8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 214:
Line 214: + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 02:39, February 13, 2008
, 02:39, February 13, 2008no edit summary
::"''Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy.''": Well, given that my claims were not fabricated and not invalid, it follows that I wasn't hypocritical. So what's that say about your ability to judge?
::"''Simply repeating the fabricated claim is utterly invalid and only furthers your hypocrisy.''": Well, given that my claims were not fabricated and not invalid, it follows that I wasn't hypocritical. So what's that say about your ability to judge?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)
:Since you believe that views with scientific merit can be included, the Bible should ‘’not’’ be included whatsoever. In fact, all of those other creationist views had more scientific merit due to the astronomical basis for their evidence while the Bible has none whatsoever. So, the Bible is henceforth scientifically invalid and should not be incorporated into the classroom for scientific purposes.
:Oh, yes I do have the “gall” to call you a ‘’liar’’. Duly because it is unanimously reject by scientists, yet you provide a citation that lists scientists with no accountable information on a scientific consensus between one another or analysis on the subject. That just completely destroys your credibility, not only because you have no idea what you are talking about but you obviously have no idea what a scientist does, in order for them to reach a ‘’unanimous consensus’’ they must actually study the given protocol and approve it within the scientific community. Yet, this is something you do not have. However, I do[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf] and it is undeniably unanimous.
:Yet, you question my assertion that the creationist and intelligent design theories are not based on scientific method and you cannot find a source that does demonstrate your argument as a fact. But since your credibility is lacking due to the previous source, I cannot expect you to provide any resourceful claims. But to answer your question…[http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_intro/creationscience.html]
:Well, I didn’t think it was necessary to embarrass you but I will. Revelation 7:1 refers to angels standing on the four corners of the Earth. Of course there is also unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth is spherical so it cannot possibly have corners. Yet, just as there are biblical fundamentalists who deny evolution because it contradicts the Bible, there are those that deny the Earth being spherical because it contradicts the Bible. Yes, they are out there. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. Was that not enough for you? Genesis 1:16 states that the Moon is a light just like the Sun. Wrong. The Moon is a natural satellite that reflects sun light.
:But now you’re saying that you take the Bible literally and the “four corners” is just a metaphor. Well, then the whole damn Bible must be a metaphor since it is so erroneous! You just pick and choose what you want to believe to suit your prejudice while labeling everything else as “metaphors”. The creators of the Flat Earth Society took the “four corners” passage literally just as you take the text that contradicts evolution literally. You are no different that those fundamentalists.
:Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”.
:I am very ready to believe that you have lied because you have destroyed your credibility. Yet, Darwin always expressed an orthodox belief in God as described by those who knew him best, that was only until he began his research that he began losing faith. Please show me proof that he lied.
[[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 21:39, 12 February 2008 (EST)