The level of disengenuity and thinly-veiled condescension displayed by these Defenders-of-the-Faith never ceases to amaze me.
Are these people actually schooled in such convoluted evangelical creationist bullsquirt?
Limitations such as verifiable and/or peer-reviewed (evidence) . What the …. !
Is it me or is this Creationist fool really saying – ”… forget scholars, scientists, archaeologists. All you need it the bible. And if the bible says it happened then it happened. Period”.
Amazing isn’t it? Many countries have some sort of Bureau of Standards that products have to pass before allowed on the open market; cars, tools, machines etc. Drugs have to meet stringent requirements also before they can be unleashed willy-nilly on the public. And yes, I am aware many things slip through and have caused havoc, but at least there is some sort of regulating body.
So how on earth can these fools be allowed to preach/teach when everything that comes out of their mouths seems to have been rerouted and should rather have been used for growing roses?
If you went to buy a car and the sales rep said that the model you were interested in had no brakes and no seat belts, but came equipped with a built-in Prayer Function that sent a silent appeal direct to Jesus which would automatically protect all those in the vehicle you would consider him criminally negligent and more than likely insane, and the authorities would be called immediately.
Yet any a-hole can espouse this biblical innerent creationist garbage and get away with it!
They walk among us.
Mind boggling.
Jesus H …. Let me go for a wander around the garden …
Ark.
David
Now I’m intrigued. Please direct me towards the “great deal of evidence” you have for the Exodus.
Thank you for your question, Jon.
I know it wasn’t directed at me but since David posted it in his comments page without reply, I reckon you won’t mind me ‘butting in’.
The openness of your question intrigues me. Normally when I come across requests for evidence in comments about David’s blog posts, they are ‘qualified’ with limitations such that the evidence must be ‘verifiable’ or ‘peer reviewed’ but by dispensing with such encumbrances you make it easy to respond that the Bible itself is ‘a great deal of evidence,’ however much questioned. Your naïve — if I might use that word — request is quite refreshing.
Requests for evidence seem usually to come from those who have read a great deal more into what we might call scholarly posturing than they ought. For instance, most of the dismissals I’ve seen (of Scripture as evidence) leverage outdated estimations of when the earliest books must have been written and scholarship is at a disadvantage from that point on.
Yours,
John/.