[
Replying to dad1 in post #215]
If you stick your finger in an electrical outlet, that is proof that a current of some kind exists there.
Technically, it proves there is a
voltage present that can drive current through your finger, IF there is power to the circuit. Just sticking your finger into something like a lamp bulb socket does not prove there is power to the circuit unless you get a shock ... then you have proof that a voltage was present. Nitpicking I know, but the word "proof" requires a lot more accuracy in definition.
Your opinion about what the story of creation is has no merit at all since you have no clue either way. It is not scientific to try to lump all fables together with the Genesis account and make them all equal just because you can't deal with any of them with anything but personal incredulity. The only way you could bring science into that is if you had science that applied to any of the stories, and you do not have any that pertains to Genesis.
Really? Science can show, for example, that the creation event could not have happened literally as described in Genesis; it can show that the flood of Noah could not possibly have happened as described in Genesis; it can show that the creation date estimated from biblical chronology cannot be correct (~6000 year old universe); it can show that the probability of people living to 900+ years old is nearly zero, etc. etc. Many of the other creation stories in the Wikipedia list are just as unrealistic as the one in Genesis.