Summations Only

but I really doubt anyone here despises you or even knows you.So far I cannot even remember you promoting an idea or position worthy of despite.There are some positions which will be refuted and rejected, often based on multiple lines of evidence and so positions like Young Earth or that there was a Biblical Flood or Intelligent Design or Creationism only have a chance of gaining any traction if you can present evidence in support of that position that stands up to rigid scrutiny.To make any headway in one of those positions you would have to present evidence that no one in the last 150 or more years has yet presented.If you could present a model/method (as one example) that explains how the asserted designer influences the life we see around us that better explains what is seen than the Theory of Evolution, then I assure you that folk here, while skeptical, would be persuaded to adopt that explanation. But it is the content, not the source of that explanation that would be tested and if it stands up to examination, then it would replace the current Theory of Evolution.If you want to support the Biblical Flood stories as factual, then you would need to explain the mechanisms that hid all the evidence that MUST be there if the flood happened as described in the stories.It is not a matter of IQ, it is a matter of science.

Yet almost all the recognized Christian sects acknowledge that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that explains the diversity of life seen today and in the historical record.I was educated in a religious Christian school and quite frankly once someone was at the equivalent of the seventh grade or so the idea that Young Earth or Special Creation or Intelligent Design might be true would and did receive the same treatment by both the faculty and students you find here. That was over a half century ago and honestly the idea that there might still be schools or teachers trying to market such nonsense a half century later would have been at best laughable.The question you should ask yourself is "How is it possible that today, there are still people filling kids minds with such utter nonsense?"

There is evidence of natural causes.No one has ever presented any evidence of unnatural or supernatural causes.Until you present evidence of unnatural or supernatural causes equal to the body of evidence of natural causes your position is simply another fantasy and unworthy of consideration.

There is evidence of natural causes.No one has ever presented any evidence of unnatural or supernatural causes.Until you present evidence of unnatural or supernatural causes equal to the body of evidence of natural causes your position is simply another fantasy and unworthy of consideration.

That's a very important thing to consider.If you find they are wrong about stuff that is easy to test like the fact that Evolution happened and that the Theory of Evolution can explain the diversity of life we see around us and in the historical record, and that the Biblical flood never happened as described in the Bible stories, can you believe them about their claims about stuff that's not as easy to test?Hopefully, the answer is "Nope!".But that does not mean that you must throw Christianity away, only that you throw away the caricature of Christianity that they try to market.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Ah, so please present the evidence of a supernatural cause.Also some evidence of the existence of a "causal agent".

Yet the vast majority of Christian sects find no need of a literal Bible, particularly since the evidence is that there is isn't even such a thing as "The Bible".Edited by jar, : fix tense for appalin spallin

isn'tThanks.

Well, go look for them so we can test them.

It is the evidence that shows that there is no such thing as "The Bible"; it is not a matter of belief but rather of what the evidence shows.There are many bibles and quite a few Canons, and it is the Canons that are the evidence. The various Canons list what books are to be included in a bible and those Canons vary from the smallest that includes just the first five books of the Old Testament to the largest that includes over eighty books.But most sects also understand that the various Bible stories are not to be read literally.Quite frankly, if someone honestly accepted the Bible literally they must admit that the first two books of Genesis are mutually exclusive.

So you have nothing.

Honesty, remember.The committee of Canon that developed each of the different lists can claim to be the one "TRUE" Canon.The fact is though that each list is simply the product of humans.And remember that the condition is "Literal". Sorry but if someone is honest then the first two books of Genesis are contradictory, not complementary.Honesty and Literal; two key points.

Well you start with a false assumption back in Message 88, that "The causal agents are presumed because nothing but an agent with mentality would give different results or no results at all when given the same initial conditions."Until you provide testable evidence that nothing but an agent with mentality is requited required the proper answer is "I don't know".Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

One of the hardest things to do it to tell when we really are being honest with ourselves.But go back and look at the two first books of Genesis and look at the order of creation, the methods of creation and the descriptions of the two very different gods portrayed.But why is there any reason to think the "Protestant Canon" is any more "supernaturally inspired" than any of the others? After all, even the current Protestant Canon has evolved over time.Was GOD unable to say "Here is the list of books to include!"?

LOLYou put it in the "I don't know folder'."Insert supernatural here" leaves us as ignorant and it is far more honest to admit that we don't yet know the answer.