Secularly Verifiable Evidence for Biblical Inerrancy

You're making the assertion that Biblical scribes couldn't figure out what most of us figures out by the time we're three..........this is ridiculous and desperate.

Back this up. Emphasis on THREE species of elephant.......

....and from the antropological viewpoint, the earth doesn't hang unsupported in space; it's solid underneath us.

Meaning, you cannot scientifically prove that miracles haven't occured.

But what does the Earth ITSELF rest on? Anthrpologically, nothing. Not a giant turtle, etc., as previous cultures proposed......

Right......the Bible was suggesting that Jesus time-traveled......... Because, without knowledge of gravitational orbits, how can you state that something rests on nothing? You can't. That's why MOST ancient cultures asserted that the Earth was resting on a giant turtle......or that Atlas was carrying it...... I'm not claiming advanced knowledge, I'm claiming inspiration from a divine being who knew all..... Let me get this straight........even in the day to day language of most people TODAY, the Earth is not a "sphere".......but the Hebrews were certainly scientifically astute enough to apply to correct scientific terminology to the shape of the Earth..............however, the Hebrews WEREN'T smart enough to figure out that when the sun goes down, that's the end of the day. Again, we do too......but the MODERN layman never does so, just like the ancient layman didn't....... Yes, TODAY, this may be true........but rivers change a lot over the course of thousands of years...... With his wife, his sons, their wives, their children, and all their livestock, etc.? How fast do you think he could move to higher ground? If I recall correctly, the Bible makes it clear that God didn;t literally mean EVERY animal, as God lists the animals to be gathered at some point in time and he only names domestic stock........aka, every kind of animal useful to anthropos, man.

Is this a wind-up? Are you honestly claiming that most people when asked would describe the earth as a circle rather than a sphere or even a ball?

Right......just like modern man would say "round" when they meant "sphere".

You can start here:
ADW: Mammalia: INFORMATION
You will find that, for instance, aardvarks are all alone in the order Tubulidentata and that echidnas and platypuses, though both in the order Monotremata, are in different families. The order Primates, to which you and I belong, has 233 species in 13 families: our family, Hominidae, has five species. Oh. I didn't know three was "a multitude." Sorry.

Knight, see above.

Hi SPAL: Neat. The Pleistocene extinctions are a special interest of mine. Could you refer me to a website or article that states flooding was the cause of any mass extinction event in North or South America? This would be a new one to add to the current "big three" hypotheses (climate change, blitzkreig and hyperdisease - i.e., big chill, big kill and big ill )In addition, although there's quite a bit of evidence of humans in South America dating back (depending on who you ask) 8-15,000 years (assuming Monte Verde was pre-Clovis, which is in dispute), but no evidence that they died out at any point, I'd appreciate any more info you could provide concerning the putative flooding of South America as well.Thanks.It's even on topic, for once.

2) It's not my fault if what you say doesn't make sense.3) Resting on nothing makes exactly as much sense as hanging from nothing. So it seems clear that we have no evidence of "inspiration" here.4) In the language of people today the world is often described as a globe. It is never described as a circle except possibly by Flat-Earth proponents.
Oh and Genesis 1 associates the Sun with the day - it "rules" the day as the moon rules the night. What it never does is state that the sun is the source of daylight.5) Rivers change their course but they don't move their sources long distances from their course as you are trying to suggest. Try looking at an atlas before embarrassing yourself further.As for your "flood" I would say that Noah could move to higher ground far more easily than he could build and stock a massive boat as the Bible describes. And I think you will find that the Bible does not provide any clear limits on what life should be taken on board - certainly "unclean" animals were. And with all air-breathing life except that on the ark supposedly being killed the natural reading is that the ark has to accomodate all of that.

In the past, an anatomic hemispherectomy COULD involve the removal of a large portion (if not all) of an affected hemisphere, but only if tests show the hemisphere to be already functioning so poorly that the procedure would not mean a loss of function. Presently, this procedure can involve removal of a PORTION the hemisphere, but once again a portion so affected by the epilepsy as to be basically useless anyway.There have been some studies at centers such as Johns Hopkins concerning fully removing an affected hemisphere, but only in children who's epilepsy is severely reducing their quality of life.ALL patients who have undergone this radical a procedure have partial paralysis on the side of the body opposite the removed portion.A functional hemispherectomy is the disconnection of one side of the brain from the other. This is the "standard" hemispherectomy performed today.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

That's not the claim you made in post 1:

quote:

---

I was wondering what everyone thought about portions in the Bible which can be used as objective evidence for its inerrancy. There are many instances in the Bible where scientific fact is spoken before science discovered them to be fact.......

---

You didn't open the topic to discuss things that could be true from an "anthropological point of view", whatever that means. (I would point out that since humans do science, all the findings of science are from an "anthropological point of view" anyway.) You opened the topic to discuss, and I quote, "objective evidence for its inerrancy."So, which is it? Are the scientific facts in the Bible supposed to be objective or subjective? You seem to switch back and forth whenever it suits you. Uh-huh. And you know this because you asked? Well, I call bullshit. Show me the survey that you're using to substantiate this point; I think you're making it up. I ignored them because I've never heard of them, and don't know where they are.Do you know where they are? Can you tell me, please? What "change in aspect" would cause them to flow in a different continent, separated by two different seas? If the T and the E are in the Middle East, and the other two are in North Africa, you're looking at an Eden the size of China. Of course, you haven't even bothered to find out where any of those rivers actually are, now have you? It's enough, I suppose, that someone told you in passng that Eden was in North Africa, without supporting that contentious statement in any way. No world-wide floodings have ever occured, ever. The existence of life on Earth right now proves that all floodings have been local since the dawn of life. A world-wide flood? Since that's what we were talking about. Literally. God speaks light into being.That's not what happened - for starters, there doesn't appear to be any God at all to do the speaking.

In mathematics and engineering, not science.He has no scientific journal output that I can find, however. He's not, unfortunately, in any way a scientist - just a science-minded writer.