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.

[1213]

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

Greenland’s ice sheet is thickest in the interior and thins toward the margins…

Yes, it can be thickest in the interior. Hower, my point was, the rain and snow likely come at the same rate in the whole area. Therefore, even in the middle, the rate of accumulation is about the same. But obviously the ice also moves from the middle, which also means the ice can’t be as old as it is claimed it to be.

Ice cores extend far beyond the biblical flood timeline.

Sorry, I don’t think that is true on basis of what can truly be known about the rate of accumulating ice.

“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.

Yes, created, but had not yet sprung up. Meaning, they were underground as seeds or roots, not as plants that had already grown.

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

The temperature of Venus is more likely because of the volcanism.

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

I think it is the old earth theory that is not compatible with those.

Fossils can be found from the strata as they are, because the flood first caried those that are not as developed as others, or that were first to be hit with the flood.

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).

Those can be because of how they were created also, which is why evolution is not supported by those.

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.

No, they would not, they would be fitted to the theory by inventing some explanation to the theory, as it have been always done.

Creation models have no such risk conditions.

Truth never has risk conditions.

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

Yet you believe all species developed from single species by random chance.

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.”

Mark 7:19 says: “This is because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the wastebowl, purging all the foods”. Not “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

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

Matthew is speaking about the book of the generation of Jesus. It is not the same as the whole genealogy of Jesus.

The book of the generation of Jesus…
Matt. 1:1,17

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

Genesis states God rested from “all His work.”

Do you understand that you lose all your credibility with such false claims. Genesis 2:2-3 doesn’t say “all His work”, it says He rested from all the creation work. It is possible He did other work.

And on the seventh day God completed 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 He rested from all His work on it, which God had created to make.
Genesis 2:2-3

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.

Bearing another person’s burden means you do your own work and don’t expect someone else to do it for you.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #51]

Rain and snow likely come at the same rate in the whole area. Therefore, even in the middle, the rate of accumulation is about the same.

No, snowfall does not fall at the same rate across Greenland.

Accumulation varies dramatically due to:

• Elevation gradients
• Moisture transport patterns
• Katabatic winds
• Temperature differences
• Storm track variability

Interior Greenland is cold and dry (a polar desert). Coastal margins receive far more snowfall.

Measured modern accumulation rates show major variation across the ice sheet. This is observed, not assumed.

Ice also moves from the middle, which means the ice can’t be as old as claimed.

Ice flow does not erase age layering in the interior.

Ice moves plastically and slowly under pressure, but:

• Annual layers remain detectable
• Isotopic seasonal cycles remain intact
• Volcanic ash markers align with known eruptions
• Layer thinning with depth matches compaction physics

If the ice were only a few thousand years old, we would not see:

• 100,000+ distinct seasonal layers in Greenland
• 800,000+ layers in Antarctica
• Orbital Milankovitch cycles embedded in isotope records

Dynamic flow ≠ young age.

I don’t think ice cores extend beyond the flood timeline.

That conclusion requires dismissing:

• Annual layer counting
• Volcanic ash cross-dating
• Oxygen isotope climate cycles
• Gas bubble composition data
• Independent Antarctic core correlation

These are independent methods that converge.

Rejecting them all requires a global systematic failure across multiple disciplines — without evidence of such failure.

Yes, created, but had not yet sprung up. Meaning they were underground as seeds or roots.

Genesis 1:11 states vegetation was brought forth and seed-bearing plants were present.

Genesis 2:5 says no plant of the field had yet sprung up because there was no man to till the ground and no rain.

Genesis 1 already includes vegetation without human cultivation.

Genesis 2 introduces a different agricultural context.

This is literary analysis, not hostility.

The temperature of Venus is more likely because of volcanism.

Volcanism cannot sustain 460°C globally without greenhouse trapping.

Venus’s temperature is explained by:

• Dense CO₂ atmosphere (~96%)
• Radiative transfer physics
• Runaway greenhouse effect

Even without volcanism, Venus would remain extremely hot due to infrared trapping.

This is basic atmospheric physics, confirmed by spacecraft measurements.

Fossils are sorted because less developed organisms were hit first by the flood.

Hydrodynamic sorting cannot explain:

• Marine invertebrates below terrestrial mammals
• Footprints between sediment layers
• Burrows penetrating multiple strata
• Reef systems preserved upright
• Microfossil zonation sequences

Flood sorting would produce chaotic mixtures.

Instead, we observe ecological succession patterns consistent worldwide.

That pattern requires time, not one event.

Those genetic features could be because of how they were created.

That explanation removes predictive constraint.

Evolution predicted:

• Chromosome 2 fusion before it was confirmed
• Transitional fossils in specific strata (e.g., Tiktaalik)
• Shared ERV insertion sites

If “creation” can explain any pattern equally, it is not predictive — it is post-hoc accommodation.

Science favors models that constrain outcomes.

They would not falsify evolution — explanations would be invented.

If mammals were found in Cambrian rock consistently, evolutionary theory would be overturned.

Scientific models change when core predictions fail.

That has happened repeatedly in scientific history (e.g., Newton → Einstein).

There is no evidence of systematic fossil inversion.

Truth never has risk conditions.

Epistemically, a claim that cannot be wrong cannot be tested.

A model that risks falsification and survives testing gains credibility.

A model that explains everything equally cannot be evaluated.

That is a methodological distinction, not a philosophical insult.

You believe species developed by random chance.

Evolution is not “pure random chance.”

It involves:

• Random mutation
• Non-random natural selection
• Genetic drift
• Population dynamics

Selection filters variation.

It is not equivalent to spontaneous disorder.

Mark 7:19 does not say “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

The Greek participle “katharizōn panta ta brōmata” is understood by most translators as:

“Thus he declared all foods clean.”

Even conservative translations acknowledge this interpretation in footnotes.

The theological context is removal of ritual impurity from food categories.

Acts 10 reinforces that prior dietary distinctions are no longer binding.

Matthew is speaking about the book of the generation of Jesus.

Matthew traces lineage through Solomon.
Luke traces lineage through Nathan.

They converge at David but diverge afterward.

They also differ in generational counts.

This is textual variation.

Genesis 2:2-3 says He rested from creation work, not all work.

Genesis states:

“He rested from all His work which He had made.”

The Hebrew phrase is comprehensive regarding creation.

John 5:17 says:

“My Father is working until now.”

John 5:17 contradicts Genesis 2:2-3.

Bearing another person’s burden means you do your own work.

Galatians 6:2 says:

“Carry each other’s burdens.”

Galatians 6:5 says:

“Each one should carry their own load.”

They contradict each other.

Closing Observation

Across geology, genetics, climatology, and textual criticism, the central question is methodological:

Do we accept models that:

• Make risky predictions
• Converge across independent fields
• Survive falsification attempts

Or do we accept models that can reinterpret any outcome?

The issue is not loyalty to science or scripture.

It is epistemic consistency.

That is the real point under discussion.

Here is the 15th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

How long did it take to create the heavens and the earth?
One day.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Genesis 2:4
Six days.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ... And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
...

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 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. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3

[1213]

…Interior Greenland is cold and dry (a polar desert). Coastal margins receive far more snowfall.

In that case there comes the question, why the ice is thicker in the middle.

Ice flow does not erase age layering in the interior.

It would move the older ice out from the interior and make it the inside ice younger.

If the ice were only a few thousand years old, we would not see:

• 100,000+ distinct seasonal layers in Greenland
• 800,000+ layers in Antarctica
• Orbital Milankovitch cycles embedded in isotope records

Those layers are not necessary years, only changes. And changes could happen many times in a year, causing the illusion of many years.

…
• Burrows penetrating multiple strata
…

I think it is the old age theory that can’t explain those.

They also differ in generational counts.

Apparently because they are not about the same matter. The “book of generation of Jesus” seems to be about the generation that was born at the same time with Jesus and seems to be some thing else than the genealogy of Jesus. I think that should be obvious also from that they are so different.

Here is the 15th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

How long did it take to create the heavens and the earth?
One day.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the …

Have you heard saying “back in the day”? Do you understand what it means? Apparently not. So, I can understand this causes problems for you. And that is why I understand that those translations that say, “in the time” are better.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #53]

In that case there comes the question, why the ice is thicker in the middle.

Ice sheets are thickest in the middle for the same reason a dome is tallest at its center: gravity causes ice to flow outward from where it accumulates over long periods.

Snow falls across Greenland, but over tens of thousands of years:

• Snow compresses into firn and then glacial ice
• Ice flows slowly outward under its own weight
• The central plateau remains the primary accumulation zone
• Outward flow thins ice toward the margins

This is basic glaciology, not an ad hoc explanation. Radar surveys, GPS measurements, and satellite data confirm that Greenland ice flows outward from the center at measurable rates (meters per year near the edges, much slower in the interior).

Thickness at the center is exactly what long-term accumulation plus gravity predicts.

It would move the older ice out from the interior and make it the inside ice younger.

No. Ice flow is slow and layered.

The key point: vertical accumulation continues while horizontal flow occurs.

Think of it like stacking papers on top of each other while the stack very slowly spreads outward. The bottom pages remain the oldest.

In Greenland’s interior:

• Annual layers are preserved
• Deformation is measurable and modeled
• The deepest ice contains the oldest trapped air bubbles

If your model were correct (rapid outward flushing), we would not find:

• Deep ice containing ancient atmospheric CO₂ levels
• Ordered isotope cycles matching orbital periodicity
• Consistent radiometric ages

But we do find all of those.

Those layers are not necessary years, only changes. And changes could happen many times in a year.

This objection has been tested directly.

Annual layers are identified using multiple independent seasonal markers:

• Oxygen isotope cycles (summer/winter temperature shifts)
• Dust peaks (spring dust transport patterns)
• Chemical markers (sea salt vs continental aerosols)
• Visible melt layers
• Volcanic ash horizons tied to historically dated eruptions

For your hypothesis to work, you must show:

1. Multiple complete summer-winter isotope cycles occurring repeatedly within a single year.
2. Repeated seasonal dust transport cycles many times per year.
3. Volcanic ash layers aligning perfectly with known eruptions — but occurring in compressed timescales.

There is no physical mechanism that produces full seasonal cycles multiple times per year for hundreds of thousands of cycles.

If layers were random “changes,” they would not align globally between Greenland and Antarctica.

But they do.

I think it is the old age theory that can’t explain those.

Burrows penetrating strata are fully explained in sedimentology.

There are two main types:

• Synsedimentary burrows (organisms burrow while sediment is soft)
• Post-depositional intrusions

Old-Earth geology does not claim every layer hardened instantly. Sediment accumulates gradually, often remaining soft for periods of time.

What old-Earth geology does not predict is:

• Global hydrodynamic sorting producing perfect ecological ordering
• Coral reefs thousands of feet thick forming in one year
• Evaporite deposits requiring prolonged evaporation cycles

Flood geology cannot explain these without violating physics and chemistry.

Apparently because they are not about the same matter. The “book of generation of Jesus” seems to be about the generation that was born at the same time with Jesus…

That interpretation is not supported by the text.

Matthew 1:1 explicitly states:

“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

It then lists ancestors beginning with Abraham and proceeding forward to Jesus.

Luke 3 traces lineage backward from Jesus to Adam.

Both are presented as genealogies of Jesus’ ancestry. They:

• Differ in names
• Differ in order
• Differ in total generations
• Differ between David and Joseph

Appealing to “different types of generations” is an interpretive rescue attempt, not a textual reading.

If two documents claim to trace the same lineage but list different ancestors, that is a discrepancy.

Have you heard saying “back in the day”? Do you understand what it means?

Genesis 2:4 says (depending on translation):

“In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens…”

Yes, “day” can sometimes mean a general time period.

But Genesis 1 repeatedly specifies:

• Evening and morning
• First day
• Second day
• Third day

That pattern strongly implies ordinary days.

If “day” means a long undefined era in Genesis 1, then:

• Why the repeated evening/morning structure?
• Why the numbered sequence?
• Why does Exodus 20:11 use the six days as the basis for the human work week?

The issue is not misunderstanding idiom.
The issue is an internal textual contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 ordering.

The Larger Pattern

Across these topics (ice cores, sedimentology, genealogies, creation days), the pattern is consistent:

When physical evidence contradicts a literal reading of the Bible or another religious book, the reading is reinterpreted to attempt to resolve the discrepancy between the text and reality.

Science, by contrast:

• Makes predictions
• Tests mechanisms
• Revises models when falsified
• Relies on converging independent evidence

If ice cores, radiometric dating, sedimentology, plate tectonics, orbital cycles, coral growth rates, and tree rings all independently converge on deep time — the rational conclusion is not that all mechanisms simultaneously malfunctioned in exactly coordinated ways.

The rational conclusion is that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.

Extraordinary claims (e.g., global flood reshaping all geology 4,000 years ago) require extraordinary evidence.

That evidence does not exist because the global flood story is fictitious.

Here is the 16th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Were plants created before or after humans?
Plants were created before humans.
In the first creation account, plants were created on the third day and humans on the sixth day.
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 evening and the morning were the third day.Genesis 1:11-13
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them .... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:27-31

Plants were created after humans.
In the second account, God formed a man before any plants existed (it hadn't rained yet and there was no man to till the ground). Sometime later, God created plants to please and feed the man.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth ... And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4-7
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:8-9

[1213]

• The central plateau remains the primary accumulation zone

How can it be, if it is a dry place as you say?

The key point: vertical accumulation continues while horizontal flow occurs.

If there is horizontal flow, it means lot of ice has moved from the inside, which then ruins the timeline.

Annual layers are identified using multiple independent seasonal markers:

• Oxygen isotope cycles (summer/winter temperature shifts)
• Dust peaks (spring dust transport patterns)
• Chemical markers (sea salt vs continental aerosols)
• Visible melt layers
• Volcanic ash horizons tied to historically dated eruptions

All of those can happen multiple times in a year and also end up in wrong place in the history line during a warm period. I don’t think they can be trusted as accurate timeline.

Also, the accuracy of measurements is questionable.

Burrows penetrating strata are fully explained in sedimentology.

There are two main types:

• Synsedimentary burrows (organisms burrow while sediment is soft)
• Post-depositional intrusions

I think those are against the idea of very long time periods.

Old-Earth geology does not claim every layer hardened instantly.

But they were formed extremely slowly, which I think makes fossilization for example impossible.

• Global hydrodynamic sorting producing perfect ecological ordering
• Coral reefs thousands of feet thick forming in one year
• Evaporite deposits requiring prolonged evaporation cycles

Flood geology cannot explain these without violating physics and chemistry.

I don’t see any problem in those for the flood idea.

Matthew 1:1 explicitly states:

“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

It then lists ancestors beginning with Abraham and proceeding forward to Jesus.

Luke 3 traces lineage backward from Jesus to Adam.

Both are presented as genealogies of Jesus’ ancestry.

Matthe doesn’t say it is a genealogy of Jesus. He tells it is the book of the generation of Jesus, which is not the same as genealogy, as can be seen from the content.

If “day” means a long undefined era in Genesis 1

I believe in Genesis 1 a day means a God’s day. In Genesis 2 it is said “In the day that…”, which is a saying that can mean in the time. If we look at the original word, it can be translated “time”, which is why, considering the context, I think the correct meaning is “In the time…”.

The rational conclusion is that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.

Extraordinary claims (e.g., global flood reshaping all geology 4,000 years ago) require extraordinary evidence.

I think the extraordinary claim is that earth is billions of years old, and it requires extraordinary evidence, which you don’t have.

Here is the 16th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Were plants created before or after humans?
… ... And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4-7
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:8-9

I think we already handled this issue. Bible tells in Genesis 1 tells plants were created. Genesis 2 tells the plants had not yet grown, because no rain. And Genesis 2 also tells God planted a garden. Planting a garden doesn’t mean plants could not have been created before it. And plants not yet growing doesn’t mean they were not created already.

Thank you for showing that the skepticsannotatedbible.com is not worth reading. Extremely poor content.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #55]

How can it be, if it is a dry place as you say?

“Dry” in polar climatology does not mean “no accumulation.” It means low precipitation relative to other regions. Antarctica is technically a desert, yet it builds and maintains an ice sheet nearly 5 km thick.

The central Greenland plateau is cold and receives light but persistent snowfall. Because temperatures remain below freezing year-round, very little melting occurs, so even small annual snowfall accumulates over time. Low precipitation + near-zero melt = long-term accumulation.

That is precisely why it remains the primary accumulation zone.

If there is horizontal flow, it means lot of ice has moved from the inside, which then ruins the timeline.

No, because ice flow is already built into glaciological models.

Ice sheets behave like very slow-moving viscous fluids. Vertical accumulation continues at the top while deeper layers gradually deform and flow outward under pressure. This does not “ruin” the timeline — it compresses deeper layers, which is measurable and mathematically modeled.

Ice core dating accounts for:

• Layer thinning with depth
• Plastic deformation
• Basal flow dynamics

If flow invalidated timelines, independent cores drilled tens to hundreds of kilometers apart would not match.

They do match.

All of those can happen multiple times in a year and also end up in wrong place in the history line during a warm period.

This misunderstands how multi-proxy dating works.

Yes, a single marker could potentially repeat. That is why scientists do not rely on one marker.

They use:

• Oxygen isotope seasonal cycles
• Dust cycles
• Chemical seasonal shifts
• Melt layers
• Globally correlated volcanic ash horizons

All must align.

It is astronomically improbable for multiple independent seasonal systems to coincidentally fake 100,000+ sequential annual cycles that also synchronize with:

• Marine sediment cores
• Tree rings
• Speleothems
• Radiometric dating

Warm periods do not randomly reorder stratigraphy. Layers remain sequential unless physically overturned — and ice cores are examined for structural disturbance.

Also, the accuracy of measurements is questionable.

This is vague skepticism without mechanism.

Radiometric dating methods used in ice cores and volcanic ash layers have known error margins. These margins are quantified, published, and independently replicated.

To overturn billions-of-years geology, one must show:

• A systematic error mechanism
• That affects multiple independent dating methods
• In consistent ways
• Across independent labs
• Across different isotopic systems

No such mechanism has been demonstrated.

I think those [burrows] are against the idea of very long time periods.

Burrows actually confirm gradual deposition.

Organisms burrow in soft sediment. That requires:

• Surface exposure
• Oxygenated conditions
• Living ecosystems

A single global flood depositing all layers rapidly would not allow stable benthic ecosystems between layers.

Burrows show time passed between depositional events.

But they were formed extremely slowly, which I think makes fossilization impossible.

This is factually incorrect.

Fossilization requires rapid burial, not rapid global deposition.

Local rapid events (river floods, volcanic ash, turbidity currents) occur within long geological timescales. That combination — slow background sedimentation punctuated by rapid burial events — is exactly what we observe today.

Long timescales do not prevent fossilization. They allow ecosystems to exist long enough to fossilize.

I don’t see any problem in those for the flood idea.

Then the flood model must explain:

• Coral reefs thousands of feet thick growing in upright position (corals grow slowly in place)
• Evaporite layers requiring repeated evaporation cycles
• Fine varved lake sediments with seasonal layering
• Trackways preserved between sediment layers
• Ecological ordering of fossils worldwide

A single-year hydrodynamic catastrophe cannot produce stable reef growth structures, long-term evaporite basins, and delicate annual laminations without contradicting fluid dynamics.

Saying “I don’t see a problem” is not an explanation.

Matthew doesn’t say it is a genealogy of Jesus.

The Greek term used in Matthew 1:1 is biblos geneseōs — “record of origin” or “genealogical account.”

The text then proceeds to list father–son succession for 42 generations.

If that is not genealogy, what is it?

I believe in Genesis 1 a day means a God’s day.

That interpretation introduces a new problem:

Genesis 1 defines each day as:

• “Evening and morning”
• Numbered (first day, second day, etc.)

Every other numbered “day” (yom) in Hebrew scripture refers to a normal day unless context explicitly indicates otherwise.

Genesis 2:4 uses yom idiomatically (“in the day that”), but Genesis 1 uses structured, sequential, numbered days with evenings and mornings.

Those are different grammatical constructions.

I think the extraordinary claim is that earth is billions of years old.

No.

The billions-of-years conclusion arises from:

• Radiometric decay rates measured in laboratories
• Multiple independent isotope systems (U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, etc.)
• Astronomical observations
• Plate tectonics
• Ice cores
• Tree rings
• Lunar rock dating
• Meteorite dating

When independent physical systems converge on the same age range (~4.54 billion years), that is not extraordinary — that is convergent evidence.

The extraordinary claim is that:

• All radiometric systems are wrong
• All stratigraphy is misinterpreted
• All astrophysics is mistaken
• All glaciology is flawed
• And a global hydrodynamic catastrophe occurred 4,000 years ago

That requires extraordinary evidence.

Genesis 1 tells plants were created. Genesis 2 tells the plants had not yet grown.

Genesis 2:5 states:

“No shrub of the field had yet appeared… and no plant of the field had yet sprung up… for there was no man to till the ground.”

Then man is formed.

In Genesis 1:

• Plants (Day 3)
• Humans (Day 6)

Genesis 2 presents:

• No cultivated plants yet
• No man yet
• Then man formed
• Then garden planted

These are two different narrative sequences.

Harmonization attempts are failed attempts at resolving the contradiction.

Finally:
Dismissing SkepticsAnnotatedBible as “poor content” does not address contradictions. One must resolve the textual tension, not dismiss the source. You have not resolved ANY of the scientific errors and self-contradictions in the Bible. Please see: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html

The pattern here is consistent:

Where physical evidence accumulates from multiple independent domains, your skepticism becomes global and undefined.

But skepticism must be specific, mechanistic, and testable.

Otherwise, it becomes selective doubt applied only where conclusions conflict with your prior commitment to Christianity.

Here is the 17th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Did God originally create humans male and female?
Yes.
He ... made them at the beginning made them male and female. Matthew 19:4
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27

No, God created a man first, then animals, and then a woman.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Genesis 2:18-20

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Genesis 2:21-22

[1213]

…Ice sheets behave like very slow-moving viscous fluids. Vertical accumulation continues at the top while deeper layers gradually deform and flow outward under pressure. This does not “ruin” the timeline — it compresses deeper layers, which is measurable and mathematically modeled.

So, you believe the areas on edges can melt entirely, but the inner area stays about the same thousands of years? Sorry, I think your model is irrational.

Yes, a single marker could potentially repeat. That is why scientists do not rely on one marker.
They use:
• Oxygen isotope seasonal cycles
• Dust cycles
• Chemical seasonal shifts
• Melt layers
• Globally correlated volcanic ash horizons

To debunk that, we should look what are the actual evidence. Then I could show where the problem is. Without seeing the evidence accurately, it is not possible. Generally, I can only tell, from a sample, it can only be told what was observed in it, not necessary how or when it came to be as it is. Same result can come by multiple ways

To overturn billions-of-years geology, one must show:

• A systematic error mechanism
• That affects multiple independent dating methods
• In consistent ways
• Across independent labs
• Across different isotopic systems

One systemic error is that in radiometric dating people don’t know the composition of the material that formed the sample. Also, the dating is based to assumptions. If you give just formed volcanic rock to be dated, you get wrong results, if the person doing the dating doesn’t know how old the piece should be. And that is why I think the whole radiometric dating is actually circular reasoning.

A single global flood depositing all layers rapidly would not allow stable benthic ecosystems between layers.

Can you show an image of what you mean? And where can that be found?

Fossilization requires rapid burial, not rapid global deposition.
…

And rapid burial would mean the strata can’t be as old as it is claimed to be.

Then the flood model must explain:

• Coral reefs thousands of feet thick growing in upright position (corals grow slowly in place)

Please who the image where this is? (link to an image is enough)

• Evaporite layers requiring repeated evaporation cycles

Please show an image of this and where you can see it?

• Fine varved lake sediments with seasonal layering

I don’t think there is any reason to think that lake sediments could not have come after the flood in several thousands of years.

• Trackways preserved between sediment layers

Please give link to an image of this.

• Ecological ordering of fossils worldwide
.

The order you can find, seems to be that what would come from how things drown in a great flood. The great flood would drown first those that are the most vulnerable to be drowned and mixed to sediments.

The Greek term used in Matthew 1:1 is biblos geneseōs — “record of origin” or “genealogical account.”

The text then proceeds to list father–son succession for 42 generations.

If that is not genealogy, what is it?

It is a book of generation of Jesus, as said in the text. It does not say the genealogy of Jesus, which is why it is not necessary to call it such. It can be about the whole generation of Jesus, meaning all the people that were born at that time.

The billions-of-years conclusion arises from:

• Radiometric decay rates measured in laboratories
• Multiple independent isotope systems (U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, etc.)
• Astronomical observations
• Plate tectonics
• Ice cores
• Tree rings
• Lunar rock dating
• Meteorite dating

And it goes like this: radiometric dating is correct, because astronomical theory supports it, astronomical theory is correct because plate tectonics theory supports it, plate tectonics theory is correct because evolution theory supports it…it is true because radiometric dating supports it. It is basically circular reasoning that seems to be based on the wishful thinking that the godless world view is correct.

The pattern here is consistent:

Yes, all the problems you give are based on poor interpretations.

Here is the 17th contradiction from this list: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/firs ... _list.html

Did God originally create humans male and female?
Yes.
He ... made them at the beginning made them male and female. Matthew 19:4
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27

No, God created a man first, then animals, and then a woman.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Genesis 2:18-20

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Genesis 2:21-22

This is basically the same as what you have previously brought up. And it seems you don’t care about the answers, or you don’t understand them.

And again, the contradiction exists only, if you twist the truth. If you remain in truth, there is no contradiction.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #57]

So, you believe the areas on edges can melt entirely, but the inner area stays about the same thousands of years? Sorry, I think your model is irrational.

No — this is not “belief.” It is directly observed glaciology.

Ice sheets behave like slow-moving viscous fluids. Margins experience higher melt because:

• They are at lower elevation
• They are warmer
• They interact with ocean water

The central plateau remains far colder and is the primary accumulation zone.

You can see this clearly in modern measurements of the Greenland ice sheet:





Interior thickness persists while edges retreat. This is not speculation — it is measured via satellite altimetry, GPS flow rates, and radar sounding.

Calling a mathematically modeled and physically measured process “irrational” does not overturn the data.

Generally, I can only tell, from a sample, it can only be told what was observed in it, not necessary how or when it came to be as it is. Same result can come by multiple ways

That would be true if only one marker were used.

But ice cores use multiple independent seasonal signals:

• Oxygen isotope oscillations
• Dust peaks
• Sea salt vs continental aerosol shifts
• Visible melt layers
• Volcanic ash layers tied to historically dated eruptions

When multiple independent seasonal cycles align repeatedly over tens of thousands of layers, the probability of random repetition collapses.

Additionally:

• Volcanic ash layers are chemically fingerprinted
• They correlate across Greenland and Antarctica
• They match historically dated eruptions

This is cross-validation, not assumption.

One systemic error is that in radiometric dating people don’t know the composition of the material that formed the sample.

This is a common claim — and incorrect.

Radiometric dating does not require knowing the original isotopic composition in many systems:

• Isochron methods (Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd) mathematically solve for initial ratios
• U-Pb dating uses concordia diagrams to detect contamination
• Different isotope systems are applied to the same rock

If the method were circular, different isotope systems would routinely disagree.

They do not.

As for “dating freshly formed volcanic rock” giving wrong ages — that refers to:

• Dating lava flows with inherited crystals
• Or misapplying K-Ar to rocks not suitable for that method

Professional labs do not blindly date random rocks. They analyze mineral context, crystal structure, and geologic setting first.

If radiometric dating were circular, meteorites would not converge on ~4.56 billion years across independent labs worldwide.

Can you show an image of what you mean? And where can that be found?

Yes.

Here are fossil coral reefs thousands of feet thick growing upright in place:




These structures show:

• In-place coral growth
• Reef framework structure
• Long-term stable marine ecosystems

A single catastrophic flood would destroy reef structure, not allow vertical reef construction thousands of feet thick.

Evaporite layers (requiring repeated evaporation cycles):





Evaporites require:

• Restricted basins
• Repeated flooding and evaporation
• Time for mineral precipitation

A global turbulent flood cannot produce orderly evaporative cycles.

Trackways preserved between layers:





Trackways show:

• Animals walking on exposed sediment
• Drying surface
• Subsequent burial
• Then another exposure layer

That requires repeated environmental stability — not a single violent global slurry.

The order you can find, seems to be that what would come from how things drown in a great flood.

Flood sorting predicts:

• Mixed ecosystems
• Mixed marine and terrestrial forms
• Random vertical distribution

Instead we observe:

• Marine invertebrates low
• Fish above
• Amphibians above
• Reptiles above
• Mammals above
• Humans only at the top

Globally consistent ecological ordering across continents is not explained by “who drowns first.”

It is a book of generation of Jesus… It can be about the whole generation of Jesus

The Greek phrase is: biblos geneseōs

It is followed by 42 named father–son links.

That is a genealogy.

If listing father–son succession across generations is not genealogy, what would qualify as one?

The text structure defines its genre.

It is basically circular reasoning that seems to be based on the wishful thinking that the godless world view is correct.

This is a rhetorical move — not an argument.

Independent evidence includes:

• Radiometric decay rates measured in labs
• Ice core layering
• Tree rings cross-matching
• Plate tectonics
• Seafloor magnetic striping
• Lunar rock dating
• Meteorite dating
• Astronomical light travel time

These fields developed independently — many by religious scientists.

If it were circular, a single failure would collapse the system.

Instead, they converge.

Convergence across independent domains is the opposite of circular reasoning.

The contradiction exists only, if you twist the truth.

Genesis 1 presents:

• Male and female created together.

Genesis 2 presents:

• Man created first
• Animals formed afterward
• Woman created later

These are two different narrative sequences.

You can harmonize them theologically — but the sequences are textually different.

Pointing out different sequences is not “twisting.” It is reading the text.

At this point the pattern is clear:

When presented with:

• Physical evidence
• Cross-validated dating systems
• Stratigraphic consistency
• Measurable ice physics
• Linguistic structure

The response is:

“It seems irrational.”
“It could have happened another way.”
“It’s circular.”
“It’s twisting.”

Those are assertions — not demonstrations.

If you want to overturn modern geology, glaciology, radiometric dating, paleontology, astronomy, and physics, you must provide:

• A coherent alternative model
• That explains all observed data
• Without selectively discarding inconvenient evidence

Until that is done, the current scientific model remains vastly more explanatory and internally consistent than a global flood hypothesis.

And that conclusion is based on evidence — not worldview preference.

You keep denying facts and keep replacing facts with lies. I am not going to spend any more time discussing this with you.

[1213]

…Interior thickness persists while edges retreat. …

Yes, but if the edges retreat, and thickness remains the same, it means the ice is replaced with new. And that makes a limit to how may years there can be restored.

• Volcanic ash layers are chemically fingerprinted

If volcanic ash is the same in Antarctica and Greenland, I don’t believe it is from same volcanic event, because it would likely change slightly on its way to different location, especially in quantity. If it is the same, I believe it is from different volcanoes, and the similarity comes from that the magma is about the same in all places on earth.

Radiometric dating does not require knowing the original isotopic composition in many systems:

• Isochron methods (Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd) mathematically solve for initial ratios

In those, how do you know the ratios of the material that formed the sample?

• U-Pb dating uses concordia diagrams to detect contamination

It is based on the idea “newly-formed zircon crystals will contain no lead”. But there could be crystals that were formed before, or that in some conditions it is not true that lead doesn’t get into the crystal.

Here are fossil coral reefs thousands of feet thick growing upright in place:




Thank you for the links.

I think the fossil coral reef growing upright it likely after the flood, when the water level gradually decreased.

Evaporite layers (requiring repeated evaporation cycles):





Evaporites require:

• Restricted basins
• Repeated flooding and evaporation
• Time for mineral precipitation

Also, these are likely after the flood. But it could also be something that had happened before the flood. And was covered in the flood, if found in deeper strata.

Trackways preserved between layers:





I think it is possible those were formed before the flood.

Flood sorting predicts:

• Mixed ecosystems
• Mixed marine and terrestrial forms
• Random vertical distribution

It depends on how the flood happened. The great flood doesn’t predict mixed sorting, because of how it came and moved stuff.

That is a genealogy.

If listing father–son succession across generations is not genealogy, what would qualify as one?

It is a list of generations. It to be a genealogy, it would have to be a list of all parents.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #59]

You really don't understand me, but it's not your fault. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I would be you and make all your choices. And vice versa.

Everyone is unique. Everyone is one in infinity. Elon Musk, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, I, you, and the beggar without limbs are all unique beings in the Omniverse. Every sentient biological organism has a unique dynamic mixture of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I am not any more rare than anyone else. I am not any more or less special than anyone else. Everyone is equally special. Everyone is a unique prisoner of causality. Everyone is doomed to suffer and die. No God saved any sentient biological organism from suffering, injustice, and death. Only suffering, injustice, and death are guaranteed for all sentient biological organisms. We are all prisoners of causality.