[ZULU]

A better question would be what did those ancestors look like and where was the Garden of Eden.

Biblical fundamentalists make a fundamental error when they seek to literally interpret a tome which is full of allegory and symbolism and requires a degree of intelligent thought, in light of facts currently known, to accurately assess its meaning in many cases - especially when subjects in the Bible are not central to the theme of the book.

The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.

[Modernman]

The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.

I'll go even further- the Bible is a textbook on morality and ethics. That is what people should focus on when they read the Bible, not some vague creation myths which have little or nothing to do with the major themes of the Bible.

Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?

[hopespringseternal]

The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.

Two of the most annoying things about this whole debate:

First, question evolution and the response is never to address the points brought up but to burn a bible. Many times, the points have nothing to do with the bible, but are valid scientific questions.

Second, the use of the bible as a basis for scientific truth. The bible is simply not meant as a basis for science.