--masterjedijared said:Since he's ignored every call for his evidence I've been seeing this as one of the following (perhaps a mix):
1: He has no evidence
2: His evidence is weak and he knows it
3: His evidence is weak and he doesn't even know why
because if there's ANY convincing evidence for creation events it would be so strong that it could speak for itself. It wouldn't need an overly verbose English teacher to defend.
Every time he ignores a call for his evidence this suspicion is compounded (at least in me).
So, let me ask you a question...if I straw manned your belief and changed the standards in this way, would you spend numerous hours presenting evidence?
1) Atheism is a belief in a monster that spits out dirtballs that magically transform into cells by processes unseen.
2) I won't accept any other definition than #1 for atheism.
3) I will dismiss any evidence from science or the historical method for proposition 1.
This is a bit of an exaggeration (and I have already accepted the definition of atheism as "lack of belief" since it's YOUR right to define your views)..but not much different from what has been done to me here. I've been straw manned endlessly and what is normally accepted as scientific evidence and historical evidence in all other fields...is suddenly dismissed as evidence when it comes to God.
Bryan