The Bible as Science

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In this life, one has a basic choice from which to get their morality....the Bible or the NYTimes

Haha, this is so hilariously, mind-numbingly stupid. I would like to give you credit for your wit on crafting a cheeky bit of satire, but we both you You really are stupid enough to believe this.

With some people , you can just embarrass them and win arguments against them by just doing nothing and letting them talk until they are laughed out of the room. You are one of those people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In this life, one has a basic choice from which to get their morality....the Bible or the NYTimes

Haha, this is so hilariously, mind-numbingly stupid. I would like to give you credit for your wit on crafting a cheeky bit of satire, but we both you You really are stupid enough to believe this.

With some people , you can just embarrass them and win arguments against them by just doing nothing and letting them talk until they are laughed out of the room. You are one of those people.

I notice you didn't deny my post, nor specify the source of your morality.

I'll take that as agreement.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I notice you didn't deny my post,

Because most people would understand that when I called it mind-numbingly, hilariously stupid, that it was implied that I thought it was false.

But not you! No sireee...sharp as a marble, you are!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I notice you didn't deny my post,

Because most people would understand that when I called it mind-numbingly, hilariously stupid, that it was implied that I thought it was false.

But not you! No sireee...sharp as a marble, you are!

I notice you didn't deny my post, nor specify the source of your morality.
Since you won't reveal the source, perhaps I can...

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physicalsins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media....

 

[DOTR]

Reza Aslan destroys biblical literalism: “The Gospels are absolut...

Have you read his book?

I have.

He comes to the subject with a bias, and a bigotry.

He's a dunce....as are you.



But perhaps you can help him get his job back at CNN....he was fired.

Sorry my man...if you turned in a history paper with the amount of inaccuracies found in the Bible, you would receive an "F". That's a fact.

And if you threw a little hissy fit and wrote a list of all of the accuracies in the paper and shoved it in your professor's face, she would laugh at you and kick you out. Also a fact.

Enjoy screaming into your little echo chamber, dummy....

So you haven't read his book.

You're dismissed.

You just dismissed yourself from facing the facts. Predictably.

The Bible is rife with historical inaccuracies. That's a basic fact. No amount of self-soothing word salad from you is ever going to change that basic fact.

Enjoy!

Arent you the one who claimed there must be extraterrestrial life because we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life therefore it is scientifically proven that there is extraterrestrial life?

Or were you the one who denied life only started once because there is no evidence life started more than once?

Science is not your forte is it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Arent you the one who claimed there must be extraterrestrial life because we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life therefore it is scientifically proven that there is extraterrestrial life?

No, but thanks for asking!

Or were you the one who denied life only started once because there is no evidence life started more than once?

No, but thanks for asking!

 

[DOTR]

Arent you the one who claimed there must be extraterrestrial life because we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life therefore it is scientifically proven that there is extraterrestrial life?

No, but thanks for asking!

Or were you the one who denied life only started once because there is no evidence life started more than once?

No, but thanks for asking!

Sure you did. You pretended to advance a scientific mindset then resorted to your “intuition”.
Life on earth started once by any and all evidence. That is science.
Your intuition that life started more than once is not science. It is fantasy. Same with your fantasies of extraterrestrial life.

 

[westwall]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

 

[alang1216]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

There is plenty in Genesis that is miraculous so by definition, unscientific. Just as interesting is how much of history and science is NOT in Genesis. Dinosaurs, the global distribution of species, lack of evidence for a global flood, and the age and size of the universe for example. Genesis is not to be taken literally and most believers know just that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

There is plenty in Genesis that is miraculous so by definition, unscientific. Just as interesting is how much of history and science is NOT in Genesis. Dinosaurs, the global distribution of species, lack of evidence for a global flood, and the age and size of the universe for example. Genesis is not to be taken literally and most believers know just that.

Did you read that book?

I'd be happy to share some of my notes on same....

 

[alang1216]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

There is plenty in Genesis that is miraculous so by definition, unscientific. Just as interesting is how much of history and science is NOT in Genesis. Dinosaurs, the global distribution of species, lack of evidence for a global flood, and the age and size of the universe for example. Genesis is not to be taken literally and most believers know just that.

Did you read that book?

I'd be happy to share some of my notes on same....

Have not read it, please share.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.


“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

 

[westwall]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

Oh? Moses only wandered in the desert? What about his life in Egypt before that? The Bible was written by men. That is why there are conflicting viewpoints within the book. It is not the unerring word of God. If it were there would be no conflict within the work. The Bible as it is now presented was further a consensus where the later church men chose which books to include within the book. That happened around the year 800 IIRC.

As I said, the Old Testament is a remarkably accurate presentation of ancient history. Wherever archaeologists have checked the ground where the Bible says something happened, they have found evidence to support the Bible. I find that truly astounding. In the realm of science though, with one exception, the Bible is not an accurate presentation of what we now know to be factual.

That one exception is the creation of the Universe. In that one area the bible and the cosmologists are remarkably consistent. In the beginning there was nothing.....And then there was light. According to the religious folks the light was created by God. According to the cosmologists that light was the spontaneous "creation" of the universe from a singularity the size of a proton.

Both models are faith based. A God created everything, or all matter in the entire universe sprang forth from a point the size of one half of an atoms nucleus.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Arent you the one who claimed there must be extraterrestrial life because we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life therefore it is scientifically proven that there is extraterrestrial life?

No, but thanks for asking!

Or were you the one who denied life only started once because there is no evidence life started more than once?

No, but thanks for asking!

Sure you did. You pretended to advance a scientific mindset then resorted to your “intuition”.
Life on earth started once by any and all evidence. That is science.
Your intuition that life started more than once is not science. It is fantasy. Same with your fantasies of extraterrestrial life.

I made none of those claims. You made them up , precisely because you are an intellectual sissy steeped in absurd, magical thinking who invents low hanging fruit to play with.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite

In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".

Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

Oh? Moses only wandered in the desert? What about his life in Egypt before that? The Bible was written by men. That is why there are conflicting viewpoints within the book. It is not the unerring word of God. If it were there would be no conflict within the work. The Bible as it is now presented was further a consensus where the later church men chose which books to include within the book. That happened around the year 800 IIRC.

As I said, the Old Testament is a remarkably accurate presentation of ancient history. Wherever archaeologists have checked the ground where the Bible says something happened, they have found evidence to support the Bible. I find that truly astounding. In the realm of science though, with one exception, the Bible is not an accurate presentation of what we now know to be factual.

That one exception is the creation of the Universe. In that one area the bible and the cosmologists are remarkably consistent. In the beginning there was nothing.....And then there was light. According to the religious folks the light was created by God. According to the cosmologists that light was the spontaneous "creation" of the universe from a singularity the size of a proton.

Both models are faith based. A God created everything, or all matter in the entire universe sprang forth from a point the size of one half of an atoms nucleus.

The bible as history sucks. Jericho far predates the Israelites. And the King James version is a very inaccurate translation.

 

[westwall]

Or,....Science: A Witness Attesting To Biblical Accuracy
Science is the collection of correct knowledge. Whether it is 'correct' is determined via empirical data, and the scientific method.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven by the science of archaeology....and, the, astounding as it is, the modern views of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, also verifies the Bible.
I'll get to that....


First.....the reason this post is necessary: the political milieu.

1.To be an adherent to the various iterations of the Left....Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, or Nazism....one must engage in a full court press against the Bible, and against religion.

Here's the view:
a. "Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes."
Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky,
Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

Here's the reason for the view:
b. "There is no God
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays

Most scientists believe in God.


2. One of the oblique attacks is by atheistic/Marxist academics....many are referred to as 'historians'....who make a career out of attacks on the historicity of the Bible. The subtext is that if events in the Bible can be cast as false, well....perhaps the less astute would agree with the Left that the rules for life must be as well.



Archaeology, though has often sunk that boat.
As in this case: King Belshazzar.

"Of all the books of the Bible, perhaps none has suffered so many attacks from the historical critical school as the Book of Daniel. Virtually every story in the book has been derided as a fanciful post-Exile invention."
The Belshazzar Problem

This, for example:
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles: and every one drank according to his age" (Dan. 5:1).

"And being now drunk he commanded that they should bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought away out of the temple" (Dan. 5:2).

"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom" (Dan. 5:31).



So....according to the Bible, Belshazzar was King of Babylonians, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was killed by the Persians.

a. "Since the 19th century, some historians such as Robert Dick Wilson and W. H. Stevenson have disputed Belshazzar's reign as a king."
Belshazzar - Wikipedia



So....short of calling 'GhostBusters,' who ya' gonna believe?
I'll answer that next.

As a book of "science" it lacks credibility.. However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite good.

Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….

Oh? Moses only wandered in the desert? What about his life in Egypt before that? The Bible was written by men. That is why there are conflicting viewpoints within the book. It is not the unerring word of God. If it were there would be no conflict within the work. The Bible as it is now presented was further a consensus where the later church men chose which books to include within the book. That happened around the year 800 IIRC.

As I said, the Old Testament is a remarkably accurate presentation of ancient history. Wherever archaeologists have checked the ground where the Bible says something happened, they have found evidence to support the Bible. I find that truly astounding. In the realm of science though, with one exception, the Bible is not an accurate presentation of what we now know to be factual.

That one exception is the creation of the Universe. In that one area the bible and the cosmologists are remarkably consistent. In the beginning there was nothing.....And then there was light. According to the religious folks the light was created by God. According to the cosmologists that light was the spontaneous "creation" of the universe from a singularity the size of a proton.

Both models are faith based. A God created everything, or all matter in the entire universe sprang forth from a point the size of one half of an atoms nucleus.

The bible as history sucks. Jericho far predates the Israelites. And the King James version is a very inaccurate translation.

Clearly you haven't read it. There is nothing in the Bible that says Jericho was not old. I agree, the king James sucks, but I wasn't referring to that one either.

 

[westwall]

However, in the field of history of ancient man in the Middle East, it is quite

In what way? It is rife with historical inaccuracies, and any true information in it is only know to be turue because it can be found in other, better sources. That doesn't make it good at all, much less "quite good".

Let's put it another way: if you were forced to take a test on the human history of the bronze age middle east, and the only source afforded to you was the Bible, you would fail that test in spectacular fashion.

Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for. You allow you bias to color your opinion. That is stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every place that has been described in the Bible has been found. Places that modern archaeologists had no idea about were found when they were looked for.

EVERY place? Are you sure about that? And we relied SOLELY on the bible for some of these places?

Really?

And your post doesn't really address the myriad inaccuracies found in the Bible, now does it? Even getting 60% right on a test is a miserable fail, you know.

"My bias": The list of the many historical inaccuracies found in the bible is not "opinion". Those are facts, as much as facts can be known. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I had for breakfast today. That was a lame ad hominem on your part. If any bias is here to be detected, it's in the person claiming some sort of 'notable accuracy' in the face of so man facts to the contrary. That would be you... again, as the facts demonstrate. No opinions required there, friend.