> I see nothing whatever wrong with the literal translation of the first three chapters in Genesis. There is nothing inconsistent about it.
Read the first two chapters. They contradict each other.
> It describes God doing things which are scientifically impossible, which He can do because He is God.
"Goddidit" is not a valid explanation for anything. It is just a lazy person's way of stifling curiosity.
> Science pretends that the impossible can occur without the existence of God, which is negated by its own laws.
Impossible things never happen.
> Thus, Creationism has a basis in logic in that a supernatural entity is consistently supernatural.
It is illogical. There is no evidence of any supernatural forces, much less one which can violate the law of conservation of energy.
> Science, on the issue of origination, has NO basis in logic, because it's interpetation of events is dependant on immutable laws being violated by natural means
What?
(in the comments section)
> the spontaneous autogeneration of matter is a physical impossibility. Yet, matter exists. Matter is not eternal. It came from somewhere, but could not be created.
Energy can be converted into matter. See also baryogenesis.
Note that scientists are currently trying to figure out why there is more matter than antimatter in the observable universe. Just because they don't understand right now doesn't imply that God created everything. At one time neither electricity nor magnetism were understood; can you imagine where we would be right now if everyone just said, "Well, I guess God did it!"? Well, we certainly wouldn't have computers, that's for sure.
