You’re saying that because the Bushs have an abundant hick family?

i still think that reducing the bible to an ordinary historical record demeans the scripture, which in my humble estimation is designed to show how and why to be a good person

Actually, I have more trouble taking this bit seriously. Do you really think that the purpose of the bible is to teach goodness? I have seen no evidence thereof in the subset of the bible I’ve bothered to read. The 10 commandments in particular do not seem to attempt to do this. Thou shalt not kill is specifically contradicted as soon as one reads the punishment for any breach of the commandments. Further, the tale of Joshua at Jericho is one of the worst offenses against all that could ever be good and decent and moral that I’ve ever heard. How can such a story be reconciled as a story of goodness? Leave nothing alive that breatheth??!!? What did the poor animals do to deserve such treatment? For that matter, from a modern standpoint, can you honestly imagine anything that happened in Jericho that earned the mass slaughter of everyone in the city, including the infants? Yeesh!!

In addition, you have to reconcile the Bible against facts that are observable and provable.

Fundamentally, it is a mistake to start with anything along the lines of “If you assume the Bible is true/not true…” In other words, it is a mistake to start with a presumption of truth or falsity with respect to the conclusion. Instead, you should take explanations of the proposed phenomena as stated in the Bible and see if it matches or best explains the observable facts and from that comparison make a determination of truth or falsity. In this regard, the Bible has consistently proven to be entirely lacking in comparison to scientific explanations.

Not necessarily, and given the topic at hand this can be a bit misleading. The most remarkable thing about the Pre-Cambrian Explosion is just how quickly things changed, after what was a vast period of stability.

Given sufficient pressure and opportunity, evolution can happen remarkably quickly, even in more complex species.

I don’t argue your overall point (which is spot-on) but modern humans are generally considered to be 100,000 – 200,000 years old. Some existing species are much younger than that.

> 1.) are the stars less than 6,000 light years away?
> 2.) was einstein wrong?
> 3.) and if einstein was wrong, then what is the speed of light?
> 4.) how big is the universe?

Since these 4 questions are related, I’ll group them together. There are various scientific ideas that attempt to reconcile a young universe with the millions of light years measurements. Better than my explanations, please see the following link for a number of possible answers.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

> 5.) why is not possible that the big bang was not the moment mentioned in genesis?

One problem is that the order of the evolution dictated by the Big Bang does not agree with the order of Genesis (i.e. stars, sun, mooon created after the earth). So they can’t both be right.

6.) why is not possible that that the days mentioned in genesis are metaphorical?

It is not necessary that they be metaphorical. Also, if the days are metaphorical, then you have the sun, moon, stars created millions of years after plants, etc. In addition, Jesus confirmed the literal days in the New Testament.

7.) if the bible is meant to be taken literally, then why do we need preachers to interpret it for us?
We do not *need* preachers to interpret it. Preachers spread the word for those who do not know of it, or do not read it themselves. Yes they may help, but we as laypeople can understand the Bible ourselves.

8.) given that god is omnipotent, why would it be impossible for him to create the world in the way science seems to show? clearly he could have done it that way.

He certainly could have, but did not. We all have the same facts to look at. If you assume the Bible is true, you see that the facts are often easily explained in light of the Bible truth. If you do not assume the Bible is true, then you must explain those same facts with other unobservable, unproveable ideas (origins occurred in the past, so apart from God, no one observed it. No human obervation, and no way to replicate means that everyone has to make decisions based on bias and assumptions. Everyone, creationists and evolutionists, have a bias.

“If we evolved from apes how is it that apes are still here wouldn’t they only exist in the fossil record ?”
–We did not evolve *from* apes. We are apes. So are gibbons, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas. All five species (including us) are descended from a single proto-ape species.

“Also how did birds evolve from dinosaurs if all the dinos died in a mass extinction caused by an asteroid hitting earth ?”
–Birds were already around when the asteroid hit. They had already evolved from a single species of dinosaur.

“Why are we not evolving into new species to cope with the changing world?”
–We are, but evolution takes millions of years. To qualify as a new species, a post-human would have to be so different that it couldn’t interbreed with homo sapiens. It would take quite a long time for our genome to be that radically altered. In fact, we don’t even know for certain that humans and chimps can’t interbreed!

What you end up portraying to non believers is a muddle of diversion tactics that attempt unsuccessfully to combine reality with fiction.

Ev-o-lu-tion!

Patrick: Spongebob……i cant…. feel my legs……..you’re gonna have to saw them off….

Spongebob: I can’t….

Patrick: Why!??

Spongebob: cause I ALREADY SAWED OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS!!!!!!!!!!!

Spongebob/Patrick: *hystarical bawling”

And no, that had nothing to do with this post