It doesn't contradict the Bible, it contradicts your interpretation of the bible. Considering there are thousands of interpretations, why is yours the only correct one? The Bible wasn't written in English, so the moment you read your KJV, or NIV, or whatever, you are putting an interpretation on the Bible that was not there in the original. Genesis in Hebrew reads much different than in English.
They didn't lead to the wrong answer, they led to the right one. Science only gets better. A 6,000 year old Earth and global flood were disproven by creationists hundreds of years ago. Science has only gotten more accurate since then.
And yet, many scientists are Christians. Scientists have no hidden evil agenda to disprove the Bible. Science is the study of the natural universe - not an ancient text and theology.
And you are sending the message to believers that Christianity is full of ignorant people who hold to ancient ideas that have since been disproven. Augustine pointed out that if Christians are going to claim such ridiculous things like a literal 6,000 Earth or global flood in the face of unbelievers who are very knowledgable in those fields, it makes the important things like the ressurection just as silly looking (my paraphrase). Holding to a literal Genesis only damages Christianity. It doesn't help it.
Considering there are 35,000 sects of Christianity who disagree on some aspect of Christian doctrine or the Bible, it's pretty obvious that the Bible is often times ambiguous anyway.
And the message you are sending is that Christianity is full of ignorant people and none of it is worth the time of day. What unbeliever wants to associate with a religion where its members are still claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
There is a difference between being capable of creating the Earth in 6 days, and actually doing it in 6 days. Theistic evolutionists agree with the former, but reject the latter.
The Bible never says God got it perfect the first time. It only says it was good. Which merely means it fit God's purpose. And considering according to you, God exterminated the entire planet except 8 people, and then felt bad for doing it, the Bible shows God didn't get it right the first time.
Perhaps you should define what it means to "get it right", since by the literalist approach, the entire world is condemned by sin because one man ate a piece of fruit, and 90% of all humanity that ever lived or will lived will suffer eternally in Hell. That's "getting it right"?
And you think people are going to instead become Christian when you tell them the Earth is only 6,000 years old and a global flood with zero evidence destroyed the entire Earth 4300 years ago?
God never said the universe was perfect.
It is a fact that things adapt. Even most creationists accept this. It is rather telling if you don't. Where do you think antibiotics or different strains of viruses come from?
In Hebrew, Adam isn't a name. Adam is the hebrew word for man or mankind.
Why not? Maybe God thought it would be more impressive to put lots of time and care into the formation of the Earth instead of whipping it together in an instant. The Universe and Earth are far more impressive when they are ancient.
Why are there no Biblical accounts of nuclear fusion or gravity? The Bible doesn't mention everything.
Why would they be mentioned? The Bible serves a very specific purpose. It is not a scientific recount of the entire history of life on Earth.
No, but they are still hominids, and ancestors of modern day humans.
Despite there being millions upon millions of species of animals, fish, insects, etc., why doesn't the Bible mention Adam naming any of them?
How do you know what Adam spoke? The author of Genesis wasn't born when Adam existed. Your entire theory is based on the assumption that the author was stating word for word everything Adam said.
This is true. Read up on linguistics. Our modern languages are evolved from the IndoEuropean languages. Why do you think so many romance languages are similar? Why do you think English borrowed tons of words from French, Spanish, Italian, German etc.? They evolved and developed from each other.
You are treading on thin ground by claiming it isn't possible for God to have done it any other way.
Ah, the old Hell threat. So much for God "getting it right" huh? I'm convinced Hell is a catholic invention. God is loving and good, not evil and vindictive.
