Toto

Your "similarities" were superficial. You posted

Both make pretty lame attempts to explain away evidence they dont like, and neither appear in peer reviewed journals.

Both are fringe theories. Both have just the odd Phd. who supports them.

This is true of a lot of theories that are not mainstream, but some of those theories have a chance of turning out to be right. Creationism is a complete denial of the evidence for religious reasons, and it will never win over the scientific community.

You claimed that mythicists and creationists "make pretty lame attempts to explain away evidence they dont like" - which is more of an insult than an argument. I said that McGrath also does that. The point is that this is not a unique characteristic that sets apart creationism and mythicism - it is something that a lot of people can be accused of doing. Most people could accuse their debate opponents of making lame arguments to explain away evidence.

I'm afraid that you didn't get the point, or I didn't explain it thoroughly. If you are going to say that mythicism is like creationism, you have to list some important characteristics that mythicism shares with creationism that are not also shared with other theories. Do you understand my point now?

Your other point was "Both are fringe theories. Both have just the odd Phd. who supports them." Yes, both are fringe theories with just the odd PhD who supports them, but the same objection holds - at one point, many scientific theories were fringe, with only a few PhD's to support them, but later became mainstream. This will never happen with creationism, because it is not a valid scientific theory, but a denial of the evidence. This is why it is just an insult to compare mythicism to creationism.

In this thread, you posted your conclusion with no arguments. You have a habit of doing that - you just post that I am wrong, with no supporting argument. It's hard to take you seriously enough to reply.

judge

Would you like me to point out all the times you do that?

Anyway i guess we can just agree to disagree. I see the similarities and think the comparison is apt. You don't, but rather make excuses for the similarities.

Steven Carr

Creationists use fabricated material , no matter how inauthentic it may be.

We seem to be back to McGrath again!

aa5874

But, you appear to do the same.

Those sort of statements do NOT help you at all and seem like insults.

Toto

It's a joke. I guess you have to know the context. And have a sense of humor.

Toto

You keep changing the topic. In this thread, you posted a conclusion with no arguments, making it hard to discuss the issue. I pointed that out, and you dug up a previous thread and pointed to the arguments that you made there, as if I should have remembered them.

You appear to have missed the earlier part of this discussion - I'm sorry I don't have time now to locate the previous thread that went into this in greater detail. My point is that there are many more similarities between historicists and creationists; but historicists use the comparison of mythicism with creationism as an inflammatory insult. There is no intelligent discussion that has come out of this comparison, only an escalation of insults and ill will.

archibald

When you were saying that creationism should not be unfairly compared to mythicism, I would have agreed.

Isn't saying the above equally dodgy?

aa5874

Are you implying that you can't Insult McGrath with your joke?

Why then don't you accept McGrath's statements as mere humor?

I hope you accept the sense of humor of other people when they say that you suffer from "some other derangement syndrome"!

Toto

It would be if I taunted historicists with the comparison at every opportunity. But I don't.

Toto

McGrath is serious. He has written numerous blog posts and the article in Christian Century, and he keeps pushing the idea, as if it is meaningful.