Is Biblical creationism valid.

There are a plethora of issues here that need to be addressed. You claim essentially that the bible makes predictions that were not known at the time. You gave the examplOe of a verse saying that the earth is round, and it's true that it was not known scientifically at the time. Although even that isn't true, The Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras postulated the idea, as did Aristotle. But even if it was true that this was not thought of before the bible was written, it would still not prove that biblical creationism was valid. Just because one thing said in the bible happens to be true, does not mean that anything else is. The same thing goes for your examples of vast numbers of stars. This is evidence of nothing except of the fact that the bible says it. There are obviously a massive number of stars, a simple nighttime glance upwards would lead one to that conclusion. That really isn't impressive. And again, the fact that the bible was correct about some things doesn't mean that it was right about other things, as I will attempt to demonstrate with my refutation of your next points. In your second rebuttal, you talk about how I was incorrect when I said that the bible says that God created life over the course of 2 days, you say it was seven. Now i'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that he supposedly created sea life on one specific day, and land animals on another. But I don't really even know why i'm bothering to address this point because to be quite frank, it really doesn't matter. Two days, seven days, it makes no difference vs two Billion years. It's equally ridiculous. Also, you have not addressed the scientific arguments that I made in the second round pertaining to evolution, and the age of the earth and of the universe. You have simply quoted the bible and left it there. The using the bible to prove the biblical creation story is like using the lord of the rings series as evidence of the existence of orcs. Nobody would accept that. You would need more than the words of j.r.r Tolkien, you would need corroborating physical evidence. Perhaps we have orc footprints, or Orc DNA, or Orc bones or fossils. In other words, the words of a made up story is not evidence. Lord of the rings also talks about humans, and meadows, and mountains, all of which exist. But that doesn't mean that orcs do. So just because the bible describes the origin of the earth and of man on a particular way, does not mean that it is true simply by virtue of it being in the bible. Again, you can examen claims made in the bible and compare them to the empirical evidence and see if it holds up, and in most cases it doesn't. The results from What we have observed using the scientific method Differ substantially from the claims made in the bible, for reasons which I have already delved into in the previous argument. Being that they were not scientifically Countered, I feel no need to expand upon them. I need to organize my time better. I had more on Noah's ark, but I am about to move to an area without wifi for the next few hours. I am Truely sorry, and will gladly pick up the slack next round. Feel free to build up your arguments more.