The subject of contradictions used by mainstream science and their followers has been a topic explored on this forum previously. Coincidentally, the same topic arises in a book review ? also coincidentally - of GWW(fabp). The analysis of the problem and its purpose could easily have been written by yours truly. Now, if we could only get the world to listen ?.. to logic. the lines have been drawn http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1B6FV9E3RBND9/ref=cm_pdp_review s_see_all/002-4731938-1340061?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview <http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1B6FV9E3RBND9/ref=cm_pdp_revie ws_see_all/002-4731938-1340061?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview> top a logical farse http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1B6FV9E3RBND9/002-4731938-13400 61?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=2 <http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1B6FV9E3RBND9/002-4731938-1340 061?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=2> bottom ???.. Biblical revisionists scoff at discussing GS, which they claim has no moral importance and is a purely scientific issue. No one goes to Hell for a HC belief. The issue isn?t GS, per se, but the belief in Scriptural errancy. If GS is false?. what else in the Bible is? The same reviewer cites many quotes from varied sources that dismiss religion based on the alleged disproof of GS. If the issue isn?t worth discussing, why does it aris so often? Methinks they doth protest too much. a cross-section of the debate http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1B6FV9E3RBND9/ref=cm_pdp_review s_see_all/002-4731938-1340061?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview <http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1B6FV9E3RBND9/ref=cm_pdp_revie ws_see_all/002-4731938-1340061?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview> bottom Robert