....................
![Image](https://i.ibb.co/JKjTtkP/Christianity-Decline.png)
.................... source
Or doesn't it matter?
.
Moderator: Moderators
I think those are valid points, and I'm nervously watching the rules, because arguing about the way someone argues or reasons can so often look like personal attack. But yes, hard evidence for evolution is dismissed. The old debunked arguments (sea shells on mountains) are trotted out (Grand canyon, the type of critter explains why some are higher up in strata, and that ludicrous claim that something smashed into the hydroplate, releasing the flood. (1) and eventually the arguments are dropped and everything is simply denied.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:36 am [Replying to 1213 in post #147]
Based on what criteria?
Because it appears you start with the Bible, then question everything that conflicts with it.
You'd agree this is flawed reasoning, yes?
Because you don't seem to question experts that support your chosen religion.
For example, experts agree that Jesus probably lived, but there is less direct evidence that he did than Evolution is true.
You seem to not only believe Jesus lived, but that you are betting on it. Whereas, with Evolution, you won't be impacted by it, so it's easy to dismiss, even though your are abjectly wrong.
Plus, it gives you perfect topic to earn your Persecution Quota as a Christian. (Which I believe drives the anti-intellectual strain in Christianity)
It's all a little bit alarming, as the figures for Genesis literalism (Ceationism) were 40% last time. Which is worse when one sees Creationists taking over educational boards and trying to delelte science from school and replace it with Bible literalism. But worse even is when it becomes not only politicized, but radicalized. What we got here is a narrowly missed imposition of Christian Sharya law. Plus of course power grabbing despite a lost election with a threat of corrupt dictatorship with a lifetime presidency, you can bet your afterlife on it.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:35 am [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #151]
Thanks, I edited it. I really don't want to make personal attacks, as it's unimportant to me on the individual level. I'm simply bothered that I see so many similar characters on the internet. Poe's in every way (that you don't know if they are fanatics or just pretending to be outrageous).
Sadly, many of them probably do this for a few years, get tired of being called names, then learn enough to know they are wrong and go away, living a noraml life where defending Jesus was just a phase in their lives.
Sure, they won't admit to that now. They truly think they are fighting the good fight, but eventually even they will tire of it. But, another one will take their place... and on and on goes the cycle of evangelical life...
Sorry, but that doesn't wash. It's not a matter of denial. That might apply to religious groups where you would get disfellowshipped or shunned or whatever if you went against the party line. Scientifically proving that the theory of evolution is wrong would actually gain one enormous acclaim and credibility. Your perception of the scientific community seems to have been distorted by the lens of religiosity.
First criteria for me is that claims should be reasonable and logically sound.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:36 am [Replying to 1213 in post #147]
Based on what criteria?
...
How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?1213 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:41 amFirst criteria for me is that claims should be reasonable and logically sound.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:36 am [Replying to 1213 in post #147]
Based on what criteria?
...
No, the first criterion for you is evidently that it should fit the Bible. Otherwise, what is reasonable and logically sound about the daylight appearing before the sun was made, about the sun being made to stand still or about a floating box of animals and 8 people repopulating the world in a thousand or so years rather than a few million?1213 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:41 amFirst criteria for me is that claims should be reasonable and logically sound.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:36 am [Replying to 1213 in post #147]
Based on what criteria?
...
Other lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 8:16 am ...Otherwise, what is reasonable and logically sound about the daylight appearing before the sun was made, about the sun being made to stand still or about a floating box of animals and 8 people repopulating the world in a thousand or so years rather than a few million?
Please give one example of such?boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:14 am How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?
But not daylight alternating with dark, which is what the Bible says. When you try to excuse the claim of daylight before the sun was made, you are not only in denial of science but the Bible. And everything about the Flood is illogical from enough water appearing to flood to a depth of 29,000 feet, but shoehorning all the animals needed to repopulate the earth into an oversized shoebox, and finally starvation rations for all when they finally debouch. All illogical and more. You are doing great work for atheism here.1213 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 10:00 amOther lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 8:16 am ...Otherwise, what is reasonable and logically sound about the daylight appearing before the sun was made, about the sun being made to stand still or about a floating box of animals and 8 people repopulating the world in a thousand or so years rather than a few million?
And about the ark story, nothing illogical in it.