Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

"And then the miracle of the blowhole was created in whales by God" isn't scientific.

Because science runs largely on government grants. If you want to lose your grant (or never get one) just mention ID or anything other than 'natural causes'. You'll get plenty of ridicule but not a cent for research.

You are so right! But it's also sad because with the threat of loosing a grant hanging over ones head, no one will be willing to put forth ideas that could leap frog us forward in our understanding of the nature of thing.

What makes it really funny is that colleges have approved courses in 'paranormal activity' but only if not connected to anything hinting at a God or theism.

Who are you quoting?

LOL! You've got that right. One thing they fail to take into account is how the Creator views them. Note how he puts things at 1 Corinthians 3:18, 19 where he says: "18 Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.”

"Publish or perish." I've heard that term applied.
Just don't publish anything that threatens the established 'science'

Exactly. Note my response to Leadfoot

I was paraphrasing the implication of what you had written.

Miracles aren't scientific.

Actually, miracles do find a basis in science. The definition of a miracle involves the ability of an individual or group to do things that at one time were deemed impossible. For example, if it were possible to speak to the scientist Sir Isaac Newton about getting into the air and sustain in flight and object weighing more serveral hundred tons. And that it could carry 200 people or more at 700 kph, he might look at you and think you a bit insane. Even thought he himself had begun to understand the law of gravity. But if you could take him to an airfield and allow him to watch as this very object traveled down the runway and became airborne, he would not doubt say, this is a miracle of science!

In essence a miracle is the ability to control or manipulate matter and the laws of physics in a way that at one time was not known. That being the case, would it seem too impossible to believe that there exists a being that is able to manipulate matter and physics in a way that we as yet cannot comprehend?

Those patting their backs should beware of the dislocated shoulder. Throughout history, many developments have threatened the arrogance of accepted 'truth' and established 'science'. No doubt this will continue.

No, the definition of the word "miracle" is, "an extraordinary occurrence that surpasses all known human powers or natural forces and is ascribed to a divine or supernatural cause, esp. to God."

"Miraculous," however, can mean, "seeming to be a miracle."

Which doesn't address the point I've made.

Science and technology have made great contributions to the world, both in our understanding of and our ability to manipullate our environment. So, it's understandable that many would take a worshipful attitude towards science and its accomplishments.

But science is based on the evaluation of available evidence. Therefore its conclusions are rightly considered falsifiable. It is careless to view claims of certainty from any other perspective. And, while I could say that everything we know should be treated with Apisian skepticism, such a view would seem a massive overkill.

You seem dedicated to the word 'dogma'. I have no personal dogma. I drive my car with complete understanding and acceptance of all consequences from inconvenient to fatal. I exercise my faith the same way.

Miracles are not 'scientific'.
So what?

It also includes the meaning of something being considered a wonder or marvel. Not necessarily attached to anything religious. Thus both definitions apply to what might be termed a miracle. Thus, making it even more plausible that a Creator could and does exist.

I was referring to the non-believers. One doesn't have to believe the Bible is the Word of God to appreciate it as literature.

As for the antagonistic and silly question "Which translation?" The King James translation which is the one 99% of all Westerners are familiar with.

For all I know the other translations may be even greater works of literature, but I strongly doubt the King James translators changed all of the words around so that it came out pretty good literature, but ignored the original text.

Indeed. Presumably billions of years are blinks of the eye to God.

Perhaps he simply set the process in motion and was content to see how it played out.

So, your suggestion about the whales' blowholes has no place in science.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur as well as a contradiction of what you're saying. Something considered wonderful and marvelous doesn't make the existence of a Creator plausible, it just means that someone considers something in awe. Like you said, nothing religious need be attached, yet you're attaching needless religion to your definition of the word.