1,193
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 106:
Line 106: + + + + + + +
→Suggestions
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
:::::::::: 2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
:::::::::: 3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
:::::::::: 4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
:::::::::: 5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
== Correction and authorship ==
== Correction and authorship ==