• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science In The Bible

tosca1

Member
Transforming dust magically into a living adult man (Genesis 2:7) isn’t science:



And then instantly transforming a man’s rib into a living adult woman (Genesis 2:21-22) isn’t science:



And then you have a talking serpent in Genesis, also not science.

These are miracles, they are magic, they fall under the category of supernatural...they are religious myth and fables, and they are science.

How is the Genesis creation myth any different from Egyptian creation myths or Babylonian creation myth?

And when compared Genesis creation with the much older Babylonian creation narratives, the parallels only demonstrated that the ancient Jews of the 1st millennium BCE had borrowed and adapted some of popular 2nd millennium BCE Babylonian epics that have spread east and west, examples:
  1. Epic of Atrahasis
  2. Epic of Gilgamesh
  3. Enûma Eliš (or the Epic of Creation)
These epics were themselves derived, borrowed and adapted from the 3rd millennium BCE older sources, Sumerian poems:
  1. Eridu Genesis
  2. The Death of Bilgames (Bilgames was the original Gilgamesh). There are 4 other tablets containing the poems of Gilgamesh.
There several other Sumerian creation stories.

Anyway, the Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian stories all predated the composition of Genesis.

The Enûma Eliš is of great importance, because the order of creation are almost identical to order of creative days in Genesis 1, so I think ancient Hebrews were aware of the story of Marduk.

This is about the Bible - and the compatibility with science that some day-age theories scientists claim about the Bible. I can see where they're coming from.

I'm not going to get into the alleged derivations from Babylonians/Sumerian writings here since that will derail this topic, and that subject would make for another interesting thread.
Let's discuss that, if you wish. Create the thread for it.
Please, alert me if you do.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Your logic needs some work.

But that aside,

No....don' set it aside. Explain how and why you say my logic needs some work.

if the supernatural is not detectable, measurable, observable or demonstrable, how do we know it even exists at all?
The lack of those very important pieces of evidence may have something to do with peoples' lack of belief in supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.[

There's nothing wrong with my logic.

If there are any evidences that exist, they will exist regardless of what a person believes.
They may not have found the evidence (hence the "lack" for it).....but that's not saying the evidence does not exists.

It's your logic though that needs some works.
Science does not deal with the supernatural - it can only deal with what can be observed and analyzed.
That's been clearly explained by the NAS!
Did you, or did you not read it?

So - your so-called "lack" of supernatural evidence from science, is not a logical question.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is nothing detrimental to how the article explained the "kinds" in the Bible. It was a very simple explanation - that's all it needs!

No, it is simplistic - overly simplified. "Kinds" has no specific meaning, and therefore claims made about them refer to nothing in particular. Define the term simply and specifically - not simplistically - and we can then begin to debate about kinds.

some folks seem to think that something has to be complicated for it to sound right.

Some people think that writing should be clear and thorough to be helpful. You are drawn to verbal caricatures, the verbal equivalent of a stick man drawing serving as a composite police drawing. If it's over-simple to the point that it is no longer effective at its intended purpose, it's simplistic.

And.........we're not talking about abstinence-only sex education!

We were talking about the difference between simple and simplistic. Abstinence-only sex education was an apt example of simplistic. It's too simplified, so much so that it routinely fails.

You can't say life just suddenly began evolving and then you tell me I can't bring up where the starting point is!

Yes, once life was present, it immediately began evolving. That was the starting point.

Do you understand why i say they're connected in a way - even though they're separate subjects?

Yes, I think I know why you might say that. They are chemical and biological evolution respectively, preceded my material evolution and followed by psychological and cultural evolution. They can all be discussed separately

Science isn't the only authority!

It's the only authority on the workings of reality, which is why it has been your authority on such matters on this thread. I've seen you present biblical scripture that can remotely be used to falsely imply that the Bible writers were prescient or were channeling a divine presence, and then say that the Bible is right in a handful of places because science says so.

So why go to the Bible at all? Just go to science, indifferent to where scripture agrees or does not.

And where the two part ways, as you have tacitly agreed, it it is science and not scripture that is authoritative

Also, you conceded this point by failing to address this same comment earlier - my comments stating that if you considered scripture the authority, then where science and scripture parted ways, you would be telling us how much science got wrong. Where's God's day of rest in science? The scientists got that wrong.

But you don't do that, and that is all anyone needs to know about which resource you consider the arbiter of truth where they contradict one another.

Science is quite limited to what is observed and analyze.

No. There is nothing known to exist that is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Think about why that must be true if we have a way to know that something exists. It means that it has already touched us, revealing a causal connection between it and us. That's the part science investigates.

outright automatical dismissal of the supernatural as "myth," is just simply based on......... ignorance

Nope. It's based on the well-founded principles that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that claims presented without sufficient support can be dismissed out of hand without refutation.

your explanation isn't just good enough

You're a faith-based thinker encased in a confirmation bias that limits what you are able to understand. I have nothing to offer such a person but reason applied to evidence, and that is not how you decide what is true about the world. You use faith.

If you didn't come to your present position via reason applied to evidence, you can't be budged from it by those, either.

Like I've said, the Bible is filled with poetry, parables, analogies, figures of speech....therefore, we can't be certain which can be taken literally or not.

Sounds like a good reason not to turn to the Bible for advice or learning. Science can tell you what you need to know with no vague language like "kinds," and it will be information that can be put to use

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science?

Yes, unless you decide to change your interpretation of Genesis every time science finds another departure of scripture from its own findings. For example, Christianity says that man was created in God's image, and with a soul that survives death. Evolution says that natural selection is a blind and undirected process with no purpose or intent (it is dysteleogical).

I'm talking about evolutionist scientists that do interpret Genesis with the Day-Age theories

Why would they? They have a better theory already that is independent of Genesis, and therefore have no reason to even think about Genesis at work, even the Christian ones.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe God created science for a special reason

I believe that man created his gods to account for what science reveals.

arguments from ignorance is so common with evolutionists peanut gallery

I don't think you know what an argument from ignorance fallacy is. You seem to think that it is calling the arguer ignorant. It is not. It's one of creationist's favorite fallacies, up there with straw man, Texas sharpshooter (one of your favorites), special pleading, and incredulity arguments. The creationist is arguing that if you can't answer as yet unnaswered questions, that that fact somehow supports the creationist hypothesis.

I can understand too, that a lot of evolutionists confuse arrogance with confidence.....simply because they've never really felt the experience of being confident about their position.

Everybody here arguing with you is confident that he or she is correct and you are wrong. We are not the insecure ones. We don't start threads to argue that creationism is wrong, angrily criticizing skeptics for not believing what they believe by faith, and then call the other side the angry ones or insecure ones. Why? Because,
  • "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." -Dan Barker
Also, all of your laughing betrays your insecurity. This is the second stage of Christian apologetics and the beginning of decompensation, the first stage being a more confident demeanor when making the claims.

The final stage is outright anger and hostility for not being believed. Your detractors all firmly rooted in the first stage - an unemotional mode

they cannot offer anything to support their case. They know it too.

There is no burden of proof with a faith-based thinker. Burden of proof only applies if one wants to be believed and is dealing with a person who uses reason applied to evidence to decide what is true about the world. If you have shut yourself off from that world, there is no way to reach you, and no duty to try.

the guru - Richard Dawkins the one who promoted the abrasive and abusive treatment of anyone who believes in God - founding new atheism, and posturing arrogance!


There have been no creationist contributions to science except outside of creationism. There isn't single paper that makes creationism more likely.

Check out some of the creationist scientists (and their contribution), mentioned above.

No. You have to make your own arguments if you can. Orphan links, that is, links provided not in support of an argument, but in lieu of one, are typically ignored.

Furthermore, I've lost count of how many times in the past I read and responded to such a link to the one posting it only to discover that whoever left the orphan link didn't actually read it himself, or read it but misunderstood it and now can't rebut the rebuttal to the piece, or the paragraphs I responded to on RF weren't the part of interest to the link poster.

So please make your own argument, and support it with a link if need be, or expect your link to not be opened or your topic discussed. And don't bother with creationist sources. Their track record for honesty and accuracy is abysmal.

If you can, find something from a mutually acceptable science education site that makes the same argument based on the same evidence. There is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians, so if something is accurately reported on a creation apologetics site, it will also be reported elsewhere on sites with no religious agenda. Link to those if they exist. If no such site exists, then there is no merit to the apologetics. Either way, no Answers in Genesis please

Rather than just leaving orphan links and expecting others to research topics of more interest to you than them, present a capsule summary of the argument yourself. If there's something new or intriguing there, you might entice somebody to investigate further. I have no motivation to look at any orphan link - least of all, one from a creationist site.

NOTE: be forewarned. There's also something to be said about evolution.

It wouldn't matter. As I said, creationists aren't credible or respected. Find another source, a mutually respected one, and make your own arguments (simple, not simplistic) or expect your post and link to go unopened.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
They're usually good for a dozen or so posts then they head off to enlighten a new mob of heathens with their wisdom.

As an aside... isn't day age believer a song by the Monkees?
That does sound like the story he was telling about being on other forums.

How can there still be monkeys if the Monkees formed a band? She's a day/age believer and a homecoming queen.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
They're usually good for a dozen or so posts then they head off to enlighten a new mob of heathens with their wisdom.

As an aside... isn't day age believer a song by the Monkees?
It looks like he is trying to provide reasons for day/age belief in Genesis. I do not disagree that people have attempted to re-interpret Genesis, going so far as to stretch parts of it around science to the point it is unrecognizable, so that they can still believe in light of the evidence. That does not support the claim that what they use as evidence is valid. It seems a pretty thin stretch for some of the examples provided. Not that it really matters. Do people really need evidence to believe? No. If that were the case, there would be no belief. If they want to see these things as support of their re-interpretation, I have no objection, but they cannot establish those claims objectively or to a point where that conclusion is significant.

I am not clear what this guy is trying to achieve. It all looks like a game to him, so that he can use emoticons and make flippant remarks. I have not seen anything that tells me he is serious or has much information that is not copied directly from links.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
This is about the Bible - and the compatibility with science that some day-age theories scientists claim about the Bible. I can see where they're coming from.

I'm not going to get into the alleged derivations from Babylonians/Sumerian writings here since that will derail this topic, and that subject would make for another interesting thread.
Let's discuss that, if you wish. Create the thread for it.
Please, alert me if you do.
But I have given you the reasons why I don’t think the Bible or specifically Genesis 2 is science, about Adam and Eve creation as well as the talking serpent as my examples.

There are no evidence that you can *poof* dust into a living adult male human. Nor can you magically turn a rib into a living adult female human.

And the talking serpent is nothing more than fable or myth.

None of these meet reality, and there are no biological evidences that any of these 3 examples can happen.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
No....don' set it aside. Explain how and why you say my logic needs some work.
All you have approved in all your posts are some interpretations and reinterpretations, some heavy doses of your personal belief, and lastly, the leap of faith.

There are nothing scientific about any of them.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I believe God created science for a special reason.
Ah...no.

God didn’t create science.

People, humans created science.

Science is a tool, just like mathematics, of acquiring knowledge, to explain the phenomena that have observed, explained in the form of hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis, either through the test results of repeatable experimentations, or through finding more observable but independent evidences that can verify the original preliminary observation.

The conclusion is only reach, based on the evidences, analysing the evidences, and to see if the evidences verify the hypothesis or refute the hypothesis.

Explanations are not enough to be scientific. Maths alone or logic alone are not enough to be scientific.

Science required empirical evidences, not just some explanations and some mathematical formulas or equations.

That’s what distinguishes science from faith-based religions.
 

tosca1

Member
Okay, back to the topic.
Like I've said, the Bible is not meant to be a science book. However, I couldn't help but see the science in it - putting myself in a day-age evolutionist's shoes. And, it also drives the point that the Abrahamic God is the Creator - having intimate knowledge of His creation.

When we have cumulative evidences such as these contained in a single Book - it's no longer logical to say that they're just "coincidences."

What is CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES?

evidence of which the parts reinforce one another, producing an effect stronger than any part by itself.
the definition of cumulative evidence


For those who missed the previously given evidences that show Biblical verses that are proven compatible with science findings, here's a recap to make it convenient for you:

LIFE BEGINS IN WATER post #1
ON GENDERS post #5
THE SNAKE'S LIMBS post #6
IN THE BEGINNING post #7
PANGAEA and PANTHALASSA post #8
MAN'S DOMINION OF ANIMALS post #130
THE HUMAN BODY post #131
PATHS OF THE SEAS #161


--------------


GOD STRETCHES THE HEAVENS


"Heavens," is another word for the sky or the universe. It's what you see (and what you can no longer see), when you look up to the sky.

Described by several authors from different timelines, take note that most of the verses use the present tense "stretches." How appropriate! The universe is still stretching!


Job 9:8
He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea.


Psalm 104:2
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent


Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it


Isaiah 44:24
This is what the LORD says your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,


Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.


Isaiah 48:13
My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.


Isaiah 51:13
that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretches out the heavens and who lays the foundations of the earth, that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction?


Jeremiah 10:12
But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.


Jeremiah 51:15
He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.


Zechariah 12:1
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: 2 I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.




Let me begin by saying that "expanding" isn't really the best word to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a difficult topic!
A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching".
What is the universe expanding into? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
 

tosca1

Member
Here is another evidence given, to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.


THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE

Biblical descriptions of the hydrologic cycle


Because water is a necessary component of life it is not surprising that the Bible has something to say on the distribution and movement of water.

The Bible does not raise these matters in a scientific or explanatory manner. Rather, God speaks to His people using common language and common concepts. Water is a common topic.


The Book of Job makes a number of points on what we today call the hydrologic cycle.
But unlike the reflections of Thales, Job provides a clear description of the concepts that underpin the hydrologic cycle:

“He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight” (Job 26:8).



Ecclesiastes 1 provides a statement of important concepts underpinning the hydrologic cycle as we know it today.

“The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again” (Ecclesiastes 1:6–7).


Embedded in these verses are the concepts of a cycle and of a water balance (conservation of matter). Ecclesiastes was written hundreds of years before Vitruvius first echoed similar concepts.


Elsewhere in the Bible, various hydrologic processes are further described. Evaporation is recorded in a number of other books:


Psalm 135:7 (evaporation)
Psalm 104:13 (precipitation)
Deuteronomy 33:13 (atmospheric and storage of ground water)
Isaiah 55:10 (process of infiltration and precipitation)
Genesis 16:7/Psalm 104:10 (release of groundwaters through springs)
Isaiah 4:3–5 (groundwater hydrology)

Again, these verses are not designed to ‘explain’ the hydrologic cycle, but to use visible works of nature as metaphors.


In summary, the physical descriptions of the water cycle used throughout the Bible to illustrate authority, blessings, and salvation are accurate.


Unlike the scholarly enquiries between 600 BC and AD 1600, the Bible does not present uncertainty, inaccuracy, or contradiction with its description of hydrologic processes. The hydrologic cycle is not described as subterranean waters sucked up into the mountains, to flow forth as springs that feed the rivers of the world.
Instead the Bible paints a flawless picture of the dynamics and components of the water cycle more than a thousand years before the first ‘scientific’ measurement confirmed that this was so.

The Bible and the hydrologic cycle - creation.com


Here is the science of it:


Introduction
From the beginning of time when water first appeared, it has been constant in quantity and continuously in motion. Little has been added or lost over the years. The same water molecules have been transferred time and time again from the oceans and the land surface into the atmosphere by evaporation, dropped on the land as precipitation, and transferred back to the sea by rivers and groundwater. This endless circulation is known as the "hydrologic cycle".

The illustration shows the hydrologic cycle in which water leaves the atmosphere and falls to earth as precipitation where it enters surface waters or percolates into the water table and groundwater and eventually is taken back into the atmosphere by transpiration and evaporation to begin the cycle again.

Water basics: the hydrologic cycle - Canada.ca


 

tosca1

Member
ATOMS


Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.


Practically everything in the physical world - from plant life, stars, animals, rocks, air, and water—is composed of building blocks known as atoms. You can't see atoms with the naked eye.

In fact....

We are told to take on trust the idea that atoms are there, interacting with each other and being building blocks for our world.

It might seem as if there’s a simple way to prove atoms exist: put them under the microscope. But this approach won’t work. In fact, even the most powerful light-focusing microscopes can’t visualise single atoms. What makes an object visible is the way it deflects visible light waves.

Atoms are so much smaller than the wavelength of visible light that the two don’t really interact. To put it another way, atoms are invisible to light itself. However, atoms do have observable effects on some of the things we can see.
How do we know that things are really made of atoms?

 

tosca1

Member
YET, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.


SPRINGS IN THE OCEAN


Job 38
16
“Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?


Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.


Proverbs 8
28
When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,


The Old Testament asserts that there are springs in the ocean.

One of the most profound and moving experiences in the life of the Old Testament patriarch Job must have been his encounter with a whirlwind. At a time when Job's undeserved suffering led him to a point of despair, God questioned Job from the whirlwind concerning his knowledge of Creation (see Job, Chapter 38). God confirmed his sovereignty and justice by giving what must rank as the greatest science test of all time.
Among the most thought provoking of God's questions to Job was, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea?"

The word for "springs" is NEBEK (transliterated from Hebrew), an unusual word referring to the places where water issues or bursts out of the earth. Job must have pondered this question with amazement, for although he had seen many springs on the land, he had no experience with undersea springs.

Today we know why. The ocean is very deep; almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness; the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea."
Springs of the Ocean


That was in the Old Testament.

>>>>>> FAST FORWARD TO 1977 >>>>>>>>>>>>




THE DISCOVERY
Deep diving research submarines have been constructed to withstand the three-tons-per-square-inch pressure at the ocean floor. These submarines have carried scientists into the deep. The first direct observations of deepsea springs, or their mineralized vents, appear to have been made on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge by Project FAMOUS in 1973.

Spectacular hot springs were then discovered on the Galapagos Rift in the Pacific Ocean by the 23-foot long submersible Alvin in 1977.

Alvin also explored, photographed and sampled hot springs on the East Pacific Rise just south of the Gulf of California in 1979. The research continues.

Several nontechnical magazine reports present photographs and descriptions of these recently discovered seafloor springs. The Galapagos Rift springs are described in the November 1979 issue of National Geographic. The article is titled "Incredible World of the Deep-sea Rifts" and bears the caption: "Scientists explore rifts in the seafloor where hot springs spew minerals and startling life exists in a strange world without sun.

The East Pacific Rise springs are shown in Science News, January 12, 1980. This article is titled, "Smokers, Red Worms, and Deep Sea Plumbing" and is followed by the caption; "Sea floor oases of mineral-rich springs and amazing creatures fulfill oceanographers' dreams." The discovery of these deep ocean springs is said to be the "most significant oceanographic find since the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge."

Springs of the Ocean
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Practically everything in the physical world - from plant life, stars, animals, rocks, air, and water—is composed of building blocks known as atoms.

Practically everything. So what isn't composed of atoms?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
ATOMS


Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.


Practically everything in the physical world - from plant life, stars, animals, rocks, air, and water—is composed of building blocks known as atoms. You can't see atoms with the naked eye.

In fact....


How do we know that things are really made of atoms?
Eh? Since when were stars composed of atoms?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When we have cumulative evidences such as these contained in a single Book - it's no longer logical to say that they're just "coincidences."

Correct. It's not a coincidence that the Bible got so much wrong and so little right. It means the opposite of what you would like to assert.

Consilience is the word you're looking for. The Bible fails to provide it, but the theory of evolution does..
 

tosca1

Member
Correct. It's not a coincidence that the Bible got so much wrong and so little right. It means the opposite of what you would like to assert.

Consilience is the word you're looking for. The Bible fails to provide it, but the theory of evolution does..


Yes. Consilience. Thanks for bringing that up. here is the defnition from Wikipedia:

In science and history, consilience refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.

That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own.

And? Lol. It's not the Bible who provides it - it's science!

The Bible simply makes a declaration! Science is the one that provides the evidence!



It's not a coincidence that the Bible got so much wrong

You folks still don't get it.
Kindly read the following carefully and contemplate on it:


The Bible is not meant to be a science book.

The Bible makes declaration, gives statements and makes claims without meaning for it to be proven true by science or anyone.

That's where FAITH comes in!

It's either "take it or leave it."
Examples of a declaration: " I AM GOD!" "IN THE BEGINNING..."


BUT........BUT........


......It just so happens that science had proven, or confirmed some of the statements/claims in the Bible to be true or compatible with science!





I'm using the right word with CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE for what claims/statements in the Bible have been proven/confirmed by science..........

.................because that's what they are: evidence reinforcing each other, showing the credibility of the Bible.

Even when it's not even meant to be proven - the Bible is racking points, science-wise!

But I'd take consiliience, too. It further supports my point.
It's a "back-up" for cumulative evidence. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Top