Chemistry is sufficient to account for every step in the assembling of a living cell from non-living precursors. Chemistry is all that is needed to explain the production and the action of enzymes. Metabolism is nothing but chemistry, where molecules like ADP, 02 and C6H12O6 are being converted to other molecules like CO2 and ATP. Photosynthesis is just chemistry. Decomposition after death is also chemistry.
There were no six days of creation, no first two humans, and no global flood.
The archeological case against the Egyptian captivity, the exodus, and the subsequent invasion of Canaan is strong, but not conclusive.
Linguistics and the history of the development of languages and families of languages contradicts the Tower of Babel story.
In the New Testament, no magi could have followed a star all night to a specific manger, humans aren't born through parthenogenesis (Latin for creation by or from a virgin), they can't walk on water unaided, and when they're dead three days, they stay dead.
Yes, I know. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose we have such different opinions about the meaning of the same evidence?
I'm pretty sure I know. It has to do with whether we decide what the evidence means after examining it or before, which are sometimes pithily described as seeing is believing and believing is seeing depending on which comes first.
