You will puke.

[Pando]

I question this theory of "gravity."

Good call, so do I actually. I'm going to find a way to explain it one day.

[adrenaline]

I question this theory of "gravity."

Gravity doesn't exist, everyone knows that

[VtecMini]

Until evolution is completely proven, it will remain a theory - and I will remain skeptical.

For argument's sake, let's say that only 98% of evidence that proves evolution is concrete. Let's pretend that there's that 2% that sits on dodgy ground. I'd imagine that's fairly genererous, because I think it's more like the 99.5% that EggNogg went for, but as I said, we'll be generous.

That 2% does not invalidate the other 98% and it most certainly does not by any stretch of the imagine prove that there is a god. Just because we have something that we can't explain, it doesn't mean we have to automatically assume that it is the work of an omnipotent being, because that's ridiculous. Like EggNogg says, it just means that science has some more work to do, cos that's what it does. It answers the things that we previously didn't have an answer for.

So going back to our 98% good science, precisely how much of the Bible is proven to true? If it isn't proven to be 100% true, why would anyone have more faith in that than evolution, which we're 98% happy with?

[DieFrage]

The simple fact is that creationism isn't a scientific theory. You can't base a scientific theory on something that magically happened and say you can never find out how. It's like asking a teacher what the square root of 4 is
and they tell you "2",
"why" you ask,
to which they reply "Somebody long ago and much smarter than us said so."
Scientific theories often open up more questions, not dispell them as the work of heretics and untruthfull by reason of a book written hundreds of years after the events it documents, especially after several hundred years of oral repitition and distortion, anyone ever played "telephone"? If the Creationist's rants are accepted then what of the billions of people who don't follow Christianity or Catholocism? What about Polytheistic religions? What of the peagan gods of old? No scientific theory tells you to blindly accept and not question as Creationsim asks you too. Science holds no man above the rest and no genius is accepted lightly or immune to the ever strengthening criticism from their peers. Creationism tells you god created the earth in seven days, end of story. Scientific theories are open to modification and can be tested and proven by some means no matter how theoretical or mad, creationist theories aren't. Creationists simply ask questions that science hasn't found the answers to yet and when no answer is heard they declare it the work of a higher power.

[Egg Nog]

Until evolution is completely proven, it will remain a theory - and I will remain skeptical.

That's idiotic. Evolution has long since been proven well beyond the level of onus.

[Quiggs]

Until the Bible is completely proven, it will remain a theory - and I will remain skeptical.

I win.

[Vindesh17]

Until the Bible is completely proven, it will remain a theory - and I will remain skeptical.

I win.

The bible will never be proven, therefore you do win.

[adrenaline]

I am skeptical. Tell me, Egg Nog or Quiggs, does that mean that I am against the concept. Or does it mean I'm not sold on it?

"Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims..."

I'll give you a hint. Due to the sheer amount of anomalies, I'm not sold on the concept. Hold on, I just gave you the answer.

The Bible will never be proven. The Bible isn't science. Alot of people look to the Bible. Others look to science. You can't apply the concepts of the Bible to science. You can't apply the concepts of science to the Bible. Yet, the people who look to science always apply science to something that can't be defined by science - because according to science and logic, the Bible is stupid. How do you actually prove what's in the Bible? And why do people opposed to the Bible actually care if it's true or not?

Challenge to Quiggs: Since you have 'won', how about you do me a favour and disprove the Bible.

[Esperante]

I am skeptical. Tell me, Egg Nog or Quiggs, does that mean that I am against the concept. Or does it mean I'm not sold on it?



I'll give you a hint. Due to the sheer amount of anomalies, I'm not sold on the concept. Hold on, I just gave you the answer.

The Bible will never be proven. The Bible isn't science. Alot of people look to the Bible. Others look to science. You can't apply the concepts of the Bible to science. You can't apply the concepts of science to the Bible. Yet, the people who look to science always apply science to something that can't be defined by science - because according to science and logic, the Bible is stupid. How do you actually prove what's in the Bible? And why do people opposed to the Bible actually care if it's true or not?

Challenge to Quiggs: Since you have 'won', how about you do me a favour and disprove the Bible.

I don't think people should be questioning the historical truth of the Bible as much as the violence, ignorance and arrogance that several part of the Bible display. I don't give something much credit as a historical document if the very morals it present are flawed and skewed. The values of the Bible don't even represent those of most modern Christians. It's silly to stand behind the Bible and support it even though it contains several passages that you would most certainly frown upon should someone else quote. There are far more moral eddies and inconsistancies with the Bible than with evolution or gravity.

Let me get this out of the way, too. I don't have a problem with most modern Christians, but I do have a laundry list of problems with the Bible. Historical accuracy is the least of my quarrels with it.

[Quiggs]

Challenge to Quiggs: Since you have 'won', how about you do me a favour and disprove the Bible.

Hows about you go disprove evolution?

[adrenaline]

Hows about you go disprove evolution?

I never tried to. I didn't announce that I was the victor of the discussion. That was you

[scottie300z]

You can't apply the concepts of the Bible to science. You can't apply the concepts of science to the Bible.

Yes you can, i believe God created this world. In it he created a number of rules that made up the world. Man has been discovering these rules and has called them Science. And that is my belief, my religion. In the bible it says nothing of how and of which way God created, so you may not want to be ruling out any, so i wouldnt say you cant apply the concepts w/ on another. If i remember correctly this basic idea is also Stephen Hawking's line of thinking as well.

As far as how the specifics are in the bible and science disproving them, the bible is far from its origional, i wouldnt be surprised if churches through the years of fiddled with it. But I do believe that the basic concepts in the bible hold true and science can live along side it. The basic concepts and rules by which to live your life are what matter anyways. dates are just dates.

[Esperante]

I never tried to. I didn't announce that I was the victor of the discussion. That was you

It doesn't matter. Calling out to disprove any concept on the table is just stupid.

[In court]
Lawyer:As you can see, this man had his hands coverd in the victim's blood, and had the stolen artifacts in his coat.
Robber:Yeah, but you can't prove it.

[Jack_Bauer]

Challenge to Quiggs: Since you have 'won', how about you do me a favour and disprove the Bible.

Well, the Bible begins by telling us that the earth and everything in it was created by God around 6000 years ago in 6 days. In light of the wealth of scientific and archeological research dating back into the MILLIONS of years of life on planet earth, I'd say the Bible gets off to a pretty shocking start in terms of accuracy, wouldn't you?

Throughout human history religion and myth has been used to explain away the gaps in our understanding of science and the world around us. This is just a basic and understandable compulsion, it helps to allay our fears over the many great unknowns in our world. Humanity is a scary and confusing place at times, which nobody can rightfully claim to understand. The use of myths and stories (which over time develop into organised religions) is a compensation and a comfort to people, giving them the notion that there is some sort of design or overarching plan that we are a part of, and that can somehow give us a sense of reason and justice in what is at times a frighteningly unreasonable and unjust world.

However, the last few centuries have seen epic advances in every science. The mutlitude of 'blanks' that existed in the story of our earth to the people's of Biblical and medievel have to a large extent been filled in. We do not need these ancient stories and myths to fill in the blanks in many, many cases. Science has done this job for us, and in the process gone a long way to disprove the theories of creation as proposed by the Abrahamic/Semitic religions that have held sway in 'Western' society for millenia. Science does not purport to hold all the answers, it never has done. It is a constant and ongoing journey of discovery, and many blanks still remain unfilled. But to try and use those remaining blanks as 'proof' that science is flawed and that it somehow leaves the door open for a 4000 year old story book to still be given credibility is nothing short of foolishness.

I have absolutely no problem with people taking the opening of the Bible (or the Torah/opening of the Qu'ran if that is your religion of choice) as a collection of stories/fables/parables and still retaining their faith with that knowledge. I have no problem with religion in the sense that you can choose to use the teachings of Jesus/Moses/Mohammad etc to inform and enhance your life, there are certainly some worthwhile and noble lessons to be learned (along with plenty of bad and barbaric things as Esp. has mentioned). By all means take it at face value, take it as a collection of stories and fables. But for people to still be desperately clinging on to the hope that the Biblical story of Genisis, a fiction so clearly penned by human hand, may still be proved to be some kind of historically and scientifically accurate document is a nonsense. And I believe that it is disingenuous of certain religious leaders to still be preaching these theories to the suggestible, needy and gullible as somehow holding all the answers, flying in the face of the magnitude of empirical scientific evidence that counters these claims.

</end rant>

[nota]

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.

For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.