And to correct a couple of your points: your comparison of the Bible to the Titanic Movie is specious. I understand that what you were saying was that just because a couple of facts were true in the movie, the entire movie was true and this method is what others were doing with the Bible. Where this specifically breaks down with Bible is that rather than one or two facts being accurate, you have books and entire sections of the Bible having been verified by reputable scientists from many disciplines: Geology, Anthropology, Botany, Archeology, Physics, etc. Time Lines, Peoples, and events have been verified. Has every single detail and story been verified? Of course not, that’s never going to be possible. However, most scholars (Christian and Non-Christian) agree that the Bible is a pretty accurate representation of history. Not myth, history. Once again, Rob, FACT.

You can always find someone to dispute fact (the earth is round, oil is organic in nature, etc) and one of the purposes of science is to constantly question what we know and to test the facts and reach past what we know. Belief, and faith, remain steadfast. You entitled to yours and we Christians are entitled to ours.

And secondly, yes we could probably have a decent conversation about something other than religion. We're not going to agree on religion.

No hard feelings. CYA

Thanks for dumbing it down for me. I was really having trouble understanding what you were saying (where’s the darn sarcasm emoticon). As long as you continue to show an inability to grasp the basic concepts and just shout your same position louder, I don’t really see much point in continuing the conversation. At least it was good to see you admit that you felt compelled to bring us the urgent, life-changing message of atheism that “life is meaningless.” That was progress.

Come back sometime when you can do more than channel the half-baked ideas of Richard Dawkins and we’ll talk. :>)

Seriously, I don’t have any hard feelings. I suspect you’re a pretty decent guy and that we could have a good conversation over a cup of coffee or a cold brew. Later dude.

I was merely trying to put science in terms you would understand. You know, dumb it down for the religious folk. It gets tiring hearing religious nuts claim that the bible isn't a science book but it everything else. It provides us morals and bla bla bla. Really? If it's such a good damn book then why couldn't it even get science right? I'll tell you why, because it was written by men who making it up as they went along. How do I know they were making it up, because God is not real. How do I know God is not real, because there has never been a single shred of evidence to prove any gods existence let alone the one you worship.

Science isn't in stone, but as of today it's accurate, tomorrow it will also be accurate, with new evidence it will change and also be accurate. The reason it's accurate is because it's the best answer we've got.

If you believe in god then you believe the bible. Don't pretend that the bible is right in one area and wrong in another to suit your needs. Or whatever it is your do to keep your belief alive.

Chris_F was correct, this is the same crap that all religious people will half an understanding in science say because they still have to justify their belief in the invisible mystery man.

GOD IS NOT REAL, you have based your thought and belief system on a foundation that is wrong. This makes your conclusions about science wrong if you still believe in supernatural things.

There is no meaning or purpose in life, there is no reason for our existence.

You keep saying the Bible doesn't have accurate answers. I think you completely misunderstand the point. The Bible is NOT a scientific text book. If you're expecting it to lay out the origin of the big bang based on string theory, you're barking up the wrong tree. You seem to be a bit cognitively challenged as I have said numerous times in this thread that I don't see Biblical faith and science as being in conflict and asked you explain your position. So far, you've come back again and again with the same non-answer. At this point, I must conclude you don't have an answer.

The Bible is about God and his relationship with humanity. The answers it provides are to questions that science doesn't even know how to ask. Things like the meaning and purpose of life. Why we are here. Try to think a little less linearly for a moment.

Since you haven't been able or willing to provide the answers atheism has for those big questions, let me help you out.

Why does the universe exist? According to atheism it must be the product of some as yet unexplained cosmic event. Based on current scientific evidence, the probability associated with that event approaches 1 in infinity.

Why is there life? According to atheism, life is the product of some as yet scientifically unexplained event whereby self-replicating organic molecules spontaneously self-assembled out of an inorganic soup. The probability of that event approaches 1 in infinity. For those keeping score at home, the probability of the existence of a universe that contains life is about 1 in infinity squared.

Why are we (humans) here? We are a product of an evolutionary chain of events which, evaluated apriori, must by definition have any number of infinite possible outcomes. Therefore, the probability of the evolution of the human life form is about 1 in infinity. So now we're looking at 1 in infinity cubed.

What is the meaning and purpose of life? According to atheism, there is no meaning or purpose. We are here as the result of an extraordinarily improbable combination of events. We are born. we live. We die. We decompose. That's it. Our only chance at any semblance of immortality is through the passing on of our genes. If it's immortality we desire, we should have sex with anything that moves so as to increase the probability that some of our alleles will survive. For anyone willing to think through the entire process, the campaign slogan for atheism is "We have come to bring your hopelessness, purposelessness, meaninglessness, misery and depression." I can't explain why, even it it were true, anyone would desire to cling to such a notion, but I can see where that mindset might lead someone to troll an internet message board.

LOL dude. Either Science is absolute (perfect and complete) or it is evolving. Not both. Am I right, or am I right? This is not a slight on Science. But it could be a slight on your ability to reason.

peace|dewde

My point was that the bible does not have accurate answers. Scientific answers will evolve with time, biblical answers are set in stone. How accurate can a set in stone answer be when new evidence is constantly being provided?

While you may believe the morality "crap" is a red herring, it's entirely legitimate. I'm not saying that atheists are any more or less moral than anyone else. I'm asking you to explain the intellectual basis of human morality under a godless existence that is the product of random chance. You are, after all, seeking to live the "rational" life, right? I'd think if that were such a treasured principle you'd be able to articulate the reasons for your position. Again, you've used anger and false indignation to avoid giving an intelligent, rational response.

I don't quite know what to say about your misconception that science was borne of the Enlightenment other than it is just gross ignorance. Isaac Newton, Johann Keppler and the other founders of science lived more than a hundred years before the Enlightenment began. The Enlightenment was the forerunner of post-modern thought that believes there is no such thing as absolute truth or that it is unknowable and that truth is relative to time and situation. Philosophically, that's actually diametrically opposed to the scientific method.

As for the eugenics issue, the evidence is crystal clear that Hitler's ideas of eugenics stemmed directly from Darwinian thought. The radical "religious nut job" atheists like to employ their revisionist history to claim otherwise, but it doesn't change the truth. The pseudo-science in this case is clearly coming from those who wish to refute the role of Darwinism in one of the most ugly episodes in human history (not to mention the Darwinian influence on Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot).

You wrote "Where's the "faith" in Rob's life? He's apparently trying to live an evidence-based life. That's pretty much the opposite of faith in every respect."

For wanting to be the intellectual crowd, you guys seem to have a hard time comprehending some fairly simple questions. Why does the universe exist? How did it get here? Where did the physical forces to form and shape it come from? What is the basis of morality? How, exactly, is science completely incompatible with faith? If science and faith are incompatible, how do you explain the fact that 40% of scientists (including the director of the Human Genome Project) have a religious faith? Those are legitimate questions. If you can't provide a rational answer based on scientific evidence, then you are operating on faith. The bottom line is that Rob (and apparently you) believes that the universe was either eternally present for no apparent reason and by formed by no explicable mechanism or you believe that it materialized out of nothingness in the absence of a causal agent. Since you again have failed to produce evidence for a rational, plausible explanation based on the scientific method (since that's the central dogma of atheism), that takes faith. That's one of the problems with modern atheism. It doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit that it doesn't have answers for the very most basic questions. Even further, it lacks the intellectual honesty to admit that science is not even capable of providing those answers as science is very good at telling us how but generally poorly equipped to answer why. Additionally, to imply that I, by definition, don't live an "evidence-based life" is also rather arrogant and simple-minded. I have a great deal of evidence that informs my faith, though you'd rather stick your head in the sand and repeat atheist mantras rather than doing the hard intellectual work it takes to seriously evaluate things.

At the end of the day, you've again spewed a lot of emotional arguments, which you seem a bit prone to, but neither you nor Rob have answered any of the questions posed to you. I can only assume you don't have those answers. If you want to provide those answers, I'd be happy to continue the conversation. Otherwise, I don't really see the point of exposing myself to more of your harsh, emotional and angry diatribes.