Secular reasoning, as in evil! In fact so secularly malevolent and worthless that your posts are not even worth quoting, copying or pasting anymore.
I was perfectly reasonable. If your position is not one you can support with anything more than mindless bible quoting and simply flat out lying about physics then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.
As for your PhD, you will continue to sit in that tree house because you want to be a branch manager.
That PhD lets me know what you have lied, just flat out lied, about physics. If you are in a position of 'truth' you shouldn't need to lie, you shouldn't need to misrepresent the work of physicists. You can't simultaneously say "Your PhD is worthless" and "The work of people with PhDs supports my position!". You want people to think science backs you up but when someone who paid attention in science class points out otherwise suddenly you flick into "Science is wrong and worthless and evil". You want to have your cake and eat it.
We also find these three main branches of government in the Torah.
Except that democracy is not how any of the groups which are mentioned in the bible obtain their leaders. It's "God says I'm the Chosen One, if you don't like me you're pissing off god.". Its not a million miles from the whole right wing "I'm doing gods work" attitude I see so much in republicans, particularly the ones who are a lot like you in their attitude (wilful ignorance and hypocrisy), like Sarah Palin.
The pope visits the UK tomorrow and while I'm not a fan of him for a plethora of reasons I do find it quite nice that the first high level government representative he'll meet is our deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, someone who quite plainly says he has no religious faith. He doesn't rub it in people's faces, he didn't make a fuss during the elections and more importantly the media didn't either. Though there's plenty of things wrong, IMO, with the whole notion of a state sponsored religion, as we have in the UK, during elections the religious faith (or lack of) of our candidates is a non-factor in the campaign. I think the US would be a vastly better place if they followed that same approach.
There is no science or even history in the 'bible'. But there is science in the Hebrew bible.
So all the science in the Hebrew bible, which is the template for the old testament, was taken out to make the old testament? So you're therefore saying that creationism
isn't science as the literal reading of the Christian bible is what provides the motivation for creationism in the majority of the western world.
Can there be science without using the Hebrew premises? Evolution and medicine also comes from here.
The concept of using plants and particular diets to make people better isn't originally from the bible. Shamans and witch doctors and 'the village wise man' exist in all ancient cultures, including those which were not touched by the Abrahamic religions until long after Jesus supposedly spent a weekend in a tomb before becoming a zombie.
Remember, always aim for the head!
there rae no contradictions of the Hebrew bible with science, math, history or geography.
Evidence says otherwise. For instance your next comment, which contradicts your first about there supposedly being no science in the Christian bible :
Creationism and Monotheism are two of the greatest scientific premises humanity has. These have no scientific alternatives: name one!?
So creationism is science, yet you just said there's no science in the bible or quran. But both of them promote, in literal reading, creationism. You're being like Anita, wanting to have your cake and eat it, in that you say "Oh that's not science, it doesn't count" when someone points out issues with the Christian bible's take on things but then you mention things which are in the Christian bible as being 'science'.
Creationism is contradicted by observation. It is therefore false. And even if it weren't it isn't science as it makes no precise testable predictions, unlike things like evolution which tell us how the long time development of life occurs. Monotheism isn't science either, it is
faith. Faith is what you have when you have no evidence, because if you have evidence you don't need faith. Neither of your examples are science. And to address your final comment evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology are scientific alternatives to "God made it all in under as week". And since monotheism isn't even in principle anything 'scientific' there doesn't need to be a scientific alternative. The rational position which relates to a deity (or deities) of any kind is
disbelief until evidence is presented, as you have for deities like Zeus, Apollo, Mithra, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you must have a specific answer then atheism, in the sense that you answer anything other than 'yes' to the question of "Do you believe in a god" (which is different from strong atheism which is the affirmation of "I believe no gods exist", take care to note that), is the scientific alternative to monotheism or theism of any kind. Provide evidence and believe becomes at least possibly rational. Until then faith is irrational.