While I agree with most of this post of Ken Ham, I would have to say that while it's a common claim, the assertion that atheism inherently leads to moral nihilism (the belief that morality is meaningless) is not universally accepted. Atheists hold diverse views on morality, with some maintaining that morality is subjective and others arguing for objective moral principles derived from humanism, reason, or social constructs.

However, I would have to agree that I have never seen a good argument against the Bible. There are some that don't even read the Bible then claim to know what it says and those that only read one verse without taking the rest of the context and chapter into consideration, are naturally prone to thinking there are contradictions in the Bible. There are not.

But your same argument can be used to argue for the truth of Islam. Just replace "Bible" with "Koran" throughout. That book also addresses right and wrong .

What brought me back to God years ago was not debates or logical proofs. I doubt whether that ever converts many people.

When I opened the Bible with a hunger in me, then the words burned within me .

There is a great deal of personal and social wisdom in the Bible, and our society is better for those parts.

And there are good reasons for not taking all parts of the Bible literally (those parts can still be parables or whatever). I'll start with the ages of the Earth and universe.

---

---

---

---

Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating.

Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).

Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.

Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.

Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/


Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.

Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.

No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.

If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???

The Bible is incomplete, you can thank the Catholic Church for that and most of the other denominations don't know much about the other books that Catholic Church decided not to include when all the books were put compiled to make the Bible... The last book, Revelations, was just based on prophetic dreams some have come true....@LadyGrace

Other than the 2500 factual errors it contains and the obvious bits of plagiarisms from other sources of bronze-age silliness it’s a pretty good bit of speculative fiction from a time when people thought the world was flat and had corners.

I have a position that cannot be denied. My perspective is that the bible is invalid. Sure it is relateable, but given it is more than 30 years old it is entirely unreliable based on the legal statute of limitations; which is 30 years.
Therefore whether true or not it is unverifiable. Also when considering the fantastical nature of many of the stories and lack of cross reference. It is a "good argument" "against" the bible. Furthermore it has been translated so many times from arameic from hebrew to latin from italian. From italian to english. With several more languages in between.

It has been compiled over a number of centuries by a diverse group of men, who may conceivably have misinterpreted or misrepresented God's Word.

The Bible warns of skeptics and non-believers, even warns that Christians will fall away.

The Bible says the ruler of this world is blinded the eyes of them that they believe is not, it is as it is, choices are made.

When the whole world see him coming from the clouds with his angels they will be screaming alien invasion because they don't know who he is. And with the invention of the television, telephone / cell phone, then the computer and internet the whole world will see him, except those in extremely remote places without such technology which is very few.

It was plagarized from the Greek mythical character gilgamesh and more obviously from ancient Persia's zorarathustra. So plagarism is a strong argument against the bible being reliable.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a more obvious use of circular logic.

How about the Bible's support of slavery? Is it moral to own another human being?

It's alright to own slaves, but not to covet them.

There is no good argument for the bible.

It is a book of collected myths that is full of internal contradictions and just plain silly stuff. Why people take it seriously in the modern world is one of life's great mysteries.

It is without doubt the source of much pain and suffering in this world.

Yes. A book isn’t true because it says in the book that it is true.

Religion is a matter of faith. You seem to be looking for factual evidence.