The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

With respect to testimony it is a bit hypocritical. We all believe testimony. Textbooks by nature are testimony. A scientist observes something you believe him. Matthew observes something and you cry liar.

Yeah, let's look at the difference: Matthew was an anonymous gospel author from a pre-scientific age with no idea how anything worked, contributing to a set of books with a long history of being edited and redacted by third parties with their own ideological motivations, and with a long history of being demonstrably wrong.

Meanwhile the scientist has years of study and credentials behind him, having presented his work to a peer review apparatus to be reviewed and checked for factual accuracy over and over again, using the cumulative scientific knowledge and technology of our time in combination with the scientific method and available evidence, and without an ideological bent in any way, bar a desire to most closely align with the facts, and who presents a replicable and falsifiable method for coming to the same conclusions.

Yep, terribly hypocritical to disbelieve the anonymous bronze age peasant making claims of magic, yet believe the trained, modern day man backed by evidence making mundane, physically possible claims.

Most people have never gone to a lab or looked through telescopes or out to dig sites. Yet you believe the testimony of science.

Yes, because we could do those things. Very much unlike god, who nobody has ever been able to produce evidence for. Incidentally, science is pre-doubted: it's called peer review.

If your honest and consistent about your disregard for the integrity of the author(s) of the Bible you must apply consistent criticism to the authors of text books.

Except you don't actually want criticism based on factual inaccuracy, do you? You just want it based upon what you do and do not personally agree with. That's why you've curiously decided to skip over the widespread criticism of factually wrong things in textbooks, like creationism and intelligent design. Not to mention the rigorous fact checking that happens before the books ever go to print.

Look back a couple hundred years to the science of that time. How much of that is true today? Does the sun orbit the earth? Is the earth flat? Is the smallest component of matter an atom? If you extend out the logic in a couple of hundred years what science believes today will not be true in a couple hundred years. So why use it as your ultimate authority.

Because it best fits the available evidence. See, that's the vast difference between science and religion; yes, science does change in accordance with new evidence, but even the wrong theories at the time were the most correct we could make them, and also had evidence behind them. Religions never outright change, never have the same level of evidence behind them, and yet you want us to believe them? Fuck no.

It is constantly changing through new technologies and discoveries. If people are not to be trusted then people are not to be trusted. You do not seek evidence because there is evidence. There are Ph D scientists who through scientific evidence claim creation and thus a creator.

Except the mainstream body of scientists doesn't accept that. You're asking us to believe the lunatic fringe over the peer reviewed main body. Why? Because you already want to believe it?

Just like there are Ph D scientists who through scientific evidence claim evolution. So there is evidence for and evidence against.

The evidence for creation has mostly been debunked.

Albert Einstein believed in a creator and thus creation. He didn't believe in the God revealed through the Bible but he still believed in creation.

No he didn't. He believed in Spinoza's god, which is a kind of deistic admiration for nature, not a literal creation. A letter he wrote shortly before his death mentioned his lack of religious beliefs.

So to just blanket statement creationists as unintelligent is either ignorant or a lie. Scientifically minded atheists are looking for answers revealed by science. God chose not to reveal himself through science (not ultimately) but rather through His Word. His word is rejected because it testifies against mankind. It says we are rebellious and sinful and wickedly minded wanting our own way rather than His. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." You don't reject the Bible for a lack of evidence you reject it because you love the darkness.

Fuck off, you preachy shitstain. Come back when you want to have an adult conversation and not just bitch about how unfair it is that we evil atheists want evidence and not the crazy rantings of bronze age assholes.