As opposed to, oh, say, Religion which relies on the assumption that the Bible is true, and tries to hammer every observation to fit?
No thanks, I’ll trust the impracle [empirical?] evidences which show discontinuity/ID/IC, and trust hte eyewitness
Who where the witnesses for the first 5 days?
accounts of God and Christ, and trust the Book which has proven itself trustworthy instead of venturing into imaginary scenarios to fill in gaps which violate nature.
Ummmmmmmmm, is this a bad time to point out the BY DEFINITION every Biblical miracle violates nature?
[[As opposed to, oh, say, Religion which relies on the assumption that the Bible is true,]]
it’s not an assumption- it is a certainty based on eyewitness accounts, on the fact that 100’s of prophesies prove that it was God’s word that was spoke, and it’s based on certainties that are justified through the science.
[[Who where the witnesses for the first 5 days?]]
Those to whom God gave the revelations.
[[Ummmmmmmmm, is this a bad time to point out the BY DEFINITION every Biblical miracle violates nature?]]
What does a violation of nature have to do with the fact that people witnessed the events and recorded them? Naturalists who beleive in the imaginary scenario of Macroevoltuion have no such eyewitness accounts- ALL they have are someone’s assumptions about past unsupported events.