjects.

As for Evolution dealing with the change in species and life over time, it does indeed encompass that but much. much more!
Darwin's truth can be a hard one to accept. His theory of evolution tells us that humans evolved from non-human life as the result of a natural process, one that was both gradual, happening over billions of years, and random. It tells us that new life forms arise from the splitting of a single species into two or more species, and that all life on Earth can trace its origins back to a single common ancestor.

Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin's theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us, that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.


Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation. The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!” But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand: The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means. It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place). The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal. As God has done in the Genesis account.



By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose. Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.

Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.

 

[gluadys]

Oh really?

Increasingly we are getting TE's on this forum making the claim that God somehow intervened in the process of evolution and guided the outcome. This conflicts with one of the most basic tennets of evolution accepted by the majority of scientists in the field ie. the mustions that give rise to variations in populations are the result of random genetic mutation. Interesting how TE's berate YEC's for not accepting the almost unanimous conclusions of the scientific community, yet do the same thing.

Not a contradiction at all if you understand what "random" means.

The basic meaning of "random" is "unpredictable". We cannot predict which face a coin will show when we flip it, nor which lottery ticket will be drawn, nor who will have an auto accident this week.

Does that mean these things are not subject to the laws of causality? Not at all. It just means that we do not have a sufficient grasp of all the causal influences to be able to calculate correctly which way the coing will land or which lottery ticket will be drawn, or which driver will have an accident when.

Presumably, God does have a sufficient grasp of all the causal influences---and moreover can choose to manipulate those influences to get the effect he desires.

Given the limitations of human observers, do you think scientists could distinguish a mutation that "just happened" from one God decreed, because it would accomplish his purpose? Wouldn't both look equally random to a human observer of mutations?

Btw--some scientists agree with this perspective. One such is the physicist turned theologian, John Polkinghorne. I also heard this perspective first from another scientist, a chemist, who conducted a seminar on Providence and Chance at a Mission Week back in my university days. (It was a Baptist university.) Unfortunately, I have forgotten his name, but he made a very good case for Chance and Providence being two sides of the same coin. "Chance" may be nothing other than a scientific term for "Providence" and "Providence" a Christian term for "Chance".

One day, I was taking a train home from Montreal. At Toronto, I transferred from the Via train to the GO train, even though the Via train also goes through my city. However, the Via station has no connections to local transit and the GO train station does.

Just after I got into the station, and after the Via train was on its way again, I realized I had left my wallet on the Via train. My cash, identification and bus card were all in the wallet. Also the Toronto transit tokens I would need the next day.

I had no idea what to do. At that moment a friend of mine came by. He occasionally used the GO train. He not only took me to the Via authorities who contacted the conductor of the Via train (and my wallet was returned to me intact within two days) but also loaned me money to purchase transit tokens and bus fare home.

Now was that a chance encounter or God's providence taking care of me? How often do we experience God's care as a "chance coincidence" ?

If God can direct my friend's steps to me at a time when I desperately needed a friend, why can he not plant a few random mutations when and where he wants to?

 

[gluadys]

In part, Darwin theorised that the world was begat by a spontaneous explosion

Wrong. Darwin did not theorise in any sense about the origin of the world. Nor does the theory of evolution apply to the origin of the world or the universe or even of life.

And I am familiar with Darwisim and Evolution.

"Darwinism" is a term that people use in many different ways--sometimes contradictory ways. When you use this term, what do you mean by it?

I did graduate high school and college. I've been a Christian for over 30 years. I've been studying the scriptures for as long and have studies theologies and many other various religions and Christian subjects.

I could say the same, but you would have to add another 15 years. I do not find evolution to be in conflict with Christian faith or with the scriptures.

As for Evolution dealing with the change in species and life over time, it does indeed encompass that but much. much more!

No, that is all it encompasses. Adding other scientific studies and calling them evolution as well is a creationist distraction.

Darwin's truth can be a hard one to accept. His theory of evolution tells us that humans evolved from non-human life as the result of a natural process, one that was both gradual, happening over billions of years, and random.

That is almost correct. Evolution is not a random process though. I don't know why some people find this truth hard to accept. Obviously they do, but I have never found it difficult to accept.

It tells us that new life forms arise from the splitting of a single species into two or more species, and that all life on Earth can trace its origins back to a single common ancestor.

Right again.

Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin's theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us,

Yes, it did, but I don't know why you find this troubling.

that humans are not the products of special creation

Not just humans---all species, with the possible exception of the very first one.

and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.

Now this is where you get off the track. That is not part of the theory of evolution. It may be a philosophical conclusion some people draw out of the theory. But the theory does not imply this or any other philosophy.

Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation.

All that means is that Genesis is not a scientific account. That is not a deficiency of Genesis. It was not intended to be a scientific account.

The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal. As God has done in the Genesis account.

That's fine. But what does it matter to you then if some people are a little more curious?

Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.

It is not so much a matter of demanding as of discovering.

 

[CaiperLane]

If you only call "Christian" those who agree with your version of Christianity, and your version of Christianity denies evolution, then your statement becomes a tautology.

My version of Christianity is the same one from the Bible. And I never said if anyone disagrees with MY version they are not saved.

I think a Christian (Catholic) biologist like Kenneth Miller and a Christian (Pentecostalist) paleontologist like the Rev. Bob Bakker and a Christian (denomination unknown to me) geo-physicist like Glenn Morton are fully conversant with all the aspects of the theory of evolution.

Great. And your point is? It doesn't make them correct.

What is your definition of Darwinism?

There is nothing ungodly about the theory of evolution. That is why most Christians accept it.

Most Christians do not accept it! Where do you get your statistics that most Christians accept Evolution?

Precisely. National polls in the US. Ever seen the statistics for Canada, the UK, Italy, Brazil, etc.? Or did you think all Christians live in America?

No, and yes I have seen polls in Latin America, France, Germany and Canada with similar results.


A matter of opinion. I find it does.


Sorry, but neither you or anyone else has any right to question the authenticity of my salvation on grounds that have nothing to do with accepting the Lord Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, as Lord and Saviour.

I was not questioning your salvation personally. I stated that if one refuses to believe the Biblical account over a man-made one it raises questions.

This is just another form of the evolution = atheism lie. And it is an underhanded way of implying that the Christian theistic evolutionists on this board are not "really" Christians.

No! I in my heart NEVER felt that way and didn't imply it either. If you were offended I'm sorry. But I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. If it says it, it's a fact.

Before this gets nasty and leads to reporting violations of the rules and a thread shut-down, please read the board rules about saying members in the Christian Only section of this board are not Christian.

Again I NEVER said anyone wasn't a Christian. I was very careful. I said it raised questions to their authenticity. Refusing to believe the Word of God over a man-made theory raises questions. That is all I said AND meant.

I do not know of any Christian theistic evolutionist who doubts the Genesis account of creation. All of us profess belief in creation and in the God who created us and this universe we live in. What we do not believe is that the Genesis account is or was ever intended to be a literal historical description of creation.

God is not a God of confusion. Genesis lays out God's Creation schedule. In plain ink. We can't take some things in the Bible literally and the ones we don't agree with say they weren't meant to be taken literally.


So my point was not questioning anyone's salvation. I meant it raises questions when they disregard or do not believe scripture over man-made ideas and theories. So please do not accuse me of judging someone's heart. I was debating a theological issue. And I never resorted to name calling or meanness. So again if you were offended I'm sorry but there are many different opinions on this forum. I agree with as many as I disagree with.

Peace and Love In the name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[CaiperLane]

What we do not believe is that the Genesis account is or was ever intended to be a literal historical description of creation.

===================

Can't God create whatever way he chooses? What is so difficult about taking the Genesis account lterally? We would be incredibly pious to think that we can decide how God chooses to create. So we have His word that in Genesis Creation took place the way the Bible says it did. Why would there be any questions? Because it sounds too unbelievable? Or it's too hard to believe it could be that simplistic? My entire point here is that we need to trust God and that His word is infallible. If the Genesis account says that God created things the way it says He did I just have to accept it.

 

[Critias]

Did I just see a non sequitur?

God does not divide

therefore

creationism is right.

Why?

Maybe we should also adapt the theoclimactic model of lightning, which says that there is no scientific way to understand the weather other than as God's instruments of wrath ; the theoautocentric model of cosmology, which says that there is no force besides the powerful words of Jesus holding the universe together (oh, the heathens and their naturalist imaginations of gravity!) ; etc.

And you still wouldn't get anywhere with that in a quarrel with, say, a fundamentalist Muslim.

The only reason you think evolutionary theory does not point to God is because you are too busy pointing fingers at it.

You have still yet to answer the question. It isn't about proving Creation to be correct.

Explain to me why you want a Theory that points to God and gives God credit to be removed and replace with a Theory that does neither. Why do you support those who wish to not give God the glory?

 

[gluadys]

My version of Christianity is the same one from the Bible.

Well that's a matter of opinion too isn't it? Someone who disagrees with you theologically will say your version of Christianity cannot be the same as the one from the bible because theirs is and theirs is different from yours.

I think a Christian (Catholic) biologist like Kenneth Miller and a Christian (Pentecostalist) paleontologist like the Rev. Bob Bakker and a Christian (denomination unknown to me) geo-physicist like Glenn Morton are fully conversant with all the aspects of the theory of evolution.

Great. And your point is? It doesn't make them correct.

You made the claim that Christians who accept evolution must not be conversant with all aspects of the theory. I am pointing out that this is an incorrect assumption.

Most Christians do not accept it!

Do you mean most of those you define as Christians?

No, and yes I have seen polls in Latin America, France, Germany and Canada with similar results.

I am a Canadian and I have not seen those results here.

I was not questioning your salvation personally. I stated that if one refuses to believe the Biblical account over a man-made one it raises questions.

But you also imply that a Christian who accepts evolution is refusing to believe the Bible. The logic is not hard to follow.

No! I in my heart NEVER felt that way and didn't imply it either.

Well please re-read what you said. I don't think I was imagining this implication. Perhaps you should simply stop associating evolution in any way with theological unbelief. Because it really isn't.

There is no question that TEs will interpret scripture differently than a creationist, but that is quite a different matter than unbelief.

If you were offended I'm sorry. But I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. If it says it, it's a fact.

I think the bible is infallibly true, but I don't think all truth is given in the form of fact.

Again I NEVER said anyone wasn't a Christian.

You were setting out parameters of who is and is not a "real" Christian in the full knowledge that some Christians here fail to meet those parameters. You don't have to name specific names to say someone isn't a Christian.

I was very careful. I said it raised questions to their authenticity. Refusing to believe the Word of God over a man-made theory raises questions. That is all I said AND meant.

Here is another example of the same thing.

You are assuming that those who accept evolution are refusing to believe the word of God. You are assuming the theory of evolution is not grounded in the facts of nature and is merely a "man-made" theory. So you place a question mark against the authenticity of the salvation of those who think differently about evolution than you do.

Do you really think that just because you have not named a specific name you have avoided saying that some people here are not Christian?

God is not a God of confusion. Genesis lays out God's Creation schedule. In plain ink. We can't take some things in the Bible literally and the ones we don't agree with say they weren't meant to be taken literally.

I think everyone agrees that some parts of the bible are intended to be taken literally and some are not. Why would you assume that just because a passage you take literally is not so taken by someone else, it is because the other person "disagrees" with it. Do you disagree with parts of the bible that you personally consider figurative rather than literal? Or do you understand that various sorts of non-literal language are just a different way God speaks to us?

Even in the Genesis accounts. Do you think the snake was really, literally a snake? Or was it Satan? If you think it was Satan, then you are not interpreting the word "snake" literally. Does that mean you are disagreeing with what the bible is saying?

So my point was not questioning anyone's salvation. I meant it raises questions when they disregard or do not believe scripture over man-made ideas and theories.

But you are prejuding the matter by assuming that they are disregarding or do not believe scripture just because they accept evolution as the best scientific account of the origin of species.