Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[Silent Hunter]

I find it funny that atheists believe that evolution must be the case, and by extension leave life's origins to the presumption of abiogenesis, but on the other hand don't want to consider that the universe came from anything other than by causeless, spontaneous expansion.

I'm surprised at how casually you use the term causeless to vilify the theory of the 'big bang" for the formation of the present form of the universe, yet, cannot comprehend the contradiction when referring to the origin of your causeless preferred deity. Go figure.

 

[Crucible]

I'm surprised at how casually you use the term causeless to vilify the theory of the 'big bang" for the formation of the present form of the universe, yet, cannot comprehend the contradiction when referring to the origin of your causeless preferred deity. Go figure.

God doesn't report to have had a beginning, but you all report that the universe had a beginning.
One is timeless, and one was born. One creates, one doesn't create.

Therefore, your argument is null.

 

[Wick Stick]

You're misunderstanding that the corroboration refers to external sources contemporary to the canonical books.

I'm not misunderstanding it so much as rejecting it. That argument is inane.

It boils down to "we put all the best sources in this book and you now can't find any evidence outside this book to corroborate it."

That's not just rhetoric. It's dumb rhetoric.

 

[Wick Stick]

I could put together 27 books by a dozen or so different authors, several of whom using the others as sources, about a hairy creature roaming the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Would that be corroborating evidence confirming the existence of big foot?

Substitute the word testimony for evidence and the answer is YES. Books are not evidence but testimony.

If you wish to consider evidence, look to archaeology. There are only a million or so relics and artifacts of Christ. I suppose next you will tell me that because many of them are fakes, we must consider all of them to be?

 

[Rivers]

I'm not misunderstanding it so much as rejecting it. That argument is inane.

It boils down to "we put all the best sources in this book and you now can't find any evidence outside this book to corroborate it."

That's not just rhetoric. It's dumb rhetoric.

It isn't "rhetoric" at all. Rather, it's "dumb" not to interpret the apostolic writings in isolation. Scholars who need to make selective appeals to uncorroborated material simply aren't competent to do sound exegesis of the biblical text on its own merits.

 

[Silent Hunter]

God doesn't report to have had a beginning, but you all report that the universe had a beginning.

That's not correct. Cosmologosts have concluded the universe AS IT IS NOW had a "beginning", what the universe was like BEFORE the "Big Bang" is unknown.

One is timeless, and one was born. One creates, one doesn't create.

... and your incontrovertible evidence is...?

Therefore, your argument is null.

:liberals:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Substitute the word testimony for evidence and the answer is YES. Books are not evidence but testimony.

So, those 27 "books" you referred to earlier are 'testimony', not 'evidence', as you claimed prior. Is that your final answer or would you like to change your mind again?

If you wish to consider evidence, look to archaeology. There are only a million or so relics and artifacts of Christ. I suppose next you will tell me that because many of them are fakes, we must consider all of them to be?

Considering there is no objective way to tell the 'real' relic/artifact from the fake, I'm justified in rejecting them all as fake. Wouldn't you do the same for physical evidence of big foot?

 

[6days]

So you have 27 books about the same thing, and you claim there is no corroborating evidence? :hammer:

Have you read Josh McDowells book 'More Than a Carpenter'?
He wanted to prove the Bible was fables and full of contradictions. But.... his research convinced him of the opposite. Its a very short book, less than a hour read but well worth it. He lays out evidences of internal and external evidences of the truth of God's Word.

Also... I posted this previously about archaeology. It's a similar story to Mcdowells in that this archaeologist set out to prove the Bible wrong.
Dr Luke (Gospel of Luke) was perhaps the world's greatest historian. The research Luke did is reflected in the accuracy of his account.
The Gospel of Luke besides numerous mentions of things with historical and archaeological significance also mentions; 32 countries 54 cities 9 islands.
Because of the numerous mention to countries and cities, Sir William Ramsay thought that this book would be the easiest one to disprove. He along with his archaeological team set out to Asia Minor to prove the Bible wrong. But... a funny thing happened. "Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity"
Ramsey said

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth "
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm