Is the Bible acceptable?

If I may but in with my two cents worth...
Hi there, graft2vine and may I say that those grapes look superb! I only wish they grew that well around my neck of the woods.
PaulK has already answered you fairly thoroughly, but I would like to comment on the last two lines of your post. Sorry, but that just isn't true. Scientists pursued creationism from the birth of science to the late nineteenth century, only to find it lacking.Many creationists have come in here with their pet theories of why creation is true or why evolution is impossible. Every time one of the more plausible of the these theories is posted I get a little twinge of doubt. Could it be right? Often, they sound superficially quite convincing to a layman such as myself. So I go and check it out. I check the evidence, read the sources and compare the theory to alternative explanations. I'm not the only one of course, many people on this board have been doing this for years.So, how many of these creationist arguments stand up to scrutiny? None. Not one. Nada, nil, zilch, zero.
If you would like to challenge this idea with your own favourite piece of evidence, go ahead, start a thread on it. I promise to approach it with as open a mind as I can muster. I kind of agree with that. The Bible is relevant to creationism, just not biology.
Consideration of the Bible is essential to understanding why so many people are willing to cast aside rationality and embrace superstition.What the Bible is very bad at is explaining what is observed in the field by biologists. Who would you trust more as an authority on bats? A biologist who has spent years studying bats, making thousands of observations about their behaviour and anatomy, who has tagged them, tracked them, caught them, recorded them, weighed them and surveyed them, or the Bible, which implies that a bat is a bird?

---

Mutate and Survive

I have seen rather a lot of snakes in my time and none of them tried to strike up a conversation with me.
To suggest that disbelief in talking snakes relies on an argument from incredulity is absurd. Snakes don't talk. They simply don't have the equipment (language centres in brain, vocal chords, etc.). There is ample evidence to suppose that snakes do not, indeed cannot speak. I know there are no snakes in Ireland, but I'm sure that you are well aware of all this.
The point is that all the evidence says that snakes can't talk, in much the same way that the evidence suggests that elephants are rubbish at tap dancing.
If you want to suggest that they can/could, the onus is upon you to demonstrate this with some kind of evidence. Let the special pleading commence!

---

Mutate and Survive

So it was a magic snake! As I said, special pleading. The question is not "How can you prove it false?", but rather, how you show evidence that it is true.

---

Mutate and Survive

So you are saying that your argument depends upon one already believing that "Goddidit" is a sufficient answer to any objection? If so, I have no issue with that.

---

Mutate and Survive