"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.
Apparently you don't know me from Adam.
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.
No. Millions of years ago is an imagined period, unobserved by human eye and unrecorded in human history, and it is very much part of the argument. Meanwhile you have hardly given any facts to show 7 24 hr days to be anything more than what the Bible says. The verses even preface the use of "day" with the words, "and there was evening and there was morning." How much more explicit can the words be? They certainly don't beg the reader to take them as anything more than what they say on the surface.