Status Updates From The New Answers Book 2: Ove...

Some details correct, some very wrong. Rapid burial is only part of the process...

Isn't this book a bit of evidence to show the Bible isn't enough?

There is no difference between historical and observational science. This chapter demonstrates a poor understanding of history and religion as a whole. The Bible is the claim. Christianity and Western religion is noticeably different than eastern or non Abrahamic varieties. Poorly understanding and explaining science will fool some but not all

Some bad analogies. Again, your deity is the claim. You can explain your theology all day, but I need something a little more tangible

I am sure other traditions have similar reasoning or opinions. More citations of any chapter but all from the Bible. That is the claim

Trying to science myths yields interesting results..

If accurate, I'd say this is one of the best chapters. It goes into the history a bit of how the Bible came to be. Didn't really answer its own question of why 66, though.

Exaggerated ages seem to be a common theme in ancient texts. Why take the Bible claims seriously? Also, longevity is not a priority. It's not really selected for. We just need to survive long enough to reproduce. That makes sense within the confines of evolution. Not sure why that is a problem for it according to this essay.

Don't get gay married. From my reading, the Bible position is more along the lines of one man and however many women he can afford. Also, HIV isn't some devine punishment. Safe sex practices can prevent it. As for your think of the children argument, the ones that tend to have bad outcomes are due to peers, not their gay parents. How about less judgement and more help and understanding?

I don't think they'd agree much with Newton on Christianity... You can science and have different beliefs. My issue tends to be when you cherry pick the science to support your version of your faith

This chapter takes a wild shot at the people who want to integrate science and their faith. Science is a method that updates. Maybe one's faith should adapt along with the world? Not sure why we should go with the Bible over some other traditions.

A poor description of the beginnings of geology. Lots of claims that modern science really confirms the flood. With a nice little bit of fear mongering and slippery slopes at the end. Not surprised at the lack of evidence but kinda sad for those that only have this as their science information. It's not even informative on the things they accept as science.

I don't understand much about physics but this chapter has terrible explanations. Simplified and misrepresented. Nothing is explained beyond the one line in Genesis

The Bible is the claim and it's not a science book. Lots of cherry picking to make some things fit while trying to explain away modern astronomy.

They really need to define terms. We ARE apes. They bring up Piltdown and Nebraska men as if science did nothing to disprove them. One disproved after more evidence, the other not even widely accepted. Also, we have more fossils than Lucy...

Poorly explains mutation, leaving out the neutral ones. Confuses abiogenesis with evolution. Hand waves away incest being okay until Leviticus. Explaining the opposition badly then giving us one source (the Bible) for your own idea does not prove your case.

I think Riddle understands the Miller Urey experiment less than I do and misrepresents the findings. Amino acids are more important than he made them sound. Side note, O2 is VERY different than O3.

So believe this one book without question? I don't think gymnastics for a literal interpretation is going to gain many concerts. This whole chapter was just how to interpret the begats a literally as possible.