There are so many facets to this argument and it just amazes me someone can present one debunking of one point and therefore scratch the entire subject as debunked.

There are so many flavours of creationist and hence different creationist beliefs, that it just becomes non workable to just debunk one point from one set of creationist beliefs and think you have debunked it all. For example, constant hammering of the argument that creationists think the Earth is 6000-10000 years old is tired and useless when many creationists (OEC) don’t even agree on that. Many agree with 4.5 billion years. It’s almost the same as when creationists use their tired old anti-science arguments. It’s repetitive, moot and annoying. Focus on an argument that they all share commonality with.

One needs to define the type of creationist they are referring to before debunking a point, eg: YEC OEC TE etc, because assuming that they all even share a belief in the point being debunked is neither correct nor in line with all availiable facts.

Genesis is only part of the cosmology of the Bible. Don’t forget the book of revelations. Don’t forget all the talk of heaven and hell.

Take a look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm

Don’t blame me if you don’t understand your own religious text.

Besides, it doesn’t matter much what proportion of the Bible is devoted to cosmological writings. However much it is, it is all wrong.

Rubbish.

The Bible goes into great detail regarding elaborate cosmological explanations for the universe. It’s clearly not intended as just a moral guide.

http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html

Then maybe we can cut past all this “You can’t believe in God, be a serious Christian, and still do professional level astronomy” bilge.

And Christian, when you ask “If the writers of the Bible were indeed ‘divinely inspired’, why didn’t God give them a little more of a clue as to the nature of the universe?” maybe it is because you misunderstand why God caused the Bible to be written, and who it was being written for.

The purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to achieve eternal salvation. It is not supposed to teach you about the nature of the physical Universe, any more than the manual that came with your new laptop is supposed to teach you how to pick up women, cook a pot roast, or pack a parachute. Your criticisim is invalid and unfair. I could just as easily say that Darwin’s writings are invalid because the Origin of Species doesn’t have any good information on how the making of cheese fondue, and that Newton is obviously false because nowhere in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica does he discuss the manufacture of the delecious fig cookies that bear his name.

OK, so the Bible is metaphor (when you choose it to be). But so is ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

If the writers of the Bible were indeed ‘divinely inspired’, why didn’t God give them a little more of a clue as to the nature of the universe? It wouldn’t take much to convince me– something like a table of physical constants at the beginning, with hbar to 12 decimal places would suffice.

It’s really the same excuse the mediums give- yes I can talk to the dead, but unfortunately I can only communicate in flowery and vague language which is open to numerous interpretations.

Are you denying that religious conflicts have arisen over interpretations of their respective religious texts? Sunni and Shia, Protestant and Catholic?

Lastly, sorry for not being completely drained of emotion. I didn’t realize that you had to be emotionless to have a respected opinion.

I know you don’t understand why your opinions don’t count for much. Perhaps they would if you would uh, back up your claims. Or admit that you may be in error or aren’t really qualified to give us anything but your unsubstantiated opinions. Up to you, fella.