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

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.

Evolution=historical science (origin and development of life and earth cannot be observed, tested, or repeated because it happened in the past.(pg. 212).
My question is then, how are we getting “quantifiable” data on processes that we have not seen or been able to measure. Seems kinda fishy?!