Sanctification

[b.k. barunt]

"The Bible was edited countless times" is something people say because they've heard it somewhere. There is no proof, based on any scientific evidence, that the Bible was ever "edited". The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much laid that argument to rest. It is now an unfounded cliche thrown around by the unstudied.

[MR. Nate]

The first christians reading Job had no way to separate misrepresentations, such as a flat earth, or an earth 'suspended' over 'nothing' etc. Therefore those statements would have been taken as truth.

The idea of the Earth being round was around for a long time, with the Mayans and the Egyptians. A lot of people theorized that the world was round by the time that was written (740-700 BC).

Ok, metaphor it is.

So you are saying that the Bible is true, except when you want it not to be?

I'm saying the Bible is true, if you take it into account what it would have meant to the original readers. If they understood something as a metaphor, it probably is. If they would have understood it as representing facts, it does. If they would have understood a number as rounded off, or a name dropped, it could have been, without damaging the truth.

[unriggable]

"The Bible was edited countless times" is something people say because they've heard it somewhere. There is no proof, based on any scientific evidence, that the Bible was ever "edited". The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much laid that argument to rest. It is now an unfounded cliche thrown around by the unstudied.

Then how do you explain the agnostics? You know, the tales that didn't 'make it' into the bible?

[btownmeggy]

If they understood something as a metaphor, it probably is. If they would have understood it as representing facts, it does. If they would have understood a number as rounded off, or a name dropped, it could have been, without damaging the truth.

I don't understand.

[luns101]

"The Bible was edited countless times" is something people say because they've heard it somewhere. There is no proof, based on any scientific evidence, that the Bible was ever "edited". The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much laid that argument to rest. It is now an unfounded cliche thrown around by the unstudied.

Then how do you explain the agnostics? You know, the tales that didn't 'make it' into the bible?

I'm assuming you meant the "gnostics"

[unriggable]

"The Bible was edited countless times" is something people say because they've heard it somewhere. There is no proof, based on any scientific evidence, that the Bible was ever "edited". The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much laid that argument to rest. It is now an unfounded cliche thrown around by the unstudied.

Then how do you explain the agnostics? You know, the tales that didn't 'make it' into the bible?

I'm assuming you meant the "gnostics"

D'oh! That's what I meant.

[MeDeFe]

ok, so now you can go on to explain them.

[MR. Nate]

Btown: The meaning of the text is limited to what the writer intended to communicate to his audience. Jesus said "I stand at the door and knock" right? In our culture, we have no problem understanding that. In india, they don't knock, they clap. Thieves knock. That doesn't mean that Jesus intended to steal from you if you live in India. In the original context, Jesus wanted to be invited in, when you understand it in the original context, you understand the meaning of the text.


The gnostics: After the canon was for the most part closed, a bunch of people decided they didn't like what was in it, so they wrote some more stuff. It didn't get accepted by Christianity as a whole, but some splinter groups held it, before they slowly died.
Any questions?

[heavycola]

The first christians reading Job had no way to separate misrepresentations, such as a flat earth, or an earth 'suspended' over 'nothing' etc. Therefore those statements would have been taken as truth.

The idea of the Earth being round was around for a long time, with the Mayans and the Egyptians. A lot of people theorized that the world was round by the time that was written (740-700 BC).

Ok, metaphor it is.

You really think most people knew the earth was spherical in 700BC? Come on, man! And besides there are many more examples. The Tower of Babel - was this a myth for explaining all the different languages in the world? Or was an omnipotent being actually worried that humans were going to build a tower up to heaven? the hubble telescope can 'see' unimaginable distances, and still has not detected heaven. And we are talking about human endeavour, not deitic whismy here. Language genealogy does not point to a single mother tongue, either. So was babel a metaphor?

And don't you mean the Apocrypha?

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

"The Bible was edited countless times" is something people say because they've heard it somewhere. There is no proof, based on any scientific evidence, that the Bible was ever "edited". The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much laid that argument to rest. It is now an unfounded cliche thrown around by the unstudied.

Are you fucking serious? First you have to contend with translation. This would lead room for much interpretation. On a parallel, ever read "The Master and Margarita"? It was written by a Russian author (in Russian) as a satire. However, several translations exist. With these several translations, different tones are set, and different interpretations are presented. To argue that editting did not occur is pure lunacy, and downright naive.

Next, we have that little issue where older manuscripts of the Gospel "Mark" seem to be missing 12 verses (notably, Mark 16:9-20). Editing, or did the author all of a sudden forget how to write (the transition is awkward at best)?

Moreover, we have to contend with that we do not have a single autograph copy of any of the New Testament writings. The oldest versions you'll find come from the third century. With this in mind, any number of fudgings, edits and other literary changes are impossible to trace.

But again, this is all moot considering that a dearth of evidence for Jesus is available.

[MR. Nate]

You really think most people knew the earth was spherical in 700BC? Come on, man!

I think it was a metaphor then, just like it is now. It's the way things look, whether or not it's the way things are.

And besides there are many more examples. The Tower of Babel - was this a myth for explaining all the different languages in the world? Or was an omnipotent being actually worried that humans were going to build a tower up to heaven? the hubble telescope can 'see' unimaginable distances, and still has not detected heaven. And we are talking about human endeavour, not deitic whismy here. Language genealogy does not point to a single mother tongue, either. So was babel a metaphor?

The point of the story was not that God was afraid mankind would make it to heaven, it was the fact that mankind was intentionally resisting God's command to subdue the earth. And I wouldn't expect their to be evidence of a single mother tongue if God was intentionally messing with their language. I would expect that God would thoroughly change the language so that they would be completely unable to communicate.

And don't you mean the Apocrypha?

*shrugs* the question was on the gnostic gospels. We can talk Apocrypha if you want, I guess.

To argue that editing did not occur is pure lunacy, and downright naive.

Next, we have that little issue where older manuscripts of the Gospel "Mark" seem to be missing 12 verses (notably, Mark 16:9-20). Editing, or did the author all of a sudden forget how to write (the transition is awkward at best)?

Moreover, we have to contend with that we do not have a single autograph copy of any of the New Testament writings. The oldest versions you'll find come from the third century. With this in mind, any number of fudgings, edits and other literary changes are impossible to trace.

OK, how about this. I believe that if editing did occur, that it was also under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and that what we currently have in our hands is sufficiant for God to communicate to people that are seeking Him.

But again, this is all moot considering that a dearth of evidence for Jesus is available.

Yes, we know you don't think Jesus lived. And you present a very good argument from silence, which is supported by a lot of freethinkers.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

You really think most people knew the earth was spherical in 700BC? Come on, man!

I think it was a metaphor then, just like it is now. It's the way things look, whether or not it's the way things are.

And besides there are many more examples. The Tower of Babel - was this a myth for explaining all the different languages in the world? Or was an omnipotent being actually worried that humans were going to build a tower up to heaven? the hubble telescope can 'see' unimaginable distances, and still has not detected heaven. And we are talking about human endeavour, not deitic whismy here. Language genealogy does not point to a single mother tongue, either. So was babel a metaphor?

The point of the story was not that God was afraid mankind would make it to heaven, it was the fact that mankind was intentionally resisting God's command to subdue the earth. And I wouldn't expect their to be evidence of a single mother tongue if God was intentionally messing with their language. I would expect that God would thoroughly change the language so that they would be completely unable to communicate.

lol. First, I must address the "subdue the earth". Why would a benevolent god subdue the earth? Moreover, wouldn't he understand that this task is impossible and let them continue? After all, omniscience and omnipotence can go a long way. Too bad they are inherently contradictory.

Second, I have communicated with Egyptians who didn't speak a word of English at a market bazaar (and I didn't know piddly shit about speaking Egyptian-Arabic). To think that simply warping the languages will stop them from their endeavor is again, ludicrous.

Also, what about written language?

To argue that editing did not occur is pure lunacy, and downright naive.

Next, we have that little issue where older manuscripts of the Gospel "Mark" seem to be missing 12 verses (notably, Mark 16:9-20). Editing, or did the author all of a sudden forget how to write (the transition is awkward at best)?

Moreover, we have to contend with that we do not have a single autograph copy of any of the New Testament writings. The oldest versions you'll find come from the third century. With this in mind, any number of fudgings, edits and other literary changes are impossible to trace.

OK, how about this. I believe that if editing did occur, that it was also under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and that what we currently have in our hands is sufficiant for God to communicate to people that are seeking Him.

Prove it.

But again, this is all moot considering that a dearth of evidence for Jesus is available.

Yes, we know you don't think Jesus lived. And you present a very good argument from silence, which is supported by a lot of freethinkers.

It's only an argument from silence if it is implied that something needs to be silenced. Of course, we have proof neither way, so the logical default would be that there is nothing to be silenced.

[qeee1]

Are you fucking serious? First you have to contend with translation. This would lead room for much interpretation. On a parallel, ever read "The Master and Margarita"? It was written by a Russian author (in Russian) as a satire. However, several translations exist. With these several translations, different tones are set, and different interpretations are presented. To argue that editting did not occur is pure lunacy, and downright naive.

Totally unrelated to this thread, but I read the penguin modern classics edition of that book, and felt I somehow missed the point of it all, the tone is very important in a book such as that, probably less so in the bible, given it's writers intentions probably weren't as subtle.

Certainly less so for me, but if you're gonna base your life on it you should probably give it some serious consideration. Of course then you have to ask what is the authorial intention behind the bible exactly? What we know about those times/people has been so dominated by the book itself and its impact that it'd be extremely hard to discern what their actual intentions were. Also the fact it's such distant history.

Anyway there's my ramble along the sides of this debate, keep fighting guys.

[Backglass]

If you want an existence totally absent from God, then you will have your wish someday.

I have it now, thanks. It's quite nice actually! No fear, no guilt, no superstitions, no fairy tales and I sleep in on Sundays.

Nobody is forcing you to read our posts.

But they make me laugh! By the same token, nobody is forcing the cultists to continue to start new ones in this public forum...yet they feel the need again & again.

I don't think an omniscient, all-powerful God needs your $$ or mine. Any church or preacher that tells you it's necessary in order to gain God's approval is full of baloney.

YET, religion is the biggest money-maker on the face of the planet and churchgoers like yourself give, give, give in droves. Why give so much money to churches if it isn't necessary to this magical thing you choose to worship and obey?

I am curious: If your religion is a "one-on-one, personal relationship" as jay likes to say, and money isn't necessary as you say, then why do you gather in large groups in huge, ornately decorated and very expensive buildings to perform your rituals?

[MR. Nate]

lol. First, I must address the "subdue the earth". Why would a benevolent god subdue the earth? Moreover, wouldn't he understand that this task is impossible and let them continue? After all, omniscience and omnipotence can go a long way. Too bad they are inherently contradictory.
Second, I have communicated with Egyptians who didn't speak a word of English at a market bazaar (and I didn't know piddly shit about speaking Egyptian-Arabic). To think that simply warping the languages will stop them from their endeavor is again, ludicrous.
Also, what about written language?

God told people to go out and subdue the earth: I.E. Don't sit in Mesopotamia and do nothing, go out, explore, and figure out the earth. God didn't need to make it impossible for them to communicate at all, He needed to make it impossible to communicate verbally, and difficult to communicate in other ways, so that they would not associate with one another, so they would go out and explore the earth, thus fulfilling what God originally wanted them to do.

Prove it.

Can't be done, but neither can you prove it doesn't happen, which is why I reject the Enlightenment project: It doesn't account for spirituality.

[luns101]

Science has revealed god's work - unless of course we are talking about paleaontology, or geology, or evolutionary biology, because they are all wrong.

"From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley (Darwin's 'bulldog') was able to select a series with features leading by insensible gradations from an average modern specimen to the Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn't qualitatively different from present-day Homo sapiens. - Donald Johnson, Lucy's Child, pg. 49

"There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being" - David Pilbeam, Rearranging Our Family Tree, Human Nature, 1978, pg. 44

"The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story" - David Pilbeam, Patterns of Hominoid Evolution, Ancestors, pg. 53

"I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern" - Mary Leakey, Disclosing the Past, pg. 214

"The human fossil record is no exception to the general rule that the main lesson to be learned from paleontology is that evolution always takes place somewhere else" - J.S. Jones & S. Rouhani, How Small Was The Bottleneck?, Nature, pg. 319

"So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution" - Robert Martin, Man Is Not An Option, New Scientist, pg. 285

So, since paleantology has not produced conclusive proof of transitional life forms, it makes sense that in 1981, Mark Ridley would write in frustration: "...no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." And then later, "The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record." and then again, "The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution". - Mark Ridley, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, pg. 831

Heavycola, I'm not an expert in paleantology. But I read enough to know that the "experts" didn't have all the answers. You can choose to put your faith in them, or the Bible. I chose the Bible. Not trying to convince you that you're wrong, I'm just showing you why I couldn't believe in evolution any longer when I made my conversion.

[unriggable]

Science has revealed god's work - unless of course we are talking about paleaontology, or geology, or evolutionary biology, because they are all wrong.

"From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley (Darwin's 'bulldog') was able to select a series with features leading by insensible gradations from an average modern specimen to the Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn't qualitatively different from present-day Homo sapiens. - Donald Johnson, Lucy's Child, pg. 49

"There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being" - David Pilbeam, Rearranging Our Family Tree, Human Nature, 1978, pg. 44

"The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story" - David Pilbeam, Patterns of Hominoid Evolution, Ancestors, pg. 53

"I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern" - Mary Leakey, Disclosing the Past, pg. 214

"The human fossil record is no exception to the general rule that the main lesson to be learned from paleontology is that evolution always takes place somewhere else" - J.S. Jones & S. Rouhani, How Small Was The Bottleneck?, Nature, pg. 319

"So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution" - Robert Martin, Man Is Not An Option, New Scientist, pg. 285

So, since paleantology has not produced conclusive proof of transitional life forms, it makes sense that in 1981, Mark Ridley would write in frustration: "...no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." And then later, "The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record." and then again, "The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution". - Mark Ridley, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, pg. 831

Heavycola, I'm not an expert in paleantology. But I read enough to know that the "experts" didn't have all the answers. You can choose to put your faith in them, or the Bible. I chose the Bible. Not trying to convince you that you're wrong, I'm just showing you why I couldn't believe in evolution any longer when I made my conversion.

I'm still confused by what you are saying: the only real other option is that god creates species, one by one over time. Just because we can't find fossils doesn't mean that certain species didn't exist. I still don't see how you can't believe in adaptation.

[luns101]

YET, religion is the biggest money-maker on the face of the planet and churchgoers like yourself give, give, give in droves. Why give so much money to churches if it isn't necessary to this magical thing you choose to worship and obey?

If you re-read my original post, I was talking about giving $$ in order to gain favor with God. We are commanded to give 1/10th of what God has blessed us with (i.e. wealth) in order for the local church to operate. When I give $$ to my local church, it goes to programs that help the poor and people struggling with addictions. I can't speak for other churches. But that's the purpose for me giving my tithe.

I am curious: If your religion is a "one-on-one, personal relationship" as jay likes to say, and money isn't necessary as you say, then why do you gather in large groups in huge, ornately decorated and very expensive buildings to perform your rituals?

Can't speak for jay so I think it's unfair for you to link me to whatever discussion you were having with him.

The point I was trying to make was that God, being omniscient & omnipotent, has no need for our money. But He has chosen to involve people in the process of spreading His message through the "church". Why He has chosen this method, I've got no clue, man. But I'm not Him. So, since He has chosen to give His message to people via the church, money is needed to support its operations".

Sometimes your misrepresentations of us Christians really cracks me up. Meeting in "ornately decorated and expensive buildings" to perform our rituals! I have yet to fellowship with other Christians in one of those, but it sounds like you're referring more to either Catholic churches or buildings used by one of those televangelists who wears a wig & promises to send a "holy handkerchief" to me if I send in $25.

[luns101]

I'm still confused by what you are saying: the only real other option is that god creates species, one by one over time. Just because we can't find fossils doesn't mean that certain species didn't exist. I still don't see how you can't believe in adaptation.

You're making the same argument as Ridley. Evolution is true because it is? The lack of evidence has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true? If that is your argument for the veracity of evolution then you are admitting that you have accepted it by faith.

[Abishai]

WOW according to your post noone could have been crucified in the Roman empire, because it was not physically possible.

You must not have read my post. I did not say it was impossible to crucify someone, but rather that using nails is highly unlikely due to the physiological constraints.

Ummm better check your history. they did it all the time and had it down to a science. Where to nail without hitting the proper veins and arteries to cause someone to die fast. I find when a person contradicts what any expert on Roman punishment would tel you he should probally double check his sources.

No, I suggest you check your history.I am led to believe you don't actually know a thing about the roman execution known as "crucification".

They did not drive nails into their hands or wrists, they tied them with rope (and in some cases, oiled rope so that the sun would heat it and scald their flesh).

Moreover, for all intents and purposes, I am probably the only person here with the educational qualifications to talk about this stuff in depth. I make a living out of working with archaeological finds and historical validation.

Do a little research bud. It was both tying and nails.
He I 'll help you out a little.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward229.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
and
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/roma ... on-faq.htm
and
http://www.konnections.com/kcundick/crucifix.html
You should check this one out. It was done by a physian who takes a doctors approach to what happened at the crucifixion. Good reading.
and
http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2006/04/arch ... ixion.html

Oh and you gotta check this site since it is an achaeological site that even has pictures of bones with the very nails in them that they have unearthed. (I thought this was your field? Hmmm guess you have not been doing you homework.) I do have a little bit of a brain and the one thing I did learn from my college degree is how to research. I studied thsi in college and have been for 10 years since. I suggest you remove the blinders and stop trying to prove things right or wrong based on ideas and come at things with and open mind to find the truth.

[unriggable]

I'm still confused by what you are saying: the only real other option is that god creates species, one by one over time. Just because we can't find fossils doesn't mean that certain species didn't exist. I still don't see how you can't believe in adaptation.

You're making the same argument as Ridley. Evolution is true because it is? The lack of evidence has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true? If that is your argument for the veracity of evolution then you are admitting that you have accepted it by faith.

Well faith for one does not mean faith for all, what you are arguing is nothing short of "since I believe it, it must be true". And none of those quotes actually have evidence, it's mostly 'I think' by some people.

[luns101]

Well faith for one does not mean faith for all, what you are arguing is nothing short of "since I believe it, it must be true". And none of those quotes actually have evidence, it's mostly 'I think' by some people.

I'm not saying it's evidence. I'm saying that because those who believe in evolution cannot even give credible support for it, it caused me to doubt my faith in it. I changed faiths because the Bible gave me more reasonable answers than Charles Darwin or his followers could offer.

If you're content to remain in your faith, so be it. Nobody can force you to believe in or not believe in anything. But I did choose to make the switch. It was a process of about a year for me.

[Abishai]

[quote="Jesse, Bad Boy"][quote="CrazyAnglican"][quote="Jesse, Bad Boy"]


Moreover, by historical grounds, I don't believe Jesus even existed. The evidence is shaky, warped, and rife with inconsistencies. On biological grounds, I would dare say it is nigh impossible for him (or anyone for that matter) to have been crucified with nails.

Furthermore, considering that no other contemporary works were written to supplant these claims (we'll skip that fact that the first Gospel was written nearly 30 years after Jesus's supposed death), we again have no way of discerning the myth from the fact. In short, the Gospels serve as unreliable sources for any actual historiographical claim regarding the life of the supposed "Yeshua el Nazrii".


So I am curious wht do you think of such this as homers odyssey? Did you know that the best copies that we have of that are over 1,000 years older than the time they think it was written. I don't know you, but I am curious do you look at everything under the same microscope, or do you just not believe so you are willing to be lax with other things like homers odyssey, but harder on christian sources? Because when you look at the sources they are very well documented. If you can find documents that are written within 30 years of the actual event that is a very good find. Then when you consider the accuracy of these texts with each other. As a matter of fact many scholars believe that the only way to explain the amazing similarities in the gospel was a document called Q that they all relied upon to keep their stories straight. (I do not belive this, I meerly point it out so you can see that people who do not even believe the Bible realize the books are extremely similar in there events. lending some credance to the events that happened. If you wanted to find info about an event you were not at and you asked all the eye witnesses and they all agreed on points you can come to a good conclusion on what the facts are in the event. We acn do the same thing with scripture. Now it could be that the disciples all got together and decided on a lie and propigated it, but there are flaws with that. How many people do you know that are faced with death for telling a lie and are told if they denounce it they can go free will make the choice to die for the lie? People who are willing to lie to gain fame fortune at any cost usually have the character to chose to denounce it rather than die for a lie. Yet all the disciples went to their deaths defending their stories as the truth.( except John he died naturally.) Besides look at their stories. The details. who was govner at what time. He was ruler over what. who was involved in what event many of these things we know to be true. Look at the hitties of the OT. in the 19 people ridiculed the Bible because no archaeological proof had been found of them. Today in Chicago you can get a college degree in Hittiology. (In the study of the Hittites.) Freakishly accurate. very Interesting.

[Abishai]

:

New Adam?

He's like, now available with no added sugar or something?

lol, but actually New Adam refers to Jesus.

Right on new adam Christ in us,

Romans 8:9-11

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you."

[heavycola]

Science has revealed god's work - unless of course we are talking about paleaontology, or geology, or evolutionary biology, because they are all wrong.

"From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley (Darwin's 'bulldog') was able to select a series with features leading by insensible gradations from an average modern specimen to the Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn't qualitatively different from present-day Homo sapiens. - Donald Johnson, Lucy's Child, pg. 49

"There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being" - David Pilbeam, Rearranging Our Family Tree, Human Nature, 1978, pg. 44

"The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story" - David Pilbeam, Patterns of Hominoid Evolution, Ancestors, pg. 53

"I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern" - Mary Leakey, Disclosing the Past, pg. 214

"The human fossil record is no exception to the general rule that the main lesson to be learned from paleontology is that evolution always takes place somewhere else" - J.S. Jones & S. Rouhani, How Small Was The Bottleneck?, Nature, pg. 319

"So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution" - Robert Martin, Man Is Not An Option, New Scientist, pg. 285

So, since paleantology has not produced conclusive proof of transitional life forms, it makes sense that in 1981, Mark Ridley would write in frustration: "...no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." And then later, "The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record." and then again, "The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution". - Mark Ridley, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, pg. 831

Heavycola, I'm not an expert in paleantology. But I read enough to know that the "experts" didn't have all the answers. You can choose to put your faith in them, or the Bible. I chose the Bible. Not trying to convince you that you're wrong, I'm just showing you why I couldn't believe in evolution any longer when I made my conversion.

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening. Are you saying that because anthropologists admit this, that the logical conclusion then is to suppsoe it was all conjured out of dust by a man in the sky?
In terms of faith: I believe evolution is true, i suppose, but i'm not wedded to it. Show me a better theory -and that doesn't include the man in the sky one - and i'll gladly go along with it. no problem. (<--- rationality!)

And it's not just evolution. The age of the earth, of the universe... of fossils, and light, and the sun... scientifically verified and accepted by all reasonable minds.
No no no no no no no, i hear you say! Read this very old book that was written before anyone knew much about anything - it says it was all made a few years back. So it must be true.