[LeGrande]

Genesis was not intended to be a science or history book. The fundamentals of physics necessary to explain creation were impossible to communicate to the neolithic nomads who received this portion of the revealed Word. Regardless of the wishes and claims of many, Genesis does not attempt to explain HOW God created the universe, it only proclaims THAT He did.

It establishes a time line of events that is blatantly wrong. No physics understanding is necessary to get the proper sequence correct.

The Bible starts off badly and progressively gets worse.

[Natural Law]

"The Bible starts off badly and progressively gets worse."

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Funny, I never took you for the Bible literalist type.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

My original statement which led to our interchange was that one cannot prove a God and one cannot prove no-God. You told me, paraphrasing from memory rather than going back to check, to describe an attribute of my God and you would disprove it. I then said He was all attributes and from there you launched into a diatribe which foolishly led the conversation off course. So, let me take another stab at it.

God is all of creation. He set the whole thing in motion and He determined the principles on which everything operates. He is not full of crap, as you postulated, but He did set things up so that you can be.

He gave us free will to make errors and, in fact, seems to have made it easier to make errors than not to. Yet, in essence. God is Love, Truth, and Life.

So, help yourself. Disprove any of that. Prove No-God. Prove that God is not Love and conversely that Love is not Godly. The same with Truth and Life. It would also be helpful if, as you disprove those, you will show how evolution accounts for them. Surely you don’t deny those abstracts - Love, Truth, and Life - exist. Yet, are they scientific? Can they be affirmed using the Scientific Method?