[Fester Chugabrew]

What proof do you have that forty days and forty nights of rain would produce the interpretation of the Bible you espouse?

I don't. I never claimed the Bible to be provable in a scientific sense. But as for asserting some agreement between the Bible and science WRT forty days and forty nights of torrential rains, it would be much easier to set up a microcosmic test based on a historic record than it would be to set up test based on periods of time that have never been observed or recorded but only imagined.

[shubi]

"I don't. I never claimed the Bible to be provable in a scientific sense."

Then why do you want to insert your silly literalist interpretation in biology classes?

" But as for asserting some agreement between the Bible and science WRT forty days and forty nights of torrential rains, it would be much easier to set up a microcosmic test based on a historic record than it would be to set up test based on periods of time that have never been observed or recorded but only imagined"

"A microcosmic test"? I am getting that vision again. lol

The only imagined periods we are dealing with in this argument is the 7 24hr days you insist is the translation of Genesis, when I have given you facts that show it is erroneous.