Muslim's hold the same beliefs about their book and religion. Had you been born in the middle east you would believe in the divinity of Allah and the teachings of Mohammad.
I do not intend any insult by comparing god to Santa or fairies. But the evidence of their existence is equally compelling to those would hold a belief of their existence. There is of course significant cultural and historical differences.
Regarding the scientific validity of the bible, had it remained silent on such matters and confined itself to spiritual matters I could understand your comment. But it contains so many factual errors and misinterpretations of the natural world how can anyone believe the author was the creator of the universe. It should have been very easy to dictate a factually correct account of the creation that would accord with subsequent scientific investigation. It borrows so much from other religions and its directives are often immoral to our standards. I cannot understand how you reconcile this to get to your current belief position.
Regarding your evidence against evolution I don't think I can progress this discussion. Your argument appears to be (1) because there is a small gap in one aspect of the evidence then it's all wrong, therefore... god really did it. (2) because one minute bit of evidence appears to contradict some other minute bit of evidence then it's all wrong and therefore...god did it. Nature is a puzzle that science is solving. Science is a process. It's often wrong, but eventually it gets it right. Faith is a denial of human intelligence. I have no need for faith or belief in invisible magical father figures.
Muslim's hold the same beliefs about their book and religion. Had you been born in the middle east you would believe in the divinity of Allah and the teachings of Mohammad.
I do not intend any insult by comparing god to Santa or fairies. But the evidence of their existence is equally compelling to those would hold a belief of their existence. There is of course significant cultural and historical differences.
Regarding the scientific validity of the bible, had it remained silent on such matters and confined itself to spiritual matters I could understand your comment. But it contains so many factual errors and misinterpretations of the natural world how can anyone believe the author was the creator of the universe. It should have been very easy to dictate a factually correct account of the creation that would accord with subsequent scientific investigation. It borrows so much from other religions and its directives are often immoral to our standards. I cannot understand how you reconcile this to get to your current belief position.
Regarding your evidence against evolution I don't think I can progress this discussion. Your argument appears to be (1) because there is a small gap in one aspect of the evidence then it's all wrong, therefore... god really did it. (2) because one minute bit of evidence appears to contradict some other minute bit of evidence then it's all wrong and therefore...god did it. Nature is a puzzle that science is solving. Science is a process. It's often wrong, but eventually it gets it right. Faith is a denial of human intelligence. I have no need for faith or belief in invisible magical father figures.