Evidence for the Biblical Record

Yet another thread where the emphasis is incorrectly placed on evidence.
Where is the evidence for this, where is the evidence for that is all that I hear from the Dawkins brigade. (Does he pay you to do this?)I think the discussion has to be on how plausible the ideas and prophecies are that are contained within the bible. eg.1) Genesis states that man would have dominion over the animals. This is clearly true. Anyone who asks for evidence at this point should visit a zoo.
2) Revelation predicts that a scorching ball would hit the earth in the future. We have records to show that objects have hit the earth and that another could possibly hit in 2029 or 2036. (Apophis).Not an extensive list granted but compelling.

I am not sure what your definition of dominion is? Certainly some animals have been domesticated for thousands of years. I doubt very much if people kept whales as pets or lions as pets during the genesis period. Today however, you can go and watch killer whale shows or lions in circuses which haven't yet banned the practice. The human race is also in the process of eradicting many species if not all from the face of the earth. If that isn't dominion I don't know what is. The issue here is not the prediction. Ofcourse, comets and asteroids are always likely to hit the earth in the future and we are all capable of making the prediction. The point here is that someone understood the concept of comets and asteroids 2000 years ago. The also understood that one could come crashing to earth. They further determined that such an event could wipe out a percentage of life here on earth. Considering that most of the advances in astronomy have been made within the last 300years, the fact that early humans had access to this information is staggering.

Scorching ball is my term not the NIV term. The NIV uses words like huge mountain, all ablaze, being thrown into the sea. I simply used this term as an illustration. The fact that you have picked up a term that isn't even used shows that you haven't read the book. And now you're questioning the authors understanding of comets/asteroids? Bizarre!

Are you questioning my understanding of comets/asteroids or the authors?If they didn't understand what comets and asteroids are does that mean that we do? Does that also mean that we understand the effects of such objects on us? Having never witnessed such an event I can't say that I do understand the impact of such an object so I find your line of argument irrelevant.