If you start with the sum total of all human knowledge as being 1%. Then, this knowledge only has to double less than 7 time for all knowledge to be known by man. I'm quite sure no one of scientific reputation will say that all knowledge will be known when our current knowledge has doubled 7 times.
We do not know how much of the total potential knowledge of the universe humans actually know, so declaring that it is 1% (a purely arbitrary value) is pretty much meaningless. It could be (and probably is) far, far, far, far
smaller than that. Also, that assumes that our knowledge increases on a purely linear scale, when it doesn't; you have no idea of the amount of time and effort it would actually take to double our current knowledge, let alone to double it further than that. Moreover, diminishing returns cannot be ignored. As we acquire more and more knowledge, it will become much harder to acquire more knowledge on top of it, even assuming we don't ever lose any and that we don't waste time rediscovering knowledge we already had access to. Not to mention knowledge that is created in the meantime by other, non-human civilizations.
In short, your argument, which is so badly flawed that I'm suspecting a strawman, doesn't actually accomplish anything except to make you look bad. I suggest you discard it and come up with something else. Then again, considering your track record, you might do better not to come up with your own examples at all. For example:
Bill Nye does have an opinion. It reminds me of many atheist positions, and reminds me of the guy who had a checkerboard and some checkers and from there was able to prove that there was no such thing as a game of chess.
Your own argument makes me think of someone who doesn't have a checkerboard at all and tries to prove that there are no games that use checkerboards because he doesn't believe in them. It is truly that bad.
So then expert doesn't necessarily mean correct knowledge. Darwin was once considered correct. Flat earth people were once considered correct.
More accurately, experts of their times have incomplete knowledge. Darwin was an expert because he came up with the theory of evolution, and the fact that we've improved on it doesn't make him any less of an expert. Flat earth people, on the other hand, were hardly what I'd consider experts on the subject. Indeed, it had been known for a long time before Columbus that the Earth was round, even though the common belief (by people who didn't know any better) was that it was flat. So the flat earth belief was never based on actual knowledge to begin with. It was based on false perceptions, without the knowledge necessary to counter those false perceptions. Kind of like a lot of religious beliefs, for that matter, such as the idea that lightning was an expression of divine wrath (which was a common belief even well into Christianity until someone worked out that lightning would strike the tallest objects and would conduct down metal, and invented the lightning rod).
The definitions are not human but from the bible.
If the definitions were not human, humans would not understand them. Therefore, since the Bible is comprehensible to humans, it uses human definitions.
Here is your problem and the problem you cause for me. God makes the sun to rise and the rain to fall. He also has said "is there evil in the city and I have not done it?" Because of disobedience of some we all suffer. When crops fail all of our prices go up. When diseases come they affect us all.
Did you seriously just claim that God makes the sun rise? Didn't you pay attention in science class? The sun doesn't move around the Earth. The Earth rotates on its axis, causing it to appear that the sun is moving, when in fact it's the planet that's moving. This is a perfect example of a case where the Bible is clearly and unambiguously wrong, which can be directly connected to flawed human perceptions. So why is it that your god described things exactly as a human who didn't know any better would have?
I realize that you think you're being profound and such, but honestly? You're pretty much making yourself look like a credulous, gullible fool who's simply repeating stuff you've read/heard that seems wise and pithy to you, but really isn't. The book you're quoting from wasn't written by an all-knowing god
; it was written by people who knew far less than we do today, and made things up to fill the huge gaps in their knowledge. That's why so much of it simply doesn't work for today's society; the Old Testament was written for a tiny provincial kingdom
to justify its existence and position as the tribe of the Most High God, yet kept getting conquered by other groups who couldn't have cared less about their supposedly divine mandate. It's like a laundry list of conquerors; the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Romans, the Byzantines (who took over from the Romans), and on and on.
Honestly, if I had godlike powers and were looking for a chosen people to represent my will on Earth, the Hebrews would have been the last
group I would have picked, given how generally incompetent they were. I mean, they got kicked out of their own holy land for almost 2,000 years. Compare that to the Romans, who maintained their empire for 1,500 years, or the Chinese, who developed such a strong culture that even when they were conquered, their conquerors eventually became Chinese in every way that actually mattered, and who have a cultural cohesiveness that's lasted for over 6,000 years.