quote:
BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils.
Firstly - it cannot be "apriori"
after the event - this does not make it prophetic - it makes it an
interpretation in hindsight.
Let me give you an example - Nostradamus predicted world war 3 - we can't then, after world war three happens (if it does) then say that Nostradamus was prophetic about it - unless he gives specific, reproducible, testable evidence (like a specific calculated date, time and series of events) - *anything* else is simply coincidence and/or an interpretation of what WE would like to believe - i.e a guess.
If you seriously believe the bible is prophetic please give me one prophecy that has been predicted (predicted like we predict utilising the scientific method - not some wishy washy general Nostradamus-esque "interpretation") that has then come true - I will bow down and beg for mercy.
Secondly - I'd like to introduce a bit of reason here. Perhaps I wasn't being clear in my last post.
Which do you think is more reasonable:
a) A 2000 year old script mentioned that once there was a worldwide flood that this lends evidence to suggest that we were created by a magical imaginary being - of which we can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear.
or
b) Countless fossils based on sound dating methods, direct DNA links, hundreds of years of gathering evidence and questioning and changing theories, searching for falsities and contradictions and we *sort of* know what happened, not quite everything, but we have a GOOD idea that we evolved from a common ancestor and that we change with our environment and geographical location - much like we see on a micro level *every day* right here right now - in reality.
You are correct that the theory of evolution is a theory. However it is not based not on ONE fact alone (i.e a 2000 year old script), and thus it is much more
reasonable to state that we did not get majicked up by the spaghetti monstor OR any other imaginary being, and that it is more
likely that we evolved.
You're thinking may be "logical" as you put it - but it is far from objective, far from lateral and far from reasonable.