"No, it is a point of observation which is then used for other claims (at least until there is grounds to reject the observation as categorical, which depending on what is understood may entail the idea being scaled down.)"
So is the evidence that the universe had a beginning and therefore had a cause a "point of observation". Are you of the Krauss type, who puts blind faith in theories like the multiverse that one must travel outside the universe (read: physically impossible) to prove absolutely, or are you of the type that goes to the flat earth level and denies that the universe had a beginning altogether as the 19th century atheists did?
"Various depictions of the Bible versus reality as currently understood such as:
1. Genesis account"
When you annihilate a particle and antiparticle, what do you get? A recreation of Genesis 1:3. If matter can be converted into energy, then so too can energy be converted into matter, and that's exactly what this verse alleges.
The account then shifts to the early Earth, which was, shortly after the water precipitated put of the thick, Venus-like atmosphere, a water world until the first continents formed, just as the claim in Genesis 1:9 echoes.
Furthermore, what life was first to exist? Photosynthetic life according to scientists, and that's exactly what Genesis 1:11 claims. Keep in mind, even after the oceans were created and the atmosphere thinned out considerably, it still was almost pure CO2 at this point. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means more ocean evaporation, and, ergo, more high cloud cover — enough to make the entire planet's sky overcast until after some CO2 got replaced with oxygen, at which point the sun and moon would be within clear view of Earth for the first time, which Genesis 1:14-19 can be construed as an implicit reference to (just because the Sun and Moon existed before this point does not mean that they were visible from the ground before this point).
Finally, after all this, we have the Cambrian "explosion" which contained mostly marine life, and then, after the Paleozoic, a myriad of all sorts of feathered beasts, including dinosaurs which most scientists agree now have feathers. Both of these incidents are collectively referred to in Genesis 1:20, and in the correct order. After this, mammals (Genesis 1:24) and humans (Genesis 1:26) are also placed in their correct ordinal positions.
On top of all this, we also have the Hebrew word "yom" which can mean anything from a day to a week to a month to a year to a "seven" to a period with an undetermined length. Once the ordinal positions are deemed correct, then correcting the relatively short period is only a matter of retranslating "yom" using that last definition (unspecified period of time).
Keep in mind, the Genesis account was allegedly given to Moses as a series of visions from God without interpretations. If there's a vision without an interpretation, then Moses must come up with the interpretation for that vision, and when that happens, then the end result is a corruption of what was supposed to be a series of geologically accurate dreams by Moses' predetermined cosmology.
"2. Living inside an animal
3. Virgin Births
4. Numerous other claims that are falsehoods within the context of what is currently known."
If all miracles are "falsehoods within the context of what is currently known" as you claim, then the Big Bang theory is also a "falsehood within the context of what is currently known", why? Because of how extremely precise all
constants in this universe are — a minute upon minute upon minute change in any constants within this universe would seal our doom. Accidents don't do this. Accidents create chaos, not order, yet throughout the very fabric of our universe, throughout its underpinnings, what we see is evidence of order, not chaos.
"Various depictions of books in the Bible versus various other books in the Bible.
There was a point when the god notion of the Hebrews was localized to a place. This was later changed to be everywhere. The OT doesn't contain the idea of hell or Satan, but this idea is created in the NT."
One word: Daniel. The ideas of hell and of the "man of lawlessness" (the devil, the Antichrist) were created in Daniel 10, not in the NT as you claim. If Daniel were in fact written in the 160's BC as some with a predetermined notion of prophecy being impossible claim, moreover, then explain the Daniel 9 prophecy (attached image) which points directly to the 30's AD. There are definitely older Daniel manuscripts than that period in existence, that's for sure, so at this point we're talking flat earth level manuscript denialism on the part of those who claim that Daniel belongs in the NT simply because it references NT events.
Daniel also was written (allegedly) in Babylon, which debunks your "localized to a place" claim.https://plus.google.com/photos/112691293278538254479/albums/6328153524395235473/6328153523626886898