nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 254:
Line 254: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 10:27, February 23, 2008
, 10:27, February 23, 2008→It's not a religion: Response to Staffordshire and a warning
:Yes, the founders of the Flat Earth Society were very fundamentalist and they didn’t doubt a single word of the Bible. What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?
:Yes, the founders of the Flat Earth Society were very fundamentalist and they didn’t doubt a single word of the Bible. What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?
:Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied. Now you’ve just lied again. Now please show me which evolutionists contradicted what Darwin said. Despite the fact that you jumped to the conclusion of the fact that Darwin lied while giving so evidence for his dishonesty, you refuse to doubt the authenticity of a very scientifically inaccurate book. I smell a double-standard. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 12:35, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied. Now you’ve just lied again. Now please show me which evolutionists contradicted what Darwin said. Despite the fact that you jumped to the conclusion of the fact that Darwin lied while giving so evidence for his dishonesty, you refuse to doubt the authenticity of a very scientifically inaccurate book. I smell a double-standard. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 12:35, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:: "''Any form of science that goes by the scientific method and is unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus should be taught in public schools.''": It has to be unanimously accepted as fact by scientific consensus? That seems to be a bit restrictive, but even if that is so, why then is evolution taught?
:: "''You didn’t prove me a thing. You provided me a list of scientists with no evidence of their collaboration and expertise on the subject at hand.''": Huh? I provided you with a list of scientists who are creationists. That in itself is evidence. And many of those in the list have links to articles about them which give further information about them. What ''exactly'' do you want to know further?
:: "''It is you that is dead wrong.''": Nope.
:: "''You clearly do not understand the meaning of unanimous, especially in scientific consensus.''": You mean that "unanimous" ''doesn't'' mean "[http://www.onelook.com/?w=unanimous&ls=a complete agreement]"? What dictionary are ''you'' using?
:: "''Obviously since you haven’t provided a source that proves intelligent design as a fact, that must mean that you cannot find one...''": You have ''straaange'' logic, especially given that I've already answered this point.
:: "''...which leads me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of intelligent design being based on the scientific method''": That is also illogical. Not being able to ''prove'' something (even assuming that was the case) does not mean that there is no ''evidence''.
:: "''Feel free to show me a source. I’m waiting.''": What would you accept? A scientist simply saying that it was scientific, for example?
:: "''I, however have provided a source in this favour with respect to evolution.''": Which I've already pointed out didn't even ''claim'' unanimity, let alone demonstrate it.
:: "''Yes, creationists do claim it to be a scientific account if they claim it to be scientifically accurate. It is the same thing!''": It depends on your definition of "scientific account", I guess, but no, I would (and do) argue that it's ''not'' the same thing. Suppose that a scientist ventured into a dangerous forest area of Amazon, and found and studied a new species of insect. Upon his return, he writes two books. One book describes the new species of insect in great detail, such as how long it lives, what it feeds on, where it lives (e.g. in hives), and so on. It is, in all respects, a ''scientific'' account of the insect. The other book describes the expedition he went on to study the insect. It's a personal story, not a scientific account. It describes the problems he had raising money for the expedition, the issues he had with obtaining visas and permits, the help he was given by the local population despite not knowing their language, and the encounters he had with dangerous creatures. In describing these adventures, he uses the correct names of the places and the creatures he encountered, and accurately describes them, but this book is, nevertheless, not a ''scientific'' account, yet it is ''scientifically'' accurate in what it does mention. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at here. The creation account is not written as a scientific account, with the terminology and sorts of details that a scientist would want to read in it. But it is, nevertheless, scientifically accurate.
:: "''Yet, do you even realise that among this scientific study, there is no doubt among these collaborating biologists that evolution has occurred?''": Sorry, what scientific study? Your two links ([3] and [4] above), were not studies. And of course something produced by evolutionists is going to say that evolution occurred!
:: "''In the case that the “four corners” are a metaphor, then the whole Bible must be a metaphor.''": Why?
:: "''You cannot refute that either.''": I don't see the need, because you've not made a case worth refuting.
:: "''It just shows that the crackpots that wrote the Bible truly believed that the Earth was flat.''": Now you're simply being nasty, without showing any evidence. Any more of that and I just might give you a short block.
:: "''I have proved you wrong...''": No you haven't.
:: "''... so you are just making yourself less credible by saying “rubbish” because you are much too weak to disprove the argument.''": No, I say "rubbish" because the argument is so ridiculous. And as I've just said above, you need to make a case before there's any onus on me to refute it. Simple assertion does not a case make.
:: "''The Flat Earth Society was founded by fundamentalists just like...''": Oh? Just like me? Can you prove that? Or can you even prove that (a) they are not a joke society, ''and'' (b) that the Bible is the ''reason'' they believe in a flat Earth, rather than just an additional bit of justification for their view?
:: "''You are just another of those small groups of fundies that uses the very odd Biblical reference that Earth was created based on the story of Genesis.''": On the contrary, I'm one of a very large group of people throughout history as well as presently who believe that.
:: "''The Bible calls the moon a light. The moon is not a light, simple!''": Define "light". That is, provide the definition of the Hebrew word translated as "light" in English Bibles. The Bible does ''not'' say, as you are implying, that the moon generates its own light.
:: "''The Bible is wrong ...''": Not on that point.
:: "''...which is something it has a reputation of.''": Only because of misinformation spread by fundie atheists, as you are doing here.
:: "''What makes you think that the creation account was any more literal than Revelation?''": Its language, for one thing. The creation account is narrative; Revelation is apocalyptic language.
:: "''Yes, you have an obligation to do so. You did claim he lied.''": You are good at making assertions and not so good at providing evidence. I didn't claim that, so I guess that makes you a liar (by your logic; I'll be more gracious and think that you are just blinded by your own biases). The rest of your post is either based on your inaccurate claims or is just more (or the same) unsubstantiated assertions.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)