1
#204673
Mike
That's because the scriptures aren't objectional and aren't really supported by fact.
4/8/2007 7:54:28 PM
#204952
Strife767
What historical content? Sorry, \"big powerful man in the sky poofs everything into existence\" isn't history. It's fiction. Fantasy. Fairy tale. Nothing more.
4/9/2007 3:43:21 AM
#204972
James
That's because the historical content of the scriptures is bullshit.
You, sir, are a tool.
4/9/2007 4:00:23 AM
#205026
Osiris
Oh well good because it's not!
4/9/2007 5:39:17 AM
#205033
Redhunter
Of course not. Science is fact, you deal in fiction.
And fact is certainly unable to account for the hysterical content of the scriptures.
How can we agree and yet be on opposite sides of the fence?
4/9/2007 5:45:00 AM
#205107
szenah
[Evolution]'s a naturalistic a priori assumption
Anyone want to bet Mark has no idea what this means?
4/9/2007 10:07:03 AM
#205115
anevilmeme
\"Evolution's a naturalistic a priori assumption that has no real basis in science.\"
Incorrect, evolution is science based on objective evidence. Your strawman is built upon fear & ignroance.
\"It certainly is not answer for the historical content of the Scriptures.\"
Well who the fuck said it was? Oh that's right fundies. And no the first 11 chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with actual history.
4/9/2007 10:16:56 AM
#205274
John
[Evolution]'s a naturalistic a priori assumption and it has no real basis in science.
So in other words, science is false unless it can prove God didn't do it.
4/10/2007 1:39:49 PM
#205358
Papabear
\"It certainly is not answer for the historical content of the Scriptures.\"
The fact that you think that we are trying to present the ToE as an \"answer for the historical content of the Scriptures\" is good evidence that you are an asshat.
A. The ToE is unrelated to your scriptures. A scientific position is true or false on it's own merits, regardless of what some ancient text says.
B. Much of the \"historical content\" of the Bible is not true.
4/10/2007 4:08:33 PM
#205403
flipper
Kinda like your assumption that some historical content in the Scriptures(novels usually have some historical content) equals scientific fact?
4/10/2007 4:54:22 PM
#205462
Øyvind
flipper: Agatha Christie's books are surely among the best historical sources we have on the great Poirot, who solved crimes back in the early 20th century. Funny that no other sources exist on him... it's the same with Sherlock Holmes.
:P
4/10/2007 5:44:01 PM
#205522
Haywood Jablomy
Ooooh, \"a priori\"... ain't we er-oo-dite...
4/10/2007 6:29:49 PM
#205540
flipper
True, fundies seem to assume that because Jerusalem and Damascus exist, that proves the whole Bible is accurate. Atlanta exists, so \"Gone With the Wind\" must be a true story!
4/10/2007 6:44:45 PM
#205679
PhantasyElementz
Wow... a fundie that can make stupidity almost sound smart. Almost. \"No real basis in scripture\" just kind of ruins the whole feel of it. Better luck next time, Mark. Use more unnecessary Latin and refer to the Bible as \"the most revered tome of the Christian faith\" and you might be getting somewhere.
4/10/2007 9:15:23 PM
#205754
Firthy2002
There's no proof that the supposed \"history\" of the scriptures actually occured.
4/10/2007 10:06:42 PM
#205812
Old Viking
Give us some time. We're trying to make evolution theory coincide with the historical content of the Scriptures. It's not easy.
4/10/2007 11:28:49 PM
#206293
Matilde
It is based in Science and yes, you´re right, it doesn´t deal with history. However, is there any historical account of Adam and Eve?
4/11/2007 9:53:48 AM
#258408
vichycycl
Ya know, if you switched the word 'evolution' and 'the Scriptures' that sentence would be exactly right.
7/6/2007 8:34:33 AM
#1447768
UHM
Yes, the answer to that question is "They made it all up."
9/15/2012 11:20:17 AM
1