Nope. In fact, I made every effort to explain exactly where the conversation is at:
C: Why not evolution?
S: Genesis is history.
C: Genesis is history, but not accurate.
S: Is the Joseph account accurate? |
Is it accurate history? Was Joseph a real person? Are the stories about him accurate?
Nope.
Possibly you are just incapable of normal comprehension.
That I believe Genesis to be an accurate account history does not remove it from the body of evidence.
The bolded sentence is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. You are only rationally justified in responding to that statement by either agreeing with it or denying it. Calling it a belief is just plain stupid.
Here, let me reword it so it doesn’t have the dreaded “I believe” so near the start (heck, the actual first word — that — should have clued you in that this is a compound statement).
Genesis should not be removed from the body of evidence just because someone says they believe it to be true.
Irrelevant. I presented a fact. If you disagree, tell me why I’m wrong. Quit pretending I presented an opinion. I didn’t. It is a fact that Genesis should not be removed from the body of evidence when someone says they believe it to be true.
I expect you to agree with the fact I presented. I expect you to believe that an idea should remain in the body of evidence, even if someone claims it to be true.
You’re just emoting. You should be able to read the sentence I challenged your statement with and retract or reword your line saying: “As the source you cited is scripture, and given that you take Genesis to be literally true, you have made a statement of faith.”
I have not made a statement of faith. I have made a claim that Genesis is an account of history. You need to deal with what I actually say, not with what you wish I had said. :up:
We’ll get there.
Was Joseph a real person? Are the stories about him accurate?
:darwinsm:
Your statement was: “Where you err is that
you state there is single account of ancient history.” It looks like you’ve retracted that statement right here. I underlined your two contradictory statements about what I believe.
This is what is known as not respecting your opponent. I have ideas. You disagree with my ideas, but you argue with things you make up, presenting me as having said things I would never say. You need to go have a good, long lie down and think your approach through very carefully, because it gets real boring real quick having to wade through the multiple layers of your misrepresentations.
Or perhaps you simply are not reading my posts?
Oh, and by the way, I did not say I completely reject all but one.
You have to respond to the words I commit to paper, not invent things to reply to.
Can you at least agree that Genesis is not my opinion? :AMR:
Lying is bad for you.
One of the reasons you were on ignore for so long was because of your fallacy-filled challenge to the definition that you launched after finding out that interbreeding proves two organisms are of the same kind. That thread has been deleted, but you certainly know what the definition of kind is.
However, this is not relevant to the conversation over the nature of Genesis.
Was Joseph a real person?
Genesis is not the only account. And had you not asserted that there needs to be more than one account of ancient history for Genesis to be considered evidence, none of this would have happened.
