You know there are some people who believe in God and evolution, and do not believe the earth is only 10,000 years old.
And they totally repudiate the rubbish spouted by Creation Scientists or the ID lobby.
Creation verses Evolution has been totally debated to DEATH on this board. With both sides claiming victory over the other. In my opinion it is a draw. We cannot fully prove God exists but also cannot fully prove he does not exist. And the evidence is in the "eye of the beholder".
lil, creation can only happen if there is a creator. Evolution could happen if there is a creator, or if there isn't. You are confusing the debate about the existence of god with the insistence of a vocal minority to ignore the evidence supporting evolution - the process as evidenced in the fossil record, not the attendent theory.
I beleive the insistence on literalism that some have is because they feel the need to insist that their interpretation of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is correct, and others isn't. Insistence on Biblical inerancy (or any other Holy Book) is about an insistence to judge others on a whim of textual analyis. Whilst they are free to insist that, they are obviously intolerent idiots.
It is good you see the use of allegory and metaphor. I wonder whether that is what a historical Jesus was doing when he said 'son of god'... and whether his last words were not "Father, father, why have you forsaken me?", but rather "For god's sake you moron, don't you understand a metaphor when you hear one?!"
The wisdom in Jesus' words has NOTHING to do with his divinity, ransom, or lack of it.
The danger to assume we can KNOW something that is unprovable as fact WAS true, is that we can be wrong.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out there are loads of people who think they can KNOW something that is unprovable as fact IS true and have totally different opinions and actions to ohers who beleive exactly the same thing?
In the absense of proof, what do we have to show that persons X's faith is 'better' than person y's? When some kill in the name of theirs (and all faiths have killed in the name of their faith, it's just some are closer to bronze ge goatherds than others)?
If this is the case, what are we to do?
Look for wisdom; the label; "Jesus", "Allah", "Vishnu", "The Far Side", "M.A.S.H.", is unimpotant. As long as the wisdom embraces the sacredness of life and freedom, it source is irrelevent.
Go on then. Please disprove modern evolutionary synthesis. The theory is falsifiable.
There is disagreement in the scientific community on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics so evolutionists will claim one theory about a closed system and creationsist will claim another.
There is no disagreement IN the relvent scientific community about what the 2nd law means to evolution. There is disagreement WITH the relevent scientific community by a bunch of what would normally be termed 'quacks' if they were persuing medical practise.
One thing I have thought before and am thinking again... if Genesis was meant to be allegorical, a story explaining origin, you could so easily come up with something allegorical that wasn't so at odds with modern science. A story about the creator singing a song and weaving the Universe for eons, and cherishing the life that blosomed, and rejoycing when one of the animals gained the ability to think, and guiding them to peace and happiness...
Many mythic stories put man side by side with the animals as equals, and such a story would be a perfect allegory without any contradiction to the evidence that we observe (apart from the Universe apparently being at least -1 god... and people complain about dark matter... ), one that would make sense to the bronze age goat herd and modern man (who belived in god).
As the story isn't something elegant and translatable, it seems to me that Genesis is just another creation myth, and thus the book that contain it and all its characters are of a dubious hue from the outset.
Yeah, sure there was someone like Jesus. There was someone like Hercules. And?