The Bible's scientific accuracies.

My opponent sent this debate to me and he failed to meet his burden. He restated his argument but could not support it. I will address two points my opponent raised in his final round and conclude. Other than these two points, Pro's last round was little more than an attempt to misstate the evidence I provided. I reserved the right to respond to any claims put forth in the last round, I need only address two. 1.I did not mislead anyone concerning Mr./Dr. Fall. When I am offered a source, I read it, and I research the author. Jeffrey Fall is indeed presented as a Dr. and voters should consider how my opponent could not have known; he presented the source! I would like to know his qualifications as any respectable theologian would not have presented such a dishonest argument. I fully rebutted the present tense argument with little more than net research (I did not even need to go into my library to deal with Mr./Dr. Fall). I made every effort to use net sources so my opponent could review them, but he only dismissed them. Here are three different sources showing Jeffrey Fall using a Dr. title [1] [2] [3] He does not use the title in his writings, but does in his speeches and I do not know why. Do not accuse me of misleading anyone. 2.My opponent claims I did not reference the water cycle; I refer voters to my R1 response as I addressed it clearly – my opponent chose to ignore it. All other points were addressed. Conclusion: Biblical literalism is new movement for the most part. I provided sources showing that early scholars did not feel the need to find science in the writings of the Old Testament and there is a plethora of material from current authors and religious scholars concerning the errors of creationism and creation science from a theological standpoint. As with Genesis, Isaiah's main point addressed the battle between monotheism and polytheism. The theology in Isaiah is the same as that in Genesis, which makes sense as both appear to have been written around the same time. The Hebrew people were in dire straits with the influences of polytheism all around them, beset upon all sides if you will, and Isaiah addressed this despair starting in chapter 40. He spoke with a level of clarity and inspiration many would do well to find today before setting words to a speech, or letters to paper. He showed how the world was their home, a dwelling God made for them and the thought that God's people had nowhere to go was replaced with affirmations showing they had everywhere to go and they must be strong to get there. Commonly referred to as the "wings of an eagle" sermon, Isaiah is as true today as when it was written, but not so for its science. Attempts to twist and pervert one line, at the behest of all others, to find two scientific concepts, is simply erroneous. The image of a dwelling, a tent, is imperative for the whole of the chapter and playing loose with translations and exogenesis so as to fire another volley in the culture war between conservative Christians and science is simply dishonest. I urge voters to negate the resolution concerning Isaiah. Very briefly, as my points about Isaiah relate to Ecclesiastes, finding the complications associated with the water cycle and Hadley cells in a poem can be little more than purposeful dishonesty or simply wishful thinking. Ecclesiastes simply took rudimentary observations from nature and life and showed how we see nothing new under the sun and that all is meaningless without God. Some knowledge of the trade winds was evident at that time, the major discoveries, Hadley cells, concerning the winds were not known until well after Ecclesiastes was written. Extrapolating a verse outside of the surrounding context of the poem to find such evidence is, again, dishonest. Jet streams, which my opponent, very oddly, never supported, the water cycle, and Hadley's cells were not known at the time and those verses do not relay such knowledge as I have shown. I urge voters to negate the resolution on this point also. Finally, I would like to add this point. When I describe some Biblical texts as metaphors or show how an event is symbolic, I am in no way reducing it. E.H.W. Meyerstein said it so well, "Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear." Isaiah and Ecclesiastes are not wrong; they are as right as they ought to be. The themes still apply to this day, but the observations about the physical world around the authors have been more thoroughly explored and these ancient writings can, in no honest way, be said to foreshadow discoveries made centuries later. Leave the spherical earth, the expanding universe, the Hadley's cells, and the water cycle to the scientists that discovered them and let the book of Ecclesiastes and the words of Isaiah inspire us to walk into a light instead of just staggering. Very Truly Yours, SherlockMethod. 1.http://www.cogwriter.com... 2.http://www.cogwriter.com... 3.http://ambassadorwatch.blogspot.com...