The Biblical Account of Creation is 100% true.

I am sorry for not responding to your most recent post....the semester is starting off really quickly, and it has been hard to find time to breathe, let alone debate. I see I have alot to respond to, so I hope that I can do it all in the allotted time. Starting with the second paragraph of your first arguement, yes the earth is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old. I understand what scientists say, but the are not infallible. The basis of their "findings" about the earth's age are based on many things, including Carbon 14 dating, rock strata, and sedimentary layers. The problem with these methods of aging is that they assume constants that don't exist. In C14 dating, the theory is that by measuring the amount of carbon in a sample, you can estimate it's age, however, this only works assuming that carbon is leaving and has always left the sample at the same constant rate. The same with strata and sediment, how can you prove that these things happened at the same rate? Moving on, commonalities among species does not indicate evolution. In both DNA and RNA, and in bone structure and the like, commonalities are not "solid evidence" that evolution occured. Do species adapt? Yes. Is this evolution as described by Darwin and others? No. There is a big difference between adaption to better suit your environment, and completely becoming another species altogether. Consider this: The neuron. Scientists estimate that the human body contains over 100 billion of these tiny cells. At one end are tiny fibers called dendrites, numbering about 5,000. At the other end are about 10,000 more of these fibers. Every one of them is connected. That is 1.5x10 to the 15th connections. By using bioelectricity, these cells communicate with each other, to do things like move muscles, sense pain, etc. All of these connections are monitored by our brains. Minor defects in these cells result in things like Parkisins, M.S., and other things. You want to believe that that all happened by accident? Consider the earth. It's tilt on it's axis, it's distance from the sun, from the moon, from other planets, if any one things changed by the slighest degree, life could not exists on this planet. I have a real hard time buying that this is all one big "oops." Now on to the Bible. You have to understand slavery. The passage you used does not describe the definition of slavery Americans are accustomed to. When we think slavery, we think Civil War, Abe Lincoln, blacks, whites, etc. The slavery described in the passage is an indentured servant role. If a hebrew owed a debt he couldn't pay, he worked it off. There was no "bankruptcy" in ancient Israel. You also included the Sabbath Year reference, which is interesting. You seem not to have noticed that the Biblical Law actually protects slaves. They couldn't serve more than six years. The person to whom the debt was owed couldn't take more than his labor, he couldn't touch his wife or family. And there are other passages that further protect slaves rights. BTW, this does nothing for your arguement that the Bible is fallible. You really must take verses in context. The Bible is one continous story, and taking verses out of context is very dangerous. Yes, in Leviticus, the eating of shellfish was prohibited. Shellfish are bottomdwellers. They eat waste from other animals. As a result, improper preparation can result in severe sickness and even death. This law is one of many designed by God to keep the Israelites healthy. And later, in Acts chapters 10 and 11, you see where this law is lifted. They were more advanced and had better food preparation and preservation techniques. The Bible never promotes or condones polygamy. The Bible contains narratives, and sometimes in these narratives, polygamists are included. The Biblical view of marriage is one man, one woman. I want to post a disclaimer here, use of the NIV is fine with me. I don't know why people feel they have to use the KJV when discussing the Bible.....Jesus didn't use Old English. NIV is much easier to understand. Your rooster "contradictions".......Mark is the only gospel to quantify the rooster crows, the others simply say "Before the rooster crows." No contradiciton. UMMMM.......did you even read the verses you used concerning Baasha? Neither one refers to the year he died. The I Kings verse says that is when his son became king, and the II Chronicles verse says that is when he went up against King Asa in battle UM, again. Both verses say that Ahazia was 22 when he began to reign. Okay, quick pointer here, when there is a small letter beside a word or name in the BIble, it means there is a footnote or comment, and if you would have read the one in Jeremiah, you would have found out that Shallum is another name for Jehoahaz. Okay, purple and scarlet are two different shades of the same color. The two accounts were written by two different men, so this is not significant at all. One chose the adjective scarlet, one chose purple. Matt 27:34, and Mark 15:23 say the same thing. Wine mixed with Myrrh (or gall, as in the Matthew passage). This was a mixture used to deaden pain. In Jewish thought, days did not mean full 24-hours cycles. Friday (day one) saturday (day two) sunday (day three). This is a cultural difference, not a contradiction. A word of warning, if you debate me on the validity of the Bible, you had better be right. As it is, it seems that you either a.) deliberatly lied to me, hoping I wouldn't notice, or b.) copy and pasted someone else's writings who did choice A. This is not mere talk to me. This is what my whole life is centered around. You are attacking my heart when you attack the Bible. You couldn't go on. If there were untruths and viable, provable evidence concerning fallacies in the Bible, someone would've found them, and people would know. There are none. Consider the logic. Consider the impact. I await your response.