[OnyxCougar]

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.

Originally Posted by tw

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science.

Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.

Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools.

You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.

Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written.

Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?

In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.

Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.

You are incorrect. I'm not denying ANY facts. I'm denying a specific set of interpretations based on the facts. It is my belief that a different set of interpretations of the same facts can explain creationism JUST AS WELL as the interpretation posited by evolutionist origins.

The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

I don't know who views the bible as a book of science. Again, there are ideas of science in the bible, but it is hardly a science text. Your premise is flawed.

And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.

Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...

OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago?

Huh? Who said that? I thought you said there were no facts a few thousand years ago? You're contradicting yourself....

There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Who said only the bible can be correct? Don't put words in my mouth that I never said and then tell me I'm wrong.