Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…189190192194195…232

Comments

  • #5732
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    What loving, just and merciful God would condemn innocent babies to hell for all eternity just because they were born Jewish?
    He doesn't.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    What kind of loving, just and merciful God would send down a copy of himself to save his chosen people only to deliver them into the hands of the Nazis two thousand years later?
    He didn't.


  • #5733
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,251 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    He doesn't.

    He didn't.

    Of course he didn't. The slaughter of the innocents was just a made up fairy tale.

    And the Holocaust was entirely the responsibility of the Nazis, despite what the Nazis claim.

    No God involved.


  • #5734
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Of course he didn't. The slaughter of the innocents was just a made up fairy tale.

    And the Holocaust was entirely the responsibility of the Nazis, despite what the Nazis claim.

    No God involved.
    Herod and the Nazis respectively did it.


  • #5735
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    Statisticians also validly use probabilities that are so tiny that they are effectively zero as statistical impossibilities ... and one probability that is effectively zero is one beyond the reciprocal of the UPB.
    Well, no; the term statistical impossibilty is a term of wildly varying value used to signify low probabilities in various fields. Statisticians use the term functional impossibility when they're talking about a zero probability. They don't use the term Universal Probability Bound at all....
    J C wrote: »
    Promises ... promises ... but nothing forthcoming.:)
    I don't think I've seen any promises, but I think you've seen the evidence :)


  • #5736
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So JC, you're contention is that UPB is accepted but not by peer reviewed journals because scientists are afraid?

    This is the same scientific community that was castigated and abused by the church for millennium yet still pursued their truth?

    The same community that proved the sun does not revolve around the earth. The same community that proved that life evolved from other animals.

    The same community that peoved that lighting and rainbows and earthquakes and rain were not gifts come god but a product of known forces.

    A community that enabled the creation of life through ivf to give people that god had deemed unworthy of children a chance to have offspring.

    All this despite the constant degradation and harassment from the religious orders.

    But now they are afaiid of mathematicians? Really?


  • Advertisement
  • #5737
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,251 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But now they are afaiid of mathematicians? Really?

    I think the UPB has been postulated by just one mathematician, William A Dembski.

    You won't find any reference to the UPB on Wolfram MathWorld, which has an exhaustive collection of mathematical and statistical definitions and terms.


  • #5738
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, no; the term statistical impossibilty is a term of wildly varying value used to signify low probabilities in various fields. Statisticians use the term functional impossibility when they're talking about a zero probability. They don't use the term Universal Probability Bound at all....
    The UPB is the ultimate statistical impossibility ... and it effectively amounts to functional impossibilty
    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think I've seen any promises, but I think you've seen the evidence :)
    Here's the thing ... Evolutionists are great at making all kinds of unfounded assertions ... but they are rather shy about backing them up with either logical reasoning or evidence.


  • #5739
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I think the UPB has been postulated by just one mathematician, William A Dembski.

    You won't find any reference to the UPB on Wolfram MathWorld, which has an exhaustive collection of mathematical and statistical definitions and terms.
    It obviously isn't exhaustive. The UPB is a well established concept ... that hasn't been negated so far ... just attacked with handwaving rejections ... because of the uncomfortable conclusions that follow from it, for those who wish to exclude God from origins science.


  • #5740
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    So JC, you're contention is that UPB is accepted but not by peer reviewed journals because scientists are afraid?
    They're not afraid ... just biased towards a materialist/naturalistic explantion for everything ... even when they don't have such an explantion for the origins of life ... and there is compelling evidence for a large input of intelligence in the process.
    Absolam wrote: »
    This is the same scientific community that was castigated and abused by the church for millennium yet still pursued their truth?

    The same community that proved the sun does not revolve around the earth.
    The same scientific establishment that allied with church and state to suppress Galileo Galilei. Please remember that geocentrism was the accepted scientific explantion for the universe at that time ... taking its authority from Aristotle and Ptolemy ... who were both pagans.

    Absolam wrote: »
    The same community that proved that life evolved from other animals.
    ... when did they do that?
    If by this you mean artificial/natural selection/speciation within kinds, this is proven, by common experience ... but if you mean the evolution of pondkind into mankind ... then this claim is unfounded on both evidential and logical grounds.
    Absolam wrote: »
    The same community that peoved that lighting and rainbows and earthquakes and rain were not gifts come god but a product of known forces.
    The only people who believed such forces were gods were various pagans. They are a part of God's creation ... which He completed during Creation Week ... and its subsequent Fall through a deliberate willful act on the part of Adam and Eve to reject God ... and throw their lot in with Satan against Him.

    Absolam wrote: »
    A community that enabled the creation of life through ivf to give people that god had deemed unworthy of children a chance to have offspring.
    Now you're starting to really stretch your argument ... to breaking point, given that such people are sub-fertile ... which is another by-product of the Fall, for which God bears no responsibility. They are not deemed unworthy of children by God ... no more than anybody who dies is deemed unworthy of life by God. These things are merely products of the imperfections introduced at the Fall.
    Absolam wrote: »
    All this despite the constant degradation and harassment from the religious orders.
    Citations please.
    Absolam wrote: »
    But now they are afaiid of mathematicians? Really?
    Like I have already said, they're not afraid of mathematicians ... just biased against certain mathematicians ... who are using maths to reach conclusions that don't fit in with their 'natural processes are all there is' worldview.


  • #5741
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    It is peer reviewed within Creation Science ... but hostility towards it and career risk from evaluating it, means that it cannot be peer reviewed within conventional science currently.

    JC, this is what you said when Absolam claimed that UPB was not even a thing.

    You are suggesting that scientists know it to be true but that the scientific community is colluding in keeping it hidden, and only for creationist scientists being brave we would never hear about it.

    I gave up plenty of instances of where religion has shown itself more than happy to hold back the march of science as it reduced the necessity of god.

    I'm not going to get into a discussion about each line as you still have provided no evidence of your starting position of UPB being widely accepted but held back due to conspiracy.

    You keep talking about this UPB but have given no actual evidence for it from anybody of any reliability.


  • Advertisement
  • #5742
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    JC, this is what you said when Absolam claimed that UPB was not even a thing.

    You are suggesting that scientists know it to be true but that the scientific community is colluding in keeping it hidden, and only for creationist scientists being brave we would never hear about it.
    That's pretty much the situation, except there is no conspiracy on behalf of science ... it comes from the official public position of conventional science that supernatural causation is ruled out a priori from consideration or evaluation by conventional science.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I gave up plenty of instances of where religion has shown itself more than happy to hold back the march of science as it reduced the necessity of god.
    ... nearly all of which were examples of either science in conjuction with religion holding back progress or the religion holding back progress being superstition and not Christianity.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I'm not going to get into a discussion about each line ...
    ... because my comments are true and there is nothing further to discuss.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    as you still have provided no evidence of your starting position of UPB being widely accepted but held back due to conspiracy.
    I said no such thing ... it is objectively verifiable ... but it isn't accepted by the conventional science community ... due to its follow-on implication that God Created life ... and science's a priori position that supernatural causation is ruled out from consideration or evaluation.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You keep talking about this UPB but have given no actual evidence for it from anybody of any reliability.
    Here is the basis for the UPB ... now please tell me where it is logically or factually wrong:-
    Quote:-
    " ... the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred in the observable part of the universe since the big bang."


  • #5743
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    If, for the sake of argument, God really did create life ... and conventional science a priori rules out the consideration or evaluation of supernatural phenomena ... how can science ever establish the truth on this matter?

    I don't want arguments on whether God did it ... I just want to know how science, as currently constituted, can find the truth about the origins of life IF and I emphasise if ... God did it.


  • #5744
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    I said no such thing ... it is objectively verifiable ... but it isn't accepted by the conventional science community ... due to its follow-on implication that God Created life ... and science's a priori position that supernatural causation is ruled out from consideration or evaluation.

    Originally Posted by J C View Post
    It is peer reviewed within Creation Science ... but hostility towards it and career risk from evaluating it, means that it cannot be peer reviewed within conventional science currently.

    So again, you're position is that it is objectively verifiable, yet it can't actually be checked because hostility towards it and career risk from evaluating it.

    So how do you know its correct then if nobody has verified it? You keep saying it is right, that everyone knows it right but won't accept it since its some collusion across the entire worldwide scientific community because they don't want to accept god.

    I'm just asking for proof of the claim.


  • #5745
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Originally Posted by J C View Post
    It is peer reviewed within Creation Science ... but hostility towards it and career risk from evaluating it, means that it cannot be peer reviewed within conventional science currently.

    So again, you're position is that it is objectively verifiable, yet it can't actually be checked because hostility towards it and career risk from evaluating it.

    So how do you know its correct then if nobody has verified it? You keep saying it is right, that everyone knows it right but won't accept it since its some collusion across the entire worldwide scientific community because they don't want to accept god.

    I'm just asking for proof of the claim.
    It has been peer reviewed by Creation Science ... and it is available for review by anybody else who wishes to do so ... and if you know anybody who might want to peer review it ... or you want to do so yourself ... here is the basis for the UPB:-
    Quote:-
    " ... the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred in the observable part of the universe since the big bang."


  • #5746
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    It has been peer reviewed by Creation Science ... and it is available for review by anybody else who wishes to do so ... and if you know anybody who might want to peer review it ... or you want to do so yourself ... here is the basis for the UPB:-
    Quote:-
    " ... the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred in the observable part of the universe since the big bang."

    I don't think you understand what peer reviewed actually means. You mentioned that you were a scientist, so I assume you actually do understand and are being purposefully disingenuous.

    You stated that it was accepted, all I am asking for is that proof. It is not up to me to provide your proof. No point telling me what the hypothesis is yet again, I get it, I'm asking for proof that more than just yourself think it correct.

    You are using it as the basis for proof that intelligence is required for life, and thus excluding any and all other possibilities. Quite a claim to base on a few inhouse papers and little else.

    Yet on the other hand you completely ignore evolution despite it actually being massively tested and reviewed.


  • #5747
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    J C wrote: »
    If, for the sake of argument, God really did create life ... and conventional science a priori rules out the consideration or evaluation of supernatural phenomena ... how can science ever establish the truth on this matter?

    I don't want arguments on whether God did it ... I just want to know how science, as currently constituted, can find the truth about the origins of life IF and I emphasise if ... God did it.
    This goes to the heart of the issue with origins science ... at the very least, one possible explantion for the origin of life is excluded from consideration or evaluation a priori by modern science ... and this exclusion equally rules out the scientific evaluation of Theistic Evolutionary explantions as well as both OEC and YEC explantions.
    Surprisingly, the mainstream churches aren't challenging this glaring anomaly within science ... but instead they are using the spurious concept of the 'separation of magisteria' between science and religion ... to ignore it.

    It is also untrue whenever science claims to be an objective assessor of all of the evidence on the origins issue ... this is ruled out by its a priori refusal to evaluate any evidence that God did it.


  • #5748
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I don't think you understand what peer reviewed actually means. You mentioned that you were a scientist, so I assume you actually do understand and are being purposefully disingenuous.

    You stated that it was accepted, all I am asking for is that proof. It is not up to me to provide your proof. No point telling me what the hypothesis is yet again, I get it, I'm asking for proof that more than just yourself think it correct.

    You are using it as the basis for proof that intelligence is required for life, and thus excluding any and all other possibilities. Quite a claim to base on a few inhouse papers and little else.
    It isn't peer-reviewed by mainstream science ... because of the Catch 22 that is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes within science ... but any person with average intelligence can review it for themselves.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yet on the other hand you completely ignore evolution despite it actually being massively tested and reviewed.
    Plenty of evidence for 'evolution' in the sense of artificial/Natural Selection and speciation within Kinds ... and no evidence for the 'evolution' of pondkind to mankind.


  • #5749
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't peer-reviewed by mainstream science ... because of the Catch 22 that is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes within science ... but any person with average intelligence can review it for themselves.

    Right, so it has no basis higher than an opinion really. You are prepared to ignore all of science and the basis of an opinion?

    You keep mentioning this Catch 22, yet have again provided no proof, or even any logical rational for this position.

    Any average intelligence...well yes, and Absolam has pointed out that it is not correct. So it been reviewed.
    J C wrote: »
    Plenty of evidence for 'evolution' in the sense of 'artificial/Natural Selection and speciation within Kinds ... and no evidence for the 'evolution' of pondkind to mankind.

    Depends on what you mean pondkind. If you mean things that came from water to land than there is plenty. All ascepts of evolution have been backup by various different areas. The debate against evolution seems to have one piece of 'evidence' namely the bible says otherwise.

    Again, this seems to put you in a diametrically oppossed position in relation to evolution as it does to the existence of life. In terms of evolution, the large weight of evidence, and thus probability, lies with evolution but you choose to ignore it.

    In terms of the start of life, you want to use probability as the basis for your position.


  • #5750
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Right, so it has no basis higher than an opinion really. You are prepared to ignore all of science and the basis of an opinion?
    Science doesn't allow itself to evaluate it ... which shows bias to begin with.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You keep mentioning this Catch 22, yet have again provided no proof, or even any logical rational for this position.
    Here is proof that not only does science limit itself to seeking natural explantions only ... it reacted to a widening of this mission by changing it back again to seeking natural explantions only.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters

    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Any average intelligence...well yes, and Absolam has pointed out that it is not correct. So it been reviewed.
    He provided no evidence or logical argument for his unfounded assertion.


  • #5751
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Either have you. You made a claim, he said it was rubbish, and all you have provided to back up your claim is to claim a worldwide scientific conspiracy.

    I am not arguing with the concept, or you, but you can't simply make claims without any sort of evidence to back it up.


  • Advertisement
  • #5752
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Depends on what you mean pondkind. If you mean things that came from water to land than there is plenty. All ascepts of evolution have been backup by various different areas. The debate against evolution seems to have one piece of 'evidence' namely the bible says otherwise.
    Plenty of nice drawings showing putative changes between supposed water and lands dwellers ... but no plausible explantions for the dramatic physiological and structural differences between aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Again, this seems to put you in a diametrically oppossed position in relation to evolution as it does to the existence of life. In terms of evolution, the large weight of evidence, and thus probability, lies with evolution but you choose to ignore it.

    In terms of the start of life, you want to use probability as the basis for your position.
    The very same insurmountable probability barriers exist at every point along the supposed continuum between Po.ndkind and Mankind


  • #5753
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Either have you. You made a claim, he said it was rubbish, and all you have provided to back up your claim is to claim a worldwide scientific conspiracy.

    I am not arguing with the concept, or you, but you can't simply make claims without any sort of evidence to back it up.
    Here is the evidence supporting the UPB that I have repeatedly posted:-

    Quote:-
    " ... the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred in the observable part of the universe since the big bang."


  • #5754
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Either have you. You made a claim, he said it was rubbish, and all you have provided to back up your claim is to claim a worldwide scientific conspiracy.
    I have not called it a conspiracy ... its an open a priori requirement to only seek natural explantions:-
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters


  • #5755
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Plenty of evidence for 'evolution' in the sense of artificial/Natural Selection and speciation within Kinds ... and no evidence for the 'evolution' of pondkind to mankind.

    You are always writing about nothing coming from nothing. According to your pronouncements God was alway present. So there always WAS something: God!

    God is, or he possesses, energy. Matter can be created from energy. So in that sense God could have created everything, from himself. God could be the Singularity, or he could be the energy from which the singularity was formed. We don't know. I have no problem with that type of speculation though. It's as good as any other speculation.


  • #5756
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Here is proof that not only does science limit itself to seeking natural explantions only ... it reacted to a widening of this mission by changing it back again to seeking natural explantions only.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters
    He provided no evidence or logical argument for his unfounded assertion.

    "Proof" is a word you throw around like snuff at a wake. "Proof", is something you have been asked for, to substantiate your claim that the Bible contains the true account. You can't do it.
    We can prove that the Biblical account is wrong. Plants, vegetation and trees that bear fruit need sunlight to grow. No Sun, no plants!


  • #5757
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    You are always writing about nothing coming from nothing. According to your pronouncements God was alway present. So there always WAS something: God!

    God is, or he possesses, energy. Matter can be created from energy. So in that sense God could have created everything, from himself. God could be the Singularity, or he could be the energy from which the singularity was formed. We don't know. I have no problem with that type of speculation though. It's as good as any other speculation.
    He created a singularity ... which was the moment of the Creation of the Universe ... which came into existence at the 'Big Whisper' ... He said it ... and it was.
    ... on the First Day of Creation.


  • #5758
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    "Proof" is a word you throw around like snuff at a wake. "Proof", is something you have been asked for, to substantiate your claim that the Bible contains the true account. You can't do it.
    ... I was actually asked for proof of my assertion that science limits itself to seeking natural explantions only, i.e a priori excludes the consideration or evaluation of supernatural explanations ... and I linked to this as proof:-
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters

    I also asked the following question :-
    If, for the sake of argument, God really did create life ... and conventional science a priori rules out the consideration or evaluation of supernatural phenomena ... how can science ever establish the truth on this matter?
    ... and so far no answer is forthcoming to my question.

    ... diving off on all kinds of tangents ... but no answer to my question.


  • #5759
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    He created a singularity ... which was the moment of the Creation of the Universe ... which came into existence at the 'Big Whisper' ... He said it ... and it was.

    The Bible says that, or are you making it up?


  • #5760
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    The Bible says that, or are you making it up?
    Gen 1:1-5
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


  • Advertisement
  • #5761
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ... I was actually asked for proof of my assertion that science limits itself to seeking natural explantions only, i.e a priori excludes the consideration or evaluation of supernatural explanations ... and I linked to this as proof:-
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters

    I also asked the following question :-
    If, for the sake of argument, God really did create life ... and conventional science a priori rules out the consideration or evaluation of supernatural phenomena ... how can science ever establish the truth on this matter?
    ... and so far no answer is forthcoming to my question.

    ... diving off on all kinds of tangents ... but no answer to my question.
    You don't seem to understand the concept of "Proof".

    You have been asked for proof that your version of creation is real. You can't provide it! You keep deflecting the question, a tactic used by people who are unsure of their ground. You keep producing the same mantra in different forms, none of which prove the Biblical account is true.

    There is ample proof that these Biblical stories of creation are not true and that destroys ANY argument you have.


Advertisement