Are Evolution and Christianity Completely Incompatible?

[Pyrrho]

Hmm another question, how do you know which parts of your scriptures are allegorical and which are literal?

If the genesis is allegorical, could the god mentioned within be allegorical too?

Why not?  If seemingly random bits of it are just allegorical, god could just as well be allegorical, too.  So maybe we can all be Christians while being atheists.

[Drich]

Did you actually read the OP on the thread I linked?
-Or is it your assumption that the evolution of monkey man was just random?

I did read just the OP on that thread, not the entire thread though. But the above is based on your explanation in this thread

My explaination reflects what I wrote there.

God Created Man in His Image (giving/Making Him a living soul/Spirit) Housing that Spirit in the flesh of a man. That flesh was made at the beginning of time in the man called Adam. Adam lived in the garden for an unknown amount of time. this could have been a day or it could have been eons. Eitherway, God purposely created man/Adam in the garden to reflect the natural evolutionary progress of monkey-man/Homo sapeian outside the garden to coinside with the fall. Why? so the sons of Adam could marry the daughters of men...

Now that is not to say God did not stack the evolutionary deck to make monkey man compatable with Created man.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're positively -determined- to convince us that you're the dullest crayon in the christian box, with this garbage..aren't you? Better to be infamous than forgotten, I suppose.....

[Crossless2.0]

I did read just the OP on that thread, not the entire thread though. But the above is based on your explanation in this thread

My explaination reflects what I wrote there.

God Created Man in His Image (giving/Making Him a living soul/Spirit) Housing that Spirit in the flesh of a man. That flesh was made at the beginning of time in the man called Adam. Adam lived in the garden for an unknown amount of time. this could have been a day or it could have been eons. Eitherway, God purposely created man/Adam in the garden to reflect the natural evolutionary progress of monkey-man/Homo sapeian outside the garden to coinside with the fall. Why? so the sons of Adam could marry the daughters of men...

Now that is not to say God did not stack the evolutionary deck to make monkey man compatable with Created man.

Congratulations.  You've written the stupidest thing I'm likely to read all day, and I've already been to FSTDT.  Bask in thy achievement, monkey man!

[Iroscato]

You're positively -determined- to convince us that you're the dullest crayon in the christian box, with this garbage..aren't you?  Better to be infamous than forgotten, I suppose.....

Have you seen the competition out there? Hell, just the competition on the forum. You can't really blame him for trying.

[Aoi Magi]

I did read just the OP on that thread, not the entire thread though. But the above is based on your explanation in this thread

My explaination reflects what I wrote there.

God Created Man in His Image (giving/Making Him a living soul/Spirit) Housing that Spirit in the flesh of a man. That flesh was made at the beginning of time in the man called Adam. Adam lived in the garden for an unknown amount of time. this could have been a day or it could have been eons. Eitherway, God purposely created man/Adam in the garden to reflect the natural evolutionary progress of monkey-man/Homo sapeian outside the garden to coinside with the fall. Why? so the sons of Adam could marry the daughters of men...

Now that is not to say God did not stack the evolutionary deck to make monkey man compatable with Created man.

1) ermm to do that god would have had to pre-plan the fall wouldn't he?
2) So adam lineage + monkey lineage,... are we half-bloods? o_O

[Redbeard The Pink]

Hmm another question, how do you know which parts of your scriptures are allegorical and which are literal?

If the genesis is allegorical, could the god mentioned within be allegorical too?

Simple. Every time science finds an assertion from the bible to be empirically false, that part becomes allegory and was never meant to be literal in the first place (supposedly).

[Simon Moon]

Hmm another question, how do you know which parts of your scriptures are allegorical and which are literal?

If the genesis is allegorical, could the god mentioned within be allegorical too?

I have never received a satisfactory answer to this.

And this leads to another questions. What is the algorithm that is used in order to determine which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal?

Seems there are at least as many algorithms in use by Christians as there are sects.

[Crossless2.0]

Hmm another question, how do you know which parts of your scriptures are allegorical and which are literal?

If the genesis is allegorical, could the god mentioned within be allegorical too?

I have never received a satisfactory answer to this.

And this leads to another questions. What is the algorithm that is used in order to determine which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal?

Seems there are at least as many algorithms in use by Christians as there are sects.

Around here, the answer seems to be "whatever the believer rhetorically requires at any given moment to 'make sense' of his nonsense when pressed".

[Esquilax]

It's only when you simply read what is written, and do not add the assumption that the fall happened right away, then both Accounts of creation CAN work together.

This here is exactly the problem, which I believe I said in my first post: "The bible does not explicitly exclude this," is not evidence for it. It's not even a compelling argument, because as I said, you can make up all manner of things that were not expressly denied in the bible. I don't have to make any assumptions at all to point out that your case is so weak as to be nonexistent.

Well, no it couldn't have worked that way because of the placement in the middle east (Or rather the rivers) that defined it are and have been established in the genesis account, not to mention the genesis mentions earth several different times, from the source of where God got the material to fashion Adam to the bird that flew above the earth to the fish that swam in the water, and Adam's interaction with these animals.
The earth is the earth. The garden however was a reserve placed on the Earth that Adam, Eve and God communed.

Is it beyond god's power to make a portion of the Earth levitate? Or to have rivers flow upward into space? Or downward in a waterfall off of the garden? The bible never states that the garden of Eden wasn't airborne, and since, as you say, the Genesis account is garden-centric in its point of view, you have no way of knowing that there wasn't outer space just outside of it. If that's enough for you to assert that your evolution claim is true, then it's likewise sufficient to establish Space Eden.

Oh and also? Every time god was in the garden, it was in the form of the Cookie Crisp wolf. Because it never says he didn't do that in the bible. I just decided: enjoy imagining that every time you read Genesis!