The Creation story puts Adam and Eve at anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (particularly when we take into account the details about Adam's age and the age of those after him).
All of the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that homo sapiens have been around for some 200,000 years, this in stark contrast to the Garden of Eden story. Indeed, all the physical evidence supports evolution on every level whether biological, geological, or astronomical. The only rational conclusion is that the Adam and Eve story is, well, a story.
Science is not a field to be farmed for facts, it is a collective group of observations that allow us to better understand how the world works. Science moves at a constantly changing pace and things are proven, disproven and put into theory continually. It's similair to assuming there is such things a historical fact, there isn't. There are just things we can observe and draw conclusions from.
And this is the first problem: If it is just a story then there never was a singular event called "the fall of man" and therefore all this business of killing bulls or a virgin human sacrifice on a cross is entirely baseless.
If it is just a story, that doesn't, in fact, invalidate the rest of the Bible, since it is a single book that is a collection of different volumes with different writers.
The second problem is this: If we assume that the Garden/fall of man story is true, the conclusion that we draw is that the God of the Bible is not, in fact, very good at all. There is not one human being who would kick his/her toddler child out of the house for disobeying them (certainly not on a first offense!) or (if they had the power) alter that child's core being so that every one of her descendants would be born "in sin" and under a curse. This would be akin to a prisoner conceiving a child during a conjugal visit and then the powers that be taking steps to ensure that the child was raised in prison since the parent had committed an offense.
That reasoning only follows through if we assume the God is, in fact, a human. However, if we assume that God is, in fact, a God then we can assume there is a completely different kind of relationship going on than a parent to child one.
Moreover, the very nature of forgiveness is such that it does not require sacrifice. If your child steals from you, you don't tell them that they have to sacrifice Rover before they can be at peace with you. And if your neighbor offends you, you do not reconcile to them by allowing them to kill your infant son. Either you forgive or you don't.
In modern times you don't, however in earlier times the trangressor was expected to offer something to the victim beyond a mere apology in return for forgiveness and mercy.
The entire thing is not only irrational but if any one of us behaved in a similar fashion, we'd be imprisoned. And rightly so.
Modern times.
Therefore, on the one hand the physical universe screams that the Bible story is not true
The physical universe cannot, in fact, scream.
and on the other hand everything that we understand about the words "good" and "loving" scream that the Bible story cannot be the story of a loving God.
That of course depends on your perspective and world view, the people who wrote the story would disagree with you.
How then can anyone actually believe this stuff?
Perhaps you'd understand if you could open your mind to a viewpoint other than your own.
