Creationism is a viable theory

Quick Rebuttal of Con's Round 2 Arguments Since Con did not substantiate his claims under the heading "evidence" for evolution with any reasons, logical or otherwise, I will not rebut these erroneous assertions. If Con wishes to provide reasons for any of his claims I will address them. Con's "proof against the Bible" is entirely faulty. He begins by making a fallacious argument that Genesis was developed from pre-existing myths without providing any reason why we should accept this aside from bald assertion. The fact that one thing shares similarities between another thing which came before it does not prove in any way that former plagiarized ideas from the latter. As for Con's claimed contradictions within Genesis, it is clear that he does not have an understanding of basic scriptural doctrine. God is one being who has manifested Himself in three persons, namely Father, Word, and Holy Ghost; 1 John 5:7 is remarkably clear about this. Even within the first chapter of Genesis we read that God said "let us make man in our image." So there is no question about the plurality of God's person, nor does this contradict his singularity of being. The "nameshift" or more properly, the introduction of the personal, revealed name of God in no way is in conflict with Elohim. Elohim, or God, is His title; that is who he is in being. His personal name however is Jehovah, which has not meaning itself apart from that which is ascribed to it by revelation from the word of God. It makes sense that God's personal name would be introduced at the time when God is dealing with man for the first time. The personal name of "I AM" is introduced at the time a personal relationship with man begins. Genesis 2 is not a retelling of the creation event but rather a description of particular events which took place on day six, when God made man. Birds and most aquatic creatures for example had already been created the day prior, but Genesis 2, at least the first part of the chapter, is dealing with Adam immediately after his creation in the garden of Eden. While God had already created every living creature to fill the Earth, He specially made specimens of every created kind for Adam in the garden to name, ultimately but not limited to the reason of preparing him for the perfect helpmeet and partner Eve. Unless Con can demonstrate a substantial reason why Genesis 2 of necessity must be interpreted as a retelling of the sequence of events in the creation week, my interpretation remains valid. Con's claims concerning the transmission and authorship of the biblical text are categorically false. Textual criticism is a field I have taken much time to research in and I can say with certainty that everything Con has claimed is unscholarly. Unless Con can provide evidence for his claims, merely asserting them does not make for a case. If I said the Earth is young, say less than 10,000 years old without proving any evidence or reasons within my argument, that is to say, not in an external link, then it wouldn't matter if I provided a thousand references to various sources, I would have no case. Essentially Con is saying "this happened then that happened then this happened" without providing evidence. Beyond this, he treats the textual history of scripture as if there has only been one line of manuscripts which have fell into various "dubious" hands over the centuries. This demonstrates his ignorance of manuscript history as there have been many lines of manuscripts most of which have not crossed paths since their departure from the original texts. Con made a statement concerning the absurdity of trusting scribes. I would like to clarify that, while I believe their is much manuscript evidence to support the trustworthiness of scripture, ultimately as a Christian I accept the authority of the word of God because I trust that God has preserved His word, not scribes alone, through the usage of men over the millenia. Men can make mistakes or worse, but God has promised to preserve His precious words. I, in my conviction, can hold a book in my hand today and assert that this it is the complete, inspired, and preserved word of God. While many Christians no longer can do so for various reasons, I am one who can. I do not claim I could prove such but rather, just as with creation, I believe their is substantial evidence which is consistent with the claim. Not to mention Holy Spirit-conviction, but that is only good as evidence for me. Con's remarks concerning the term "firmament" are quite silly and hard to take serious. A firmament was and always has been, in the context of Genesis, an open space. The literal definition of the Hebrew word raqiya is "an expanse" (http://thekingsbible.com...). The expanse of the first created heaven is where God placed the stars and all celestial bodies, whereas the expanse of the second heaven, the sky, is where birds fly etc. If people understood from everyday experience that the firmament of the sky was not solid but essentially weightless, why would they presume that the firmament of the heavens above, outer-space, were solid? The only people that ever believed in a flat, domed Earth were the ancient Greeks. Bible believers have always believed in a spherical Earth, not only from obvious, everyday observation, but from scriptural hints such as, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. . ." (Isaiah 40:22). I will address Con's round 3 claims and defend my case in the next round as I will surely run out of space in this round. Thus far it is clear that Con does not have a case against the validity of the creation model as presented in scripture. Con has made numerous fallacious statements and bald assertions and has provided no substantial support for his claims. I propose that Con drop the textual arguments against the Bible, which lend zero support to his case, and rather focus on his claims concerning evolution which, if true, would certainly falsify the creation model.