Heres the thing, you look on creation sites, evolution sites. Both have different explanations for same thing. Who to believe?
A
great question! Basically, you have to look at the methodology. It's a major tenant of science that the methodology is always transparent - you not only know what conclusions the scientists came to, but the methods they used to reach them, because all that is published in the paper. Creationists do not often refer to their methodology, but when they do, it's generally something on the order of "The Bible must be assumed to be inerrant, so any evidence we find against the Bible can be automatically rejected.
Scientists let the data dictate their models. Creationists use their models to decide which data to ignore. Who do you think is more trustworthy?
People saying it happened is evidence.
What people? If you're talking about the authors of the Bible, we know they weren't there to observe the events they say happened. Right there that makes their claims pretty suspect.
Anyway, people lie. What people say can't be taken as evidence - you'll note that even in courts of law what people say - "hearsay" - isn't admissable as evidence.
Thats your hypothesis, cant be validated.
If one author makes a mistake, and another, later author makes the very same mistake, then I'd say that's evidence that the later one copied from the earlier one, for instance.
Many parts of the bible CAN be proven by historical data, basically the only part people disbelieve is Genesis.
What about the Exodus? After all the Egyptians kept pretty good records, and they
never mention either keeping Hebrew slaves or their departure. And the loss of most of their workforce, as it says in the Bible, would be something they would have noticed, don't you think?
™ Version 4.2
