Originally posted by whodey We know what they think from what they write. As far as the Bible being proof that God exists, this is not the focus of the Biblical archaeologist. The only reason I brought them up was that someone said the Bible is not a reliable source. If not, then why are there Biblical archaelogists? You may not agree that it is an accurate spiritual document but it ...[text shortened]... elf to be a valuable historical document thus it has shown itself to be reliable to some degree.
"Fatherland" by Robert Harris is historically accurate to some degree, yet also fiction. Your point?
Originally posted by scottishinnz No. Those two types of "magic" are completely different. Abiogenesis has evidence backing it. Your "magical soul" idea has none.
So why not run to a lab and place some amino acids in a dish and whatever else you need for ingredients and wave your decoder ring magic wand over it and say, "LIVE!!!"
Originally posted by whodey And there is a science based on it I presume?
The only reason for the scientific interest in the Bible that you are talking about is because a religion (or three) is based on it, not because of any special properties that the Bible has that cannot be found in any other book (or collection of books, which is what the Bible is). In fact if Christianity and other religions had died out 1000 years ago, the Bible would not be any where near the top of the list of great historical works.
richarddawkins.net
23 Jul '07 09:29
Back to Top