Quote:
Quote by: tivodan1116  Who knows what they were implying? |
We know that they had no clue about evolution. We're talking about a people who thought the entire animal kingdom lived within walking distance of Noah's ark. We're talking about people who were too busy murdering non-believers to study organisms enough to know that life evolves into other life. No. I don't know specifically what they were thinking, but if you think that evolution is an option then you're too far gone to be arguing here. Maybe you think they knew who would win the 18th world series, too?
Quote:
Where is the problem with this?
Even the most atheistic historians agree that the Bible is not a single work but a collection of writings that span thousands of
|
That's about as far as I made it into your asinine red herring. The issue isn't who wrote the bible or how many people had a hand in it. The issue is
modern people deciding "Well, science has proven that this part of the bible is impossible (genesis), but even though science proves this other bit impossible (the resurrection) I'm going to believe in it anyway." That's a double standard which is a fallacy.
Quote:
|
Because the "figurative" fall of man is a story to represent the personal sin we all face, which is what the savior delivers us from.
|
Then, clearly you're okay with a figurative Jesus who didn't literally exist, right?
Quote:
|
Care to share the logic upon which you base this?
|
Already have. I guess I can clarify it. Just for you.
The following is invalid/false logic:
Category X contains things which are impossible (including coming back from the dead and the earth forming in a day).
X1 is possible.
I love how you theists always try (and fail) to redefine what's "possible".
Now, would you care to argue honestly or are you going to continue your Fonceai impression?