The Hebrew Scriptures are scientifically inaccurate

Con considers History as not Science:Archaeology, Anthropology and Neurology are Sciences and since the Bible was created by the descendants of Nomadic Pastoralists, then the Genesis story is Falsified.Con forgets that The Bible is not a Scientific Text:It is about the relationship between the Israelite people and their Josiah imposed Yahweh.So to demonstrate this as I have, destroys the concept of Genesis being a valid document concerning the origins of anything, especially the Earth, as Yahweh is the product of Pastoralists who did not exist prior to Domestication of goats and sheep.So Yahweh appeared very late in human evolution terms.Thus without bothering to attack the Rampant idiocy in the Scientific view of Genesis, I have demonstrated that Genesis and Exodus are both invalid and produced as a means to convince naive citizens that the writings were truthful. So Genesis had no science involved, it is purely a Theological text falsified by Archaeology as contrived by 6th Century BCE authors.The Scientific notions of Genesis are not even worthy of debating, as we do not live on a Flat, Circular Earth Covered by a Dome filled with Water and stars attached underneath, as depicted in the Old Testament and even up to Revelations. Yes, this is the picture of the Earth given by the Biblical scripture.The earth and the dome which separates Earth's atmosphere from Heaven (filled with water), where the stars are attached to the underside of the dome (possibly with silly putty) and supported by pillars, that if shaken, will send the stars falling to Earth.Revelations 6:13 "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind."Such a false view of cosmology does not stand the Bible in good stead scientifically.If The Bible Were Scientific Truth:1: The Earth would be as that depicted in the picture, Earth would be covered by a Dome (firmament) which hold Heaven above it. 2: The moon would be another Sun, as Genesis stated that the moon is a source of light: Genesis 1:16Thus humans would not be able to land on the moon and we would burn up trying to do so.3: There was Light and Darkness, Day and Night, before the Sun or the sister sun, the moon were created.Genesis 1: 3-5. 4: Stars glued to the bottom of the Dome that holds Gods Throne above it: Genesis 1 -17 "AAnd God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"God must have used silly putty for this job.This reminds me of the movie "The Truman Show". 5: There would be four legged Insects (Leviticus 11:20)6: There would be no waters in Genesis 1:2 for the spirit to hover over, the water would be Ice, as no sun = no heat.7: There were no waters teaming with life originally: Genesis 1:21 as for the first 2 billion years of Earth's existence the only living things were cyanobacteria and it's derivatives, the Earth's atmosphere was toxic to life and it took around 2 billion years for the cyanobacteria to oxygenate the earth's atmosphere and iron, so life could exist on the surface.These are just a few of the hundreds of contentions between the Biblical unscientific view of reality which came from Goat Herders making stuff up to suit their perceptions of reality.The Bible is purely a contrived Theological text.That is all there is to say on the subject of science and the Bible.There is no valid Scientific information between the covers of the Bible.All is lost to those who try and assert that any of the writers of the Bible knew anything about the natural world or Science.So essentially to consider the Hebrew Scriptures as scientifically accurate is a non argument as they never made any Scientific statements in the scriptures, what there is in the way of information about the natural world is sometimes valid, as these are from their observations, and what the writers observed is no less valid than what the average person observes today.Only, such observations are not Scientific as nobody in the Biblical era performed any science nor followed the scientific methodology, so essentially nothing in the Bible resembles science.So I only argue that the Bible is not Scientific against those Creationists who assert that it is.If Con accepts that the Bible has nothing to do with Science then we are in agreement.So Con is basing his understanding of my previous arguments on the wrong premise.My opponents in those other debates were arguing that the Bible is a Scientific Text as Young Earth Creationists wrongly believe that the Bible can answer all questions in Science.So the debate has started on the wrong concept of my other arguments.BTW Peter Enns is a Theologian and knows absolutely nothing about Archaeology, History nor Anthropology, thus for Con to cite statements from Peter Enns on Archaeological evidence I have presented is an Argument from False Authority Fallacy.Those I cited in my previous arguments trump Peter Enns in any such knowledge.He is insignificant.As all Theologians are in reality are people who think delusional thinking is rational.They believe the fallacious Cosmological Argument is Valid, when it cannot ever be so.There is absolutely no Truth in Theology, that is one thing I learned while studying Theology as a teen.So Con, yes, The Bible is purely a Theological Text, albeit it based on a fallacious premise and a God chosen from many Gods by Josiah. Had he chosen a more humanistic God to join his people with, maybe Islam and Christianity would never have evolved from it.As the humanistic approach of Jesus would already exist, so he would not be regarded as special in any way.Only the ridiculously naive Creationists such as Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and many on DdO cite the Bible as Scientific. Most Christians do not.The Historical validity of the Bible only begins after the Exile of Ezra and his people in Babylon.It is there that reality actually started being recorded.Prior to this, it was all fabricated by himself and his scribes.Yet, there are still a host of Chronological Errors and no real Evidence that Jesus Christ actually lived, nor performed miracles. So the Bible Historically is full of massive gapes and inconsistencies. Bart Ehrman confirms this in his studies and books on the subject.No Con, the Bible never stated Snakes came from lizards, scientific evidence concerns this with the Vestigial Legs found within snakes, that have disappeared from lack of use.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Back To You Con: