"What standards of "empirical proof" did you apply to your history textbooks?"
Interesting angle. I guess one has to have faith that written history is generally accurate much like members of an organized religion have to have faith in the accuracy of whatever book guides their worship. But if I don't think the Bible is perfect it doesn't mean I don't think there's alot of good things in it (like the Ten Commandments). I just don't find the Bible's version of how we got here is very believable.
I'm kind of a Pariah on these threads, which is why I am not often on them. My crimes?
1) I make a distinction between "Origins" (of the universe) and "Evolution" (an observable phenomena arising from the interaction of genetics, reproduction and living things with their environment).
2) I am also comfortable with the many aspects of God's message to us. Some of the Bible is historical fact, some literature, some biographical, some poetry -- It is filled with declarations, symbols, and allegory.
The nature of what God shared first with the Jews, then later the rest of the world and the nature of God leads me to believe that any of it is possible. That is, the 18 billion year old universe and spontaneous generation of life is possible and so is the 6,000 year old world with a 6 day creation.
I am comfortable in admitting that I do not everything, which is the most terrible crime of all on these threads, where both sides have every answer and the individual adherents on both sides know everything. And are not shy about telling how much they know and how stupid everyone that disagrees with them is.