thehomer:

I don't see any reason why I should continue this discussion with you since you've made up your mind to believe whatever is in the Bible.

I have stated this from my very first post - the bible's account of God creating man is what I believe. If you didn't accept that, why engage in this long winded discussion about inferences and the like?

If you're unable to tell fact from fiction in the Bible, then how will you be able to come to understand the actual origins of man without using myths?

Setting aside your reservations about the bible as a whole, what myth have you identified in relation to man's origin? If you could for a minute focus on this, then we could likely have a conversation. Let's ignore my 'inability' to tell fact and fiction apart for a moment.

Good luck with your Bible based thinking.

Thanks - I hope you swill omeday come to the realisation of the Creator.

debosky:

I have stated this from my very first post - the bible's account of God creating man is what I believe. If you didn't accept that, why engage in this long winded discussion about inferences and the like?

I knew what you believed but you never justified other than saying that it was from the Bible.

debosky:

Setting aside your reservations about the bible as a whole, what myth have you identified in relation to man's origin? If you could for a minute focus on this, then we could likely have a conversation. Let's ignore my 'inability' to tell fact and fiction apart for a moment.

Thanks - I hope you swill omeday come to the realisation of the Creator.

No we cannot set aside reservations about the Bible because you brought it in as a good source. If you thought it was a good source, then it has to be inspected to see how good it is. Since you demonstrated that you were unable to tell fact from fiction in the Bible that you introduced, then what would be the point of presenting you with the best available scientific evidence? If you were able to separate myths in the Bible from actual occurrences, then we could have had a discussion.
And I hope someday you will come to the realization of what science is and how it works.

I'm done here.

thehomer:

I knew what you believed but you never justified other than saying that it was from the Bible.

We never got to the point of trying to justify anything, you got caught up in inferences and myths.

No we cannot set aside reservations about the Bible because you brought it in as a good source. If you thought it was a good source, then it has to be inspected to see how good it is. Since you demonstrated that you were unable to tell fact from fiction in the Bible that you introduced, then what would be the point of presenting you with the best available scientific evidence? If you were able to separate myths in the Bible from actual occurrences, then we could have had a discussion.

It is a good source, and I have debunked some of your claims such as the ones related to malaria and the existence of light and plants. Do I need to address every single reservation about the bible before we can discuss one specific aspect? If that is what you expect, then you are right to bow out now as it is an unrealistic expectation.

I wouldn't attempt to ask for a rebuttal of every scientific theory in order to discuss the origin of man, so why should I be held to such an unrealistic expectation of proof?

It seems you are afraid/reluctant to discuss the pertinent issue here which is the origin of man, but would rather hide under the pretext of the bible being a doubtful source.

I am able to distinguish poems (such as Psalms) from metaphorical language (such as 'bowels of the earth' or 'windows of heaven') and historical accounts (such as the length of Hezekiah's reign). I have no issues making such distinctions but it is quite irrelevant to the PARTICULAR issue we are discussing.

Even if, purely for the sake of argument, I say the bible has myths, why are you unable to discuss the origin of man as a distinct subject? Even if everything else is a myth, is it not possible that the aspects dealing with the origin of man is factual?

And I hope someday you will come to the realization of what science is and how it works.

I have a very good understanding of how science works - and how it is limited to making inferences in many cases, simply due to the lack of observations. The evidence may support those theories/inferences, but that does not make them fact. You can deem inferences as important, and I have no issues with that, as long as they are portrayed as inferences and not fact.

If this is the best atheists can offer then I am really disappointed.

bookmarked

frosbel:
evolved from what

from nothing or from something that's unexplainable