I had written, "Religion can tell science nothing. Science, however, can inform religions when they are wrong about nature. Religion conforms to science, as we will see next - never the other way around." Your video is consistent with my claim, and offers a few confirmatory examples of things that science confirmed.
It doesn't matter that science could confirm some of scripture, although these examples are pretty weak predictors of what science actually said. For example, the earth doesn't hang, the first claim. It sails through space hanging from nothing. And if you think that scripture anticipated handwashing in medicine, perhaps you can explain why it took science to make it a medical practice. This is typical of how useless these scriptural pronouncements are, and why I say that religion contributes nothing of value to science. I didn't get past these two. Also, that source, Comfort, is as discredited scientifically as Hovind. His banana argument made him a laughingstock in the scientific community.
What matters is how much the scriptures got wrong, which undermines any claim of divine prescience involved.
How long would a video of all of the scripture that science has refuted be? There was no first human or first pair of humans. There was no global flood. There was no exodus. The family of languages is unrelated to any falling tower. Biological death is irreversible. The world did not come into being over six days. Light doesn't precede matter. The tree of life evolved naturalistically. No insects are four-legged. Pi is not 3. Bats are not birds. The smallest seed is not the mustard seed. There is no firmament. The moon is not a source of light. The earth was not formed before the sun. Science fixed all of those errors.
At the elementary particle called electron it is really simple to see that "rest mass" m0 is not energy E: E^2=p^2*c^2+(m0)^2*c^4.
I had written, "As I understand it, energy and mass must be different manifestations of a single "substance." Once again, your reply is unresponsive. It doesn't address what was written. Why do you suppose that keeps happening with you? Scientists and mathematicians are acutely aware of how dialectic proceeds. One must address the claims that one disagrees with using a counterargument that if sound, makes the rebutted claim false. Uneducated people commonly make this area - dissenting without rebuttal as just described, perhaps with deflection as you just tried - but scientists don't. That's simply not an academic value or practice.
How do you account for that? How do you account for the fact that you say that you have proved the Riemann hypothesis and then keep using the same word to suggest that you have proven the existence of God with some confused argument? You seem to have no idea of what proof is. Once again, that's common in the lay population lacking academic training, but not in the academic world, which you claim to inhabit. You don't have an answer for that.
