How can Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when ...?

[The Grand Nudger]

Less complaining, more demonstrating Chip.

[Abracadabra]

Fingers in ears. La la la la.

You believe in Noah and his Ark. You believe all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. That in itself tells us exactly how ignorant you are. As I said, even your church leaders have acknowledged that is a fairy story! I just cannot take anyone, who thinks the bible is the literal truth, serious in any capacity.

Good evidence really convinced me. All I asked was for evidence and if you're incapable of giving some then I will ignore you. I don't care about your empty theories I care about anything that can back them up.

Well, based on your obviously complete lack of knowledge of how science actually works, and what is actually know, the things you're calling "good evidence" probably amount to nothing more than Christian propaganda arguments that any scientist could shoot down instantly.

There is no 'good evidence' for a world-wide flood. All that exists are bad arguments made by creationists that can always been shown to be in error.

For example, one thing that the biblical authors failed to realize is that a global flood would disrupt even aquatic life. Not just land animals. In fact, the fresh water fishes and other freshwater species of animals would have been totally wiped out.

Why? Well, because all the lakes rivers and streams would have mixed in with the ocean water and become salty. The sudden and sure saline trauma would have killed all freshwater species of life.

Based on everything we know about the world both geologically and biologically no such global flood could have possibly occurred.

Moreover, this supposed flood would have had to have taken place whilst humans were alive. Not merely alive, but they would have had to have been advanced enough to have build major cities and have become quite 'civilized' in that sense. In other words, this is flood would have had to have been removed from the days of cave men. In human terms it would have had to have been fairly recent in a geological sense actually.

Finally, there actually exists proof-positive that no such flood could have occurred to have drown out the bulk of humanity save for a single small family and their in-law spouses.

The human genome project has traced the human genome clearly back to the dawn of humanity. Had there actually been such flood that destroyed the bulk of humanity that would show up in the human genome study like sore thumb.

No such disruption of the human genome has ever occurred.

So there does not exists credible evidence for a global flood whilst humans who were cilivisted enough to build cities were alive on planet Earth.

You claim that you have 'good evidence' is nothing more than a proclamation of your own ignorance of what is actually known.

You've no doubt been duped by other Christian apologists who support and argue unsupportable arguments. These are just fabricated lies made up by over-zealous creationists. And you bought into them simply because they serve your desire to prove that Hebrew Mythology is true.

[lilkanyon]

The bible was a product of it's time...it was meant to promote social stability, not a human's individual right...individual right is a modern concept..hence....more and more people start discrediting the teachings of the bible. Let's face it...to even believe in religion at all is antiquated. Religion explained earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, weather patterns...with modern science, those views are mostly debunked. But you can't just tell people of faith to stop believing....I don't care if they want to believe in God...just don't force me to follow a belief I find false...give me my individual choice and let me deal with heaven (or hell) as I choose.

[chi pan]

Less complaining, more demonstrating Chip.

No I asked first. What success has come from radio dating?

[Epimethean]

For things up to 60,000 years or younger, a great deal.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/radioc...ating.html

[MrSkeptic]

Less complaining, more demonstrating Chip.

No I asked first. What success has come from radio dating?

You're the one making preposterous claims. The burden of proof is on you. Google "success of radiometric dating" and you will see hundreds of good examples where radiometric dating has produced accurate and reliable data. Very few share your views.

Also please can you answer your absurd claim made a few posts ago about how gravity disproves the fact Earth is billions of years old. I really, really want to hear your reasoning and logic for that view.

[chi pan]

Less complaining, more demonstrating Chip.

No I asked first. What success has come from radio dating?

You're the one making preposterous claims. The burden of proof is on you. Google "success of radiometric dating" and you will see hundreds of good examples where radiometric dating has produced accurate and reliable data. Very few share your views.

Also please can you answer your absurd claim made a few posts ago about how gravity disproves the fact Earth is billions of years old. I really, really want to hear your reasoning and logic for that view.

First, it's absurd of you to tell me I have to come up with evidence to support an opposing claim. It's not my claim and not my responsibility to prove it. Second, I did not say Gravity disproves an old earth. The person before said all science proves an old earth and I said gravity doesn't. It was to prove his absolute wrong.

[Epimethean]

You asked for evidence, and it was provided. This despite the fact that you, as a YEC, have no evidence that holds up to scrutiny for your 6,000-10,000 year-old proposed age of the earth, let alone your imaginary skydaddy.

[chi pan]

You asked for evidence, and it was provided. This despite the fact that you, as a YEC, have no evidence that holds up to scrutiny for your 6,000-10,000 year-old proposed age of the earth, let alone your imaginary skydaddy.

The fact is I can't prove a negative. I can't prove a spanse of time does not exist no more than I can prove that aliens don't exist. I can say its possible that the earth is that young, but not to say there was no time before that time because no one was there. What you ask is impossible and therefore the only thing left to discuss is the evidence of an old earth and why it is plausable.

[Minimalist]

I think it's kind of ridiculous to read a book of stories and poetry as a constitution for enforcing morality, but that's just me.

Why are you a Christian then if you think the Bible is just stories and poetry?

Well, regardless if you're a Christian or not, the Bible just is a book full of stories and poetry (well, and some letters in the last part). Those are just the genres the books of the Bible fall under. I think the real difference is whether you decide to use those stories as something to inform your moral, metaphysical, and epistemological imagination, or try and use them as a literal book of laws to be enforced modernistically and uncritically upon everyone.

I see it as the difference between using a great work of literature to inspire your own art, and using it to practice diagramming sentences. It's the same words either way, but if you pin them down you lose the fecundity of the language.

A great post, coffee....the fundies will hate you for it... but that really takes so little, doesn't it?

I agree with you. Every year I attend a performance of Handel's Messiah not because I think the story is anything but bullshit but because Handel believed it and was inspired to compose one of the greatest works in western music. Really one has only to look at the cathedrals of Europe to understand the inspirational effect - not to mention the money wasted - because of religion.

We can dream of the money being used for more productive purposes but men being men they would have either started even more wars or given tax breaks to their rich pals....just like now. In either case, we would have fewer magnificent buildings and much less marvelous music.