Posted by J.H. [JH] on April 08, 1999 at 22:01:24 {vxsc0.TBNkHSG.vl05doHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: *"Science" Religionists posted by Follow up on April 08, 1999 at 19:42:16:
: Well, why is the research pointing opposite to ANY BIBLICAL ACCOUNT always given the most credence here?
Not any. It's simply that we only debate those Biblical accounts that are in doubt, or are plainly wrong. There is, to use a statistical term, a bias in selection of debate topics that you don't seem to understand.
So, the answeris very simple: these are given most credence simply because they have the evidence on their side. You can't make a "balanced" account pro et contra a worldwide flood. There are no serious "pro" argumens; the whole scenario is physically impossible and absurd. It did not happen.
If it wasn't for the vocal fanaticism of fundies, nobody would believe in a flood legend any more than they would believe in talking pigs and wolves after reading the stort about the three piglets (or whatever it's called in English).
The reason your pet theories always end up on the losing side is that they are wrong. It's not because scientists are biased or make up a conspiracy against your little world of comfortable fairy tales. It is simply because the evidence against them is so clear.
And that is why you make no attempt to deal with facts or arguments. Because you have none.