a simple answer to a complex question

this is a post i should have written a long time ago... i guess it is a daunting task, so i have been hesitant to delve into it.

the Bible is a simple answer to a complex question.

there... i said it... i've touched on the subject before, but never approached it so directly... i have addressed atheists' arguments in three parts: "That's so stupid", "Evolution", and "Nonsense"... but none of this gets to the root of the basic issue, which is "why doesn't the Bible specifically address scientific fact?"

what a silly question... but it's only silly because it fails to address the basic needs of the text, as written... simply put, if the first chapter of the Book of Genesis were to address all of creation in a scientific manner, it alone would comprise the majority of space in the world's largest library... we, as humans, would need to have invented the internet before the wheel simply to contain the wealth of information required to adequately describe the smallest portion of such a massive concept as the beginning of creation... and that's only Chapter One, verses one and two.

another library set aside by itself would be needed to contain the volumes of information which is required to explain verses three through five... the astrophysics alone would have its own wing.

verses six through ten would only need a small annex... i mean, that's only the cooling of the earth, the creation of an atmosphere, and continental plate tectonics... you know... simple stuff.

eleven through thirteen is the beginning of life... the beginning of biology should be a simple thing... only a few thousand tomes would probably be necessary... of course, there already exist entire libraries which house evolution, but these verses only cover plant life... we could probably pare it down to only the most necessary books... we don't want to get silly and over-do things.

verses fourteen through nineteen are more astrophysics... some discussion of time and the theory of relativity should be included at this point... maybe a smallish wing to an annex of the previous library.

more evolution, this time into the animal kingdom, for verses twenty through twenty-five... sure, it's more complex, but the basics were covered in an earlier library... we're getting fewer and more concise volumes... maybe just a room off an annex of a wing of a library.

verses twenty-six through thirty-one are primarily focused on mankind... as this is intensely personal to the audience being reached, this might require some additional material... maybe histories, discussions of genomes, exactly what is mitochondrial DNA and how it affects evolutionary mutations... you know... details.

we'll place that in its own library... no need in having extraneous information in there about the evolution of the sperm whale... or why it was named that unfortunate name... no, we need to focus this library on one thing; us.

because, after all... isn't this what the Bible was written for?... let the dolphins write their own books.

---

Edit:
some suggestions for reading material:
1: "In the beginning" - Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh
3: "Let there be light" - The Birth & Death of the Sun by George Gamow
4: "Separated the light from the darkness" - Astrophysics by Wolfgang Kundt
6: "A vault between waters" - An Ocean Of Air: A Natural History Of The Atmosphere by Gabrielle Walker
9: "Let dry ground appear" - Plate Tectonics by Wolfgang Frisch, M. Meschede, Ronald C. Blakey
11: "Seed bearing plants and trees" - Origin of Land Plants by Linda E. Graham
14: "Lights in the vault of the sky" - Origin of the Moon. New Concept: Geochemistry and Dynamics by Erik M Galimov, Anton M Krivtsov
16: "He also made the stars" - The Formation of Stars by Steven W. Stahler, Francesco Palla
20: "Waters teem with living creatures" - Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
25: "All the creatures that move along the ground" - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

defeating Darwin, Nye, Ham, and Fisher

i discuss Bryan Fisher, of AFR, and his discussion of Bill Nye and Ken Ham who discussed scientific atheism vs. intelligent design... there's a lot of discussion going on, so let's get right to it... we'll skip ahead to Fisher's "Defeating Darwin in Easy Four  Steps", which is predicated on Ham's highlights, primarily those which confounded Nye the most.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

what is the primary cause?... if all other things are secondary effects, what is the primary cause?... where did this "Great Ball of Matter/Energy" come from?
on a secondary note, i laugh whenever i hear the phrase "seeing light from the Big Bang"... apparently space unfolded faster than the speed of light, and light from the "Bang" had to catch up to the heavy matter out on the perimeter... think about that for a second, and you'll see why i find that hilarious.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

of course, the simple answer is a reduction in entropy in one place is balanced/offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere... this is some quantum magic, apparently... where our planet has a decrease in entropy through evolution, there must be an equal increase in entropy somewhere else... my (sarcastic) guess would be on Mars... because no one likes Martians.
also, through this Law, we naturally arrive at the conclusion that, from the current entropic state, there is an "original ordered state" of zero entropy; an "Initial Singularity"... the first moment of entropy is colloquially called "the Big Bang"... since entropy is one of those non-reversible laws, it stands to reason that there is no way the original ordered state could ever be reached through natural processes; the Initial Singularity has no precedent nor any subsequent equal... so, where did it come from?... it just was... there is no determining where it came from nor the first cause from which all others derived... should we take that on "faith"?

Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you.

even if we accept Darwinian evolution, which is entirely plausible in my opinion, what does this add or detract from the debate over "Intelligent Design" or the existence of God?... this is simply a mechanism for modification... where self-determinism fails to react to environmental stresses, successive generations are able to adapt and survive through biological processes... simply because evolution is not described in a collection of religious texts, this only proves the incompleteness and necessary brevity of the text... this does not describe an incomplete God.

Genes. The only mechanism – don't miss this – the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants. Catch these two quotes. First, evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations." And this from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another."

genes and fossils are two parts of the same debate, for which there is no necessary reason for discussion, as pointed out previously... one does not negate the other (e.g. evolution and God)... genes are simply mechanisms for either argument, not the argument, themselves.

---

source:
Defeating Darwin in four easy steps By Bryan Fischer, February 6, 2014