Scientific explanations for creation

. . . . Why would your god need a world-wide flood--he could have just exercised his extra-supernatural powers and zapped all of the iniquitous without making a 600 year-old geezer (or 599 years old, depending on which part of Genesis one reads) and his geezer wife and geezer sons and daughters-in-law construct a ship which would have foundered in a horse pond. What was the purpose of the flood? To give the victims horrible regrets as they drowned? Your god is one cruel son of a bitch.

Brandon9000 wrote:

. . . without a particle of evidence to suggest that any of it is true."

neologist wrote:

If you expect epistemological certainty, it ain't gonna happen.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I expect some evidence of some kind, or else why would I believe a claim that something is true? We are dealing with two theories of the nature of the universe. If you're not going to accept the physics explanation because you argue that some little bit of the centuries of physics isn't solid, then, by the same standard, you would throw the Bible out the window, since there isn't a trace of evidence that any of it is so.

Where did you get the idea that the Bible claims to be a "theory of the nature of the universe"? The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. But, as has been pointed out a few times in recent posts, where the Bible makes statements that touch on the scientific, it has not been misleading:
...

By the way, religious nutbags have been arguing for centuries, right up into our own lifetimes, that a day was "lost," attempting to claim that the story in Joshua is literally true.

You mean for those who are willing to delude themselves.

Brandon9000 wrote:

. . . without a particle of evidence to suggest that any of it is true."

neologist wrote:

If you expect epistemological certainty, it ain't gonna happen.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I expect some evidence of some kind, or else why would I believe a claim that something is true? We are dealing with two theories of the nature of the universe. If you're not going to accept the physics explanation because you argue that some little bit of the centuries of physics isn't solid, then, by the same standard, you would throw the Bible out the window, since there isn't a trace of evidence that any of it is so.

Where did you get the idea that the Bible claims to be a "theory of the nature of the universe"? The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. But, as has been pointed out a few times in recent posts, where the Bible makes statements that touch on the scientific, it has not been misleading:
...

Nah guys, I ain't buying whatever you're selling!
For an atom to be created there must have been ingredients floating around in the first place to make it, which brings us back to square one and I can ask- "Where did the ingredients come from?"
Shakespeare's King Lear sums up the flaw in your argument- "Nothing can come from nothing"..

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

... without a particle of evidence to suggest that any of it is true."

neologist wrote:

If you expect epistemological certainty, it ain't gonna happen.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I expect some evidence of some kind, or else why would I believe a claim that something is true? We are dealing with two theories of the nature of the universe. If you're not going to accept the physics explanation because you argue that some little bit of the centuries of physics isn't solid, then, by the same standard, you would throw the Bible out the window, since there isn't a trace of evidence that any of it is so.

Where did you get the idea that the Bible claims to be a "theory of the nature of the universe"? The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. But, as has been pointed out a few times in recent posts, where the Bible makes statements that touch on the scientific, it has not been misleading:
...

But the Bible does claim that an omnipotent being exists who created the universe and created Man, does it not? This is certainly an assertion of specific facts regarding the nature of the universe. What is your evidence that these things are true?

You are asking for epistemological certainty and have already rejected my circumstantial and anecdotal offerings. If prosecutors were held to your standards, we could empty the jails and save the taxpayers a bundle

(Isaiah 13:19-22) . . . And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chal·de′ans, must become as when God overthrew Sod′om and Go·mor′rah. 20 She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let [their flocks] lie down there. 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight. And the season for her is near to come, and her days themselves will not be postponed.”

(Jeremiah 51:37) . . . And Babylon must become piles of stones, the lair of jackals, an object of astonishment and something to whistle at, without an inhabitant.

Here is what Isaiah and Jeremiah said about the fate of Babylon:

Quote:

(Isaiah 13:19-22) . . . And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chal·de′ans, must become as when God overthrew Sod′om and Go·mor′rah. 20 She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let [their flocks] lie down there. 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight. And the season for her is near to come, and her days themselves will not be postponed.”

Quote:

(Jeremiah 51:37) . . . And Babylon must become piles of stones, the lair of jackals, an object of astonishment and something to whistle at, without an inhabitant.

Given the importance of Babylon as a city, these would seem unlikely predictions and some may aver the prophecy to have been written only after the city's desolation. However, over 700 years later, the city and a settlement of Jews remained, giving the apostle Peter reason to visit Babylon, as noted in his letter. (1Peter 5:13) The temple of Bel existed as late as 75 C.E. About the fourth century C.E. the city appears to finally have passed out of existence, making it quite unlikely that the prophecy could have been written after the fact.