A Book?

[fr0d0]

Well science finds the truth about reality and gets results..religion doesn't...all power to science over religion I say.

I agree with Dawkins there certainly:

"Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not." - Dawkins

EvF

Yeah... Religion ISN'T Science. Science is great. Religion is a different discipline. I guess I'm covering this in debate now so... no giving me ideas k?

---

Couldn't you tell us what the correct representation (according to you) of the first 2 is then? Rather than just saying they are misinterpreted?

And could you show why you believe that the Ark and the Flood is necessarily an allegory?

EvF

Well Darwinian didn't qualify further so I didn't think I needed to. No problem obliging tho' of course..

1. It says nowhere in the bible about dates. Presumably it's derived from the genealogy of Christ. Personally I fall off my chair in incredulity at people who think this is literal. The genealogical chain could (read should) be read in some cases as significant players and not complete. The leap from Adam (the analogical person) to assumed real characters for instance is obvious.

2. Adam & Eve are obviously (to me) characters in an allegorical story. I very much get & appreciate the story. To want to literalize this again temps me rotfl.