Finding fuel, or even making it up, is no problem for the anti-christian propagandists out to smear Christianity with lies and false caricatures
You are the one doing the most harm to the reputation of Christianity. I've already explained to you that your endless repetition of your false narrative that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy headed by progressive indoctrinees has been roundly rejected.
I see the opposite. I see intelligent and compelling arguments against your claims that you are unable to rebut.
You are the indoctrinee. Your audience is mostly critical thinkers. You're unarmed here. These people are not going to let you stick an idea of your choosing into their heads by uncritically and passively accepting an unsupported but continually repeated idea. If you can't present a well-reasoned and evidenced argument, you can't change such minds.
Correlating me with some demonized scapegoat of 'horrible xtians!', to justify outrage and bigotry?
What outrage and bigotry? People are telling you why they disagree with you, which is pretty much what a discussion board is for. You call that hostility, smears, and distortion.
That's not a good look for you any more than it is for Trump. It's not sympathetic. You accept zero responsibility for the role Christians and Christianity plays in its decline and poor public relations in the West.
This changes from day to day. Yesterday, they were 'all mostly true!'
False narrative. Your claims in the OP have never been called mostly true by anybody but you.
i should be flattered by the idea that my words are so incisive that they are turned around and thrown back.
You flatter yourself.
Your words are so lacking in insight that you repeatedly make embarrassing observations that apply to you, such as that others are spreading false narratives when that is the purpose of this thread - to spread your false narrative. You say others present no evidence, but that describes you, not them. You refer to indoctrination, but religious faith is the very definition of indoctrination.
I still am waiting for an actual evidence based argumen
You don't see the evidence shown to you, which means that there is no burden of proof with you. For there to be a burden of proof, one has to care whether he is believed, and one has to be dealing with a person capable of recognizing a compelling argument and being willing to be convinced by one. That's not possible with the faith-based thinker.
Have you even researched this false assertion ("There simply isn't enough water on earth for that to happen, and if there were, the world would still be flooded.")?
Yes. This is from a previous post:
What volume of water must be added to the earth to flood all of its land. We do that by comparing the volume of the unflooded earth to the volume of the earth with ocean levels raised to above the highest mountain, Mt. Everest, which stands about five-and-a-half miles high.
[1] The mean radius of the unflooded earth is about 6370 km
http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Earth_radius
[2] The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)(pi)( r^3)
[3] Thus the volume of the unflooded earth is =(4/3)(3.14)(6370) ^3 = 1.08214805 × 10^12 = 1,082,148,050,000 km3
[4] The height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 km (5.50 miles, 29029 feet)
Mount Everest Height - How Tall is Mt Everest - How High is Mount Everest - Mt Everest Elevation
[5] Volume of flooded earth =(4/3)(3.14)(6378. 85)^3 = 1.08666469 × 10^12 = 1,086,664,690,000 km3 [Notice that the radius has been increased from 6370 to 6378.85]
[6] The difference = about 4,500,000,000 km3 of water that must be added to the earth to cover Everest. Can that much water fall in 40 days?
[7] Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once, or twice as much over half of the earth at once. Imagine a shower filling up a three story building in an hour. How hard would the water need to be coming out to do that? And this needs to happen for almost six weeks nonstop. Can rain do that? Could a wooden ark withstand that? Could its passengers avoid drowning? How much water can the atmosphere provide?
[8] “About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.”
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Thus the atmosphere can provide about 12,900 of the 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water needed, or about 1 inch of the five miles needed. What would happen to the marine life if you added this much fresh water to the oceans? [8] The volume of the oceans is about 1,300,000,000 km3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
[9] If you added another 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of fresh water - in excess of a quadrupling of the total - the salinity of the oceans would fall to about 22.4% of its present level, killing virtually all marine life. And where would this water come from?
[10] The total amount of water on earth is about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers
https://gizmodo.com/all-the-water-on-earth-5909889
So, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds in all forms including oceans, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, atmospheric water, and the water in living things - could neither appear nor disappear without magic, could not be contained in the atmosphere and fall as rain, would fall like a waterfall everywhere at once destroying the ark and drowning its inhabitants if it did, and would kill all non-freshwater living aquatic life to boot.
Can you refute that?
How about your contradictory research? Please present it.
Just kidding. I know you have nothing but your faith in a holy book. I just wanted to put to the lie your false narrative that nobody wants to present facts, evidence, or reasoned arguments to you - just progressive indoctrination that changes every day to see what sticks.
Well, these are my facts, evidence and argument. Where are yours? Where's your rebuttal to the actual argument made? You have none, right?
me: "Why do you suppose that so many people dislike or disrespect Christianity?"
Are you implying it is all my fault?
No. I've already told you whose fault it is. Part of the fault is yours. You're damaging Christianity right now. Christianity collectively is making itself seem less respectable and less relevant. I've tried to help you personally see how you do damage, but you don't trust my intentions or accept my judgment even with there being so much evidence that you have turned the thread against you. How many people have rebuked your debating habits?
I've also explained to you that I have been evaluation the intellect, demeanor, and character of Christians on these message boards, and have seen a spectrum ranging from people that seem unharmed by their faith to those who seem very damaged - people that can't think well and are willing to accept hateful and immoral beliefs from the church. You're a data point in that study like every other Christian whose posts I encounter. You didn't do as badly as the anti-evolution apologists, most of which are utter train wrecks. You're a little more articulate, and have a decent disposition, but couldn't make compelling arguments, didn't address the arguments made to you except to dismiss them, and did more projecting than I usually. You also seem discontent.
Now please answer the question asked.
Why the hostility, if it is so irrelevant?
You're imagining hostility.
You have made no accusations toward me, Christianity, or 'Christians!' in general?
I have contradicted you and Christianity where I disagreed. Isn't that what we do on religious message boards? If that's what you mean by accusations, then I guess I'm guilty, but I don't consider those accusations. For example, when I say you project, or that you are damaging Christianity, those are observations sincerely believed and constructively offered. If I say you stole my wallet, that may also be sincerely believed, but not constructively offered. That's what I mean by an accusation. It would be an indictment of your character.
IANS: "And why do you care? Are you not free to read your Bible and sing hymns to Jesus all day either way? Is your hoped-for salvation jeopardized?"
Who says i care?
You do, albeit not explicitly. You have an apologetics agenda. You're here to help the church with its terrible public relations disaster by propagating memes of persecution and bigotry.
You make the same mistake many apologists make. They think that only their explicit message is coming through, unaware of the unspoken message sent that informs the reader or listener of whether he or she considers the source competent to discuss the matter at hand, any unstated agenda showing through, does the source seem trustworthy, etc.. In the philosophy of argumentation (rhetorics), these are referred to as the logos and ethos respectively. The mistake is to think that you only sent the former message because you didn't explicitly state the latter.
If the world were to become totally flat and the oceans distributed themselves evenly over the earth's surface, the water would be approximately 2 miles deep at every point.
Did you mean perfectly spherical? The earth is not flat.
And why did you think that that was relevant? Is this what you mean by providing evidence that the global flood occurred as described in the Bible? Is this part of some rebuttal to something previously posted?