Kara, my apologies if anyone found offense. Perhaps I should summarize myself. The individual who generated the discussion can correct me if they wish.
In a discussion regarding whether Genesis is a literal creation epic, two groups really exist. (1) Those people of the Book who believe Scripture reveals some form of a Creation story. (2) Those outside of this tradition who disregard the validity of Scriptural claims.
Group number two can have another discussion, in regards to why scripture is not authoritative to begin with (or why the supernatural does or does not exist, as made evident by the earlier individual). This group rejects the book.
The first group has an inner faith discussion, meaning the they accept the book, and now discuss the details. This specific example being they accept this Narrative in Scripture, and now wish to discuss whether this narrative is literal, allegorical, or a bit of both.
This second group is hinted by a reference to Jesus' interpretation. Sure, a buddhist can offer his input on this, but it would really be a reference more to the first' groups objections, then an inner study of why we should take it as a literal creation story.
I really don't see how this can be considered insulting to other faith groups. I provided a response why a believer of the Book should take Genesis' creation story as literal. If you can see anything insulting you may be reading that into my response.
As for two creation accounts, I would reject that argument, but that's a whole different discussion. This was why we should or should not take Genesis as literal history, and I provided a response that focused on inner-biblical evidence to do such. The conversation then merely got sidetracked.