How the Bible fails

[Compassionist]

1. Astronomy & Cosmology: pre-scientific mythology

The Bible reflects an ancient Near Eastern cosmology, not hidden advanced knowledge:

Flat or dome-covered Earth (the firmament)

Waters above the sky

Sun, moon, and stars placed inside the firmament

Earth established before stars

Light existing before light sources

This isn’t “metaphor misunderstood later.”
It’s exactly what you’d expect from pre-astronomical humans with no telescopes, no physics, no cosmology.

A being who created galaxies would not accidentally endorse Bronze Age sky myths.

2. Physics: magical causation and category errors

Biblical physics routinely violates conservation laws, thermodynamics, and basic causality:

Matter appearing without physical mechanism

Instantaneous global floods

Heat, light, and motion without sources

Supernatural suspension of physical regularities without constraints

These aren’t exceptions explained by deeper laws.
They are storytelling devices, indistinguishable from myth.

3. Biology: creationism and biological impossibilities

The Bible gets biology wrong in structural ways:

Fixed “kinds” instead of common descent

Humans formed separately from animals

No understanding of genetics, evolution, extinction, deep time

Global bottlenecks that would have destroyed biodiversity

This is not a matter of missing details.
It reflects zero awareness of how life actually works.

4. Ethics: tribal morality, not universal compassion

Biblical ethics are deeply inconsistent and often morally indefensible:

Genocide endorsed

Slavery regulated, not abolished

Women treated as property

Children punished for ancestral sins

Infinite punishment for finite “belief errors”

These are not moral heights we failed to reach.
They are moral baselines we have since outgrown.

The best ethical moments in the Bible come from humans pushing against its own framework, not from divine command.

5. History: legendary development, not eyewitness rigor

The Bible fails basic historical standards:

Anonymous authorship

Decades-to-centuries-late composition

Theological agendas driving narrative

Contradictory accounts

No contemporary corroboration for central miracles

What we see is exactly what we see in myth formation everywhere else:
oral tradition → embellishment → canonization → dogma.

6. The pattern matters more than any single error

Any one mistake could be excused.

But the Bible fails:

astronomy,

physics,

biology,

ethics,

and history,

systematically, in the same direction, at the same level, with the same cultural fingerprints.

That pattern is diagnostic.

It looks exactly like what it is: a collection of human texts written by sincere but ignorant people trying to explain the world before science existed.

7. Why this matters morally

I care about reducing suffering and death, not about defending meaning or tradition.

That’s crucial.

Texts that:

misdescribe reality,

misassign blame,

moralize ignorance,

and sanctify error,

don’t just fail intellectually — they cause harm.

Religious certainty built on false premises has:

justified violence,

delayed medicine,

stigmatized illness,

excused cruelty,

and obstructed progress.

Rejecting that isn’t nihilism.
It’s ethical seriousness.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

No mythology ever written by man disclaims it's own mythological origin. Only true chroniclers deny writing fables.

This argument fails immediately.

Many texts in history explicitly claim to be true while being demonstrably false. The Qur’an claims divine origin. The Book of Mormon claims historical reality. Numerous ancient kings inscribed that their victories were factual and divinely ordained. Claiming truth is not evidence of truth.

If “denying being a myth” made something true, then every religious text that makes that denial would be automatically validated — including mutually contradictory ones. Assertion is not authentication.

True. You've corrected your lie that Genesis says the earth was created first. If vs 1 is establishing a sequence, then the heaven was created first.

Genesis 1:1 does not clearly establish a scientific chronological sequence. Many Hebrew scholars understand it as a summary statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” followed by a description of the earth in an unformed state in verse 2.

Even if one insists on sequence, it still does not align with modern cosmology. The biblical “heavens” in context refer to the sky — not billions of galaxies.

So correcting one misstatement does not convert the chapter into advanced astrophysics.

Not when a circle is a sphere.

The Hebrew word “chug” means circle or horizon. It does not mean sphere. Hebrew has other words for ball-like objects.

Saying “radiation belts encircle the earth” does not retroactively redefine ancient Hebrew vocabulary. A circle can describe the horizon — exactly how the sky appears from the ground.

You are reading modern knowledge back into an ancient observational text.

A tent covers the whole body, including a sphere.

The “stretched out like a tent” imagery matches standard Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, where the sky is depicted as a solid dome spread over the earth.

Yes, metaphor can apply to many shapes. But the imagery used matches the cultural cosmology of the time — not modern space-time expansion theory.

Appealing to flexible metaphor after the fact is harmonization, not prediction.

That interpretation is only suggestive between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 itself. Later toward the end of the Book, it's confirmed in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3 is a later theological reflection. It does not alter what Genesis 1 originally communicates in its ancient context.

Reading later interpretations back into earlier texts is theological development — not evidence of scientific foresight.

Water activity on two known planets and one moon, makes it an extraterrestrial deluge.

No, it does not.

Localized ancient water activity on Mars or Europa does not equal a universal supernatural flood covering the cosmos. That is a category leap.

“Water exists elsewhere” is not evidence of a biblical flood. It is evidence that water chemistry operates across planetary systems.

Another lie about the text. Just 'raqui' no 'be'.

Genesis 1:17 in Hebrew reads “be-raqia ha-shamayim” — literally “in the expanse of the heavens.”

Even if translated “on” instead of “in,” the cosmological model remains observational and geocentric. The lights are described as placed in the dome of the sky from the perspective of an earthbound observer.

This is phenomenological language, not heliocentric astrophysics.

Genesis is a basic revelation of what happened, not a scientific journal.

That concession is important.

If Genesis is not a scientific account, then it cannot be used as evidence of hidden advanced cosmology. It reflects the worldview and observational framework of its time.

It is theology expressed in ancient cosmological language.

That is the Creator's revelation...

That is a theological claim, not an evidential argument.

Quoting 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not establish divine authorship. It simply asserts that unbelievers will not accept the claim. That is circular insulation: disbelief is treated as confirmation of blindness rather than as possible evidence against the claim.

An argument that cannot be questioned without being dismissed as spiritual blindness is not strengthened by that move.

If events are defined as beyond natural explanation, then they cannot be tested, evaluated, proven nor disproven by natural things.

Correct — and that is precisely the epistemic issue.

If a claim cannot be tested, evaluated, confirmed, or falsified, then it cannot function as public evidence. It becomes a matter of faith commitment, not demonstrable fact.

In summary:

• Claiming “this is not myth” does not make it true.
• Ancient cosmological imagery matches its cultural context.
• Reinterpreting metaphors after modern discoveries is retrofitting.
• Supernatural explanations are not testable claims.
• Circular appeals to spiritual blindness do not add evidence.

The core issue remains unchanged:

If the Bible is to be treated as historically and scientifically reliable in its cosmology, it must be evaluated by evidence — not by self-assertion.

Self-assertion is not evidence.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #38]

Since morality is imperfect, then it cannot be evaluated as perfect righteousness, and cannot judge perfect righteousness.

This argument defeats itself.

If human morality is incapable of evaluating “perfect righteousness,” then humans are equally incapable of recognizing it, identifying it, or affirming it.

You cannot simultaneously claim:
• Humans cannot judge perfect righteousness
• Humans can correctly identify the Bible as perfectly righteous

If our moral faculties are too flawed to evaluate God’s actions, then they are also too flawed to declare them perfect. The appeal to “imperfection” cuts both ways.

Either moral reasoning works (even if fallibly), or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then calling anything “perfect righteousness” becomes epistemically empty.

False. Whoever wrote the book of Job, or inscribed the code of Hammurabi, is irrelevant to the validity of the book and the code.

Authorship is highly relevant when a text makes extraordinary claims.

If the Code of Hammurabi claims legal authority, its historical origin matters for understanding its context and intent.

If a text claims divine revelation, inerrancy, and perfect moral authority, then:

• Who wrote it
• When it was written
• Under what conditions
• With what sources

are directly relevant to its credibility.

Anonymity does not automatically falsify a claim.
But it absolutely affects evidential weight — especially when the claim is supernatural authorship.

If instead we show “apparent errors are not error,” then the claim shifts from claimed perfection to demonstrable perfection.

Only if the demonstration does not depend on ad hoc harmonization.

When two passages appear to conflict, there are three possibilities:

1. One is wrong.
2. Both are metaphorical or literary.
3. A harmonization is proposed.

If every tension is resolved by introducing unseen assumptions, alternative timelines, literary redefinitions, or speculative explanations, then the standard being applied is interpretive elasticity — not demonstrable perfection.

Every religious tradition makes the same move:
• “It only appears contradictory.”
• “You are misreading the genre.”
• “You don’t understand the culture.”
• “There is a deeper harmony.”

The mere existence of a harmonization does not prove perfection. It proves that a harmonization can be imagined.

2Pe 1:20 — no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation.

That verse does not eliminate interpretation. It asserts a theological claim about origin.

Ironically, every denomination interprets that verse differently — which demonstrates that interpretation is unavoidable.

The existence of thousands of Christian denominations is empirical evidence that Scripture is interpreted in multiple, conflicting ways. Declaring “no private interpretation” does not remove interpretive diversity. It merely states a doctrinal position.

There is no moral truth, since morality by definition is imperfect. There's only moral principle.

This is a category error.

Human understanding of mathematics is imperfect. That does not mean mathematical truths do not exist.

Human scientific models are imperfect. That does not mean physical laws are unreal.

Likewise, imperfect moral reasoning does not entail the nonexistence of moral truth. It only means our access is fallible.

If morality were truly meaningless, then:

• Calling God righteous would be meaningless.
• Calling Hitler evil would be meaningless.
• Calling government law meaningful would be meaningless.

Yet you clearly treat some moral claims as meaningful. That presupposes standards beyond mere preference.

Gvt morality is meaningful to all governed by it…

Legal enforcement does not create moral truth.

A law can be:

• Enforced
• Powerful
• Feared

and still unjust.

History provides many examples of governments enforcing immoral laws, e.g. slavery. Enforcement produces compliance — not moral legitimacy.

If “meaningfulness” is defined as “backed by force,” then morality reduces to power. That is not righteousness. That is authority.

Hitler was also vegan…

This is historically inaccurate. Adolf Hitler was not a vegan. He consumed animal products, and his diet shifted for health reasons. More importantly, dietary preference had nothing to do with the moral structure of Nazism. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Reducing complex ethical discussions to caricatures about “vegan dictators” avoids the substance of the argument.

The question is not about veganism.
The question is whether causing unnecessary harm is morally justified.

To summarize:

• If humans cannot judge perfect righteousness, they cannot identify it either.
• Anonymity does not falsify a text but does affect evidential strength when divine authorship is claimed.
• Harmonization alone does not demonstrate perfection.
• Enforcement does not equal moral truth.
• Imperfect moral reasoning does not eliminate moral truth.

If moral truth does not exist, then “perfect righteousness” cannot exist either — because righteousness is a moral category.

You cannot dissolve morality and preserve divine moral perfection at the same time.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #37]

Evolution within a species is a verified process in every detail. Interspecies evolution is an unproven theory extrapolated from inner-species evolution.

This distinction between “within species” and “between species” is artificial.

Speciation is simply accumulated genetic change plus reproductive isolation. We have directly observed speciation events in plants, insects, fish, and laboratory populations. Once reproductive isolation occurs, you now have two species.

There is no biological wall where “microevolution” suddenly stops working.

The difference between so-called microevolution and macroevolution is time and accumulation — not mechanism.

Saying that evolution is proven fact, is true. Implying that interspecies evolution is a proven fact, is a lie.

Common descent is supported by independent, converging lines of evidence:

• Fossil succession in ordered strata
• Genetic phylogenetic trees that independently converge on the same branching pattern
• Endogenous retroviruses shared at identical genomic locations
• Human chromosome 2 fusion (matching two separate ape chromosomes)
• Observed speciation events

These are not “similarity arguments.” They are pattern-based, testable predictions.

If species were separately created, there is no reason they should fall into a nested hierarchical pattern that mirrors genetic branching.

Yet they do.

No single class of species on earth has ever been proven to transition into another different class.

“Class” is a human taxonomic label, not a biological barrier.

There was never a moment when a reptile suddenly gave birth to a bird. What occurred was gradual modification over millions of generations:

Theropod dinosaurs → feathered theropods → proto-birds → birds.

We have fossils showing feathered non-avian dinosaurs. We have transitional limb structures. We have transitional skulls and teeth.

Evolution predicts gradients, not sudden leaps.

There is never a single transitioned fossil between one species and another.

That misunderstands how evolution works.

Every organism is transitional between its ancestors and its descendants.

Tiktaalik shows a mixture of fish and tetrapod features:
• Fish scales and gills
• Limb-like bones capable of weight support

Archaeopteryx shows:
• Dinosaur teeth and tail
• Feathers and flight structures

Ambulocetus shows:
• Functional walking limbs
• Early whale ear structures

These are not “hybrids.” They are exactly what gradual evolutionary modification predicts.

Dinosaurs supplanted by small mammals.

No.

Dinosaurs dominated for ~160 million years. After the asteroid impact, non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. Mammals diversified into ecological niches left vacant.

That is ecological succession, not contradiction.

Humans are not listed among primate species.

This is factually incorrect.

Humans are classified as:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens

Humans are apes. This is standard biological taxonomy.

1 Chromosome difference between man and primate, is 1 chromosome difference too much.

Human chromosome 2 contains telomere sequences in the middle and two centromere regions — precisely what you would expect if two ancestral ape chromosomes fused.

Chimpanzees have 24 chromosome pairs.
Humans have 23 pairs.

The fusion event is visible in the DNA sequence.

This is not “similarity.” It is structural evidence of shared ancestry.

Humans and chimps share identical ERV insertions at identical genome locations. Except one.

Sharing thousands of ERVs at identical genomic locations is powerful evidence of common descent.

Independent insertion at the exact same genomic address is astronomically improbable.

One difference does not negate thousands of matches.

Supported by explanatory models and near similarities is not proven fact.

Science does not operate on absolute metaphysical certainty. It operates on explanatory power, predictive success, and converging evidence.

Gravity is also a theory.
Germ theory is a theory.
Atomic theory is a theory.

In science, a theory is not a guess. It is a comprehensive explanatory framework supported by evidence.

Evolution has made successful predictions:
• Transitional fossils found in predicted strata
• Genetic patterns predicted before genome sequencing
• Geographic distribution patterns
• Vestigial structures

Creation models do not generate comparable predictive frameworks.

Creation simply remains the first primary explanation.

Being first chronologically does not make an explanation correct.

Ancient cultures attributed lightning to gods.
Germ theory replaced miasma theory.
Heliocentrism replaced geocentrism.

Scientific explanations replace earlier explanations when they better account for evidence.

Man-ape evolution is biologically unproven.

Human and chimp DNA similarity is approximately 98% to 99% in coding regions.

The phylogenetic trees constructed from independent genes converge on the same branching pattern.

Fossil hominins show gradual cranial capacity increase, pelvic changes, and bipedal adaptation over millions of years.

This is not ideology.
It is convergent data from multiple independent disciplines.

To summarize:

• “Micro vs macro” is a false dichotomy.
• Speciation is observed.
• Fossils show predicted transitional gradients.
• Genetics independently confirms branching descent.
• Chromosome 2 fusion is direct structural evidence.
• ERVs strongly support shared ancestry.

Calling evolution “ideology” does not refute the evidence. It avoids engaging with it.

If separate creation were true, we would not expect:

• Nested hierarchical genetic trees
• Shared genomic errors
• Transitional anatomical gradients
• Chromosome fusion signatures

Yet all of these are observed.

The question is not whether evolution is perfectly understood.

The question is which model better explains the totality of the evidence.

Common descent does.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #40]

Yes, people can disagree with claims that are not proven true.

Disagreement does not determine whether something is proven. Evidence does.

Climate change, evolution, the age of the Earth, and mass extinctions are supported by converging lines of evidence from independent disciplines — geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, genetics, paleontology.

Flat-earthers disagree. Holocaust deniers disagree. That does not make the evidence disappear.

Your statement reduces epistemology to personal acceptance: “I don’t believe it, therefore it isn’t proven.” That is not how knowledge works.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe you.

You don’t have to believe me. The evidence is published, peer-reviewed, and independently verified across multiple fields. Facts remain facts, even if some people deny them.

Radiometric dating, stratigraphy, fossil succession, iridium layers at the K-Pg boundary, shocked quartz, Chicxulub crater data — these are not personal opinions.

If your standard is “I personally must feel convinced,” then nothing outside your immediate perception can ever count as knowledge.

Is killing evil people really harm?

Yes.

Killing is the irreversible termination of a conscious being’s existence.

Now, you are raising a different issue: self-defense or prevention of harm.

If someone is actively about to kill others, stopping them — even lethally — can be justified as harm prevention.

But that is not what Biblical genocide narratives describe.

They describe:

• Killing entire populations
• Including infants, children and non-combatants.
• Including those incapable of moral agency

That is not targeted self-defense. That is indiscriminate mass murder.

God has the right to decide the length of life, because He has given it.

This is still divine command theory in substance.

You are grounding moral permission in ownership:

“God gave life, therefore He can end it arbitrarily.”

But giving something does not automatically justify reclaiming it arbitrarily.

If I donate a kidney to someone, I do not retain the right to take it back.

If God gives life with consciousness, relationships, and suffering attached to its removal, then ending it still constitutes harm to that being.

The question is not power.
The question is justice.

Also, you have not proven that the Biblical God exists and that he created living things. You keep asserting it without proving it with evidence.

Abortions are the greatest genocide in human history. Over 70 million babies murdered each year. Do you think it is morally wrong?

First, the term “genocide” has a definition: intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Abortion does not fit that definition.

Second, abortion debates revolve around:

• Personhood
• Bodily autonomy
• Viability
• Maternal health

People argue about when moral status begins.

But even in that debate, participants use harm-based reasoning.

By contrast, you defend killing entire populations — including born infants, children and non-combatants — because God commanded it.

That is a categorically different scale and type of action.

Infants and children are moral agents. They can understand good and evil.

Infants cannot understand good and evil in any developed sense. Show me an infant who works as a judge!

They lack:

• Conceptual reasoning
• Moral reflection
• Intent formation

Even most legal systems recognize diminished responsibility for minors.

If you claim babies are morally accountable in the same sense as adults, you are redefining moral agency beyond recognition.

I believe it is possible God can know if a baby is righteous or not.

That introduces inherited guilt or pre-action condemnation. Both are evil and absurd ideas.

If a being has committed no act and is judged unrighteous prior to action, then moral responsibility no longer depends on behavior.

That undermines the very concept of justice as response to action.

Humans have no right to murder. Even if death is not the end, it does not matter, when you have no right to murder.

This creates a double standard:

• Humans cannot kill because they lack authority.
• God can kill because He has authority.

But authority does not automatically create moral goodness.

If morality is simply “who has authority,” then morality collapses into power hierarchy.

The question remains: is killing innocent infants, children and non-combatants good in itself?

If the answer is “yes, if God does it,” then goodness is no longer independent of will.

I say, as a giver of life, God has the right to decide how long it lasts.

You are asserting a right.

But rights require justification.

Why does creating a being give unlimited moral permission over that being?

Parents create children (biologically), yet they do not gain the moral right to kill them.

Creation does not equal unlimited disposal rights.

If there is a person who would kill million people, would it be morally right to kill him?

If someone is actively about to kill millions and there is no other way to stop him, lethal force could be justified as last-resort harm prevention.

That is not arbitrary killing.

It is proportional defensive action.

But Biblical genocide narratives do not describe imminent defensive necessity. They describe pre-emptive extermination of entire populations, including those incapable of threat.

That distinction matters.

Genesis 1:29 could be before the garden…

Genesis 1:29 states:

“Every tree… shall be for food.”

Genesis 2:17 states:

“You shall not eat.”

If you resolve this by chronology, then the text is not straightforward and literal — it requires harmonization.

Which contradicts the claim that the text is simple and self-evident.

Also, saying “he could eat, but it had consequences” contradicts the explicit prohibition language (“you shall not”).

That is reinterpretation to preserve consistency. It does not eliminate the contradiction.

Maybe for you. To me there is the question, why would God’s decision be right.

Good — that is the real question.

If God’s decision is right because it aligns with goodness independent of Him, then goodness is not defined by command.

If God’s decision is right simply because he decides it, then morality reduces to authority.

You cannot escape that dilemma by changing vocabulary.

The core issue remains:

Is morality grounded in:

• Harm and wellbeing (objective consequences), or
• Authority and ownership?

If harm matters, then killing innocents is wrong regardless of who does it.

If authority determines rightness, then morality becomes submission.

That is the fundamental divide.

Here is the 11th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

What kind of animals may we eat?
Don't eat animals. Be a vegan (or at least a vegetarian).
God originally told humans to eat only plants.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29
Proverbs tells us not to be among the "riotous eaters of flesh."
Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh. Proverbs 23:20
Daniel refused to defile himself by eating the meat that the king fed him.
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat. Daniel 1:8
And Paul said we shouldn't eat meat if it offends other people. (And God knows it offends those weak-minded vegetarians.)
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21
Only certain kinds of animals may be eaten.
Don't eat animals that chew the cud or divide the hoof.
Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore, they are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. Deuteronomy 14:7-8

These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Leviticus 11:2-4

Eat anything that moves.
After the flood, God changed his mind about what people should eat. Their vegan days were over; now they were to eat everything that moves. (Plants were no longer on the menu.)
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. Genesis 9:3

Permission to eat all animals, clean and unclean, was also given in Deuteronomy.

Thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after ... the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart. Deuteronomy 12:15

Thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. ... Thou shalt kill .. and thou shalt eat ... whatsoever thy soul lusteth after ... The roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike. Deuteronomy 12:20-22

And a voice told Peter (via trance) to kill and eat every kind of four-footed beast, creeping thing, and bird.
Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Acts 10:9-13
You'll know the end of the world is coming when you see lots of vegetarians (who eat the devil's food).
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3
Eat whatever you want. Nothing is unclean, so there's no need to wash it.
Jesus said we can eat whatever we want. It isn't what goes in to your mouth that defiles you, it's what comes out "into the draught" (the latrine).
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Mark 7:18-20, Matthew 15:11
Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever is set in front of them.
And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. Luke 10:8

And Paul said to eat whatever you find at the grocery store. It's all clean.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat. 1 Corinthians 10:25

There is nothing unclean of itself. Romans 14:2

[1213]

Climate change, evolution, the age of the Earth, and mass extinctions are supported by converging lines of evidence from independent disciplines — ….

It seems to me that you mix up real evidence/proof and the stories people make about the evidence that is real.

Climate change may be real; it is likely that climate has changed as long as earth has existed and continues to change as long as earth is in current form. It is ridiculous to think it will stop by paying taxes, as the politicians and people who get filthy rich by “green” policies seem to think.

But, about mass extinctions. I have no problem in believing there was a great flood that killed everything on top of dry land, as the Bible tells. Lot of evidence for that.

Evolution theory is pseudoscience and no good reason to believe it.

If someone is actively about to kill others, stopping them — even lethally — can be justified as harm prevention….

So, if God kills as harm prevention, it is ok?

First, the term “genocide” has a definition: intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Ok, in that case I don’t think there is any genocide in the Bible. If God kills, I don’t think it is based on nationality, race, nor religion.

Infants cannot understand good and evil in any developed sense.

It seems neither can you.

I don’t think there is any good reason to think infants can’t understand. If it would be true, they would not learn anything.

I believe it is possible God can know if a baby is righteous or not.

That introduces inherited guilt or pre-action condemnation
…
If a being has committed no act and is judged unrighteous prior to action, then moral responsibility no longer depends on behavior.

Righteousness is not tied to has person done already something. It is more like right understanding, wisdom of the just. I think it is possible that baby already has that, even before he has done anything.

But rights require justification.

Yes. And it can be justified that God has the right to determine the length of life, because He has given it.

Parents create children (biologically),

Parents don’t create. They procreate, if they are lucky and God allows it.

If someone is actively about to kill millions and there is no other way to stop him, lethal force could be justified as last-resort harm prevention.

That is not arbitrary killing.

Thank you. Then I don’t think God arbitrarily kills and it is justified, if He kills evil people.

Here is the 11th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

What kind of animals may we eat?
Don't eat animals. Be a vegan (or at least a vegetarian).
God originally told humans to eat only plants.

God did not say “eat only plants”. If the Bible is wrong, you would not need to lie about it. Could you give one contradiction that is not based on lies, or bad interpretations?

…
Proverbs tells us not to be among the "riotous eaters of flesh."
Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh. Proverbs 23:20

“Riotous eaters of flesh”, not the same as “eaters of flesh”. Riotous eater is also translated gluttons, which means person who eats too much.

Daniel refused to defile himself by eating the meat that the king fed him.
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat. Daniel 1:8

Not eating king’s meat is not the same as not eat any meat.

And Paul said we shouldn't eat meat if it offends other people. (And God knows it offends those weak-minded vegetarians.)
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21

Paul is not speaking about vegetarians, but about people who think some food is unclean (as said in the OT) and therefore not good to eat. And the point is, if one is in a group where some think some food is unclean, then it is better not to have it, for not to cause problems for the person.

Eat anything that moves.
After the flood, God changed his mind about what people should eat. Their vegan days were over; now they were to eat everything that moves. (Plants were no longer on the menu.)
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. Genesis 9:3

Permission to eat all animals, clean and unclean, was also given in Deuteronomy.

It is possible that after the flood, there was only clean things to eat. And it was said only for Noah and his family. Is there some reason to think it applies to all people in all times?

Thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after ... the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart. Deuteronomy 12:15

It says, “according to the blessing of Jehovah your God”. I think that means, according to how God has instructed. It is not the same as eat what ever you want. And it says “the unclean and the clean one may eat” not “you can eat the unclean and the clean one”. In the case of Deuteronomy 12:20-22, the situation is the same. Not really about eating unclean things.

Only with all the desire of your soul you shall sacrifice and shall eat flesh within all your gates according to the blessing of Jehovah your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean one may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the hart.
Deuteronomy 12:15

…
Eat whatever you want. Nothing is unclean, so there's no need to wash it.
Jesus said we can eat whatever we want. It isn't what goes in to your mouth that defiles you, it's what comes out "into the draught" (the latrine).
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Mark 7:18-20, Matthew 15:11
Jesus told his disciples to eat whatever is set in front of them.
…
And Paul said to eat whatever you find at the grocery store. It's all clean.

I think Jesus was speaking agains the idea that eating some food could make person unclean, not that it is ok to eat unclean food.

And people have always been allowed to eat clean food. If now all food has been made clean, it is not wrong to eat it.

Skepticsannotatedbible.com seems to be extremely poor source. You have not managed to bring even one serious problem against the Bible, form there.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #45]

It seems to me that you mix up real evidence/proof and the stories people make about the evidence that is real.

There is an important distinction between raw data and explanatory models. But scientific conclusions are not “stories” in the sense of arbitrary narratives. They are inferences drawn from converging, independent lines of evidence.

For example:

• Ice core data
• Ocean heat measurements
• Satellite temperature records
• Atmospheric CO₂ measurements
• Glacial retreat observations

These are not “stories.” They are measurable data sets. The explanatory model (anthropogenic climate change) is supported because it best accounts for all of them together.

If you reject a scientific explanation, the burden is to provide a competing model that explains the same data equally well or better.

The Two Creation Accounts in Genesis

1) Genesis 1:1–2:3 (Often called the “Priestly” account)

Sequence:

1. Light and darkness separated (Day 1)
2. Sky (firmament) separates waters (Day 2)
3. Dry land and vegetation appear (Day 3)
4. Sun, moon, and stars created (Day 4)
5. Sea creatures and birds created (Day 5)
6. Land animals created (Day 6a)
7. Humans (male and female together) created (Day 6b)
8. God rests (Day 7)

Key features:

• Structured in six days + rest
• Humans created last
• Male and female created together
• Plants appear before humans
• Animals appear before humans

2) Genesis 2:4–25 (Often called the “Yahwist” account)

Sequence (as presented in the narrative):

1. No shrubs/plants yet because no rain and no human to till the ground
2. Man formed from dust
3. Garden planted
4. Trees grow in the garden
5. Animals formed
6. Woman formed from man’s rib

Key features:

• Man created before cultivated plants
• Man created before animals (in narrative flow)
• Woman created later, from man
• Focused, garden-centered narrative

Main Differences

Order of plants and humans:
Genesis 1 – Plants before humans
Genesis 2 – Man before cultivated plants

Order of animals and humans:
Genesis 1 – Animals before humans
Genesis 2 – Animals formed after man (in narrative flow)

Creation of humans:
Genesis 1 – Male and female together
Genesis 2 – Man first, woman later

Style:
Genesis 1 – Cosmic, structured, seven-day framework
Genesis 2 – Narrative, localized, anthropomorphic

The Scientific Timeline: Big Bang to Present

1. The Big Bang (~13.8 billion years ago)

• Universe begins expanding
• Matter and radiation form
• Hydrogen and helium emerge
• First stars and galaxies form

2. Formation of the Solar System (~4.6 billion years ago)

• Sun forms from collapsing gas cloud
• Earth forms from accretion
• Moon forms (likely from giant impact)
• Early Earth is molten

3. Origin of Life (~3.5–4 billion years ago)

• First simple single-celled organisms
• No oxygen atmosphere initially
• Life is microbial for billions of years

4. Oxygenation and Complex Cells (~2.4 billion–600 million years ago)

• Cyanobacteria produce oxygen
• Atmosphere changes
• Eukaryotic cells evolve
• Multicellular organisms appear

5. Cambrian Explosion (~541 million years ago)

• Rapid diversification of marine animals
• First complex body plans

6. Life Moves onto Land (~400 million years ago)

• Plants colonize land
• Arthropods follow
• Amphibians evolve
• Reptiles evolve

7. Dinosaurs (~230–66 million years ago)

• Dinosaurs dominate land ecosystems
• Mass extinction at 66 million years ago (asteroid impact)
• Non-avian dinosaurs go extinct

8. Mammals and Primates (~65 million years ago onward)

• Mammals diversify after dinosaur extinction
• Primates evolve
• Apes evolve

9. Human Evolution

• Early hominins ~6–7 million years ago
• Genus Homo ~2 million years ago
• Homo sapiens ~300,000 years ago
• Agriculture ~10,000 years ago
• Industrial revolution ~250 years ago
• Space age ~70 years ago

Key Contrast

Genesis narrative:

• Earth before sun
• Plants before sun
• Humans created suddenly
• Timeline: six days

Scientific model:

• Sun before Earth
• Earth before life
• Life billions of years before humans
• Humans very recent
• Timeline: 13.8 billion years

If someone wishes to harmonize the accounts, that is a theological move. But taken in their plain narrative order, the two Genesis accounts differ from each other and differ substantially from the scientific timeline. The Bible is false because it fails to match the evidence-based account of events.

It is ridiculous to think it will stop by paying taxes…

No serious climate scientist claims that “paying taxes” stops climate change. The claim is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions reduces radiative forcing. That is physics, not politics.

Whether particular policies are effective is a separate policy debate. But that does not invalidate the underlying physical science.

Lot of evidence for that [a global flood].

There is no geological evidence for a single global flood covering all land in the recent past.

We do not see:

• A single uniform sediment layer worldwide
• A bottleneck in all terrestrial species ~4,000 years ago
• Disruption in tree-ring records
• Disruption in ice core layers
• Genetic evidence of universal population reset

Instead, we see continuous ecological, geological, and genetic histories.

Local floods? Yes. Massive regional floods? Yes. A global flood wiping out all humans except Noah's family and all land animals except those on Noah's Ark? The evidence does not support that at all.

Evolution theory is pseudoscience and no good reason to believe it.

Evolution is supported by:

• Fossil succession
• Genetic homology
• Observed speciation events
• Endogenous retroviruses
• Chromosome 2 fusion in humans
• Biogeography
• Antibiotic resistance

These are independent disciplines converging on common descent.

Calling it “pseudoscience” does not engage the evidence. It dismisses it without argument.

What Would Disprove Evolution?

To be precise, we must distinguish between:

• Evolution as change over time
• Common descent (all life shares ancestry)
• Natural selection and related mechanisms

The core of modern evolutionary biology is common descent with modification.
So what would actually falsify it?

1. Fossils in the Wrong Geological Order

If we found:

• Human fossils in Cambrian rock
• Rabbits in Precambrian strata
• Flowering plants in trilobite layers

That would seriously undermine evolution.

As J.B.S. Haldane famously said:
“Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would disprove evolution.”

Stratigraphic order is one of evolution’s strongest predictions.

2. Genetic Patterns That Don’t Form Nested Hierarchies

Evolution predicts a branching tree of life.

If DNA comparisons showed:

• No consistent nested hierarchy
• Humans genetically closer to fish than to other mammals
• Random unrelated genetic clustering

That would contradict common descent.

Instead, independent genes consistently produce the same branching patterns.

3. Mammals With No Evolutionary Precursors

If complex organisms appeared:

• Fully formed
• With no transitional forms
• With no ancestral lineage

That would undermine evolutionary gradualism.

Instead, we find transitional sequences:

• Fish → early tetrapods
• Reptiles → mammals
• Theropod dinosaurs → birds
• Early hominins → modern humans

4. Mechanisms Proven Incapable of Producing Variation

If mutation and natural selection were shown to be:

• Incapable of producing new genetic information
• Unable to generate functional novelty
• Mathematically insufficient for observed biodiversity

That would challenge evolutionary theory.

Instead, we directly observe:

• Mutation
• Selection
• Gene duplication
• Speciation
• Antibiotic resistance

5. A Young Earth Proven Beyond Doubt

If it were conclusively proven that:

• Earth is only ~6,000–10,000 years old
• Radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed
• Ice cores, tree rings, plate tectonics all collapse

Then macroevolution would not have time to occur.

But multiple independent dating methods converge on ~4.5 billion years.

6. Separate Origins of Life With No Genetic Connection

If major life forms:

• Had fundamentally different genetic codes
• Used incompatible biochemistry
• Shared no homologous genes

That would strongly argue against common ancestry.

Instead, all known life uses:

• DNA/RNA
• The same genetic code (with minor variations)
• ATP as energy currency
• Ribosomes

That universality strongly supports common descent.

7. Direct Observation of Species Permanently Fixed

If it were shown that:

• No species can ever diverge
• No speciation events occur
• Genetic barriers are absolute

That would undermine evolution.

But speciation has been observed in:

• Plants
• Insects
• Fish
• Birds

8. A Better Competing Model That Explains All the Same Data

Science is comparative.

To replace evolution, an alternative must explain:

• Fossils
• Biogeography
• Genetics
• Embryology
• Comparative anatomy
• Observed adaptation

No competing model currently explains all of these coherently.

Important Clarification

Evolution is not “unfalsifiable.”
It makes risky predictions:

• Order of fossils
• Genetic branching patterns
• Transitional forms
• Shared molecular machinery

If these predictions failed, the theory would collapse.

Instead, for 150+ years, new discoveries have consistently reinforced it.

In Short

Evolution would be falsified by:

• Out-of-order fossils
• Genetic chaos instead of hierarchy
• Independent biochemistries
• Demonstrable impossibility of evolutionary mechanisms
• A young Earth proven conclusively

None of these have been found.

If evolution were false, the evidence across geology, genetics, and paleontology would look radically different from what we observe.

So, if God kills as harm prevention, it is ok?

If — and only if — lethal force is used as a last-resort immediate prevention of imminent harm, then yes, that can be justified.

But Biblical narratives often describe:

• Killing infants
• Killing entire populations
• Killing animals
• Killing after victory, not during imminent threat

Infants are not actively about to commit mass harm. That is the moral distinction.

Ok, in that case I don’t think there is any genocide in the Bible.

When a text commands:

• Destroy an entire people group
• Leave alive nothing that breathes
• Kill men, women, children, and infants

That meets the definition of genocide: intentional destruction of a people group.

If the justification is “God commanded it,” that does not change the definition. It changes the claimed authority, not the action described.

It seems neither can you.

Personal remarks do not strengthen an argument.

I don’t think there is any good reason to think infants can’t understand.

Developmental neuroscience is clear:

Infants do not possess fully developed moral reasoning capacities. Their prefrontal cortex is immature. They learn gradually through development.

Learning requires development. It does not imply prior full moral understanding. You keep denying facts and asserting falsehoods to be true. Infants don't have the capacity to understand right and wrong the way adults do. The fact that you keep insisting that they do shows how off your beliefs are from the truth.

Righteousness is not tied to has person done already something.

If righteousness is assigned independent of actions, then moral evaluation is no longer behavior-based.

That raises a serious ethical question:

On what basis is someone judged righteous or unrighteous prior to action?

If it is based on future foreknowledge, then the person is condemned before acting.
If it is based on nature, then it resembles inherited status.

Either way, responsibility becomes detached from voluntary conduct.

It can be justified that God has the right to determine the length of life, because He has given it.

Creating life does not logically entail unlimited moral authority over it.

Parents biologically generate children. That does not grant them the moral right to kill them.

Ownership does not automatically follow from causation.

God did not say “eat only plants”.

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat" - Genesis 1:29 (KJV)

Genesis 9:3 later explicitly permits eating animals.

If animal consumption was already assumed in Genesis 1, the explicit post-flood permission becomes redundant.

That is why many theologians interpret Genesis 1 as describing an originally plant-based diet.

This is not a lie. It is a textual observation.

“Riotous eaters of flesh” … means gluttons.

Correct. It condemns excess.

But it still demonstrates that excessive meat consumption is morally criticized. That is part of the larger dietary tension within the text.

Not eating king’s meat is not the same as not eat any meat.

Correct. Daniel’s case shows selective abstention. It demonstrates that plant-based diets were viewed positively in some contexts.

It contributes to internal diversity of dietary themes.

Paul is not speaking about vegetarians…

Romans 14 explicitly mentions people who eat only vegetables (14:2).

The broader point remains: dietary practices shift across contexts and authors.

It is possible that after the flood, there was only clean things to eat.

Genesis 9:3 says:

“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.”

That is universal language.

Later Mosaic law restricts clean/unclean animals.

That is a change in regulation across time.

I think Jesus was speaking against the idea that eating some food could make person unclean.

Yes — and Mark explicitly adds: “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

That is a significant departure from Levitical food laws.

Again, this is development in theological interpretation across texts.

You have not managed to bring even one serious problem against the Bible.

The serious issues are not rhetorical. They are structural:

• Moral tensions (divine violence vs. universal love)
• Legal developments (clean/unclean shifting)
• Theological evolution (covenant expansions)
• Historical-critical evidence of redaction

If a text is true, it should withstand careful scrutiny, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Here is the 12th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Who was Timnah?
Eliphaz's concubine
These are the names of Esau's sons; Eliphaz, Eliphaz... And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz.... Genesis 36:10-12

Eliphaz's son.
The sons of Esau; Eliphaz.....The sons of Eliphaz ... Timnah.... 1 Chronicles 1:35-36

Both of these verses come from lists of Esau's descendants, so it seems likely Timnah that refers to the same person.

Lotan's sister
These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan ... and Lotan's sister was Timna. Genesis 36:20-22

The sons of Seir; Lotan ... and Timna was Lotan's sister. 1 Chronicles 1:38-39

[1213]

…
• Ice core data

Now that you brought up this, it is interesting what can be known about the ice core data. According to the new data, Greenland was ice free ~7,000 years ago.

https://x.com/amuse/status/2022995685537407082?s=20

That means:
1) Now that the average ice thickness is 1,673 m, it would be about ~0,24 m increase average each year.
2) Some claim the ice is over million years old.
3) With the average increase in thickness, the ice cover would be over 230,000 m thick, if millions of years.

Clearly the ice coverage is not over 230,000 m thick. That means:

1) Lot of ice has melted, which would erase the history of millions of years and make it not supported by the ice. Or,
2) There has not been millions of years.

In either case, ice core samples are not credible reason to believe in millions of years. And they actually support the Biblical flood idea.

1. No shrubs/plants yet because no rain and no human to till the ground
2. Man formed from dust
3. Garden planted
4. Trees grow in the garden
5. Animals formed
6. Woman formed from man’s rib

Planting a garden doesn’t mean plants could not have been created before it. Neither does forming animals mean animals could not have been created earlier.

Also, the reason for that no plant had yet sprung up, was that there had been no rain yet. If we are literal and read what the Bible says.

• Sun before Earth
• Earth before life
• Life billions of years before humans
• Humans very recent
• Timeline: 13.8 billion years…

The problem is, the people making those claims are not credible.

No serious climate scientist claims that “paying taxes” stops climate change. The claim is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions reduces radiative forcing. That is physics, not politics

Biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour. Why do you think boiling water is not limited, but making small amount CO2 is, although it is insignificant for the temperature of earth?

• A single uniform sediment layer worldwide
• A bottleneck in all terrestrial species ~4,000 years ago
• Disruption in tree-ring records
• Disruption in ice core layers
• Genetic evidence of universal population reset

I think you are making baseless assumptions and that the flood was more likely about 7,000 years ago. If the flood happened as told in the Bible, it is not reasonable to assume uniform sediment layer. The flood would have caused multiple layers, and they would be distributed differently in many regions, because regions are different in composition.

Calling it “pseudoscience” does not engage the evidence. It dismisses it without argument…
…So what would actually falsify it?

It is pseudoscience, because can’t be tested and can’t really be falsified. If we would find for example a mammal that lies eggs, it would be fit to the theory. Same is with all possible findings.

If mutation and natural selection were shown to be:

• Incapable of producing new genetic information
• Unable to generate functional novelty
• Mathematically insufficient for observed biodiversity

To prove evolution theory, correct and a real scientific theory, we should be able to test it. For example, breed rats into whalelike creatures.

• Radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed

It is, because based on assumption of what was the composition in the moment the object was formed.

If evolution were false, the evidence across geology, genetics, and paleontology would look radically different from what we observe.

Why?

• Destroy an entire people group
• Leave alive nothing that breathes
• Kill men, women, children, and infants

That meets the definition of genocide: intentional destruction of a people group.

In that case aborting over 70 million babies in a year is genocide.

On what basis is someone judged righteous or unrighteous prior to action?

One is essentially judged righteous by his thoughts.

The serious issues are not rhetorical. They are structural:

• Moral tensions (divine violence vs. universal love)

This is an issue about your opinion vs. the Bible opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but you are free to keep it.

• Legal developments (clean/unclean shifting)

I think it is still the same, don’t eat unclean things.

• Theological evolution (covenant expansions)

Essentially the idea is the same still, people should be righteous.

If a text is true, it should withstand careful scrutiny, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

You have failed showing it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Here is the 12th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

… so it seems likely Timnah that refers to the same person….

If one is a woman and one is a man, how could they refer to same person?

I can understand if the names can look confusing. It was customary to use same names, which is why there may have been lot of people with the same names. As it is even today. Doesn’t necessarily mean all people with the same name are actually the same person.

So, no, this is not necessary any mistake.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #47]

According to new data, Greenland was ice free ~7,000 years ago…

The claim circulating on social media is based on a misrepresentation of specific regional findings.

What scientists have found is that parts of Greenland’s margin were ice-free during the Holocene climatic optimum (~8,000–5,000 years ago). That does not mean the entire Greenland Ice Sheet vanished.

Key corrections:

1. Ice sheets do not grow at a constant linear rate.
Your calculation (0.24 m per year × millions of years) assumes steady accumulation. That is incorrect. Ice sheets:

• Accumulate in the interior
• Flow outward under gravity
• Melt at margins
• Calve into the ocean

They are dynamic systems, not static piles of snow.

2. Ice cores are dated by annual layers, not assumed thickness.
Greenland cores (e.g., GISP2, GRIP) contain visible seasonal layers going back over 100,000 years. Antarctic cores extend back ~800,000 years. These are counted like tree rings and cross-validated by volcanic ash markers.

3. A global flood ~7,000 years ago would erase annual layering.
Yet we see uninterrupted annual layers, dust layers, volcanic sulfate layers, and isotope cycles consistent with glacial cycles — not a chaotic flood deposit.

Ice cores do not support a global flood. They directly contradict it.

Planting a garden doesn’t mean plants could not have been created before it…

The issue is sequence consistency.

Genesis 1:
• Plants created before humans
• Animals created before humans

Genesis 2:
• No shrubs yet
• Man formed
• Garden planted
• Trees grow
• Animals formed

You are adding harmonizations that are not in the text. The plain reading presents different narrative orders — it’s what literary analysis shows.

The people making those claims are not credible.

Dismissing entire scientific disciplines without engaging the evidence is not an argument.

Cosmology rests on:

• Cosmic microwave background radiation
• Redshift of galaxies
• Stellar nucleosynthesis
• Radiometric dating
• Plate tectonics
• Stratigraphy

These are independent lines of evidence converging on the same timeline (~13.8 billion years).

To reject them, you must show systematic error across physics, astronomy, geology, and chemistry — not merely assert distrust.

Biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour…

Correct: water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas.

But this argument misunderstands climate physics.

Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

• CO₂ increases temperature
• Warmer air holds more water vapour
• Water vapour amplifies warming

If you remove COâ‚‚ forcing, water vapour decreases accordingly.

COâ‚‚ is the control knob because:

• It persists in the atmosphere for centuries
• Its concentration is directly increased by fossil fuel burning
• Radiative forcing from CO₂ is physically measurable

Boiling water in your kitchen does not alter global atmospheric concentration meaningfully. Industrial emissions do.

Flood would not produce uniform sediment layers.

Correct — which makes the flood model worse, not better.

We observe:

• Ordered fossil succession
• Marine fossils on mountains in structured strata
• No global human bottleneck 7,000 years ago
• Continuous tree ring records older than 7,000 years
• Continuous ice core layers older than 7,000 years

A global flood would produce chaotic mixing. Instead, we see consistent ecological and chronological ordering.

It is pseudoscience because it can’t be tested…
If we find a mammal that lays eggs it fits theory.

That example actually refutes your point.

We have mammals that lay eggs: platypus and echidna.
They fit evolutionary prediction precisely as transitional monotremes.

Evolution is falsifiable. It would be falsified if:

• Mammals appeared before fish in fossil layers
• Human DNA had no similarity to other primates
• Radiometric systems gave random dates
• Genetic nested hierarchies did not exist

Instead, all evidence aligns with common descent.

Breed rats into whale-like creatures.

Macroevolution does not occur within a few generations.

Speciation and large morphological shifts require:

• Mutation
• Selection
• Genetic drift
• Geological timescales

We do observe:

• Speciation in insects, plants, and vertebrates
• Ring species
• Transitional fossils (e.g., Pakicetus → Ambulocetus → Basilosaurus in whale evolution)

Science studies long-term processes via fossil and genetic evidence, not short-term breeding demonstrations.

Radiometric dating is flawed because of assumptions.

Radiometric dating does not assume initial daughter isotope levels blindly.

It uses:

• Isochron methods
• Cross-checking between different isotopes (U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr)
• Concordance between independent dating systems

If the system were fundamentally flawed, independent isotope systems would not converge on the same ages. They do.

If evolution were false, why would evidence look different?

Because we would expect:

• Random fossil distribution
• No genetic nested hierarchy
• No ERV insertions shared across species
• No chromosome 2 fusion in humans
• No predictive power

Instead, biology shows structured descent patterns.

Aborting 70 million babies is genocide.

Genocide has a specific definition:

Intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Abortion debates concern personhood and individual fetal status. It is not the targeted destruction of an ethnic group.

Equating the two shifts the definition. Genocide and abortion are different terms with different meanings.

One is judged righteous by thoughts.

Biblical divine genocide includes killing infants who have no unrighteous thoughts because infants don't know languages and don't know ethics.

This is a moral contradiction.

Divine violence vs. love is your opinion.

If love is defined as willing the good of others, killing entire populations including children creates a definitional conflict.

This is a structural ethical issue, not mere preference.

Clean/unclean still applies.

The New Testament explicitly declares all foods clean (Mark 7:19; Acts 10). That is a doctrinal shift within the canon.

You failed to show it doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

We have discussed:

• Internal narrative sequence contradictions
• Moral contradictions
• Scientific conflicts with biology, geology and cosmology
• Historical and textual development

Scrutiny means examining these without pre-assuming infallibility.

If one is woman and one is man, how could they refer to same person?

The Timnah issue concerns genealogical listing discrepancies and overlapping names in Genesis and Chronicles. If the Bible was inerrant, it would not have discrepancies in genealogical listing.

Yes, repeated names were common.
But genealogical harmonization sometimes requires assuming distinct individuals without textual evidence.

Conclusion

The central difference between us is methodological:

You begin by assuming the Bible to be true and morally correct and deny or distort evidence to fit your assumption.

I begin with converging empirical evidence and adjust beliefs accordingly.

If a theory is true, it should survive independent cross-disciplinary testing.

Modern geology, genetics, cosmology, and climatology converge on deep time and evolution.

Dismissing them wholesale requires stronger evidence than reinterpretation of ambiguous verses.

That is the evidential gap.

Here is the 13th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Does God work on the Sabbath?
No, even God has to rest sometimes.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:2-3
Yes. Jesus and his dad always work on the Sabbath.
Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. John 5:16-17

[1213]

What scientists have found is that parts of Greenland’s margin were ice-free during the Holocene climatic optimum (~8,000–5,000 years ago). That does not mean the entire Greenland Ice Sheet vanished.

If there was an area that was without ice and now has over 1,600 m ice, I think it would silly, illogical, to think it was just a local thing and otherwise there was ice as much as nowadays.

In any case, it tells about the speed of how ice can accumulate. If in one place it accumulates at that speed, it is likely accumulating at the same speed in the larger area.

1. Ice sheets do not grow at a constant linear rate.
Your calculation (0.24 m per year × millions of years) assumes steady accumulation. That is incorrect. Ice sheets:

• Accumulate in the interior
• Flow outward under gravity
• Melt at margins
• Calve into the ocean

They are dynamic systems, not static piles of snow.

And that is why I don’t believe it could show millions of years.

2. Ice cores are dated by annual layers, not assumed thickness.
Greenland cores (e.g., GISP2, GRIP) contain visible seasonal layers going back over 100,000 years. Antarctic cores extend back ~800,000 years. These are counted like tree rings and cross-validated by volcanic ash markers.

The ~7,000 year ice cover shows that annual layers must be thicker than what 100,000 years would show.

I don’t think the annual layers tells about years. They tell about when it rained/snowed, melted and froze. Those things can happen many times in a year, which is why the annual calculation is not credible.

Ice cores do not support a global flood. They directly contradict it.

I think they support it, because seems to have started after the flood. The flood obviously cooled the planet, which would have caused ice age and the growing of the great glaciers.

The issue is sequence consistency.

Genesis 1:
• Plants created before humans
• Animals created before humans

Genesis 2:
• No shrubs yet
• Man formed
• Garden planted
• Trees grow
• Animals formed

You are adding harmonizations that are not in the text. The plain reading presents different narrative orders — it’s what literary analysis shows.

You are not being honest. For example, it is said: “No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up…” Gen. 2:5-6, not “No shrubs yet”.

It is interesting that atheists, or people against the Bible, need lies to make the Bible look wrong. Why should I trust you in anything, if even in such a small thing you can’t be trusted?

• CO₂ increases temperature

Why do you believe so?

A global flood would produce chaotic mixing. …

I don’t think so. If it happened as told in the Bible, it would carry and arrange things in order, depending on the direction from where the water went. And the sediments would settle in many places quite smoothly, as the strata in Grand Canyon area.

We have mammals that lay eggs: platypus and echidna.
They fit evolutionary prediction precisely as transitional monotremes.

And similarly any other thing could be explained into the theory.

Evolution is falsifiable. It would be falsified if:

• Mammals appeared before fish in fossil layers
• Human DNA had no similarity to other primates
• Radiometric systems gave random dates
• Genetic nested hierarchies did not exist

All those could be explained, or dismissed.

Because we would expect:

• Random fossil distribution
• No genetic nested hierarchy
• No ERV insertions shared across species
• No chromosome 2 fusion in humans
• No predictive power

No good reason to expect those. Fossils are distributed by how they likely get trapped.

And creating similar things, causes naturally the illusion of nested hierarchy. You can see that also in everything people develop.

ERV insertions can happen to multiple species in the same way, without common ancestor.

Why would there be no chromosome 2 fusion in humans?

Instead, biology shows structured descent patterns.

Which can be just an illusion.

If love is defined as willing the good of others, killing entire populations including children creates a definitional conflict.

Unless it is good for others.

The New Testament explicitly declares all foods clean (Mark 7:19; Acts 10). That is a doctrinal shift within the canon.

Those scriptures don’t declare all food clean. The first is about food not making you unclean. And the second is actually about should people from other nations be accepted. Acts 10 doesn’t say all foods are clean.

If the Bible was inerrant, it would not have discrepancies in genealogical listing.

If the Bible would be errant, you would not need the straw-man arguments.

You begin by assuming the Bible to be true and morally correct and deny or distort evidence to fit your assumption.

No, I assume, if Bible is not correct, you can show it directly, without straw-man arguments, baseless claims and your beliefs that are not supported with anything solid.

Here is the 13th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Does God work on the Sabbath?
No, even God has to rest sometimes.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:2-3
Yes. Jesus and his dad always work on the Sabbath.
Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. John 5:16-17

Bible doesn't say God has to rest. It tells God rested from His creation work, did not create things on the seventh day. It is not the same as He rested from everything and didn’t do anything that day, nor that he has to rest.

It is interesting that all the "contradictions" you bring, come from distorting what is actually said. Why do you need to do that, if the Bible is wrong?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #49]

If there was an area that was without ice and now has over 1,600 m ice, I think it would silly, illogical, to think it was just a local thing and otherwise there was ice as much as nowadays.

It is not illogical. It is exactly what glaciology predicts.

Greenland’s ice sheet is thickest in the interior and thins toward the margins. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum (~8,000–5,000 years ago), evidence shows some coastal margins were ice-free while the central dome persisted.

Local deglaciation ≠ total ice sheet disappearance.

We know this because:
• Marine sediments remain undisturbed beneath the central ice sheet.
• Isostatic rebound patterns show partial retreat, not full collapse.
• Ice core continuity is preserved in the interior.

Glaciers retreat from edges first. That is standard glaciological behavior.

If in one place it accumulates at that speed, it is likely accumulating at the same speed in the larger area.

No. Ice accumulation is highly variable.

Accumulation depends on:
• Temperature
• Moisture transport
• Elevation
• Wind redistribution
• Ice flow dynamics

Interior Greenland accumulates slowly and compacts over time. Margins melt, calve, and flow outward.

Ice sheets are dynamic equilibrium systems, not vertical stacks growing uniformly.

And that is why I don’t believe it could show millions of years.

Dynamic flow does not erase annual layering in the interior.

In central Greenland and Antarctica:
• Annual layers are visible.
• Seasonal chemical signatures alternate (summer dust vs winter snow).
• Volcanic ash layers match historically dated eruptions.
• Oxygen isotope cycles match known climate oscillations.

These independent markers align.

If layers were random melt events, they would not:
• Show consistent seasonal chemistry
• Match known volcanic eruptions
• Correlate with orbital Milankovitch cycles

The data converges.

Those things can happen many times in a year, which is why the annual calculation is not credible.

Multiple melt events per year do occur near margins.

But deep interior cores show:
• Annual seasonal chemical oscillations
• Consistent thickness decrease with compaction depth
• No chaotic multi-layer distortion patterns

Additionally:
• Ice cores from different drilling sites match each other.
• Antarctic and Greenland cores correlate with each other.
• Marine sediment cores correlate with both.

Independent systems agreeing is not explained by random freeze–thaw repetition.

The flood obviously cooled the planet, which would have caused ice age.

A global flood would produce:

• Massive sediment mixing
• Disruption of annual layering
• Salinity anomalies in oceans
• Global biotic collapse patterns

Instead we see:
• Undisturbed annual ice layering
• Continuous coral reef growth sequences
• Intact tree-ring chronologies older than 4,000 years
• No global sediment homogenization

Ice cores extend far beyond the biblical flood timeline.

A flood severe enough to cover Everest would leave unmistakable geological chaos. That pattern is absent.

You are not being honest… Gen 2:5-6… not “No shrubs yet”.

Genesis 2:5 states:

“No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up…”

Genesis 1 already describes vegetation created on Day 3.

The contradiction is narrative sequence, not wording choice.

Genesis 1 order:
• Plants
• Animals
• Humans

Genesis 2 sequence:
• Man formed
• Garden planted
• Trees grow
• Animals formed (Hebrew: wayyitzer — same verb form as Gen 2:7)

Scholarly literary analysis identifies two distinct narrative traditions.

This is not dishonesty. It is standard textual criticism used by Jewish and Christian scholars as well.

Why do you believe COâ‚‚ increases temperature?

Because:

• CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation at specific wavelengths (laboratory physics since 1859 — Tyndall).
• Radiative transfer equations predict warming.
• Satellite spectra show outgoing radiation reduced at CO₂ absorption bands.
• Surface measurements show increased downward longwave radiation.
• Paleoclimate records correlate CO₂ and temperature across glacial cycles.

This is physics, not ideology.

If CO₂ did not trap heat, Venus would not be ~460°C with a dense CO₂ atmosphere.

A global flood would carry and arrange things in order… sediments settle smoothly like Grand Canyon strata.

Hydrodynamic sorting cannot explain:

• Strict fossil succession (fish below amphibians below reptiles below mammals)
• Nested microfossil zonation
• Burrows and trackways between sediment layers
• Soil horizons between strata
• Reef structures growing in place

Flood deposition produces chaotic mixtures. We observe ordered ecological succession patterns.

The Grand Canyon layers show:
• Desert dunes (cross-bedding)
• Shallow marine limestones
• River deposits
• Long erosion gaps (unconformities)

That is environmental change over time, not single-event sorting.

Any other thing could be explained into the theory.

That would only be true if evolution lacked predictive constraints.

But it made specific predictions:

• Humans should share a fused chromosome (we do — chromosome 2).
• ERVs should be shared at identical insertion sites across related species (they are).
• Genetic similarity should form nested hierarchies (it does).
• Transitional fossils should appear in predicted strata (Tiktaalik was predicted and found in the exact expected layer).

Post-hoc explanation is not what happened. Many discoveries were predicted in advance.

All those could be explained, or dismissed.

If every possible observation can be explained under one framework but falsifies another, that matters.

Evolution is falsifiable because:
• Mammals in Cambrian rock would overturn it.
• Human DNA unrelated to primates would overturn it.
• Random ERV placement would overturn it.

Creation models have no such risk conditions.

ERV insertions can happen to multiple species in the same way.

The probability of independent identical retroviral insertions at the exact same genomic location across species is astronomically small.

Yet humans and chimpanzees share thousands of identical ERV insertion sites.

That is direct evidence of shared ancestry.

Why would there be no chromosome 2 fusion in humans?

If humans were separately created from other apes, we would expect:
• 24 chromosome pairs like other apes.

Instead humans have 23 pairs.

Chromosome 2 contains:
• Telomere sequences in the middle.
• Two centromere remnants.

Exactly what fusion predicts.

This was predicted before sequencing confirmed it.

Which can be just an illusion.

An illusion does not generate:
• Predictive power
• Genetic convergence across disciplines
• Agreement between paleontology, genetics, embryology, and biogeography

Multiple independent fields converging reduces the probability of illusion.

Unless it is good for others.

Killing infants and non-combatants cannot be framed as “willing their good” without redefining goodness as whatever the powerful declare.

If morality means anything objective, harm to innocent persons counts as harm.

Otherwise “good” becomes circular: good = commanded.

Mark 7 and Acts 10 don’t declare all foods clean.

Mark 7:19 explicitly states (Greek participle construction): “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

Most biblical scholars — including conservative ones — acknowledge this as a doctrinal shift regarding dietary law.

Acts 10 uses food imagery symbolically, but Peter’s conclusion explicitly removes prior purity restrictions tied to Mosaic law categories.

This reflects theological development within the canon.

If the Bible would be errant, you would not need straw-man arguments.

Pointing out textual contradictions is not a straw man.

Genealogies differ:
• Matthew traces through Solomon.
• Luke traces through Nathan.
• Generational counts differ.

That is textual variation. Recognizing variation is not distortion.

Genesis 2:2-3 vs John 5:17 is not contradiction.

Genesis states God rested from “all His work.”

John 5 states the Father is working continuously.

Theological harmonization says:
• Creation work ceased.
• Sustaining work continues.

That is not what the Bible actually says. It's a failed attempt by Christians to resolve the contradiction. If "working continuously" is true, then God could NOT have rested on the seventh day because resting is not the same as working continuously.

The contradiction exists.

Final Point

You ask why “distortions” would be needed if the Bible were wrong.

But scientific models are not based on distortion. They are based on:

• Measurable data
• Predictive testing
• Cross-disciplinary convergence
• Falsifiability

If a framework consistently predicts novel findings and aligns across independent fields, that is strong epistemic grounding.

If a framework must reinterpret all conflicting data as illusion, sorting, or misreading, it becomes unfalsifiable.

The issue is not loyalty to a text.

The issue is which model takes the greatest evidential risk — and survives it.

That is how we evaluate truth claims consistently.

Here is the 14th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Should we bear each other's burdens or should each carry their own load?
"Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." - Galatians 6:2
"for each one should carry their own load." - Galatians 6:5

The two verses contradict each other. If everyone is carrying their own load, then they are not carrying each other's load.