nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 221:
Line 221: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 13:53, February 13, 2008
, 13:53, February 13, 2008→It's not a religion: Reply to a lot of nonsense.
:Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”.
: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.
: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)
:[[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 21:39, 12 February 2008 (EST)
:: "''Since you believe that views with scientific merit can be included, the Bible should ‘’not’’ be included whatsoever.''": If you are saying that the Bible itself should not be introduced as evidence, then I agree. But that doesn't preclude introducing scientific evidence for a view that is itself based on or consistent with the Bible.
:: "''Oh, yes I do have the “gall” to call you a ‘’liar’’. Duly because it is unanimously reject by scientists...''"": Dead wrong, as I proved.
:: "''...yet you provide a citation that lists scientists with no accountable information on a scientific consensus between one another or analysis on the subject.''": I don't even follow this statement. You are admitting that these people ''are'' scientists, and it is clear that these people ''do not'' "reject" "intelligent design and creationist theories". That itself is enough to prove that your claim was wrong.
:: "''However, I do[3] and it is undeniably unanimous''": Huh? I deny it! That document does not even ''pretend'' to be the unanimous view of every scientist. Do you understand the meaning of the word "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.''". You leap to amazing conclusions! How do you know I can't find one? I pointed out that you ''didn't'' demonstrate your argument, so in return you claim that I ''cannot'' demonstrate an argument that I'm not sure I even explicitly made!
:: "''But since your credibility is lacking due to the previous source...''": It's only lacking in your mind. My "previous source" proved my point.
:: "''But to answer your question…[4]''": Okay, so now you have at least supplied ''some sort'' of substantiation to your claim. Not that it stands up to scrutiny though. That article in itself is replete with misleading statements and outright errors. For example, leading creationists do not claim "creation [as] described in Genesis to be a scientific account". What they claim is that the account in Genesis is ''scientifically accurate'', but not that it is a "scientific account". Also, it is patently false to claim that "no biologist has been led to doubt that evolution has occurred". Further, it is bigoted in referring to people who believe in creation as "creationists" and people who believe in evolution as "scientists", as though there were not scientists on both sides of the debate.
:: "''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.''": Which in no way refutes that it could be metaphor. I should also add that the language of much of Revelation is apocalyptic, not narrative, so is hardly a good place to be finding examples of supposedly-literal statements.
:: "''...there are those [biblical fundamentalists?] that deny the Earth being spherical because it contradicts the Bible.''": Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
:: "''Yes, they are out there. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. Was that not enough for you?''": No, that was not enough. There ''may be'' a few people who believe in a flat Earth, and who use the odd biblical reference to support that view, but I doubt that there is ''anyone'' who believes in a flat Earth ''because'' it contradicts the Bible. And I've also heard that the (almost non-existent) Flat Earth Society is a joke group, not a serious group. And even if there were some who believe that, demonstrating that one group wrongly believe something because of a particular interpretation of the Bible does not mean that a different group having an interpretation that you disagree with is also wrong.
:: "''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.''": As I said above, creationists don't claim that the creation account is a ''scientific account''. That is, although they believe that it's scientifically accurate, it's not intended as a scientific treatise given in scientific language. Furthermore, Genesis 1:16 says that the Sun and the moon were made at the same time, but it does ''not'' say that that the moon is "just like" the sun.
:: "''But now you’re saying that you take the Bible literally ...''": No I'm not. So you are wrong yet again. I take the Bible the way that it was intended to be understood, that is, taking the literal parts as literal, the metaphor as metaphor, etc.
:: "''Well, then the whole ... Bible must be a metaphor since it is so erroneous!''": Metaphor is determined by the language, not by whether or not it is literally correct. And the Bible is not erroneous.
:: "''You just pick and choose what you want to believe to suit your prejudice while labeling everything else as “metaphors”. ''": No I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to decide for me how I understand things. You are jumping to conclusions about things that you know next to nothing about (such as what I believe) and then accusing me of those things. As I just mentioned, metaphor is determined by the language, not by whether I want to believe it or not.
:: "''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.''": Aren't I? First, I doubt that the creator(s) of the Flat Earth Society could accurately be described as "fundamentalist". Second, I take the creation account as literal because that's the way it was meant to be understood: as actual history, not as metaphor.
:: "''Of course you had to label another point as “fiction” just like you label everything else you don’t want to follow as “metaphor”. ''": Well, I've shown that the second part of that is wrong, so it follows that the first part is wrong also.
:: "''I am very ready to believe that you have lied because you have destroyed your credibility.''": You have not demonstrated that I have destroyed my credibility, so your claim of me lying (which is a non-sequitur anyway) fails.
:: "''Please show me proof that [Darwin] lied.''": I have no obligation to do so. First, I never claimed that he lied, so that alone is sufficient reason why I don't have to show proof. Second, you accused me of lying simply because I repeated a claim made by prominent evolutionists that, according to you, contradicted what Darwin said. That doesn't make me a liar, and neither does it make those evolutionists liars. They may have simply been mistaken. Or perhaps you are. I was merely pointing out that you were very ready to accuse me of lying, yet didn't appear to have even considered the ''possibility'' that Darwin lied.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)