Something about Apologetics.

[Minimalist]

I always found this to be the most compelling statement about apologetic fools.

http://www.davematson.edwardtbabinski.us..._tyre.html

Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable--or even the less probable--we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views--even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.

All apologists want is SOMETHING - doesn't matter how stupid - to hang their hats on and they are happy.

It doesn't take much to keep an idiot happy, you know.