The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

If you can provide a thousand or so witnesses to attest to this... in.

*Takes a deep breath.*

You can't provide thousands of witnesses ...

It was an illustration. Saying the validity one man's testimony of a gold mine is equal to the validity of the testimony of the Bible is not of equal comparability (one man's testimony at one point in time vs. many throughout history, etc). But for fun:

You can't provide thousands of witnesses, since they're all dead.

Witnesses don't need to be alive to be witnesses.

You can't provide an account explaining anything about creation, because the bible limits itself to "godidit" and never explains how.

The account is not justified by the "how". My car moves when I step on the gas regardless of my understanding of "how".

You can't confirm the existence of the gospel authors

No more or less so then anyone can confirm the existence of anyone dead.

and even if you could you're living in a world where the martyrs of every other religion still exists, so stow this "cost them their life" crap right now.

Just trying to weed out the those willing to lie for the gold mine owner and say he owns the gold mine when in truth it doesn't exist. Plenty of people lie, most people when faced with death would abandon said lie rather than than be killed just to deceive me (again an illustration).

The popularity of a book says nothing about it's factual accuracy, fiction books are popular too.

The popularity of a book says a lot about the factual accuracy of a book claiming to be non-fiction. Few people would continue to buy any book once it was found out that it was full of factual inaccuracies. Fiction books claim to be fiction which excludes them from being held to factual accuracy and so are not relevant to this discussion. I do agree with you that popularity does not equal proof. I was again illustrating that a book written even by one author, and not only surviving two thousand years but being the most purchased book of that period of time would be enough for me to take that gold mine owner on faith and invest that ten grand.

And the fact that a religiously motivated government, several centuries into your religion, decided to plaster propaganda of it over their measurement of time means what, for the factual accuracy of the accounts?

Depends how bad the gold mine owner wants my investment.

You're thinking of abiogenesis, not evolution, genius.

If abiogenesis is not your origin of life please define where evolution begins. Where does life begin so that evolution can occur?

Water isn't oxygen, and yet oxygen can exist above water, in the atmosphere.

That is a true statement but doesn't address the issue. There is an oxygen molecule in water and through hydrolysis it has the same effect on the bonds of amino acids.

And that's just ignoring the fact that fiat assertions made from a guy with a proven disdain for science when it disagrees with things he wants to believe aren't evidence. You've really shot yourself in the foot, following up a post about how we should distrust science since it's always wrong, with one telling us how your magic claims are scientifically valid. Hypocrite.

Never said science is always wrong. There is plenty of great science to go around. To qualify, my disdain is not for natural science (which is observable and repeatable) but rather for speculative science (some would call it historical science or the science of origins). If no one was there to observe it, scientifically speaking it's just speculation not science.

And you used an argument from ignorance, just to cap it all off.

What was my argument from ignorance?