# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 50
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/981 "2010-09-14T06:24:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here. > > Nope. You do not get to pull this bullshit. > > Had you been presented with nothing but a video, I would let you walk on this. > However, you asked for five evidences and you were provided 29. That they are on a web site does not render them invalid and you handwaving them away with no actual refutation does not actually refute them. > > Given that your posts are filled with a _faux_ condescension that is intended to be insulting, you are not on firm ground, to begin with. > > I award the point to your opponents and a serious threat to shut this nonsense down if you fail to provide actual refutations of at least five of the points raised on talkorigins. The bickering has gone on long enough. Try to engage in a debate. > > = = = > > Everyone else, the snide comments are not helping your side, either. > > Everyone clean up your acts before the yellow cards begin getting handed out. > [/Moderating] No I was not presented with 29 evidences, I was presented with a website. I can easily repsond by posting websites refuting five of the claims at talk origins. As you seem to simply this will suffice, I will do so, but it seems a very strange way to debate. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/982 "2010-09-14T07:08:48Z")
Right, here goes. Refutations of five claims on talk origins. Evolution of horses. [http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#horse](http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#horse) Reptile – Birds Archaeopteryx > **[As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly](https://www.icr.org/article/transitional-form-archaeopteryx-wont-fly/)** > > There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between... Whale Evolution > **[\- Overselling of Whale Evolution -](https://www.trueorigin.org/whales.php)** > > Conventional wisdom among evolutionists is that whales descended from land mammals, but the fossil evidence is not persuasive, let alone > conclusive. Humans with ‘tails’ > **[Human tails and fairy tales](https://creation.com/human-tails-and-fairy-tales)** > > Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation. Snake embryos with legs > **[Another leggy snake](https://creation.com/another-leggy-snake)** > > Are leggy snakes primitive? I have chosen to list only one for each, although many more are available. There are also many examples given by talk origins as evidenece ofr evolution that can also qualify as evidence for common design, the most obvious being claims related to DNA. Once again, talkorigins uses the tactic of assuming evolution to evidence evolution. This is entirely unscientific and poor (though effective) argumentation. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/983 "2010-09-14T07:21:30Z")
Some other critiques of talkorigins (again there are many) > **[\- Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -](https://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.php)** > > Richard Dawkins' efforts to deal with the challenge of information theory to evolutionary theory are examined and shown lacking. [http://www.1729.com/lists/ErrorsInRefutationsOfCreationism.html](http://www.1729.com/lists/ErrorsInRefutationsOfCreationism.html) [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk\_origins.htm](http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm) And a full critique of the 29 evidences can be found at [- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -](http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/984 "2010-09-14T10:59:39Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > You continue to repeat you point about fammily adoptions. This is irrelevant. I happily agree that an animal will adopt a family members offspring. This has absolutely NO bearing on why they would adopt a stranger, particularly one from another group. You’re confusing a couple of possibilities, here. Imagine four different approaches: OPTION #1: DON’T ADOPT ANYBODY. Let’s call that the default, the starting point, whatever. OPTION #2: ADOPT ORPHANED FAMILY MEMBERS WHO LOOK LIKE YOU. Good policy, IMHO. Makes sense compared to #1. OPTION #3: ADOPT ODD-LOOKING ORPHANS OF SOME OTHER SPECIES. Horrible policy. Makes little sense compared to #1. OPTION #4: ADOPT SOMEWHAT INDISCRIMINATELY. Sometimes you raise an orphaned family member, which is good. Sometimes you raise an orphaned animal of another species, which makes little sense evolutionarily. But you do plenty of the former if you primarily hang out with your own kin, hunting in a pack or a pride or whatever. I think you and I agree about Option #2: it makes sense. I think you and I agree about Option #3: it doesn’t. The problem is Option #4, which I say nets good enough results compared with #1 to stick around; IMHO, it makes _ **enough** _ sense. Your problem with Option #4 seems to be that you (a) think it’s Option #3 and (b) rail against me as if I think it’s Option #2. But I _ **don’t** _ think it’s Option #2. I recognize that it has some drawbacks compared to Option #1; I just argue that it also has some benefits, and that said benefits can outweigh said drawbacks. Do you see any benefits in switching from Option #1 to Option #4? > [@](#): > > _In the earliest animal life, benevolent behaviour had considerable cost; the division of scarce resources, food, mates etc, yet it brought little, if any benefit._ I disagree. I’m figuring the primary beneficiary of benevolent behavior back when was one’s own kin: sticking around for a bit to raise your offspring, each of whom grows up willing to risk oneself to save his brothers and sisters, who in turn are willing to adopt your offspring if you die saving the tribe, that sort of thing. Far from bringing _‘little if any’_ benefit, that approach is a decidedly useful step forward; I’m figuring it’s so useful that an overly broad application winds up being more useful than an overly narrow one, because it’s oodles better to err on the safe side. > [@](#): > > _\> As to the mix of adoptions, who knows? What needs to be demonstrated is why the benefits of a family adoption necessariy would lead to an adoption of the member of another group._ Well, “who knows?” is hardly a reason to rule out evolution and insist that it must be a postulated entity outside the universe who may or may not be even more improbable. That said, the policy under consideration _ **isn’t** _ Adopt The Member Of Another Group, which maybe nets zero benefits while incurring costs; it’s Adopt Somewhat Indiscriminately, which occasionally manifests as Adopt The Member Of Another Group but often enough manifests as Adopt The Member Of Your Family. (Likewise, of course, Hump A Table Leg isn’t the dog’s policy; his policy is, um, Hump Anything You Can When The Mood Strikes, which sometimes manifests as Hump A Table Leg but sometimes manifests as Hump A Female Canine In Heat.) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/985 "2010-09-14T11:50:09Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> The reason the God hypothesis IS more plausible than evolution when explaining such things as benevolence is simply because evolution cannot explain benevolence, or many other similar traits. The God hypthesis can. Logically and coherently. Why? Just because you say so? This is simply a bare assertion. How do you determine the plausibility of an unknowable entity? Further, you have repeatedly failed to provide a coherent definition of this ‘God’ and almost everything you’ve actually put forward in terms of this entity has been contradictory nonsense. > [@aigonz](#): > > Science works on observation. That’s were we get scientific laws from. Observation provides evidence, evidence proof. Observation is not a method of reasoning. I can observe two of the same things, it is only though reasoning that I can deduce that if I add these things together I have two items. Scientific laws are beside the point - you are misusing terms. In common speak, yes, we ‘prove’ things scientifically in that we have reason to believe scientific theories, models, facts, laws beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not _deductively_ prove these things though. So to speak of ‘proof’ in the way you are is to equivocate, since on the common speak, we have ‘proved’ evolution, that the earth goes around the sun, that the universe is older then 6k years old. However, with regards to this evidence you demand certainty. (which you don’t demand for your God hypothesis). If you ever want to actually defend your position, instead of just taking pot shots at coherent and established positions, let me know. I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/986 "2010-09-14T12:56:19Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > You do realize Aginoz, that you claim to know something with out proof when you state you know something about God. Who is confused? > > No me. I have stated openly that Good cannot be ‘proven’. But there are also many sceintific assumptions that cannot be ‘proven’. It seems to me you state that you know things about God, and you use the Bible, which is really a book written by humans many ,many, years ago and a lot of things in there are not factual. God can only be perceived by faith and that faith is all in as human sense. Science makes no claim to truth until it can be proven. The Bible starts with what it calls fact, then tries to make sense out of it, that is what theologins do. I make no claim to be a mental giant, nor do I think you are, of course I would not call you ignorant because you disagree with me. I try to learn from people who think differently than me, not assume that I am 100% correct all the time. I do learn a lot from others on the board that make more sense than you. It is a matter of Faith, just as your thinking is a matter of Faith, not fact!!!l ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/987 "2010-09-14T13:07:12Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:912, topic:551952”] > [@monavis](#): > > No. Are you atating that a bing doesn’t need to exist to be in existence??? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/988 "2010-09-14T13:10:34Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > Wrong, religion doesn’t search for truth, it starts out with what they believe is truth, and try to get people to accept that,There is too much contradiction in religions, truth is not contradictory! Science has an idea, then tries to see if there is truth in it. Science corrects itself, religions just make up ways it could happen, and decide the early writers or founders were telling the truth. > > You are a master at misunderstanding. > > I did not say religion searches for truth. Religious viewpoints reflect a search for truth. WE humans search for truth. Religious viewpoints provide some hypotheses with which contend. A scientific method can (and has been) applied to the Bible, for example, to test it’s truth claims, it’s existential value, etc. > > The Bible states the earth is round. Until the 16th century many scientists disagreed. The Bible was right. The Bible said there was a people called the Hittites. For centuries historians doubted this. The Bible was right. I can go on. If I remember correctly you stated in an earlier post that Science and Religion were both seeking the truth. Yet, you accept that religion or at least the Bible, which is a human work, is the truth that you follow. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/989 "2010-09-14T13:12:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > You stated, not I, that you know the Bible, well, the Bible was written by some human(really several humans) centuries ago and the writers were not able to experience what people know today. Much has been proven untrue. I know the Bible fairly well myself, and it has many contradictions. Hence, I take no more stock in the Bible than I do in Aesops Fables,because there is some morals to be considered in the Bible there is just as much in Aesop’s writings!! > > This is not a discussion about the Bible, but given your claims above, I doubt you know very much about it at all. Sounds like we both have the same problem. I didn’t know that you were the master of biblical truth or not!!! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/990 "2010-09-14T13:22:30Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > Wrong, religion doesn’t search for truth, it starts out with what they believe is truth, and try to get people to accept that,There is too much contradiction in religions, truth is not contradictory! Science has an idea, then tries to see if there is truth in it. Science corrects itself, religions just make up ways it could happen, and decide the early writers or founders were telling the truth. > > You are a master at misunderstanding. > > I did not say religion searches for truth. Religious viewpoints reflect a search for truth. WE humans search for truth. Religious viewpoints provide some hypotheses with which contend. A scientific method can (and has been) applied to the Bible, for example, to test it’s truth claims, it’s existential value, etc. > > The Bible states the earth is round. Until the 16th century many scientists disagreed. The Bible was right. The Bible said there was a people called the Hittites. For centuries historians doubted this. The Bible was right. I can go on. If you state that both science and religon have a quest for truth then that statement alone backs up my answer! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/991 "2010-09-14T13:32:54Z")
[quote=“monavis, post:987, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Are you atating that a bing doesn’t need to exist to be in existence??? Sorry it looks like my edit didn’t take! I meant stating and being. ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/992 "2010-09-14T13:33:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > The Bible states the earth is round. Until the 16th century many scientists disagreed. The Bible was right. The Bible said there was a people called the Hittites. For centuries historians doubted this. The Bible was right. I can go on. I don’t know anything about the Hittites, but I know that Biblical scholars were pretty obviously flat-earthers: > **[Donald Simanek's Pages; science, pseudoscience, education, humor.](https://dsimanek.vialattea.net/home.htm)** > > physics, history of science, > pseudoscience, hoaxes, writing, education, skepticisism, humor, quotes, > illusions, 3d stereo photography. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/993 "2010-09-14T13:38:01Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The Bible states the earth is round. Until the 16th century many scientists disagreed. The Bible was right. The Bible said there was a people called the Hittites. For centuries historians doubted this. The Bible was right. I can go on. > > I don’t know anything about the Hittites, but I know that Biblical scholars were pretty obviously flat-earthers: > > [Donald Simanek's Pages; science, pseudoscience, education, humor.](http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) Aigonz is acting as though there was _one_ position on biblical cosmology (and that would be _his_ cherry-picked version). ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/994 "2010-09-14T14:02:24Z")
People doubted the Troy story from Homeros as well. Untill Science found the city… Science 1 : Bible 1 ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/995 "2010-09-14T14:50:24Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > People doubted the Troy story from Homeros as well. > Untill Science found the city… > > Science 1 : Bible 1 Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/996 "2010-09-14T15:12:03Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@Latro](#): > > > > People doubted the Troy story from Homeros as well. > > Untill Science found the city… > > > > Science 1 : Bible 1 > > Huh? Should have quoted, I guess. > [@aigonz](#): > > The Bible said there was a people called the Hittites. For centuries historians doubted this. The Bible was right. I can go on. Don’t know what this is supposed to proove, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/997 "2010-09-14T16:57:18Z")
Hittites are proof of intelligent design, obviously. Don’t you know anything? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/998 "2010-09-14T21:52:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You continue to repeat you point about fammily adoptions. This is irrelevant. I happily agree that an animal will adopt a family members offspring. This has absolutely NO bearing on why they would adopt a stranger, particularly one from another group. > > You’re confusing a couple of possibilities, here. Imagine four different approaches: > > OPTION #1: DON’T ADOPT ANYBODY. > > Let’s call that the default, the starting point, whatever. > > OPTION #2: ADOPT ORPHANED FAMILY MEMBERS WHO LOOK LIKE YOU. > > Good policy, IMHO. Makes sense compared to #1. > > OPTION #3: ADOPT ODD-LOOKING ORPHANS OF SOME OTHER SPECIES. > > Horrible policy. Makes little sense compared to #1. > > OPTION #4: ADOPT SOMEWHAT INDISCRIMINATELY. > > Sometimes you raise an orphaned family member, which is good. Sometimes you raise an orphaned animal of another species, which makes little sense evolutionarily. But you do plenty of the former if you primarily hang out with your own kin, hunting in a pack or a pride or whatever. > > I think you and I agree about Option #2: it makes sense. I think you and I agree about Option #3: it doesn’t. The problem is Option #4, which I say nets good enough results compared with #1 to stick around; IMHO, it makes _ **enough** _ sense. Your problem with Option #4 seems to be that you (a) think it’s Option #3 and (b) rail against me as if I think it’s Option #2. > > But I _ **don’t** _ think it’s Option #2. I recognize that it has some drawbacks compared to Option #1; I just argue that it also has some benefits, and that said benefits can outweigh said drawbacks. Do you see any benefits in switching from Option #1 to Option #4? > > I disagree. I’m figuring the primary beneficiary of benevolent behavior back when was one’s own kin: sticking around for a bit to raise your offspring, each of whom grows up willing to risk oneself to save his brothers and sisters, who in turn are willing to adopt your offspring if you die saving the tribe, that sort of thing. Far from bringing _‘little if any’_ benefit, that approach is a decidedly useful step forward; I’m figuring it’s so useful that an overly broad application winds up being more useful than an overly narrow one, because it’s oodles better to err on the safe side. > > > [@](#): > > > > _\> As to the mix of adoptions, who knows? What needs to be demonstrated is why the benefits of a family adoption necessariy would lead to an adoption of the member of another group._ > > Well, “who knows?” is hardly a reason to rule out evolution and insist that it must be a postulated entity outside the universe who may or may not be even more improbable. That said, the policy under consideration _ **isn’t** _ Adopt The Member Of Another Group, which maybe nets zero benefits while incurring costs; it’s Adopt Somewhat Indiscriminately, which occasionally manifests as Adopt The Member Of Another Group but often enough manifests as Adopt The Member Of Your Family. (Likewise, of course, Hump A Table Leg isn’t the dog’s policy; his policy is, um, Hump Anything You Can When The Mood Strikes, which sometimes manifests as Hump A Table Leg but sometimes manifests as Hump A Female Canine In Heat.) Thanks for setting it out this way. My position is simply this. Firstly, I don’t agree that Option 4 nets any ‘good’ other than a feel good factor. Having more ‘kin’ to feed etc, who do not carry your own genes, is hardly an evolutionary resonse. Secondly, a feel good factor implies a benevolent attitude, which is what we are trying to explain, which makes this circular. Thirdly, your definition of indiscriminately (“occasionally manifests as Adopt The Member Of Another Group but often enough manifests as Adopt The Member Of Your Family.”) is too broad. The latter half is covered by Option 2, so we are left with indisriminate adoption of a competing tribe. That’s what I contend is unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/999 "2010-09-14T22:02:36Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > No me. I have stated openly that Good cannot be ‘proven’. But there are also many sceintific assumptions that cannot be ‘proven’. > > It seems to me you state that you know things about God, and you use the Bible, which is really a book written by humans many ,many, years ago and a lot of things in there are not factual. > > God can only be perceived by faith and that faith is all in as human sense. Science makes no claim to truth until it can be proven. The Bible starts with what it calls fact, then tries to make sense out of it, that is what theologins do. > > I make no claim to be a mental giant, nor do I think you are, of course I would not call you ignorant because you disagree with me. I try to learn from people who think differently than me, not assume that I am 100% correct all the time. I do learn a lot from others on the board that make more sense than you. > > It is a matter of Faith, just as your thinking is a matter of Faith, not fact!!!l You make some good points, and I admit these are certainly true of some religious folk. However not all. As soon as we postulate something existing outside our natural world we invoke faith. No question. But in a different way science invokes similar uncertainty in the way theories are developed, tested, redefined etc. At any one time, a scientific theory is taken ‘on faith’ in the method to date, and the anticipation of what will be discovered in the furture. I grant you this, however. A scientific theory is testable within a scientific framework. The God hypothesis less so, if at all. As to the Bible, yes it makes truth claims, no question. Some people have a blind faith that transcends any empirical evidence, and read the Bible accordingly, such as those who hold to a 6,000 year old universe. Others understand the Bible as a revelation from a creator written in the language of men thousands of years ago, yet still relevant today, and can reconcile their faith to all manner of scientific hypothesis and theory, including evolution. I sit somewhere in between. I am no intellectual heavyweight, but there is a long list of theists who are, inclduing many who have come to religious belief not by a Damascus Road experience but by intellectual conviction. I juts find the persistent ridiculing of the intellectual robustness of religious faith somewhat childish. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/1000 "2010-09-14T22:03:43Z")
[quote=“monavis, post:987, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Are you atating that a bing doesn’t need to exist to be in existence??? No. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=51)