nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 141:
Line 141: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 13:57, May 14, 2007
, 13:57, May 14, 2007→Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.: You still need to learn about the idea that you criticise.
:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007
:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007
::I believe that parts of the Bible should be taken literally (i.e. not the parts that are metaphor and otherwise were not ''intended'' to be taken literally) because that's the way it was intended to be taken, and because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record.
:: Yes, you mentioned that you considered evolution falsifiable, and I pointed you to my explanation of why it is not. So what is your response to my explanation? None. You simply repeated your claim without even giving any indication that you read my rebuttal.
:: Your "circular reasoning" explanation for the Bible's authorship does not prove that it was ''not'' written by God, and is in fact a straw-man. I do not argue that "these proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong".
:: I said that you offered no evidence for a lack of a global flood, and that you clearly have no knowledge of the idea that you so readily dismiss. So now you offer some weak "evidence", but they are straw-man arguments or arguments that you should know the answer to if you had any knowledge of the idea. You still clearly do not have such knowledge, but are still arrogant enough to criticise it! I hate to point you to an entire book to read, but at least it is on-line and free, so I suggest that you have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this book], then come back with whatever questions you still have. That will answer many of your questions and objections. Please find out something about creationism before you waste my time criticising it. Wouldn't you agree that it is best to have a working knowledge (at least) of a subject that you are going to criticise?
:: Personally, I think Occam's Razor often favours the creationist view. Surely it is better to explain the origin of the universe as "it was created by a being capable of creating it" than "nothing became something for no reason".
:: Yes, I'll admit that some of the creationist explanations are not as intuitive as one might like. However, I would argue that exactly the same criticism applies to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem to the starlight/time problem? It's known as the horizon problem, and it's discussed in that book. The cosmologists' solutions are just as convoluted, including proposing that the speed of light used to be different! Now where have I heard that before?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)