@kellyjay saidI already asked you to post what points from the video you felt were noteworthy. Your lack of response is quite telling.
The lecture is more than like ~30 minutes, the rest is question and answer. That will not change anything, you showed up to bad mouth the topic, not gather information.
@vivify saidI asked you to watch the link provided, you refused, your lack of interest is quite telling. Why should I go provide more for you to ignore, you couldn't even tell me what you would do if I provided some! No point in providing you anything if they are also going to be ignored.
I already asked you to post what points from the video you felt were noteworthy. Your lack of response is quite telling.
@vivify saidNo.
That's quite clearly because religion is anti-science.
I do not believe religion itself is anti-science.
I believe that it is some people who are religious that are anti-science. The religion itself has no beef with science. It is those people who are religious and cannot adopt a reasoning view of their religion who are anti-science. These people believe their interpretation is the only possible one.
They are like the chess player who learns by rote a move order of an opening and cannot understand that there are many ways to reach that opening, with move orders they are unfamiliar with still reaching the same opening. They will swear up and down that an opening that transposes into the French or Sicilian is not actually the French or Sicilian, because that's not the move order they memorized when they learned the opening. Reuben Fine wrote a book called "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" that opened my eyes to chess openings and that if one understands the ideas behind the openings then you can reach the same middle game from a variety of move orders.
Perhaps someone needs to write "Ideas Behind the Bible Concepts".