2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 756:
Line 756: + + + + +
→Atheist Science
: I don't criticise theories about the past for not being testable. I criticise ''the idea'' that they ''are'' testable when they are not.
: I don't criticise theories about the past for not being testable. I criticise ''the idea'' that they ''are'' testable when they are not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, I could still use some of the arguments Spong puts forward, for example that the gospel were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion. So even though there was no TV, there was ample of time to taint any eyewitness reports. We do not even know if the writers were eyewitnesses. And the different gospels do differ on details. I assume that you have a good excuse for these differences, under your interpretation, and Spong has a different interpretation. Problem is, you still haven't provided a test how to distinguish between canonical, and non-canonical gospels, or say the gospel of Joseph Smith, or between your and Spong's interpretation.
The "few" people in mentioned by the creation study group were not the least scholars. But, since we are at it. Do you have proof that most people did argue your way? Can you produce a poll?
So, if it is not falsifiable, why did you bother to make an attempt to falsify? You are probably still claiming that the big bang theory is not testable, because we cannot go back in time? Or are there any other part on the big bang theory that are not testable? Do you have a testable alternative? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:41, 29 December 2007 (EST)
===Legitimate views===
===Legitimate views===