It's official, he's a troll who's trying too hard.

@TMW - You are a fool. Do you really believe that the universe was created in 6 days and that the earth is at the center of it as Genesis 1 teaches us? Then you are truly deluded.

@Invictus - http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html does a pretty good job of providing and accounting for the differences between the gospel accounts and the account as presented in Acts when it comes to Judas' death and the events surrounding it (the purchase of the land, etc.)

RE: literal interpretation of gensis; what is a day? it says in the bible that there was light and then darkness, evening and dawn, and this was the first day. However it doesn't say that this was a 24 hour period. You're assuming that since day's at the moment are 24 hours that they always were - this is the kind of scientific logic which we use all the time to actually understand something about the universe.

@TMW If the earth is literaly only afew thousand years old, how do explain uranium/lead technique showing the earth is 4.5 billion years old within 0.1- 1% pricision level. This is based on the same physics that the nuclear bombs you've expressed you want to use. There are also at least a dozen other radiometric dating methiods all confirming the earth is much older than what you get using dates out of the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

A truly literal interpretation of Genesis would also have the snake be just a snake instead of the Devil.

The_Master_Warrior, I've lost patience with you. If you're not going to respond intelligently to the one person here you just might take you a seriously then the hell with you. The Bible CAN'T be history like our history books because people didn't write history like that back then. They recorded the gist of it, like Herodotus or chronicles of Scandinavian kings. If it were history why not include Jesus' childhood or fill in the wholes that cause so much strife between Christians? Plus, there are two accounts of Judas' suicide! How can he commit suicide two different ways in a literalistic interpretation?

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist or the events in the Bible didn't happen, but rather that narrative details are not to be taken as absolute history. The Bible has crowds of thousands of people speaking in unison and the timeline of the Old Testament does not perfectly dovetail the archeological record in places. That doesn't make the message any less valid or truthful, and denying even the existence of inconsistencies and deviations is willfully retarded.

which thread was it where people mistook existential quantification for universal quantification? I want to avoid that awful thread forever; if it was this one, PM me and lemme know

also: TMW = fail

Invictus +1 FTW!

Invictus, I apologize, but it's very difficult to argue with about two dozen people at the same time AND not allowing this forum to interfere with my normal life. But, I'll press on.

I believe the Earth was created in six days by creation. However "days" are not defined in hours, so, for all I know, that could mean 6 billion years. But the Big Bang, or whatever created us, was created by God.

The Bible is accurate about EVERYTHING, with remarkably few exceptions, considering the book was written by thousands of different authors over multiple centuries. Anyone who doesn't believe something supernatural had something to do with that is idiotic.

Whilst I have a basic level of respect on a human level for you guys, I believe that anyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant imbecile.

"days" were not

You haven't addressed any of what I just said.

By stating the definition of day might be any time span you are saying that the Bible is not to be taken literal.

RE: science - time is realtive (Einstien showed in 1905 with his special theory of relativity) so how fast time is passing is dependant on the fraction of the speed of light which you are travelling at.

of course speed is relative aswell - so there is no stationary, just an observer. If i observe something (say an asteroid, star or galaxy) moving at half the speed of light 'relative to me' then time will be passing more slowly for that observed thing.

However from that thing's prespective looking at me, they are watching a fast moving me and time for me is slower than time for them. This seems like a contradiction, and science is full of these cool little paradoxs which over-turn our natural sense of how the world work - the solution is so beautiful... but anyway, time doesn't work the way we are used to seeing it on the scale we usually see it.

@warspite, we can use these dating techniques to show that really fast moving sample of radioactive material decays more slowly than one which is sitting on your lab table. It is sooo cool.

As in cosmic"rays" which are really ionized atoms. Some of which are unstable isotopes that should have decayed before reaching earth.

Is it really a paradox or just seem to be a paradox reative to are limited brain and senses?