The Bible is an accurate source of scientific knowledge and information.

John, You, sir, are the embodiment of the new atheist. You belong, good John, to those who have such fundamental flaws in their thought, most probably fuelled by a desire to look different, in turn fuelled by many insecurities, that you are actually undermining your own school of thought. You embarrass them John, you embarrass them. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've heard this however, seeing as your ardent desire to look different has extended onto the internet, perhaps in some strange campaign to convince yourself you are right. Alas John, I enjoyed your response. I imagine it didn't take you long to respond, it certainly didn't take you long to proofread it... However, in the words of a great man: 'back to the debate'. I found it strange that by labelling my otherwise quite sincere refutations of your argumentation techniques as 'petty insults' you are in turn falling at the hurdle of 'as hominem' which you so aggressively took issue with. Even so, I don't see how taking issue with your technique is an 'ad hominem' attack. It says nothing about you as a person, indeed as I'm sure you read, it said your technique was 'mundane', not your smile, which, fittingly, probably is. (That was an 'ad hominem' attack. ) Let us leave the dissection of this means of duel to another day. Funnily enough, around half your debate was concerned with something you deemed as 'irrelevant'. Surely if it was so irrelevant you would just deem it at that and leave it? Maybe this is another characteristic of your debating technique. Yet, still, how is the discussion of the content of the Bible ' completely irrelevant' to a debate concerned with the content of the Bible?! As a sidenote, concepts are passed down *through generations rather than *by generations. I don't know how deceased generations can willingly pass something down to their respective 'youngers', maybe there is 'scientific fact' to suggest otherwise. John is such a funny name isn't it? So monosyllabic, so simple, so effortless, I'm sure you wear it well. But anyway John, apologies for the digression, I have serious issue with your thought process. It seems that everything to you needs scientific fact, indeed that is what your argument has suggested hitherto, yet you have made an assumption which has no scientific backing whatsoever. You have declared something 'wrong' with no empirical backing. You have labelled the hypothetical situation of God creating the Universe as scientifically wrong. ( As if by attaching scientifically you have objectively proved me wrong). For a start, the majority of modern science allow that God could have created the universe. So.... secondly, there is no 'scientific' evidence to suggest he didn't create the universe? If he didn't, and your scientists chums are right..what did?! It is, you write, a 'scientifically incorrect assumption' to believe that God created the universe. Well, have fun proving a negative. IS science wrong here or you? Most would agree that it is more rational to suppose something created the universe rather than nothing? To pre-empt your inevitable 'Big-Bang' retort I would like to cite St Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Argument: First Way - The Argument From Motion St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way: Nothing can move itself. If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover. Movement cannot go on for infinity. This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God. Second Way - Causation of Existence This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way: There exists things that are caused (created) by other things. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.) There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God. Third Way - Contingent and Necessary Objects This Way is sometimes referred to as the modal cosmological argument. Modal is a reference to contingency and necessary. This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way: Contingent beings are caused. Not every being can be contingent. There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings. This necessary being is God. I took these three ways from www.scandalon.co.uk. They own the rights to this material and I in no way claim it as my intellectual property. I had to use this as the English which resulted from the direct translation of ST Thomas Aquinas is hard to follow and I want to make this process as easy I can for you John. Finally, as I'm bored now. We could prove a teapot was orbiting Mars. God doesn't have to follow 'logic' because 'logic' is a human concept and he is God. They're not my standards, they're the standards one would attach to the God of classical theism. He's not exempt from logical criticism, just because he can do whatever he wants. We can 'logically criticise' Kim Jong-un, can we not? Bye.