Sure, chemistry no one has been able to reproduce in the lab under any circumstances.
No, it's based on basic biochemical reactions which are demonstrated on a daily basis in any number of labs. Are you completely ignorant of that field, and simply repeating dogmatic statements with no correlation to reality?
A chemical process that has not been proven to happen anywhere else not only in our own solar system, but in the entire visible universe. If the chances for life are that slim, seems like we either lucked out on the lottery or we were created.
You argument holds no water.
1. We have barely begun to explore this solar system, and will not be in a position to study the larger universe in any great detail for many years, if ever. It has only been recently possible to detect extrasolar planets, let alone determine their atmospheric composition. The fact that we have not found an example of extraterrestrial life is meaningless in that context. However, even within this extremely limited context, we have found organic molecules being formed(such as on Titan). This proves that the requisite organic compounds can exist elsewhere.
2. The fact that this chemistry has been proven to work here is sufficient to prove the case. There is nothing magical about the physics of the Earth as compared to the rest of the universe, regardless of what your adherence to a Bronze Age mythology might lead you to believe.
For there to be natural selection, there has to be life. Life does not come from non-life.
Life is not some magical property bestowed upon unliving matter. It is, at root, a chemical reaction. The entire history of life is that of a chemical reaction which started almost 3 billion years ago, and continues today in much greater sophistication due to the operation of natural selection. Calling some collection of molecules "alive" is simply shorthand for recognizing a group of molecules undergoing this chemical process.
Natural selection will kick in automatically as soon as you have replication and a gradient of fitness. It has been proven time and again that replicating agents will spontaneously assemble in nature, and once such agents are in existence, what we call life is all but inevitable. Appeals to some anthropomorphic deity are quite unneeded to explain life, and in my view, childish in the extreme.
And you believe that by random chance we all evolved from goop, for which there is no evidence.
Natural selection is non-random process. Only the input(varying genetic structures) is random. Thus, the result is non-random. Your statement reveals a severe lack of understanding. I suggest that, if you are truly interested in learning, you remedy this deficiency. Of course, if your goal is to shelter the particular brand of insipid delusion called "faith," then you are probably not inclined to actually study this area.
Bullshit.
First, you are introducing a false division between the prevailing philosophical beliefs of those times with the religious beliefs. What, are you going to argue that Thomas Aquinas' arguments were not religious because they were philosophical? Rubbish.
Second, you are ignoring the fact that the geocentrists used biblical passages to back up their beliefs and attack heliocentrism.
Third, you seem to imply that Luther and his reformation weren't as mired in anti-scientific attitudes as the Catholics he broke from. Some choice quotes from this odious man:
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Such ignorance plagued both sides of the reformation.
Ironically, this is why the New Testament frequently bashes philosophers and religious individuals who "value tradition over revelation." The New Testament has several scathing attacks on Greek philosophy and Talmudic legalism.
Ignoring for the moment that the NT supported tradition(and, in fact, is part of a larger tradition), I would point out that both tradition and revelation are incredibly stupid ways of attempting to understand the universe.
And your point is what?
How the fuck does that differ from doing the same job in a big city? Or any fucking job at all? So, yeah, I'll keep laughing.If I lose my job(which I have before), I'll find something else and adjust. Grow the fuck up and quit whining about something you can't control.
I live in a town with 2.5k people. I telecommute for an international corporation. I make 3x the normal income for this area. I have a group of medium to large cities within 30 minutes to 1 hour from my location. I paid $40k for a house which would cost 10x that or more in some areas. I expect to be debt free(including house, car and school loans) within the next 5 years. And that's just salary based. It's not taking into account my investment strategies.
I have several options for high speed internet.
I have several options for decent to excellent medical care.
I go to concerts, museums and such on a regular basis.
The schools are pretty good around here, and since I care enough to supplement my kids' educations with things like fossil hunting, programming and various home science projects, my kids are in the top of their classes.
I can make my own coffee, thanks.
And I can go sailing and diving on my days off.
Now, what exactly am I missing by living in the midwest? The ocean. Other than that, I could care less that I'm not stuck in a high rent, high cost-of-living money sink. I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
You deduced that crux with your mind and critical thinking skills. How are you able to do that? The monkeys who are called our family members remain unable.
And they can climb trees better than I. And fish can swim better than I. Birds can fly better. The fact that our species developed specialized cognitive abilities has no bearing on whether a divine creator exists.
It's not a question of "likely". It's not "likely" that God made men. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets. In the same way, it's not likely that God wants a corporate bride, of the church. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets.
No, it's not "factual knowledge." It is groundless conjecture. It's a completely ad hoc explanation of reality which doesn't take into account actual factual knowledge.
I will admit ignorance the subject. Has the been a study that conclusively showed one species evolving into a new species?
There have been many such studies. I suggest you spend some time reading up on it. At the very least, it would prepare you for arguments like this.
My entire argument is irrational.
Well, that's a solid admission.
I'm telling you that a book conveys the secrets of the universe, a book that is hotly contested by the devil, who wishes it had never appeared, but did because God gave men the words to write so that He could save us all from a spiritual death. If you keep thinking irrationally and rationally, you'll miss the entire thing, so listen, experience, and then decide.
You are asking the same thing of me as every other religion, every crazy cult leader and every two-bit con man. You'll get the same answer.
God will give Life simply because you want it, and believe He can give it, and He is "rich to all who call upon Him; For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Romans 10:12-13)
You seem to forget that I was a Christian at one point.
And with all that critical thinking, you've never once wondered "why can I think critically?". Or maybe you did, and forgot the question when you stopped meeting with the church. I can't tell, and won't try. I'm curious now, if only to know how it happened. What's your story sir?
I can think critically because it was advantageous to the survival of my ancestors and selected for. Nothing mysterious about it at all. It's simply a more advanced form of the same abilities as found in other life forms.
As far as my story, I've already told it. In a nutshell, I was a Christian apologist who realized that my own beliefs were as ludicrous as those I was trying to "save." Honesty and a devotion to seeking the truth dictated that I abandon my earlier beliefs. What's your story?
And, for the record, I am an ex-Christian atheist. I was in your shoes once. The difference appears to be that I was willing to subject my own beliefs to the same levels of critical thought as those of other believers.
Now there's something to be going on. It took me about an hour to puzzle over the best answer to your presentation of the Bible's recording of God's various misdeeds. Once I had formed it(with additional help from, of all places, your signature), I realized I didn't even need to ask you to give examples. Go figure. The reason is this. If I answer, "No; it is moral because it is God", you say "Your God is revels in genocide and bloody rituals". If I say, "Yes; you're right, it is immoral", you say "Your God is immoral". And so forth. We argue over what is or isn't immoral, for what reasons, and likely it would take a long time. And maybe, though not likely, I, or any other Christian in this exact same position, wins the argument! But even if they win the argument, they lose. The opponent of the Christian loses as well. Someone else claims the victory here.
Maybe instead, the atheist wins(I'm not sure what your standing is, but atheism is most likely, but it doesn't matter regardless of your stance). But the atheist, at the same time, loses, as does the Christian. Because regardless of the argument's result, both argue-ers are telling one another what is good, and what is evil. They have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they use it to argue. The source is not from the Tree of Life.
So here is the answer. Whether or not we are right when we say "this is good[moral]" or "this is bad[immoral]", we are wrong[read: dead(spiritually)]. We are wrong because we have the wrong source. To use a car-related analogy, winning a drag race means nothing if you and I are on the wrong track. The result of the argument is meaningless, because no matter the result, the winner is yours, my, and God's enemy. I will not tell you the Bible is moral, or God is moral. I will not pretend to be able to define lines between good and bad, right and wrong, because what one American says is acceptable, a man in Tehran shuns from sight. God defines the lines. You and I don't need to worry about that. Our goal should not be Good or Bad, because neither one is Life. Life is in Christ. That is my answer.
Pointing to a literary character from your favorite mythology and claiming that their interference is the reason your scriptures and beliefs aren't logically coherent is not exactly a compelling argument. Do you not see how circular your reasoning is?
Your infinite wisdom does not seem to agree with God's infinite wisdom then, and I have no place in the discussion. I'll give you two some space to talk it out.
Given that your god doesn't seem inclined to give evidence of his existence aside from specious claims from his followers, I doubt I will be hearing from him.
Nor do we have evidence the it is currently fallen.
Then why believe it?
Or that there is a difference between the two. Or that either really exist. In fact, do I exist? Am I really typing these words? What are words?
Mockery aside, I think the point here is simple. You won't have evidence. Even if fallen and unfallen states left physical evidence behind for you to examine, it is long since gone. The question is pointless, because the answer won't be found.
Then you are again making unscientific, unfounded and illogical claims. How does fit with your thesis that science and the Bible fit together again?
When you prove evolution solidly, or find Adam's body, which I don't think is really possible either, you can say that without being hypocritical at the same time. For now, it's not a subject you and I can discuss to any end.
Evolution is quite solidly proven at this point. I suggest you put your Bible down, and pick up any of the many introductory books on the subject. You don't even have to pick up a book by an atheist if you so choose. You will find sufficient works from theists such as Ken Miller who have written excellent books defending evolution.
If you read a Bible, and it explicitly states one thing, and then states the contrary, one of two things has occurred. The first being you misread, mistook, or misunderstood a passage. That's the most common "disagreement" in the Bible. Another reason the recovery version is my favorite, because it has footnotes to explain concisely. Two, you're holding a poorly translated Bible, where the translator(s) inserted a different, but similar text in place of the original, because it made no sense to them. That's not uncommon either. A third just occurred to me, that you aren't reading the Bible.
No, it is utterly irrational to first assume that the book you are investigating is infallible. It is a fine method of remaining locked into an irrational belief system, but it is neither a scientific mindset nor is it useful for anything aside from ignoring evidence.
The "created the universe" bit was meant to portray the infinite ability for creation. He seems to have demonstrated it well, no? In text, even if you don't believe it actually occurred.
That, of course, is the crux of this argument. Allah, Elune, Zeus and any number of other characters demonstrated amazing powers. In text, at least.
The reason, however, is a somewhat more complicated matter. Or rather, it just takes a bit of explaining if you haven't read much of the Bible. To condense the story, I'll tell you that God is a bachelor, and is looking to fix that. The church, which has been snapped into hundreds of pieces by the same person who sabotaged humans in the first place, is to be His eventual bride. I think if you wanted any detail on the story, you'd want to read Revelation. Not much of it will make sense unless you read the four gospels at least, but verses like Rev:21:2( And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband) will help tell the story.
I am aware of the theology behind the "bride of Christ." That doesn't make it any more likely than Mormon theology, to pick one example.
Another interesting take. Well, you took my words and the literal meaning, so it's mostly my fault for phrasing it so, I suppose. Yes, He actually could interact with it(us). And then we'd die. Which was not His wish. So, He "couldn't", for the sense that it wouldn't accomplish His intentions.
Then he is not omnipotent.
Another thing the non-Christian population at large(and, alarmingly, some Christians as well) understand badly is the "failed creation" you mentioned. It wasn't fallen from the beginning. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked with them, generally spent a lot of time with them, before they met the serpent(Satan). Who caused them to fall. So they weren't created broken, if that pairing of words makes any sense. Your next question will be "If He knew they'd fall, why'd He let them/created them in the first place?", yes?
We have ample evidence for the nature of life going back to single celled organisms. There is no evidence of a time when life was anything like what is claimed as the "unfallen" creation.
No sir. Unless you would accept someone else's writings on the Bible cross examined with personal experience, no. As of yet, I've found very little besides the Bible and actual experience can report on the human spirit.
Nope. I don't accept that, anymore than I accept Muslim anecdotes cross examined by Islamic experience.
You're mentioning a specific evidence it seems, but I'm either too tired or not paying enough attention, because I don't know what exactly you're citing.
I am referring to the rib idea. There is no empirical evidence for it, and it directly contradicts the facts of human descent.
Hey, that's my line! The Bible is the straight account(a.k.a. "dope").
As I have noted, it doesn't agree with itself, let alone what we know of the physical history of the universe. That makes your claim problematic at best.
While I'm sure the Bible's survival is not a unique case, it certainly has faced quite a bit of opposition(none of which, I'm sure, porn was forced to withstand. Ancient or otherwise), and yet still exists. An interesting note, but yes, nothing more.
Are you not aware of the long standing monotheistic attacks upon sexual literature? Moreover, are you not aware of the opposition that Christians had to Christian writings that they considered heretical? It's simply not a mark of divine intervention that any particular piece of literature survived that long, especially something as widespread and copied as the Bible in its various forms.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, chemistry no one has been able to reproduce in the lab under any circumstances.
No, it's based on basic biochemical reactions which are demonstrated on a daily basis in any number of labs. Are you completely ignorant of that field, and simply repeating dogmatic statements with no correlation to reality?
A chemical process that has not been proven to happen anywhere else not only in our own solar system, but in the entire visible universe. If the chances for life are that slim, seems like we either lucked out on the lottery or we were created.
You argument holds no water.
1. We have barely begun to explore this solar system, and will not be in a position to study the larger universe in any great detail for many years, if ever. It has only been recently possible to detect extrasolar planets, let alone determine their atmospheric composition. The fact that we have not found an example of extraterrestrial life is meaningless in that context. However, even within this extremely limited context, we have found organic molecules being formed(such as on Titan). This proves that the requisite organic compounds can exist elsewhere.
2. The fact that this chemistry has been proven to work here is sufficient to prove the case. There is nothing magical about the physics of the Earth as compared to the rest of the universe, regardless of what your adherence to a Bronze Age mythology might lead you to believe.
For there to be natural selection, there has to be life. Life does not come from non-life.
Life is not some magical property bestowed upon unliving matter. It is, at root, a chemical reaction. The entire history of life is that of a chemical reaction which started almost 3 billion years ago, and continues today in much greater sophistication due to the operation of natural selection. Calling some collection of molecules "alive" is simply shorthand for recognizing a group of molecules undergoing this chemical process.
Natural selection will kick in automatically as soon as you have replication and a gradient of fitness. It has been proven time and again that replicating agents will spontaneously assemble in nature, and once such agents are in existence, what we call life is all but inevitable. Appeals to some anthropomorphic deity are quite unneeded to explain life, and in my view, childish in the extreme.
I missed an article. Natural selection is a non-random process.
And you believe that by random chance we all evolved from goop, for which there is no evidence.
Natural selection is non-random process. Only the input(varying genetic structures) is random. Thus, the result is non-random. Your statement reveals a severe lack of understanding. I suggest that, if you are truly interested in learning, you remedy this deficiency. Of course, if your goal is to shelter the particular brand of insipid delusion called "faith," then you are probably not inclined to actually study this area.
Wait, I think I may be an "a-refrigoalchemist" as well!
You can't even spell "atheism" correctly?
I'm a GNU-atheist.
You think religion and science is mutually exclusive and they are opposite - I think a big bunch even here on /. would disagree with you.
They might. That doesn't mean that they are correct. Science has this ongoing habit of proving religious assertions incorrect.
First, you are introducing a false division between the prevailing philosophical beliefs of those times with the religious beliefs. What, are you going to argue that Thomas Aquinas' arguments were not religious because they were philosophical? Rubbish.
Second, you are ignoring the fact that the geocentrists used biblical passages to back up their beliefs and attack heliocentrism.
Third, you seem to imply that Luther and his reformation weren't as mired in anti-scientific attitudes as the Catholics he broke from. Some choice quotes from this odious man:
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Such ignorance plagued both sides of the reformation.
Ironically, this is why the New Testament frequently bashes philosophers and religious individuals who "value tradition over revelation." The New Testament has several scathing attacks on Greek philosophy and Talmudic legalism.
Ignoring for the moment that the NT supported tradition(and, in fact, is part of a larger tradition), I would point out that both tradition and revelation are incredibly stupid ways of attempting to understand the universe.
What I find amusing is how many shops won't touch well maintained steel 72 SCUBA tanks. Ah, well, cheaper tanks for me.
And your point is what?
How the fuck does that differ from doing the same job in a big city? Or any fucking job at all? So, yeah, I'll keep laughing.If I lose my job(which I have before), I'll find something else and adjust. Grow the fuck up and quit whining about something you can't control.
I live in a town with 2.5k people. I telecommute for an international corporation. I make 3x the normal income for this area. I have a group of medium to large cities within 30 minutes to 1 hour from my location. I paid $40k for a house which would cost 10x that or more in some areas. I expect to be debt free(including house, car and school loans) within the next 5 years. And that's just salary based. It's not taking into account my investment strategies.
I have several options for high speed internet.
I have several options for decent to excellent medical care.
I go to concerts, museums and such on a regular basis.
The schools are pretty good around here, and since I care enough to supplement my kids' educations with things like fossil hunting, programming and various home science projects, my kids are in the top of their classes.
I can make my own coffee, thanks.
And I can go sailing and diving on my days off.
Now, what exactly am I missing by living in the midwest? The ocean. Other than that, I could care less that I'm not stuck in a high rent, high cost-of-living money sink. I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
You deduced that crux with your mind and critical thinking skills. How are you able to do that? The monkeys who are called our family members remain unable.
And they can climb trees better than I. And fish can swim better than I. Birds can fly better. The fact that our species developed specialized cognitive abilities has no bearing on whether a divine creator exists.
It's not a question of "likely". It's not "likely" that God made men. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets. In the same way, it's not likely that God wants a corporate bride, of the church. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets.
No, it's not "factual knowledge." It is groundless conjecture. It's a completely ad hoc explanation of reality which doesn't take into account actual factual knowledge.
Then if you want to prove once and for all that Zeus does not exist, follow Him.
You follow your own advice first, and prove once and for all that Zeus does not exist. Get back with me on how it goes.
Experience > decide. I am, after all, making totally illogical claims. Find if I'm wrong.
And, yet again, I will mention that I was Christian at one point. I have already found out.
I will admit ignorance the subject. Has the been a study that conclusively showed one species evolving into a new species?
There have been many such studies. I suggest you spend some time reading up on it. At the very least, it would prepare you for arguments like this.
My entire argument is irrational.
Well, that's a solid admission.
I'm telling you that a book conveys the secrets of the universe, a book that is hotly contested by the devil, who wishes it had never appeared, but did because God gave men the words to write so that He could save us all from a spiritual death. If you keep thinking irrationally and rationally, you'll miss the entire thing, so listen, experience, and then decide.
You are asking the same thing of me as every other religion, every crazy cult leader and every two-bit con man. You'll get the same answer.
God will give Life simply because you want it, and believe He can give it, and He is "rich to all who call upon Him; For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Romans 10:12-13)
You seem to forget that I was a Christian at one point.
And with all that critical thinking, you've never once wondered "why can I think critically?". Or maybe you did, and forgot the question when you stopped meeting with the church. I can't tell, and won't try. I'm curious now, if only to know how it happened. What's your story sir?
I can think critically because it was advantageous to the survival of my ancestors and selected for. Nothing mysterious about it at all. It's simply a more advanced form of the same abilities as found in other life forms.
As far as my story, I've already told it. In a nutshell, I was a Christian apologist who realized that my own beliefs were as ludicrous as those I was trying to "save." Honesty and a devotion to seeking the truth dictated that I abandon my earlier beliefs. What's your story?
And, for the record, I am an ex-Christian atheist. I was in your shoes once. The difference appears to be that I was willing to subject my own beliefs to the same levels of critical thought as those of other believers.
Now there's something to be going on. It took me about an hour to puzzle over the best answer to your presentation of the Bible's recording of God's various misdeeds. Once I had formed it(with additional help from, of all places, your signature), I realized I didn't even need to ask you to give examples. Go figure. The reason is this. If I answer, "No; it is moral because it is God", you say "Your God is revels in genocide and bloody rituals". If I say, "Yes; you're right, it is immoral", you say "Your God is immoral". And so forth. We argue over what is or isn't immoral, for what reasons, and likely it would take a long time. And maybe, though not likely, I, or any other Christian in this exact same position, wins the argument! But even if they win the argument, they lose. The opponent of the Christian loses as well. Someone else claims the victory here. Maybe instead, the atheist wins(I'm not sure what your standing is, but atheism is most likely, but it doesn't matter regardless of your stance). But the atheist, at the same time, loses, as does the Christian. Because regardless of the argument's result, both argue-ers are telling one another what is good, and what is evil. They have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they use it to argue. The source is not from the Tree of Life. So here is the answer. Whether or not we are right when we say "this is good[moral]" or "this is bad[immoral]", we are wrong[read: dead(spiritually)]. We are wrong because we have the wrong source. To use a car-related analogy, winning a drag race means nothing if you and I are on the wrong track. The result of the argument is meaningless, because no matter the result, the winner is yours, my, and God's enemy. I will not tell you the Bible is moral, or God is moral. I will not pretend to be able to define lines between good and bad, right and wrong, because what one American says is acceptable, a man in Tehran shuns from sight. God defines the lines. You and I don't need to worry about that. Our goal should not be Good or Bad, because neither one is Life. Life is in Christ. That is my answer.
Pointing to a literary character from your favorite mythology and claiming that their interference is the reason your scriptures and beliefs aren't logically coherent is not exactly a compelling argument. Do you not see how circular your reasoning is?
Your infinite wisdom does not seem to agree with God's infinite wisdom then, and I have no place in the discussion. I'll give you two some space to talk it out.
Given that your god doesn't seem inclined to give evidence of his existence aside from specious claims from his followers, I doubt I will be hearing from him.
Nor do we have evidence the it is currently fallen.
Then why believe it?
Or that there is a difference between the two. Or that either really exist. In fact, do I exist? Am I really typing these words? What are words? Mockery aside, I think the point here is simple. You won't have evidence. Even if fallen and unfallen states left physical evidence behind for you to examine, it is long since gone. The question is pointless, because the answer won't be found.
Then you are again making unscientific, unfounded and illogical claims. How does fit with your thesis that science and the Bible fit together again?
When you prove evolution solidly, or find Adam's body, which I don't think is really possible either, you can say that without being hypocritical at the same time. For now, it's not a subject you and I can discuss to any end.
Evolution is quite solidly proven at this point. I suggest you put your Bible down, and pick up any of the many introductory books on the subject. You don't even have to pick up a book by an atheist if you so choose. You will find sufficient works from theists such as Ken Miller who have written excellent books defending evolution.
If you read a Bible, and it explicitly states one thing, and then states the contrary, one of two things has occurred. The first being you misread, mistook, or misunderstood a passage. That's the most common "disagreement" in the Bible. Another reason the recovery version is my favorite, because it has footnotes to explain concisely. Two, you're holding a poorly translated Bible, where the translator(s) inserted a different, but similar text in place of the original, because it made no sense to them. That's not uncommon either. A third just occurred to me, that you aren't reading the Bible.
No, it is utterly irrational to first assume that the book you are investigating is infallible. It is a fine method of remaining locked into an irrational belief system, but it is neither a scientific mindset nor is it useful for anything aside from ignoring evidence.
The "created the universe" bit was meant to portray the infinite ability for creation. He seems to have demonstrated it well, no? In text, even if you don't believe it actually occurred.
That, of course, is the crux of this argument. Allah, Elune, Zeus and any number of other characters demonstrated amazing powers. In text, at least.
The reason, however, is a somewhat more complicated matter. Or rather, it just takes a bit of explaining if you haven't read much of the Bible. To condense the story, I'll tell you that God is a bachelor, and is looking to fix that. The church, which has been snapped into hundreds of pieces by the same person who sabotaged humans in the first place, is to be His eventual bride. I think if you wanted any detail on the story, you'd want to read Revelation. Not much of it will make sense unless you read the four gospels at least, but verses like Rev:21:2( And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband) will help tell the story.
I am aware of the theology behind the "bride of Christ." That doesn't make it any more likely than Mormon theology, to pick one example.
Another interesting take. Well, you took my words and the literal meaning, so it's mostly my fault for phrasing it so, I suppose. Yes, He actually could interact with it(us). And then we'd die. Which was not His wish. So, He "couldn't", for the sense that it wouldn't accomplish His intentions.
Then he is not omnipotent.
Another thing the non-Christian population at large(and, alarmingly, some Christians as well) understand badly is the "failed creation" you mentioned. It wasn't fallen from the beginning. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked with them, generally spent a lot of time with them, before they met the serpent(Satan). Who caused them to fall. So they weren't created broken, if that pairing of words makes any sense. Your next question will be "If He knew they'd fall, why'd He let them/created them in the first place?", yes?
We have ample evidence for the nature of life going back to single celled organisms. There is no evidence of a time when life was anything like what is claimed as the "unfallen" creation.
No sir. Unless you would accept someone else's writings on the Bible cross examined with personal experience, no. As of yet, I've found very little besides the Bible and actual experience can report on the human spirit.
Nope. I don't accept that, anymore than I accept Muslim anecdotes cross examined by Islamic experience.
You're mentioning a specific evidence it seems, but I'm either too tired or not paying enough attention, because I don't know what exactly you're citing.
I am referring to the rib idea. There is no empirical evidence for it, and it directly contradicts the facts of human descent.
Hey, that's my line! The Bible is the straight account(a.k.a. "dope").
As I have noted, it doesn't agree with itself, let alone what we know of the physical history of the universe. That makes your claim problematic at best.
While I'm sure the Bible's survival is not a unique case, it certainly has faced quite a bit of opposition(none of which, I'm sure, porn was forced to withstand. Ancient or otherwise), and yet still exists. An interesting note, but yes, nothing more.
Are you not aware of the long standing monotheistic attacks upon sexual literature? Moreover, are you not aware of the opposition that Christians had to Christian writings that they considered heretical? It's simply not a mark of divine intervention that any particular piece of literature survived that long, especially something as widespread and copied as the Bible in its various forms.