Let's move straight along then and let's assume that there is a creator.
First we need to discuss is are we divinely created? Did advances aliens create us? Are we bacteria in a giant laundry basket?
And if we are divinely created...Out of all the thousands of gods that have been beleived in and the thousands of creation stories attached.. What evidence is there that your particular god of choice is the one responsible?
They can't all be right... But they can all be wrong.
So even if evolution and abiogenesis is debunked... Your still holding an empty sack.
There are 2 methodologies that any man can employ to get to his beliefs.
The first is to gather everything you can "use" to prove your beliefs true, and to gather everything that you can "use" to prove all opposing beliefs false, then interpret all of your selected data in the light of your beliefs. While you can prove any belief under the sun to be "truth" using this methodology, in truth, those that employ it HATE truth and love their beliefs. This methodology can only do one thing: Harden you into whatever beliefs you have.
The second is to continuously keep on proving all things, over and over again, altering your beliefs to fit what is good / true. It involves gathering ALL of the data that might possibly pertain to the issue at hand, cutting each and every part out straight so that no information that is there is left out, no meaning that isn't there is added, and no meaning is distorted to force it to comply with our beliefs. Then al of that is combined so that everything fits fully with everything else. If something new comes along that you missed, you add it to everything else and reevaluate all of it, objectively.
What is your real goal? Do you want truth, or, in truth, do you just love your beliefs. True, all my previous post did was prove that Atheist evolutionists have no possible foot to stand on. There is a God, or a higher being that is the preexisting cause of life. Life could never have evolved. That should be a good starting point for those that might want to get to know that higher being... If they want to look for truth, that is.
As an ex Atheist who used to pull Christians from their faith using evolution, and a hand collected stack of over 10,000 errors in the scriptures, I was a very thorough person using the first methodology. I gathered EVERYTHING I could find to prove my beliefs true and all opposing beliefs false, and I was very good at pulling the faith of most Christians out from under them. I was challenged though. I found out the truth that there had to be a God. Then I went over the 10,000 plus errors I had gathered with people who had answers that were logical, reasonable and rational. Seems that there are logical, reasonable, rational reasons for about 9900 out of the 10,000, and since the remaining issues were almost meaningless trivia, and the very best that I, and all my atheist friends and professors could come up with was a mere thimble full of meaningless trivia, I was left with either throwing my brain away and continuing not to trust scripture, or acknowledging that it is the Word of God.
I still look at all of these things, and when someone "thinks" they have come up with new errors, I always reexamine them all, but most start from the assumption that the bible is chock full of errors and only gather the things they can "use" to prove their beliefs correct, and all opposing beliefs to be false, holding fast to their belief, interpreting their selected data in the light of their belief, and closing their eyes and ears to anything else.
That you acknowledge that evolution is not viable based on the facts doe you great credit. Perhaps you, like me years ago, should thoroughly seek out the opposite side of the argument on the other issues that you have, like whether or not the scriptures are accurate and trustworthy.
Currently, I have combined all of the major Greek documents from which almost all of our modern translations are compiled, along with the data from over 10,000 variants into one document. There are about 3-4 words that I would say are a bit different from what is presented in our modern translations. He shall be called Nazarene is probably the Aramaic word Nazara, which while used for Nazareth, is the primary word for "Branch", as in the branch of Jessie. Another is "If I deliver my body to be burned" should probably be, "If I deliver my body that I may boast". The difference in Greek is one character, and the modern change to "burned", appears to have started about the time Nero decided to make torches out of Christians.
Of course, the end of Mark, a small portion of Luke ... weren't in any of the earliest manuscripts and were later additions. I do not consider those scripture any more than I consider my margin notes in my bible to be scripture. But then, anyone can find these with a simple internet search. Other than that, there are some style differences like Christ Jesus vs. Jesus Christ, but EVERYTHING, including this style difference results in absolute consistency as to meaning. To be honest, since I was examining fragments almost 2 centuries old, along with the most recent documents, I expected much variation. The truth is, there is no meaningful variation at all (Exceptions already noted)
