Creationism is not a reasonable theory

The biggest problem I see with creationism is that it is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Because the Bible was written a long time ago and our moral standards changed substantially in the last 2000 years, many stories from the Bible seem morally wrong. For example: -god killed children because they mocked a prophet - 2 Kings 2:23-25 [1] -almost any sin is punishable by death -Leviticus[2] -god favors incest : God decided to only save one family from the Great Flood, thus favoring incest, when he could have just allow another woman to be saved -god kills innocent people just because he is god - Exodus 12:12[7] -god encourages slavery -Leviticus 25:44-46 [8] These immoral actions of God from the Bible determined apologists to say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally[3] If the Bible is indeed not meant to be taken literally, then creationism is not reasonable, as it is based on a literal interpretation of a book that is not meant to be interpreted that way. Creationism can only exist if the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If the Bible was indeed meant to be taken literally, then Creationism can exist. However, it can't be a reasonable theory because in order to exist, Creationism has to treat biblical stories as facts. Thanks to our progress in science we can now see that most Bible stories couldn't have happened, as they would break basic science facts. Here are a few examples: -Noah's Ark - Genesis 5-10[4] This is interesting because it's from the book Creationism is based on. There are plenty of things wrong with this story. First of all, one person could never gather animals from across oceans and transport them back in the Middle East. Also, how could penguins or polar bears survive in that climate?Imagine how huge the ark had to be. Fish wouldn't have survived that either and after the flood, the gene pool would have been far too small for all the species to continue to exist.[5] -Lot and his daughters - Genesis 19.30-36[6] Again, this is from the book Creationism in based on. This "and he perceived not when she lay down" suggest he was unconscious. An unconscious man could never even sustain an erection, so how did Lot even have sex with his daughters? Also, considering his age it would have been very unlikely for him to impregnate both of them the first time. -Jacob and genetic mutations - Genesis 30:37-39[9] We have two scenarios: I. The Bible is meant to be taken literally - Young Earth Creationism is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible, therefore creationists claim the whole Bible is true, so they claim Noah's Ark and many other stories happened. This stories are not scientifically possible, therefore they are not reasonable, so Creationism is not reasonable. II. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally - Young Earth Creationism is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible is a metaphor, then it's not reasonable to take any part of it literally, so Creationism is again, not reasonable. In conclusion, creationism is an unreasonable theory. [1]https://www.bible.com...... [2]https://www.bible.com...... [3]http://www.christianbiblereference.org...... [4]https://www.bible.com...... [5]http://rationalwiki.org...... [6]https://www.bible.com...... [7]https://www.bible.com...... [8]https://www.bible.com...... [9]https://www.bible.com......