Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in a society?

[RoadRunner79]

It could be, because some are difficult to have a discussion with; if God comes into the picture at all.   I have found this when discussing basic principles, and even when I am adamant to keep it about logic, and not a particular theological consequence.   Do you have an example in mind, perhaps I can clarify?

It could be that the difficulty you have making yourself understood is the way you express yourself. I rule I've just made up is: if a post requires three readings to make sense, and it still doesn’t make sense; then it's vacuous nonsense. An example:

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

Regarding the highlight. This is a waste of keyboard ink, it says absolutely nothing. The rest, typo corrected, is even worse. You are using the theologians trick, use a deluge of words to disguise the fact that you have nothing of substance to say. But then you did commit yourself just recently:

...My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it)...

Evolution as espoused by Mr Charles Darwin? There are no reasons to support it. There is a mountain facts to support it. No belief required.

On one had, you say that you don't understand what I am saying, and then in the other, you say that it means nothing.  Which is it?  
And I apologize if the "deluge of words" which you quoted is too much for you to handle.  I'll try to keep my posts to you in the future, short and simple.  However; much shorter, and I fear that you may have trouble making sense of them.  I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma.

---

I just want to clarify, but you seem to be taking an opposing position; to the OP, and the often heard (religion doesn't evaluate new info).  I wouldn't say that you can reconcile anything, but I believe what you are speaking of is talking about a general description, in scripture (which I don't believe the intent was to be scientifically exhaustive), vs a more detailed scientific explanation.  Then yes, I don't see any issue with reconciling them.  I don't think that science goes against it; so there isn't a problem.

And to be clear, the post after yours is correct, My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it).
As to your other comments, that is an issue; dealing with morality (which if you take a subjective view of morality, then you have no argument), but either way is off topic.

Adam & Eve (together, as a couple) did not exist; their existence has been disproven, formally falsified, in that the human race did not descend from two individuals.  Now, if such was not the case (that the human race did, in fact, descend from two parents), then people like you would be saying that the Bible was correct and using scientific findings as proof.

Ok... what are that facts that formally falsify this?

---

I'm curious, if you consider Bart Erhman, or a number of other atheist scholars, who don't hold a high regard for the "mythers" as liars in this regard as well?"

First of all it's Ehrman. Ehrman is apparently an agnostic not an atheist. Ehrman did not provide the best defense of historicity, and the best critique of bad mythicism in his 2012 "Did Jesus Exist?" but in recent books "How Jesus Became God" and "Jesus Before the Gospels", he recognizes that much of what the field relies on as established facts aren't so established after all, and corrects some of the mistakes he made in DJE. in HJBG, Ehrman increasingly turns to the same arguments as mythicists. He acknowledges that the earliest believers "knew" Jesus was raised from the dead; not because (as apologists argue) no one would make such a claim unless they knew the tomb was empty, but because they had visions of Jesus from heaven. Ehrman also now sees that ancient Judaism was not an example of monolithic groupthink, but just as rife with alternate opinions and heresies as anything in Christianity.

Thanks for the correction on the spelling of his name.  For some reason it's a persistent problem that I keep wanting to do that.  However judging from his
Blog Here last fall about a debate against a mythicist, I feel fairly confident in saying that Dr. Ehrman (as well as a number of his commenters) do not have a lot of respect for the methodologies and "scholarly work" of the mythicist.  However the question still stands... are they just lying Christians in your view?  And while I may tend to agree with your distinction between agnosticism and atheism, most here, would put them under the same category of atheist.  And even if you are correct in your views about the author of the article, I don't believe that the genetic fallacy or attacking the man, negates the arguments made.

On a side note, I find it interesting, that the principles and methods proclaimed by these "scholars", often don't follow into any other areas of historical studies and research. Don't you?

I don't find it interesting I find it spineless. The truth is that theological and Biblical universities are in the blatant violation of basic principles of scholarship, they're touting academic freedom while covertly quashing it, abusing tenure – especially to score financial donations. They don't act as scholars but bullies. Let me give you few examples:

I was talking about the mythisist.  But I'm glad that you agree (at least in principle).