How much is too much evolution?

   You perhaps should stop reading what other people say about the Bible so much and just read and believe the Bible.

You are suggesting truth is nothing more than an opinion that either originates in science which is factual and religion which isn't, I REJECT that! If an event is true it is because it occurred, if it didn't then regardless of if someone whose faith is in science or religion believes it matters not.

No, that is your false dichotomy you keep playing out and trying to force fit everyone else's statements into.  I've never said truth is nothing more than an opinion.  It's obviously not an opinion.  I'm not a relativist.  I genuinely have no idea how you are coming up with this stuff.  It truly seems like you are trying to fit everything into some type of either-or dichotomy you have, but somehow it ends up altering the meaning of what I'm saying.

No worries, I already do

Really?  I've changed history into poetry?  If that's what you think too then you're not reading carefully.

The irony is you two don't see the subtle ways in which you add your own cultural baggage into the text.  We all agree for example that *yom* in Genesis 1 is a literal 24 hour day, but you two attach a modern day significance to it that isn't biblical but is ironically modern-scientific.

(1) Genesis 1 does not make scientific statements or claims about the world

(2) Genesis 1 is true

The difficulty you two are having is that you can't see how both 1 and 2 can be true.  To you, there's no possible way both statements can be true, and yet they are.

There are some simple questions we can ask, you believe Genesis is historical and factual, the facts that proclaim are based in reality, the same reality that science looks at. Where people come up with their own views on what they see, they look at the universe and give their opinions, hypothesis, create theories, and so on. When it's all said and done, the truth found in Genesis when we glean all we can from science will agree with each other because they are both looking at the same thing when contemplating origins. To hold conflicting views of there is religious truth and scientific truth which are in contradiction with each other being true at the same time logically is incompatible with the truth!

I want the truth, and it is an either-or because what is true is not false; it is quite simple. Truth is very exclusive! If science and religious text don't agree with each other, one or both of them are wrong; they both cannot be correct. God said has been the major issue since the garden, did God really say and do what is recorded? If the writer of Genesis made some claims about God that were not actually true, that writer would have been killed; they didn't play with 'Thus says the Lord' or 'God said' false prophets were not allowed to live and if we cast the books of the Bible as not based in reality but some mystical religious truth instead that is exactly what happen, that is what we are saying.

However, there are different representations of the truth, right? Take a bowl of fruit. Is a picture of it any more accurate than a Van Gogh of it? No, it isn’t. While the picture uses photorealistic imagery to convey the fruit, it doesn’t capture the emotion of the fruit that an artist might. Just because there is a different way the truth is conveyed doesn’t mean that that representation is false. 

If you change the reference point of what we are talking about you change the truth in question. Think about it a picture of fruit is the truth of a picture, which is not the same thing as a piece of fruit. When discussing fruits it is only when we are factually addressing the fruit in question are we speaking the truth about them. If we alter our conversation to pictures we have changed the subject so the truths then become only what is true of pictures. So when I say science can have a view of origins and so can the text of scripture they are both addressing the same topic not pictures and fruit, the truths associated with them should line up.

@TruthMuse, 

OK, true or false: Genesis 1 teaches that God created everything that exists---the entire universe---in six days.  Is that true or false?

It is not clear, we see God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, then in six days He created more.

So the truth is not clear is what you're telling me?

According to Genesis, what was God's first creative act?

I hope you accept that claim is highly contentious? There's no archeological evidence to support it and not a few scholars reject it utterly.

Every truth is going to limited to what we are discussing, in the question you asked me I answered truthfully, it isn't clear because it doesn't say. It does speak to specifics just not the one you asked me about. Let me ask you one question now, can both a common ancestor and God creating different creatures on different days both be true at the same time?

I answered that in my response to your first question.

The details and timing of the exodus are contentious and a matter of debate.  But there actually are points of contact with archaeology and the Exodus narrative.  Those who write off Exodus entirely have the much more difficult task of accounting for the narrative's existence at all if it's a supposed wholesale invention out of nothing.  That's a far more difficult, fanciful theory to defend!  The points of historical contact of the Exodus narrative and the Genesis Joseph accounts with Egyptian culture, geography and Egpytian language and idioms are too significant to write off.

We also must be careful not to make the mistake of using scholarly diagreement about the Exodus as the 'standard' by which to evaluate the validity of a possible connection between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation accounts.  Far from it.  It's the other way around!  The points of correspondence between the creation accounts are too many and too significant 'to be the result of coincidence,' which lends additional credence to the Exodus story and a provenance in Egypt at some time in the early history of ancient Israel! 

Must have missed it, so humor me.  If you mean the first thing God did was he 'created the heavens and the earth,' then you've already lost me, because most everyone understands Genesis 1:1 to be a summary statement of the whole creation account that means 'In the beginning God created' everything (i.e., the entire universe).  Are you saying that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' does NOT mean that God created everything, but only created *some* things ?