For those who believe the god of abraham was behind the big bang or evolution

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

i would imagine those who read that also read genesis saying he had created all creatures in a single day.

It doesn't say that.

the heavens and earth were a single day in the scriptures as well.

It doesn't say that, either.

unless one is willing to delete these single day claims from the scripture and rewrite it, it is still contradicting what has taken place in reality, and the problem doesnt go away.

Again, these are not 'single day claims'.  I agree with you to the extent that there is an insoluble conflict between a literal reading of Genesis and the observed facts of evolution.  But that doesn't address the point that there are theists who use to Bible to support evolution and, considering all the horrors the Bible is used to justify, that's not a completely bad thing.

Boru

[AFTT47]

Which is better:

1. A theist embraces science and incorrectly claims it fits with his religion.

2. A theist embraces ignorance, correctly citing science as incompatible with his religion.

I'll go with #1 every time.

[Minimalist]

I hate binary choices.

#3.  Fuck all polls.

[Whateverist]

I hate binary choices.

#3.  Fuck all polls.

Just use protection.  No telling where those poles may have been before.

[Aliza]

   Hmmmm.... is this going to turn out being one of those threads where I get attacked for having come to a different conclusion than you?


Edited to add: Oh yeah, I just read the posts. This is most certainly one of those threads.

[android17ak47]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tall tales told by goat-herders sitting around camel dung campfires always ring true. AMIRITE?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's clear that the compilers of genesis (and the rest of old magic book) did not intend the story to be taken literally - even though people ended up doing so.  Bit like atlantis in that regard.  In any case, there is no god to recant genesis, god didn't write it to begin with, and the people who did....didn't know shit.  

The details of creation were unimportant to them, anyway, what mattered was having a narrative that expressed their belief that god had A Plan™.

The people, today, who argue for literalism in genesis, are feckless and faithless individuals. Their god, if their god is legit, is the god of this world. He "did shit" exactly as we see it in this world, if he "did shit". If gods exist, their existence is a concurrent truth alongside biology. If we have to declare one false in order to maintain the cogency of the other...then it's their stupid rendition of a god that's going to get the axe.

A more critical reading would leave a person with the impression that..rather than being the "beginning of everything" - genesis was the beginning of their cultural awareness...the dreamtime at the start of their oral history. The world is made and then populated..with their tribe and with the Other™ in short order..and what immediately follows is a psuedo-historical establishment legend. The readers digest version;

"We used to be nekkid and frolicking around in the sticks..then a bunch of bullshit happened, and now here we are."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Bro, why rebut a fellow atheist when I am depicting this accurately with the exception that I was wrong about the 24hr period for living creatures, but it was a 48 hour period. The men of god in the bible describe a close to 6300 year period from the creation till now, and we know evolution would not having taken place. Evolution dictates that the origin of species link back to possibly a simple celled organism that resulted in mulpiplication of others, then evolution had taken place over the years as more living organisms multiplied and had to adapt to alien environments, and you know how it goes from there. The genesis story depicts SEVERAL "KINDS" of creatures being created all at once, not what evolution would dictate and predict to happen. The genesis story completely contradicts this scientific theory. THATS FACT BRO!!! 

Please don't presume to lecture me about biological evolution.

My only issue with your stance is that you seem to want people to reject faith completely in order to accept that evolution occurs.  I'd like that as well, but I live in this place called 'the real world'. I much prefer people who accept the fact of evolution on the basis of faith than people who reject it outright.  The former are less likely to incompetently home-school their children, less likely to push for the idiocy of creation 'science' to be taught in schools, and - most importantly - FAR less likely to lean on their legislators to pass laws restricting freedom of speech and inquiry.

Does the Genesis narrative work as a science primer?  Absolutely not - it is a cultural myth, no more to be respected than the creation myths of any other society.  But if people who are allowed to vote can lean on their faith in the Bible as a way to support sound science, I'm good with that.

Boru