|
I like how your whole point of argument is that I havent researched anything, which I have. I'm sure if I scour the internet I'll find some crackpot that will say anything. Yes there was a giant flood, it was called all the ice melting after the Ice Age. I'm guessing Noah and his family built a huge boat and managed to get every animal in existence on it while the Earth was frozen over? So what if there was a giant flood? That means a talking snake must be real too? Floods are a natural occurrence.
I choose to lean more towards evolution because there is evidence and the fact that there is no scientific evidence that supports religion, I dont understand why thats hard for you to understand.
|
That's the thing though. There's devoted scientists for creationism and religion. To disregard their arguments and brush them off as "crackpots who will say anything" is biased towards what you want to believe. I literally found that website in 3 seconds and barely looked at any of it's content. There's plenty of websites for both evolution and creationism that seem really convincing.
I also never once said "Noah's flood" happened, it was an example for the fact that people can argue scientifically about religious stories.
Also, why does the "great flood of the world" have to have been caused by another thing that lacks substancial evidence?
This topic is interesting for a reason. I've researched evolution as well as other religions, and they all claim to know the big answer. It's also not "hard for me to understand". I haven't once shared my opinion in depth, therefore you can't really say I'm not understanding something. I'm just trying to make this thread more interesting, bias has always bothered me. I'm not religious, but I'm trying to open your eyes to the fact that there are debates about this for a reason. There are claimed "evidences" for religion.