That might be the initial cause that aids them in avoiding literal translations. I mean...you have to be dumb to believe genesis word for word. And by dumb I mean really, really stupid.

some of it, i dont even know how you could take literally. i mean, theres no such thing as a tree of knowledge. its an obvious metaphorical story. Grrrrr

Turkey is actually a secular country. Richard Dawkins site has not been banned because Turkish government decided so. It's due to a silly internet censorship law that passed a couple of years back. A sick creationist person named Adnan Oktar, took advantage of this law claiming he was insulted by the site users and had richarddawkins.net banned in accordance with court decision.
This ban is DNS based and could easily be worked around.

Turkey was founded by M.Kemal Ataturk who once said "Science is the only true guide in life". But Islam has become more and more popular every day that, 96% of Turkey residents believe in Islam today.

Islam is very likely the most horrifying thing any human-being created.

I also believe public acceptance of evolution in Turkey is quite lower than what NewScientist's research suggests (25%) and it's even getting lower by time. It's totally unacceptable for a modern country like USA to be compared with Turkey. It's a shame.

Even if you take that part literally, it does not mean that the tree had some sort of magical powers. It was just a tree like any other.

What part to you take issue with?

Yeah, I know a ton of people who call themselves Jewish and none believe in god.

All the Jewish people I know fall into this category.

I don't know any Orthodox Jews personally.

That it grew magical fruit?

edit: and talking snakes hung out on it

Oh c'mon...talking snakes is just a metaphor for "God created humans perfectly and some bitch from thousands of years ago with no concept of Biblical morality ****ed everything up for us because the devil made her do it and now we have to pay the price for it today no matter how good of a person we are."

How is this not perfectly obvious?

if it is, how do you explain the many Christians who take every thing in the Bible literally?

Who said the fruit was magical?

And what is wrong with a talking snake? If it was infact a snake. I see three options for someone that takes the story as to actually happened. Which I do believe that it happened and do believe that Adam and Eve did exist.

The "serpent" could have been a descriptive word for Satan.

Satan could have taken the form of a serpent.

Or Satan could have used a snake and talked through it.

I see no issue with any of these. None go against science at all. Care to disagree?

Slight disagreement.

or maybe it was in fact the easter bunny in snake form?

Well considering that Satan is a supernatural being, science has nothing to say about the matter. Therefore, no issue.

Now if i said that some dude turned into a snake, then yeah science might have a thing or two to say.

but that is not what I am saying

then why even bring science into when you are just gonna say "lol supernatural ldo"?

I didn't. But others claimed that scientifically it could not happen in the literal way that Genesis said it does.

I say science is mute on the issue.

British



American



I mean, I know we got a bunch of fatties, but it goes both ways!

seems like you say that those events are consistent with scientific observations/experiments (which they are not)...then our house calls you on it and then you say...

seems a little shady, no?

I said there was no conflict. And there is not. I did not say that Satan turning into a snake was scientific. Read again.

here is the quote. A supernatural being doing these things do not go against science at all.

just seems weird that you would propose a bunch of solutions then say they aren't at odds with science, ask if we agree (which we don't) and then come back saying well you can't disagree because they are supernatural...

just seemed like an attempt to bait us into not agreeing so that you could lay down your "supernatural" line...

But I never claimed them to be scientific solutions. My whole point was that to believe the story of adam and eve literally happened does not contradict science.

I am sorry if that was not clear.

Not my intent. If it was, I would have ended it with "Ah ha! Gotcha!"

If something is claimed to be in the supernatural realm, can't you explain it away with whatever methods you choose and never allow a person to disagree (because they can't prove you wrong)?

Snakes can't talk. I do not mean that they don't talk now so they never could, I mean that they lack the physical attributes necessary to talk, and endowing them with those attributes would destroy their ability to function as a snake.

As for the apple, you seem to be suggesting that God set up one giant real life metaphor, i.e. that the tree, apple, and snake were all meaningless as God and Satan were doing all the work. Does that really seem more likely to you than a person using those items as a metaphor to reconcile the belief in a benevolent God with the human suffering that was prevalent in the world at the time it was written? If God was going to put a real tree, real fruit, and a real serpent in the Garden, it seems logical to me that he would just go ahead and give the apple the power to give Eve knowledge when she bites it, since that is obviously more efficient than just waiting for her to eat this perfectly normal apple and then giving her knowledge himself.

You can disagree. But you cannot use science to do so as by definition the supernatural is outside of science.

So I do not see your issue here.

the problem is that you challenged us to oppose those suggestions using science and then when we did you say "nope, can't do that its supernatural not science"...