90,900,000.
What does # of hits have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Metmom said: Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
I said: This is the internet we're speaking of...if you do a google search of ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and ESP, you'll find more sources about each than you have time to read.
You said: ....buuut not so much when you google "skepticism".
I said: I just googled "skepticism". It gave me 11,800,000 hits.
You said: Oh, and by the way, how many hits do you get when you pull up UFO? What does # of hits have to do with the price of eggs in China?
As you can see, I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect in your assertion that there weren't too many sources to read when you google "skepticism".
Just for the record, googling "eggs in China" produces 78,300 hits.
Additionally, this particular incident IS well documented. This guy’s medical records meticulously reflect his intake and output, observations, time, etc. etc. etc.
Since a well-documented miracle has taken place, I can only assume that it was written up in a medical journal.
Source, please.
You misunderstood...the point was you dismissed the internet articles when it comes to medical miracles, lumping them in with UFO’s, aliens etc., but “not so much” when it comes to “skepticism”.
In other words, anything that doesn’t jive with your worldview on the web is trash, yet anything that does jive with your world view is as good as the gospel on the internet.
Capeche?
Surely you can google medical miracles if you can google all these other things including eggs in China?
Surely you understand that unexplained cases are in the journals? Cancer remissions, other scientifically/medically unexplained things?
For instance, a good place to start would be the earliest known case of a human being to survive birth, in terms of gestation/weight, whatever...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-437236/Born-just-22-weeks—Amilla-allowed-home.html
You might not call these pictures a miracle but I sure do. And she’s not even the record!
You can pretend they’re explainable, but this won’t change reality let alone explain them.
Saying they’re explainable but not really explaining doesn’t really help you very much.
***Metmom said: Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
I said: This is the internet we’re speaking of...if you do a google search of ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and ESP, you’ll find more sources about each than you have time to read. ***
If you had googled it in good faith, you would have come up with plenty of sources for the historical reliability of the Bible that are based on archaeological evidence, not the kind of hearsay the other items you listed go by.
Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics have been accusing the Bible as being unreliable for centuries. There’s nothing new under the sun in that respect. What is new, is the amount of actual historical archeological evidence to support the mention of people, places, and events mentioned in the Bible that people at one time accused as being fictional.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
http://www.faithbasedonfacts.org/main/?q=node/84
***Metmom said: Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
I said: This is the internet we’re speaking of...if you do a google search of ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and ESP, you’ll find more sources about each than you have time to read. ***
For that matter, the same could be said of evolution. This is the internet we’re speaking of. How do I then know that anything posted on there about the *evidence* for the ToE is reliable, by your standards?