I'm sorry but I don't think you truly understand my point here. I'm talking about the stories, the content itself. A lot of the biblical stories are far far older than when Christ ever existed, older than when Christianity ever existed... even far older than Judaism! We know this because most of the stories were written down by other a couple of different cultures from before the time of Jesus so to speak.

The whole genesis story was copied almost word for word from Sumerian myths, the idea of a half-God with superhuman powers turning water into wine, walking on water, a world wide flood, the Kain and Abel brother fight story, the virgin birth of a child, and many many other stories came from much older myths.

It's really quite impossible to even deny they've been copying and pasting a lot in the early days. Too much details are exactly the same. The Christian religion, like most religions do actually, just took all the interesting stories and made them their own. I don't understand why you think this makes the stories more reliable instead of less reliable to be honest.

It's quite clear that a lot of stories, having even the same names for many of the characters involved, can not have taken place twice in history. The reappearance of these stories in different cultures are proof for their popularity through time, but when it comes to historic value in terms of when, where and íf it all took place the way it was written down... it couldn't be more questionable.



Before you continue down this road.. keep in mind that in our view your religion hasn't been proven 'absolutely' either. The same is true... there shouldn't be put too much faith in it, as it's also a 'theory'. No offense, but I don't agree with the assumption that science is a religion though, it's based on evidence, reproduction of results and rationality, not mountains of faith, hope and wishful thinking.

As said in other discussions and probably repeated here too I don't think it's even possible to prove anything as 'absolutely' true. Absolutism in my opinion is clearly theoretical in nature, we can only go with what we know and we can't rule out all the other, infinite, possibilities. Our knowledge and what we consider to be 'facts' is largely based on the 'likeliness of a theory to be correct'. That's all there is to it. The nature of knowledge is relative.

Anyways, the topic of absolutism vs. relativism could easily fill a whole new debate with many many many pages.



Historic documents often give a very one-sided view of things. I never claimed all our history books in school are correct, quite the contrary.

The written documents aren't the only clue to what happened through time though. As said before archeology, geology and many other disciplines of science simply do not support the biblical stories.

When a king exaggerates it's power and influence in a text and brags about having erected 4000 pilars in his honor and name after a successful battle and we only find about 150 pilars scattered through the area.. then that certainly says a LOT about the validity / accuracy of the king's story. This is only one of many examples, in the case of the pilars it was unrelated to the Bible, but the story of the hundreds or even thousands of chariots that supposed to have crossed the dead sea is basically exactly the same...



Actually evolution doesn't rely on chance. But there's no need to apologize, but I do think it's flawed reasoning. Something doesn't become 'scientifically impossible' just because people think it's incredibly complex and therefore must be designed. Complexity itself is certainly no evidence for design.

Usually the more we think a certain system is complex, the less we really understand of it. A lack of knowledge or simply a vast amount of knowledge needed to comprehend the system makes it so that we consider such a system to be almost too complex.

In reality we might know a lot of said systems, but struggle with the entire picture. That's exactly the case for our existence, the theory of evolution and all the other questions around this all.

It's also more or less just a matter of opinion whether you think the entire system is 'perfect'. After all many beings have to die before a species arrives at it's next evolutionary phase so to speak. It's a very aggressive way of progress.



It ís open-minded actually. It's how science works. It's erroneous to think scientists rush to conclusions considering their theories as facts too soon. Yes there are things that can't easily be proven, but there are also many things that have been proven to be correct and factual. (Of course, as in 'extremely likely to be correct'. But never forget science deals with theories that are either 'valid', 'invalid' or 'pending research'. It's a bit more complex than just saying 'okey, I give up, my theory must be right'.)



Why exactly did you mention the atom bomb here? It's quite likely that Einstein knew more or less exactly what could happen with his theories. Some argue he was out for revenge having lost family in the 2nd world war, but he probably hoped the atom bomb wouldn't be used for real. Even many things concerning the hazardous nature of radiation might have been known also, but you can only know for sure when you test in practice. That's what science is all about.

You could also have mentioned the atom power plants that were made possible because of all this,

Cheers