I think all creation accounts should be evaluated, and of course common sense should never be ruled out.<quoted text>
1. whats wrong with the other creation accounts? I prefer the ones that involve animals and stuff...not a bored Super-being.
Big issue at hand for Xtian creationists, they need to first prove that the Judeo-Xtian version is the right one. That you hold it as THE one, is but an aspect of your faith, but that does not negate any other Creation story.
2. IMO its always lack of evidence and therefore proof for a creator. Faith is not a factoid, nor does it prove much...
I'll be the one of the first to admit, I don't think the idea of earth being supported by a giant elephant, which in turn being supported by a giant turtle is logical.
But because there are 'obvious' illogical creation account scenarios does 'not' eliminate them all by default, or guarantee a naturalist origin.
What I think seems to be the argument made by 'naturalists' lean more along the lines of alternative thinking rather than real evidence. When we see phrases like "why does something unexplainable have to be supernatural"? "Why does it always have to be a Goddidit"?
And quite frankly, I think they are valid questions. It's when they become an absolute "rule of logic" and "truth" is where I take issue.
The theme of a Creator, who works outside of natural law with the ability to create something out of nothing is not illogical. It's a concept we can't relate to very well because we don't have that ability. We can only rearrange what 'already' exists to make some sort of creation originating from our mind.
Now the idea of such a Creator may seem an easy way out, and maybe in some cases it is for one who doesn't want to think about, has no interest, etc.
So questioning the concept of a Creator with this ability is one thing, but claiming that the concept is unscientific, or even claiming that a Creator had to have used evolution is another in my opinion.