Yes indeed, but not everything is reduced to life.
You think? I don't, to me it is a planned system built in. Of course man couldn't design anything like it. As for "a technical discussion about genetics", there is a lto in any such that doesn't make sense. People just like to find a genetic excuse not to exercise self control. The "homosexual gene" is a cop out, as are all the other such.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not make it invalid as an argument.
Whilst it may be true that one is predisposed to such things that doesn't mean one has to give in to that predisposition.
Which is not what genetics says. Predisposition, even supported by genetics does not predetermine action. That has been acknowledged already... in quite a lot of different scientific fields.
And that kind of raises the question. If you accept that genetics can produce predispositions to morally adverse behavior, and you also believe that God lovingly created each genetic code, then does that not indicate he doesn't worry or care about these morally adverse genetic predispositions?
Whilst I am not sure exactly what you mean by that, the difference between the bible and all other books is that it has one author who spent thousands of year inspiring humans to write it down.
Your earlier statement. "Intent is often invalidated by the results gained". Using this logic you claim that even though Evolution itself does not remove God, since some of its proponents do, then by association so to does the theory itself.
Now turning this logic on its ear, the Bible would be equally valid as pertaining to this logic as well. Think about it. If we consider the history of the Bible, and what it has been used to justify it, then the Bible is equally guilty as the Church for the Crusades, the Inquisition and so on and so forth.
The creation account is an eye witness account, which makes it unique.
By that logic, all creation accounts are eyewitness accounts.
The results of actually following what the bible teaches are always beneficial to those who take things to heart. Again that makes it absolutely unique.
The guidance in the bible is perfect, if only because it comes from a perfect author.
Which then becomes circular reasoning. The guidance of the Bible is perfect because the author was perfect because the guidance of the Bible is perfect, over and over ad infinitum.
It is both logical and fair. It is not logical or honest to declare that something is accruate despite all the unknowns.
When the unknowns themselves are themselves unknown, then it is perfectly irrational to bring them up in the first place.
I would imagine it did come before water, but that would have been in the formative periods of the planet which were over before the creative account started.
The formative period of the planet occurred, and then we have the word bringing the Earth back into existence? What?
Actually reading Genesis again, it seems to imply that water does not count as 'something'. If it's empty then nothings in/on the Earth...but we assume water exists already... that to me seems contradictory and odd, but maybe thats just because I don't consider water, something tangible, to be part of something that is empty...
The creative account doesn't say when either were created, it merely talks about gathering all the seas into one place. Well if the land hadn't already been there then the seas would have been in one place anyway, and that one place would have been everyplace.
One place and any place are two different concepts. You cannot gather all the worlds gold into one place then call it every place. If that were true I could myself claim to have gathered all the worlds gold or silver into one place without having done a single thing.
Actually it doesn't imply either, it merely implies that the two were both separate but unified parts. In fact if you think about it both could be said to be true, depending on which there was most of. One would assume that anyone on that landmass would certainly view it as land surrounded by water though.
However it is almost certain that water, as a liquid, was not present until the earth had cooled down enough not to turn it straight back into vapour, meaning land would automatically come before water in the formulative period, before the creative days started.
Don't forget the creative account says nothing about either land or water being created, only gathered together.
Which in itself, taken at its most basic form, implies that matter existed before God did anything. What was that 'absurdity' about matter existing separate from a cause?