believing in an imaginary friend or god

[Vulpine]

I'll be one of those "religious" people for you. In my opinion it comes down to evidence. There is no external evidence for an imaginary friend. There is external evidence for God, at least the Christian God. I suppose the primary source would be the Bible which is historically accurate and bibliographically accurate. But if you don't like that history book, then history has recorded lots of events that mention miracles and God's people and their history. Then there's the creation around us. And the records of Jesus' life and his claims to be God.

It has some historical accuracy, true. But, so does the Koran. Buddhist scripture also has many historically accurate records concerning Siddhartha.

[sanddbox]

I'll be one of those "religious" people for you. In my opinion it comes down to evidence. There is no external evidence for an imaginary friend. There is external evidence for God, at least the Christian God. I suppose the primary source would be the Bible which is historically accurate and bibliographically accurate. But if you don't like that history book, then history has recorded lots of events that mention miracles and God's people and their history. Then there's the creation around us. And the records of Jesus' life and his claims to be God.

It has some historical accuracy, true. But, so does the Koran. Buddhist scripture also has many historically accurate records concerning Siddhartha.

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

[Vulpine]

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

To my knowledge, it actually doesn't. I'm fairly certain that the Catholic Church came up with that one. Regardless though, my key-word was "some". Some of the events do possess validity, a lot don't. Isaac Asimov actually wrote a ridiculously in-depth historical analysis of both the Old and New Testaments.

[clrkbar]

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

Why would it not be historically accurate? There is nothing that disproves it. And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that every little thing in the Bible is proven fact. Just a lot of it is backed by historical and archeological evidence.

[sanddbox]

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

There is nothing that disproves it.

Your clever troll disguise has been detected. Some people are stupid, but your stupidity is either a) off the charts or b) you're actually intelligent and just trolling.

[clrkbar]

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

To my knowledge, it actually doesn't. I'm fairly certain that the Catholic Church came up with that one. Regardless though, my key-word was "some". Some of the events do possess validity, a lot don't. Isaac Asimov actually wrote a ridiculously in-depth historical analysis of both the Old and New Testaments.

Hadn't heard of him before. 1,300 pages is a bit long for me to read...
What events were you thinking of that don't posses validity?

[Vulpine]

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

To my knowledge, it actually doesn't. I'm fairly certain that the Catholic Church came up with that one. Regardless though, my key-word was "some". Some of the events do possess validity, a lot don't. Isaac Asimov actually wrote a ridiculously in-depth historical analysis of both the Old and New Testaments.

Hadn't heard of him before. 1,300 pages is a bit long for me to read...
What events were you thinking of that don't posses validity?

Pretty much all of Genesis, for one. If all human life descended from a single man and woman from the proposed period of time, geneticists would be screaming about it. The Flood story is another. A world-wide deluge could not have happened. A much more plausible explanation would be a localized flood in what would have been considered "the world" at that time. There's also the animals aboard the ark. The Gospel of Mark is also known to have been written in a manner which shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning the geographical and political landscapes of Palestine at that time. David and Solomon have no evidence to support their existence (tombs have supposedly been turned up in Jerusalem, but nothing has been substantiated yet). There's also nothing to substantiate Sodom and Gomorrah. Geologists have even confirmed that the lands in which they are said to have been located have not experienced any volcanic activity for the last 4000 years, so even a natural cataclysm explanation is tossed out the window.

[clrkbar]

The bible claims the world is 6000 years old. Just how is that historically accurate?

There is nothing that disproves it.

Your clever troll disguise has been detected. Some people are stupid, but your stupidity is either a) off the charts or b) you're actually intelligent and just trolling.

I'm did not say it is true because nothing disproves it. That would be stupid, I agree. I was just commenting on your earlier quote above when you question the validity of the Bible's claim (sort of) to a 6k year old earth without giving any reason as to why you were questioning it.

[sanddbox]

I'm did not say it is true because nothing disproves it. That would be stupid, I agree. I was just commenting on your earlier quote above when you question the validity of the Bible's claim (sort of) to a 6k year old earth without giving any reason as to why you were questioning it.

Very well. I suppose it's also fair I give an example of an argument for the earth being 6000 years old, which you can find here.

Notice how vague the article is. They claim there is enormous evidence yet fail to produce anything palpable.

It also uses flawed arguments. For example, they claim that a population grows by 0.5%-2% per year - except they forget to account for the fact that a) people actually die (suprising, right?), b) entire civilizations have been wiped out, and c) just because a population is growing in an age with much better living conditions, that doesn't mean that 2000 years ago that was the case.

Now take these articles.

These articles have actual scientific evidence that you can easily verify. Enough said.

[clrkbar]

Hadn't heard of him before. 1,300 pages is a bit long for me to read...
What events were you thinking of that don't posses validity?

Pretty much all of Genesis, for one. If all human life descended from a single man and woman from the proposed period of time, geneticists would be screaming about it. The Flood story is another. A world-wide deluge could not have happened. A much more plausible explanation would be a localized flood in what would have been considered "the world" at that time. There's also the animals aboard the ark. The Gospel of Mark is also known to have been written in a manner which shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning the geographical and political landscapes of Palestine at that time. David and Solomon have no evidence to support their existence (tombs have supposedly been turned up in Jerusalem, but nothing has been substantiated yet). There's also nothing to substantiate Sodom and Gomorrah. Geologists have even confirmed that the lands in which they are said to have been located have not experienced any volcanic activity for the last 4000 years, so even a natural cataclysm explanation is tossed out the window.

Do you have sources for these ideas? Please don't think I am demanding sources. I almost never source my ideas because I can't normally remember exactly where I learned what I have learned. But if you have them, I would like to research them. Anyways...

I may be ignorant, but what do you mean when you say "genetics would be screaming about it"? Why is a world-wide flood not plausible? What about the animals? Yes, I agree, this all seems a bit far-fetched and fantastical, but go with me here for sake of testing ideas. I am capable of thinking as best I can from a non-believing point of view.
Why does Mark not knowing his geography very well matter? I suck at spelling, maybe Mark was bad at names and remembering places. The book of mark is the shortest of the gospels and is kinda a quick run-through of Jesus' life. It's not for recording facts, but for summarizing Jesus' ministry, just hitting the important highlights. If you want good, solid, recorded facts, look to the gospel of Luke. He was that kind of meticulous person. Does lack of evidence for David and his son mean it is historically accurate? Come on, you guys have gotten mad at me on other posts for saying stuff like that.