Genius of Darwin

[wufwugy]

youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.

Not at all. Your arguments are well understood but tangential to my point so I haven't responded to them. My correction was very specific...see below.

now there are those who say that chrisitanity does not rely upon biblical infallibility. well good for them since when believing that they create their own religion and cannot call it christianity. people who believe this type of thing should study the history of chrisitanity, or actually the history of judaism.

"There are those" = the majority of Christianity, and Judaism as well, now that you bring it up. It's absolutely true that this wasn't always the case though. As recently as pre-WWII, most denominations were strictly Creationist. But that is where Christianity has grown to, so to speak, so is very representative of the majority of the Christian population today. This is my point, that your earlier statement "our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible and other like scriptures" is not reflective of the attitudes of the entire Christian population. Of course Theistic Evolution has no factual merit. I'm not debating that.

I suppose one could say that to abandon earlier beliefs is to alter the very fundamentals of a religion.

this is exactly the case for christianity. its not this way with all things but it is with prophetic religions. christianity is a prophetic religion. prophetic infallibility is a requirement that modern christianity has forgotten/ignored. orthodox judaism has not. this is important since orthodox judaism is the foundation from which christianity extends. whats funny is that orthodox judaism steadfastly contends that christianity is a false extension.

despite the history, it is still easy to demonstrate the need for prophetic infallibility in a religion that derives its 'truths' from prophecy exclusively. just like how scientific truths rely upon the infallibility of the scientific method.

I suppose if science can continue to collect new evidence and create new theories as a result, religion needs to be allowed to do the same.

you would think so, but thats not the case. when a change is made to a prophetic religion that is not from a qualified prophet then it is by definition an incorrect change. this doesnt apply to evidence and theories in science since those never change the foundations of science. alterations of evidence and theories in science is what science is. prophetic religions can only do this when it is prophetic.