Scientific errors in the Bible

[QUOTE][b]1.)A few bugs survived a storm by floating around in/on debris.[/QUOTE][/b]How hot was the water? You may be aware that some calculations of the water temperature of the flood are well above boiling.Also, explain how an olive tree (in the Bible) and a number of bristlecone pines (in the American southwest) survived a year underwater.I think I should add that we are not talking about "a few bugs". We are talking hundreds of thousands of species, including those that exist as parasites inside other bugs. The ants you are refering to that ball up in a flood are probably fire ants, an accidental introduction from the Amazon River basin, where flooding is an annual ritual (hence their rafting behavior is an adaptation not common in other species).They reached the United States through human shipping, making landfall in New Orleans in the 19th century. If they could survive the harsh conditions of a year-long brine flood, then they would probably have made it to the US before Europeans did, floating in ant rafts (or debris) across the Gulf. They also would have had a decent chance of reaching Europe and Africa.This is one of the problems for the flood presented by biogeography.
If bugs could float all over the world on rafts, then they should all be cosmopolitan. Especially after the Flood. Another biogeography problem is that if all animals came through the Middle East, then the arid regions around Palestine should be the most ecologically productive deserts in the world. There should be representatives of most any desert organism in the world found there. I have yet to hear of Western Diamondbacks found in the West Bank or any species from the American Southwest.

Simply saying "divine intervention" rather than offering a coherent explanation of something is one of the reasons Creationism is not science. Back in the Dark Ages it was OK to answer any question you wanted with "divine intervention" and we know how people lived back then. Fortunately science eventually got the upper hand and we now have indoor plumbing. The small price to pay is that we can't answer questions with "divine intervention" and still be talking about "science" anymore.Besides your response raises other questions. Why did God spare a bunch of bristlecone pines in the Southwest and not the rest of the Earth's vegetation? What purpose would it serve?Why are you making the assumption that He did make an exception for them while dooming the rest of the vegetation, when the logical explanation is that there was no Flood?

[QUOTE][b]The thing is is that the whole basis for creationism is based on "devine intervention" not science.[/QUOTE][/b]I agree on that. [QUOTE][b]If we were created by God then none of what he did agrees with modern-day scientific logic.[/QUOTE][/b]Scientific logic reveals the way the world works today. Now if we believe in divine creation then necessarily we believe that the way the world works today is because it follows the laws of physics placed by God. I don't understand why God would have to break or suspend his own laws to get something done. Hence, I think that the best explanations are the ones that are naturalistic (scientific) ones. [QUOTE][b]A God could not create an earth and populate it by adhering to our scientific principals, its an absolute impossibility. [/QUOTE][/b]Now, you may be correct--there isn't a way for me to know. But I would not be so quick to limit God. In fact, God could even have made the Earth fifteen minutes ago and given us all memories to create the illusion of age and continuity. Such a position cannot be disproven, though it does have a weakness of *why* such a thing would be done. My point is that when we are dealing with the supernatural, science and even common sense are useless because nothing is an impossibility. (Notice that in the last paragraph I had to resort to an argument of *why* rather than a scientific one based upon evidence.) [QUOTE][b]I believe that there is more going on than we can explain with men in lab coats.[/QUOTE][/b]That is quite possible. Some of us even believe on faith that there is. But if there is it is outside the realm of science.

[QUOTE][B]As for the sun, what is it powered by? It is obviously burning something. What?[/QUOTE][B]It's fusing hydrogen into heavier elements. References to the Sun "burning" are colloquial terms for the process of nuclear fusion. [QUOTE] [/B]You're missing the point. The Sun does not shrink at five feet a year. It does not shrink at one millimeter a year. It has an average diameter that it sticks to.That's because the phenomena that occur in the sun are a dynamic, feedback-controlled process at equilibrium. The contraction caused by gravity causes the fusion and the pressure from fusion keeps the Sun from collapsing further. Thus the Sun's diameter, varying slightly over different parts of its 11 year cycle, does not change appreciably over time. There is no net shrinking. Our models of the Sun show no signs of appreciable change of diameter any time in the last couple billion years. We do think it went through a T Tauri phase a very long time ago but now it is main sequence, diameter has no net change, and will not change appreciably until it leaves the main sequence about 5 BY in the future.

[QUOTE][B]I believe the way the planets are orbiting and their design [/QUOTE][/B]Why? There are completely naturalistic explanations for both.

The orbits the planets occupy is governed by the natural laws discovered by Kepler and others. Through use of these laws we routinely send spacecraft throughout the solar system.I'm not sure what it is about the planetary orbits that is so amazing. They (except Pluto) have roughly circular orbits but are actually elliptical. This could be because smaller bodies that crossed orbits of other bodies collided until the planets had orbits that were nearly circular. Also gravitational reasonance between planets would likely tend to smoothe out the orbits (elliptical orbits that pull in closer to other planets and then pull away flex the crust, heating it and tightening the orbit). Finally any planet that was too eccentric could have been ejected from the Solar System after a close encounter with a larger planet.That may explain the orbit of the eight inner planets but it still leaves us with eccentric Pluto (nobody knows why its orbit is so elliptical). It also leaves us with a few families of asteroids that cross the orbits of Earth and some other inner planets and essentially every comet in the Solar System (too shortlived to be smoothed).