The Bible is correct about history and contains prophecy which has always been correct. The Bible shows that God knows the end from the beginning. Science changes, God does not.

Christ stood and taught against religion and the Bible has been proven to be correct (over and over) against scientific knowledge in regards to the history it proclaims and by it’s prophecies.
You and others like you want to show how much you understand about something youve never taken the time to read, much less study. You frame your arguments around “religion” and ignor my statements about Christianity and the Bible; showing you either don’t understand the difference or you just prefer the Romney method of debate.
Andrew, What parts of the Bible have you disproven? I know, you havent read the book.
Evolution, stated simply, relies on contradicting the very laws of science on which it claims to rely and uphold. The instant life comes into the picture evolution must explain how a code, the sender of the code, the receiver of the code and a language understood by both the sender and the receiver comes into existance all at the same instance. The same is true about the thousands of parameters that make it possible for life to exist (from a scientific viewpoint)-they must all be there at the same time.
It is impossible for life to have started without the presence of oxygen. It is impossible for life to have started in the presence of oxygen.

The very same science that evolutionist claim to employ (which is not real science-no falsifiable hypotheses) states that the likelihood that life happened and is sustained by accident is ubsurd. Cause and effect works for dominoes not in creation of life.

CS Lewis says that if youre gonna rely on cause and effect to “prove” your existance, your gonna run into a dead end because it relies on miracles and miracles are of God-the God of the Bible. The easiest thing for you to do Andrew, is to read the book and disprove it or one of its prophecies. Then, you will at least have something to base your argument on other than “religion” which is not part of the argument at all.

Tell me, Art. Can you name one question to the universe that science once had an answer for, but that has now been replaced by a better, more accurate religious answer? For fun, let’s imagine what this would look like: “scientists erroneously believed that light-speed was a fixed constant throughout the universe, until Christians reminded them of a passage in the Bible that talks about the effects of a vacuum on light.” Or what about: “scientists estimated the earth to be approximately 4 billion years old, a number theologians were able to hone to 4.54 billion with devout prayer and rehash of religious texts.”

Does anything like this exist? Of course not, and it’s absurd to even think of priests trying to design iPhones or theologians doing biochemical research. That’s because religion is a jumbled mess of superstition, mythology, and hearsay, and is wholly comprised of claims that are unfalsifiable, unempirical, and often illogical. I hate to be brunt, but rest assured, Art: that doesn’t mean religion doesn’t have its uses. People rely on religion to get through tough times in life, to find community, to teach children good values; at the same time, much good is done in the name of religion, such as charity and medical work. But unfortunately, people also use religion in ways that hurt others, such as when they use it to persecute others and to champion bigotry and ignorance; or in ways that delude themselves, such as when they avoid facing the reality of existence or when they pretend that religion is in a struggle against science. People want to believe that there’s something after we die and there’s a loving deity to take care of us while we’re alive. That’s fine, I don’t care what people believe until they come yelling in my face about it. In reality, though, it’s just been science quietly, reliably, empirically plugging away through the centuries, improving the human condition as much as humans will let it, while the religious have ranted and raved because they’ve felt threatened by the fact that science has now explained what they previously attributed to their deity.

So again, I’d like to ask you to apply the same standard you’re applying for evolutionary theory (such as asking excellent, probing questions about the nature of RNA) and apply that to your religion. What you’ll see with science is that, if this RNA question is indeed an unknown (I’m no evolutionary biologist), it admits what it doesn’t know, formulates hypotheses to explain these gaps, tests them, records the results, publishes them to be peer-reviewed, and continues advancing. More importantly for our discussion, science survives your probing inquiry unscathed precisely because it admits there are things it has not solved. If there weren’t, there’d be a whole lot of bored scientists! Religion does not do any of this, nor does it even pretend to. It simply says that there is an invisible, undetectable deity responsible for things we can’t explain. In that sense, and to quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson, religion is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Craigslist is the #1 free classified website on the internet, and is the absolute best way to start making cash online. With Craigslist Intensive Marketing you can easily make $300-$500 per day on Craigslist, even if you don’t have a product or a service to sell. Craigslist receives millions of visitors with over 12 billion page views a month. This is where people go to buy, almost anything that can be bought or sold online. Craigslist has quickly become the main source of income for thousands of marketers who advertise on this free classified website.- Posting ads on Craigslist is the easy part, getting your ads to stick is another task. There are special techniques that allow you to post your ads in multiple cities, thus giving your ads MAXIMUM EXPOSURE! Which means maximum profits for you.

It’s free and you can download it from here
http://goo.gl/PyC2S

I do wish we Christians weren’t quite so eager to fulfill the most cliche definitions of who we are… *sigh*

On the other hand, if one wants to discuss semiotics — which is WAY off course — I suggest giving Walker Percy (novelist and more) a go. His “Lost in the Cosmos” has an intriguing chapter on semiotics as it applies to God-questions and such.

The issue of language may or may not have anything to do with evolution… (again, Percy also was an evolutionist… and committed believer [Catholic]). But his point was that its origins, and the human ability to “name” itself, are highly mysterious and not easily explained by the rest of what *is* explained by Darwin.

I probably botched that explanation… blame me, not Percy.

You’ve not linked LAN to the evolution of DNA, which you ask me to answer (as a theory above addresses). I understand the complexity of language and it’s development in large species, but not at a molecular level – the communication is explainable through basic science.

However, if you would like to make any sort of logical argument for Chomsky (I’m sure he’d be impressed with your science so far) then be my guest.

“Prophecy, by any reasonable definition, is a prediction or knowledge of the future made by diety. Regardless of how you try to dodge it, there are numerous accepted (understood as such) prophecies in the Bible.”

Prophecy is a simple interpretation, as I’ve said above, of the Bible. When you read what you call a ‘prophecy’ you’re just interpreting what you’re reading what you presume to be God’s dictate word or revealed truth to the author.

The Anthropic Principal is a philosophical argument and a basic understanding of those who talk about it and you’ll understand it is continually use it as a philosophical excuse to incorporate the idea of a divine creator into this reality.

I think we reached your blik about God. Which I’m glad about – it only supports your incoherency when it comes to God and a divine creator.

I’m not sure I have the patience to read PAGE BY PAGE the Bible. But you know what Art, I’ll be sure to do it at some point.

Your, resorting to semantics to avoid having to stand in the corner is hilarious. I’ll assume by your last response, and this is my last response to you, that you dont understand the link between the laws of the universe (themodynamics, etc) and how it absolutely denies the plausibility, much less the probabilitly of evolution. The anthropic principle makes a mockery of your semantic antics. You were doing pretty good on some points for a while. Why you chose to bail and play word games is completely understandable. Good luck on your studies and may God remove the obstacles from your path to understanding Him and His Word and enable you to see that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;” so that you are without excuse: “Because that, when they knew God,they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
You have no excuse, as smart as you are, for not reading page by page the most influential and widely read book of all time. Thanks for our discussion!!! Really!! Art