If Christians are so eager to put their bible up to science as proof of their theory, then I say it is science's duty to go into the bible and prove and disprove anything it can.
Actually, this has been being done for 200 years or more. The original hypothesis of science in Europe and America was that the Bible was accurate history. Science has changed directions, because the evidence has led them that way.
I think it is simple honesty to teach science and history as it happened. Scientists and historians have been amassing evidence of what happened in our world quite successfully these last few centuries. We should report what they found, because it has already done the "proving" and "disproving" that you request in your OP.
I almost always learn something from everyone of your posts.
Just saw this. Thank you. Actually, though, I was irritated with something you wrote in this thread a couple years ago, and I'm not sure I wrote it very nicely. In fact, I'm sure I didn't, so I don't mind rewriting it.
I'll tell you what it was, though, more politely. It's from message 6.
That is why every major Christian Church accepts the Theory of Evolution and opposes teaching Biblical Creationism.
I don't belong to the Southern Baptists or the Assembly of God, but if I did, I would find this pretty insulting. The Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination in the US, and while they have no official statement on evolution, it is clear from what you can find on their denomination's main web site (sbc.net) that they are generally opposed to evolution. They certainly don't accept it! The Assembly of God, maybe 3rd or 4th on the list, has a statement of faith leaving not much room for evolution, and from experience I can tell you their members are almost exclusively opposed.
When you say things like "every major Christian church," it sounds to me like you're disparaging all the fundamentalists as not major Christian churches and also like you're looking down your nose at them. That's how I feel, and I am both an evolutionist and openly opposed to the Baptist gospel. It would have to be worse if I were a Baptist.
We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.
I figured you were thinking world-wide. I could be missing something, but I think there's only a few "world-wide" churches in that sense. It's really just the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, though I realize there's at least seven branches of Orthodox churches. So "all" the major Christian churches just doesn't sound like a reference to them.
And thank you, by the way, for the comment about learning from my posts. People, with only rare exceptions, are very kind to me on this forum.
Hi, nator, I've been gone to Myanmar the last two weeks.
So, don't you consider Catholics to be Christians, then?
I'm not sure how you got that from what you quoted. Maybe you could explain.
However, as a general response, I don't consider the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church or any other major Christian church to be "real churches." I do consider it possible for Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists to be real Christians.
Myanmar, however, got me to wondering more whether I'm a real Christian, not someone else. I have a series of blog posts on that at shammahrcv.blogspot.com. If you get bored, that is. My blogs tend to be long.