Post Any Evidence For God Here

[tzor]

Can an evolutionist give one observable evidence that is repeatable

Sure, I can give you plenty of them. These observations require only a mere million years of your time.

Two butterflies were having a discussion the other day about the seasons. One insisted that seasons never happened and demanded observable evidence that was repeatable. They argued for over five minutes and died the very next day of old age. Yes, your point is exactly that pointless.

[rishaed]

A. Scabs,injuries and other things can tell me that by body is changing and is not constant.

While you might be able to show me examples of microchanges taking place within or on the surface of the body, these change are far too small to suggest the ludicrous macrochanges put forth by those arguing that we age and eventually die. Indeed, the idea that the human body will always stop the bleeding of a scratch or scrape is one of the most obvious arguments against aging. Whenever something negatively impacts a human being, whether it be a scraped knee or a cold, the body automatically does everything it can to fix the harm that has been done. So, the question is begged, why would the same not hold true for this fabled aging process? Surely the body would work to counter such a slow acting process? Ageists just can't seem to keep their story straight.

Sorry for double/triple posting however, THE aging process is relatively one of your body breaking down, and no longer able to support the same functions that it used too. And we can theoretically say that it does, thus keeping us alive for how long we live.... Eventually thought the body can no longer counter it thus aging and eventually death. I'm saying that the body over time is breaking DOWN not EVOLVING into a new kind of animal. The genetic drift evidence I posted earlier shows the decay, or the tendency to disorder even in the Genetic form. Unless you are going to argue that the bacteria/microorganisms are more complex and have all the DNA to devolve into life as we know it.

[tzor]

We give you the time frame of 4 billion years. The only argument you have against 4 billion years is that the bible says it's not so. Everything else points to it being so. Of course a human lifespan is much shorter than 4 billion years so one human, or indeed the entire written and oral history of the human race doesn't stretch that far (250,000 years at most, and more like just under 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age) but that's not proof that 4 billion years doesn't exist, just that humans weren't around to see it all. To claim otherwise (that humans were created in a universe with the appearance of age) is directly analogous to the claim that the universe was created this morning and we are not ageing.

Actually it is a lot worse than that. It is if not borderline, downright heresy. If the heavens are the work of God's hands, (or commands), and indeed at the end of creation He called everything "good" then to suggest that God would design the universe so that it would appear to us (as opposed to those who came before us or more specifically before Hubble and his observation of red shifted galaxies) would suggest that everything was not "good" because the universe is a grand deception of the highest order of magnitude. Such a universe cannot be created by God for deception is against His own nature. The young earth people call God a deceiver at best and an outright liar at worst. The heavens declare the glory of God, not His deception.

[tzor]

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

Technically no. Distances are still based on red shifts for the most part and there is the annoying non argument about the variability of the speed of light over time.

Sometime next year we should have the means to measure by parallax distances beyond that of the young earth time frame. Hand waving away geometry is harder than hand waving away red shifts.

[tzor]

The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence.

The problem is not that the Bible "clearly states" how the universe came into existence; the problem is that the "Universe" of the Bible is wrong. It is wrong because the "science" of the day was wrong.

We need to get down to the brass tacks and tackle the number one problem in the room. There is no firmament. Rain does not come from a reservoir that lies above the metal dome where the sun, moon, and stars are located. Neither does the land float on a great source of water from below. Just like you can't take pieces of the law and select the ones you want and reject the ones you don't want, you can't take the "facts" of the Bible and select the ones you want and reject the ones you find harder to explain because the facts say otherwise.

This is not to say that the Bible is not "true." The Bible is very true, but it is not a physics textbook. You must look at the Bible like an expressionist painting. If you stare at a small pixel of the painting it's going to look like an odd three dimensional blob of paint. Only when you look at the entire painting do you see the true image. Stop looking at the brush strokes and look at the image. Text, within context, within the literary style and the understanding of the people at the time, will help you to understand the revealed truth that is in the passage.

[Frigidus]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

I should perhaps put a bit more emphasis on the "I" in that. I know the general methods that have been used to estimate the age of the universe, but I don't personally have a strong enough grasp on them to argue the age of the universe over the internet. I suppose I could do some research, but considering the exact age of the universe is only tangentially relevant to the conversation I'm willing to just avoid the topic.

[Woodruff]

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

Technically no. Distances are still based on red shifts for the most part and there is the annoying non argument about the variability of the speed of light over time.

As you say though, that is an argument made by the ignorant.

Sometime next year we should have the means to measure by parallax distances beyond that of the young earth time frame. Hand waving away geometry is harder than hand waving away red shifts.

I'm afraid you underestimate the lengths that those who are unwilling to budge are willing to go to preserve their perception of reality. Hand-waving geometry doesn't seem particularly less likely than hand-waving physics.

[Woodruff]

The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence.

The problem is not that the Bible "clearly states" how the universe came into existence; the problem is that the "Universe" of the Bible is wrong. It is wrong because the "science" of the day was wrong.

We need to get down to the brass tacks and tackle the number one problem in the room. There is no firmament. Rain does not come from a reservoir that lies above the metal dome where the sun, moon, and stars are located. Neither does the land float on a great source of water from below. Just like you can't take pieces of the law and select the ones you want and reject the ones you don't want, you can't take the "facts" of the Bible and select the ones you want and reject the ones you find harder to explain because the facts say otherwise.

This is not to say that the Bible is not "true." The Bible is very true, but it is not a physics textbook. You must look at the Bible like an expressionist painting. If you stare at a small pixel of the painting it's going to look like an odd three dimensional blob of paint. Only when you look at the entire painting do you see the true image. Stop looking at the brush strokes and look at the image. Text, within context, within the literary style and the understanding of the people at the time, will help you to understand the revealed truth that is in the passage.

Yes. This brings to mind Arthur C. Clarke's three laws, one of which is something along the lines of "Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The Bible HAD to be put into terms that were accurate FOR THAT TIME, but the scientific knowledge FOR THAT TIME has been shown to have been awful. Is it possible that our scientific knowledge is still pretty awful? Absolutely...but it's far less awful than it was FOR THAT TIME, and it doesn't make any sense at all to hold onto that historical awfulness.

[Frigidus]

Sorry for double/triple posting however, THE aging process is relatively one of your body breaking down, and no longer able to support the same functions that it used too. And we can theoretically say that it does, thus keeping us alive for how long we live.... Eventually thought the body can no longer counter it thus aging and eventually death. I'm saying that the body over time is breaking DOWN not EVOLVING into a new kind of animal.

While I suppose I could use red herrings and topic changes to continue the parallels between creationist arguments I feel at that point I would be stepping from making a point to trolling. The point of this clearly silly argument over whether or not we are aging is that writing off evolution because it doesn't occur within a few decades is like pooh poohing our models of star lifetimes because of their scale.

The genetic drift evidence I posted earlier shows the decay, or the tendency to disorder even in the Genetic form. Unless you are going to argue that the bacteria/microorganisms are more complex and have all the DNA to devolve into life as we know it.

Well, if we're talking in strictly who has "the most" DNA amoebas actually have roughly 200 times more than we do. Of course, most of that is genetic baggage riding the coattails of the DNA actually responsible for replication, but I suppose you could say that they have "all the DNA" that we do and more.

As a sidenote, the term "devolve" doesn't really mean anything. It implies the unfounded idea of an organism being objectively better than the one that they evolved from. It is more correct to say that they are more suited to successfully multiplying in the environment they currently find themselves in.

Anyways, I'm going to take what I think is the relevant quote here (if I'm looking at the wrong post feel free to correct me):

The fact that DNA is so complex that if a single strand is wrong (or even a pairing), it causes diseases/altercations if the person or animal even lives. The fact that DNA does not GAIN information only loses, i read in a well know science magazine that the someone found that the absence of mRNA (microRNA) is a leading factor in cancer. The fact that to be even probable some scientists evolution would require BILLIONS of years. Now if I did my calculus correctly if I took the limit of that probability (which is 1 over some huge number in its billions) I am approaching ZERO?

All right, so I'm seeing three ideas here. I will list and respond to each of them individually.

1. Changes in DNA leads to problems

This is absolutely true in some cases, but not universally. Every person is the result of a shuffle of their parents genetic decks with the slightest amount of drift to account for mistakes in replication. While the differences genetically between two people are trivial compared to what they share, these small differences clearly lead to quite different results. If any change was negative then we would not see the diversity within a species that we do.

2. DNA doesn't gain information, it only loses it

That's a bold claim. Where did you hear that from? This is more of a guess than anything else, but if you're extrapolating this idea from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you need to take the sun into account. Entropy never decreases in a closed system.

3. Life is unlikely to exist

While I won't tie myself to any particular probability (most probabilities cited for complex things like the creation of life are either enitrely made up or based off of incorrect assumptions), I will just point out that any given reality that might have existed is astoundingly unlikely to have occurred. Of all of the near infinite number of possibilities of what might have existed, one had to be the actual universe. Each given potential universe is individually improbable, but that doesn't imply that whatever came up was designed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe they don't understand the rules of logic. They use it selectively for their own purposes, but when it's applied consistently (e.g. crispy's "just now" analogy), then it's ignored.

e.g. universalcairo's response here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=3135#p4254037
That's not even an argument against the one presented, and he's rehashing the same argument (repetition won't help one's case).

rishaed's getting bogged down into too fine of the details, so maybe the whole point of the analogy needs to be reiterated for him.

[Frigidus]

e.g. universalcairo's response here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=3135#p4254037
That's not even an argument against the one presented, and he's rehashing the same argument (repetition won't help one's case).

Oh, thanks, I missed that. You're right that it is all rehash, but I don't intend to lose by attrition.

A. You weren't there.

As I pointed out earlier, I've never witnessed a murder but people are put in prison for it every day. Does this mean I'm taking their guilt for granted on faith? Certainly not.

B. It's not observable.

What isn't observable, the creation of the universe? Well, yeah, obviously. That doesn't mean that we can't look at the universe and speculate as to how it was created.

C. Radiometric dating/Radioactive Isotopic dating seems well and dandy, but with a closer look, there are some serious flaws with this dating system.

Oh boy. Here we go. OK...I'm going to breeze through this again, hang on. Petrified wood can be formed quickly, yeah, all right, that has nothing to do with radiometric dating. Next up, manmade coal. Scientists could definitely tell the difference between those two. The last few times you cited this the article at no point said that it was indistinguishable with regular coal. Unless you have a source that says otherwise this is bunk. Chicken shit can be made into oil? OK, I'm not going to even question the veracity this one. Never heard about it, but whatever. Once again though, where does it say that scientists can't tell the difference between the two?

Anyways, what does any of this have to do with radiometric dating? Radiometric dating is useful for objects that have locked all of their materials up in what is effectively a time capsule. It works well on rocks because nothing can get inside of a rock. Anything with a halflife degrades at a known rate, and by measuring how much the material has broken down we can work backwards to determine when the rock was formed. The key here is that it only works if no outside material can be added. This isn't true of oil or coal, as one is a liquid and the other is porous. I imagine the petrified wood could be radiometrically dated, and I'm sure it has.

Why do you take this great leap of faith that the "Constant Rate of Decay" has always been constant? Why? Because it's faith based.

By this standard everything is faith based. I'm taking for granted that my memories are accurate. I'm taking for granted that my senses are showing me an accurate picture of reality. I'm taking for granted that objects continue to exist when I'm not looking at them. Saying that these are faith based assumptions in the same way that a belief in God is a faith based assumption makes the term entirely meaningless.

Look at the Grand Canyon: If each layer took millions or even thousands of years to form, there would be massive commingling of layers. But that is not what we see. There are distinct layers.

That isn't at all what we'd expect to see. If the layers "mingled" that would suggest that they didn't form at different periods of time. Where have you heard this? And what does this have to do with the age of the universe? The Grand Canyon isn't exactly the lynchpin of anyone's argument.

Darwinian Evolution of changing of kinds, is not observable, nor testable.

Darwinian Evolution as opposed to what? Do you refer to physics as Newtonian Physics?

And, once again, could you define the word kind for me? I can't have a discussion about a word that I don't know the meaning of. Do you know the meaning of it?

[universalchiro]

Can an evolutionist give one observable evidence that is repeatable

Sure, I can give you plenty of them. These observations require only a mere million years of your time

This is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me prove this. Its not observable. Only your faith in evolution is observable. Bht you can't/won't see that.

Your other point was not worth commentjng on, I ignored it.

So no one can provide observable, testable evidence of Darwinian evolution of changes of kind. This is exactly the point. Ya'll can't see any changes in kind & can't test changes in kind, & all the "alleged" changes occurred millions of years ago, then its not science, not fact. Its faith based. Huge leaps of faith.

[Jdsizzleslice]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on what the idea of "theory" means in scientific circles. For example, the theory of gravity.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Did I somehow overlook that you were being sarcastic? Surely this is sarcasm, isn't it?

No. No sarcasm at all. Lol gravity isn't a theory... Wow...

All of mankind is flawed. Why is there no smallest measurement of any kind... If all of us were perfect we would have the smallest kind of measurements for all types of dimensions.

[universalchiro]

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

Look, ya'll don't understand what you believe. You are going on faith alone.
A. You weren't there.
B. It's not observable.
C. Radiometric dating/Radioactive Isotopic dating seems well and dandy, but with a closer look, there are some serious flaws with this dating system.

Radioactive dating:
#Pb ions/ #Po ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of item being tested.

The problem is with the "Constant Rate of Decay". How do you know the rate of decay has always been constant? I know it seems constant with our short term viewing. But consider this,
Is there evidence in nature that the Rate of Decay can be accelerated? Yes . Petrified wood is suppose to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980 & has produced petrified wood in only 30 years. WOW! a 499,970 year acceleration.
Is there evidence that mankind can accelerate the "Constant" Rate of decay? Yes.
Take a piece of wood + trace clay + -O2 (vacuum) + H2O + heat (150 C) + pressure + time (8 months) = 100% coal in only 8 months.... Coal that is indistinguishable with coal that is suppose to take 20 million years to form via the "Constant Rate of Decay" process.
Chicken farmers sends byproducts to distilleries and within 30 minutes of heating the byproducts, 100% petroleum oil is produced. A process that is suppose to take 50 million years...

So Nature can accelerate petrification from 500,000 years down to 30 years.
Humans can accelerate coalification from 20 million years down to 8 months.
Humans can accelerate the petroleum production from 50 million years down to 30 minutes.

Why do you take this great leap of faith that the "Constant Rate of Decay" has always been constant? Why? Because it's faith based.

Look at the Grand Canyon: If each layer took millions or even thousands of years to form, there would be massive commingling of layers. But that is not what we see. There are distinct layers.

Darwinian Evolution of changing of kinds, is not observable, nor testable. Only thing evolutionist do is see adaptation & say that's proof of evolution. ie the Galapagos Finches that have adapted, They are still finches.... and the Bacteria that has adapted, are still bacteria.

NOTE TO Frigidus:
You don't even know what I'm talking about. Its like you read every other word & comment without knowing what the author is writing.
For the record, all those examples above prove the "Constant Rate of Decay" is not constant. With any trauma on earth: Tsunami, earthquakes, volcano, meteor/asteroid impacts, etc. The aging process is wildly accelerated. So the radioactive isotopic algorithmic dating system uses a multiplier in the formula called "constant rate of decay. This is the observable rate of decay we see today. Well this is believed to be a constant. I have proven to you that it is not constant. Which means all the aging dating techniques are wildly off saying an object is billions of years old, when it may only be thousands of years old.

And chicken byproducts is not feces. Common dude. Be real. Its the tendons, ligaments, fascia, cartilage, membranes, adipose, etc that is not sellable to consumers.

[Frigidus]

No. No sarcasm at all. Lol gravity isn't a theory... Wow...

Yes. Yes it is. The problem here is that you are misunderstanding what theory means in terms of the field of science. Evolution is as much in question in the scientific community as gravity and relativity, two other "theories". Here:

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] noun, plural the·o·ries.

4: a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Note the differences between those two definitions. Number five is the one that is used to describe the many theories of science you might hear about.

All of mankind is flawed. Why is there no smallest measurement of any kind... If all of us were perfect we would have the smallest kind of measurements for all types of dimensions.

Er...not the best example really. We have a standardized series of measurements. Just slap a prefix on "meter" and you can make it useful in all sorts of situations. Anyways, who ever said we were perfect?

[Frigidus]

NOTE TO Frigidus:
You don't even know what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure anyone, including yourself, knows what you're talking about.

For the record, all those examples above prove the "Constant Rate of Decay" is not constant. With any trauma on earth: Tsunami, earthquakes, volcano, meteor/asteroid impacts, etc. The aging process is wildly accelerated. So the radioactive isotopic algorithmic dating system uses a multiplier in the formula called "constant rate of decay. This is the observable rate of decay we see today. Well this is believed to be a constant.

OK so far.

I have proven to you that it is not constant.

No, you really haven't. You really, really haven't. You've posted nonsequitor articles utterly unrelated to radiometric dating. But hey, if you really think you've got it all worked out then submit your findings to peer review and win the Nobel Prize.

And chicken byproducts is not feces. Common dude. Be real. Its the tendons, ligaments, fascia, cartilage, membranes, adipose, etc that is not sellable to consumers.

Sorry, I haven't been in the thread for a while and missed the details of your latest irrelevant tangent.

[universalchiro]

kind?

Kind is a grouping of a type of family of creatures. For example: wolf, coyote, puddle, etc are a kind of dog.
Lion, tiger, puma, house cat are a kind of cat.

Anyone have one, just one observable evidence of Darwin's evolution from one kind to another? Please give me one example & don't use adaptation or specialization for that's not a change of kind.

Something I can observe without having to go on faith.

[mordigan]

why would anyone write the bible if it wasn't real? seems like a bit of an extreme length to go to in order to set up a practical joke.

[Frigidus]

kind?

Kind is a grouping of a type of family of creatures. For example: wolf, coyote, puddle, etc are a kind of dog.
Lion, tiger, puma, house cat are a kind of cat.

Anyone have one, just one observable evidence of Darwin's evolution from one kind to another? Please give me one example & don't use adaptation or specialization for that's not a change of kind.

Something I can observe without having to go on faith.

Well, the definition isn't exactly concrete (I'm guessing that you'd consider "bird" to be about as much a kind as "dog" despite one being a class while the other is a family), but all right. Either way, at least we've got some goalposts laid down.

Speaking of birds, I'm guessing that the evolution of birds from dinosaurs meet your criteria.

Let's start with physical characteristics that birds and the particular dinosaurs they descended from, "especially those of their own clade, the Maniraptora, which includes Velociraptor", share.

Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".

Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).

Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).

Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).

Hollow, thin-walled bones.

3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.

Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.

Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).

S-shaped curved neck.

Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.

Similar eggshell microstructure.

Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.

Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).

Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.

Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).

Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).

Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).

Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.

Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).

Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Note that it is pointed out that even the small minority scientists opposed to the idea that birds descended from dinosaurs suggest as alternative ancestors the group that includes crocodiles or (what is now considered to be an obsolete term) Thecodonts. Any of those would still easily count as crossing of kinds.



Here's an article on the slow change of feathers from insulation to use in flight:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8959.html

That's only a summary of the actual article. I don't want to pay for access to the real deal, but here's the original source (note that it is from a peer reviewed journal):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130817.htm

A relevant excerpt:

The research, published today [21 November] in Current Biology, looked at the dinosaur Anchiornis huxleyi and the Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx lithographica. The latter is 155 million years old and widely considered to be the earliest known bird, presenting a combination of dinosaur and bird characteristics.

Their wings differed from modern day birds in being composed of multiple layers of long feathers, appearing to represent early experiments in the evolution of the wing. Although individual feathers were relatively weak due to slender feather shafts, the layering of these wing feathers is likely to have produced a strong airfoil.

The inability to separate feathers suggests that taking off and flying at low speeds may have been limited, meaning that wings were primarily used in high-speed gliding or flapping flight.

Dr Jakob Vinther, from the University of Bristol’s Schools of Biological and Earth Sciences, said: “We are starting to get an intricate picture of how feathers and birds evolved from within the dinosaurs. We now seem to see that feathers evolved initially for insulation. Later in evolution, more complex vaned or pinnate feathers evolved for display.

“These display feathers turned out to be excellent membranes that could have been utilised for aerial locomotion, which only very late in bird evolution became what we consider flapping flight. This new research is shedding light not just on how birds came to fly, but more specifically on how feathers came to be the way they are today - one of the most amazing and highly specialised structures in nature.”

Dr Nicholas Longrich of Yale University added: “By studying fossils carefully, we are now able to start piecing together how the wing evolved. Before, it seemed that we had more or less modern wings from the Jurassic onwards. Now it’s clear that early birds were more primitive and represented transitional forms linking birds to dinosaurs. We can see the wing slowly becoming more advanced as we move from Anchiornis, to Archaeopteryx, to later birds."

I won't just keep dumping articles here, as that would be just as bad as posting an hour long YouTube video, but if you want more I can get more.

[Frigidus]

why would anyone write the bible if it wasn't real? seems like a bit of an extreme length to go to in order to set up a practical joke.

Why did the people in Jonestown drink the Kool Aid? Sometimes you convince yourself that something is true even if it isn't.

[mordigan]

kool aid? what does drinking kool aid have to do with beliefs? why would anyone deliberately follow something that they know is not real?

[mordigan]

fans of wrestling, harry potter etc. excepted because they obviously follow these things for the entertainment value

[Frigidus]

kool aid? what does drinking kool aid have to do with beliefs? why would anyone deliberately follow something that they know is not real?

I imagine that the multiple people that had a hand in writing the Bible either believed it was real or believed that convincing others it was real would benefit them. Just because they believed something does not make it true.

[mordigan]

why are you so sure that the bible is not true?

[Frigidus]

why are you so sure that the bible is not true?

It is really nothing more than a lack of evidence. I don't hate Christianity or Christians. I'm not rebelling against God. I just don't see anything backing it up.