Anyone with scientific vigor regards all the theories as theories.   I'm not arguing about how some teacher taught your kids, that is not of consequence.  Arguing about HOW something is taught is also an ad hominem attack -- attacking a person espousing a theory.

Well, you are talking to me, not someone else.  I am not calling it facts, I am calling it a theory.

Those who study it closely are trying to fit reality to theories -- myriad theories (hence the notation: THEORY).

The myriad theories require real scientists to hold off judgment -- all they have are some provable pieces of an unknown bigger picture.  Frankly those pieces are far more easily experienced as truth than anything out of the bible.

Look, you can get fruit flies and grow generation after generation watching their genes mix and match and change and mutate.  You can take it to it's logical conclusion or not.  Frankly, there is no 'proving' anything beyond mathematical theorems, of which this is not.  There is only evidence and HOW MUCH evidence.

Theories have SOME evidence.  You have NONE.

*you're...   ftfy.


I have a Jesuit education.  I've read the bible cover to cover several times.  

Do some events in the bible match up to historical events (those proven with archeology, a scientific undertaking)?  

Yes.

Do they prove anything at all?  

Nothing other than something happened and it was also reported in the bible.  The only thing you could actually experience is to go see an archeology site and verify the artifacts are indeed of the correct people at the correct time (Say the separating of the seas, was it the Red Sea or the Reed Sea? -- nobody knows, translations and oral traditions are FAILURES historically AND with the bible).

There is nothing supernatural or religious that can be experienced or proved with the words in the bible.  So I can't experience of verify anything that you claim.


Alternatively, I can:

1)  Verify evolutionary theory using fruit flies

2)  Verify the failures of oral tradition using history

3)  Compare and contrast the multiple Abrahamic Religions and their predecessors.  When this is done once will notice the similarities and the co-opted pieces of the previous religions (in order to gain a following from the previous tradition).

4) Use astrophysics to mathematically determine the general state of the universe in it's infancy.

5) Use the same to determine the state of the universe in the future.
-----------------------------

Now Can I:

1)  Verify god made humans out of mud in his image?  No

2) Verify that he did this whole damn thing in 7 days?  (not that a day can exists before the sun and earth exist)  No.

3) Verify ANYTHING AT ALL other than historically there was a man named jesus who was crucified and people wrote lots of crazy stuff about?  

NO.

-----------------------------------

to a very close degree, yes, they can.  Can I, specifically?  Not without revisiting calculus -- and only then could I determine the position of the moon. But, I could get training and education to do so, if I pleased.

Please follow up your claims with WHY I cannot.  It's helpful to the conversation.

@4: You can not mathematically speak about the universe. You can make a statistic/mathematical "model" of the universe. But math itself does not in any way describe the universe, or is related to it in any way. The use of the word mathematics in this context, is a rape of the word.

@5: To be able to simulate the universe faster then the universe itself within itself, is a contradiction equivalence to the Russell's paradox. To simulate the universe and thereby know its future you would have to be in possession of something bigger than the universe. I don't think you have that.

Even if we look away from the semantics, scientists are still discussing the fate and the birth of the universe, and if such things even exists. Or even if they can talk consistently about it.

Its more logically sound, but in its essence its the same...
And computer scientists have been able to confirm gödel's proof with a proof checker algorithm, which is awesome and nice, and a great leap forward for proof theory and computational proof checkers.

God hates you.

Not really. "I don't know" is a pretty simple answer, and is probably better than trying to make something up, and getting stuck with having to answer even more questions. But priests and religious types in general are pretty convinced that they know the answers - the "truth" - and can't help themselves.


Pretty fair, considering he knew that this would happened, and purposefully came to earth specifically in order to have it happen. God basically willingly committed suicide with that one. If I shoot myself in the head, how far is it of me to suffer through taking my own gun, putting the gun to my head myself, and pulling the trigger? Pretty stupid question when you put it that way.

Nope. That happened centuries later, when some people specifically rejected the ideas of those sheep hearders, and decided to actually do physical experiments in the physical world. Many were even punished or burned for doing this by the sheephearder followers.


I doon't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.


Because a singularity is a physics defined term, that means matter and energy in such a compressed state, that the gravity there overcomes light and time itself, etc. etc. etc.? I'm pretty sure I was never a black hole. Nor was I ever a spontaneous quantum explosion of matter and antimatter. All those things involving the Big Bang actually have some actual physical science behind them, so please don't conflate terms. Occam's razor would make my consciousness much more basic and simpler than some mystical thing that many people try to push here, and likewise would make the idea of the universe spontaneously popping into existence the way we have witnessed particles pop into existence in particle coliders WAY more probable than some omnippootent consciousness popping into existence to create the universe.


We have pretty conclusive evidence that changing or damaging certain parts of the brain severely alters consciousness, that interfeering with brain chemistry alters consciousness, very good evidence on how brains are built and how they send signals, and practically no evidence that they receiive signals from elsewhere. Are you suggesting that brain damage due to physical trauma or disease actually interfeers with brain's "antenna" qualities, instead of actually damaging the consciousness that it works with? Your same Occam's raizor would say that the simplest explanation is that consciousness originates from the brain itself, as opposed to a vastly more complex idea that there is some great, unknown, untestable consciousness that our brain simply received (through what material or means, and why can't it be blocked)?

When the bible was written, we didn't really know anything about fire. We knew that it was hot, and that it hurt. We know a lot more now. Out of curiocity, do you think whatever it is that souls are made of can chemically combine with oxygen? Because if souls can't combine with oxygen, then they pretty much can't burn and are impervious to fire. Likewise, do you think souls can have an electric field, to let the nerve endings send the electric impulses to tell the brain that there is pain somewhere, and do souls have brains capable of causing chemical reactions that would allow them to respond to pain? Pain, and fire, and very physical and chemistry-based things. I don't think souls, if existed, would even be able to sense fire.