Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 278:
Line 278: − :Because evolution has been accepted by a unanimous scientific consensus. − :A list of scientists who are creationists is not evidence against the unanimous consensus for evolution, especially when there is no data to represent their conclusion. − :And it is you that is dead wrong. − :Yes, unanimous does mean complete agreement. And I have already shown you a complete agreement among a group of scientists. − :You have no logic whatsoever. Especially because you still haven't provided for a source verifying the theory of intelligent design. Now if you want to prove something, you're going to have to start with evidence. − :A source would be a consensus of scientists who have done experiments based solely on the scientific method that have led them to a conclusion of your point. Do you have one? − :And you have not pointed out that the source didn't claim unanimity. − :Ahem, a personal story and a scientific account are not the same thing. A scientific account is based on the science of the experiment. Not the economics, history, or funding of the experiment. So are you saying that Biblical creationists do not take Genesis as a scientific account of the creation of the universe? − :Yes, they were scientific studies. Read them. − :Explain to me why the "four corners" is a metaphor and the first chapters of Genesis that explain the creation aren't. − :No, you cannot refute that because you haven't the ability. − :I just showed you evidence! Wow, you are thick. Clearly that there are crackpots that believe Earth is flat because it says so in the Bible, there are also crackpots that believe that the universe was created based on the account of Genesis, even though both of these have been refuted by science! − :Saying that an argument is ridiculous shows your weakness in refuting it. Otherwise, it should be quite easy. But you've already demonstrated your weakness. − :Oh yes I can prove that the Flat Earth Society was started by fundies just like you. As I said before, you and the flat Earth society both take accounts of the Bible literally, despite the fact that science refutes them. And what makes you "think" that they are a joke? Unless you can actually provide evidence for them being a joke, I "think" you're a joke. You seem to think quite a bit without verification. − :Nope, now you're a small group. As the advancement of science has grown, the belief in creationism has shrunk. − :Do you not know what a light is? The Bible says that God creates two lights as if the Sun and the Moon are alike in how they generate their light. So are you implying that they knew that the moon only reflected light and was not a light itself? Then why didn't they say it? − :Yes, the Bible is very wrong and it does have a reputation of it. It's not because of misrepresentation. It clearly contradicts science. There is nothing to misrepresent. − :How do you know that the creation account is not to be taken literally as opposed to Revelation. Is there a fine print that says in the Bible not to take certain parts literally? − :Oh yes you did claim that he lied. Now that you deny it makes you a liar yourself. You are the one who twists and distorts information in order to deceive for the sake of an apocryphal text that gives you the right to assert your prejudice in any way you wish. You are a liar. [[User:Staffordshire|Staffordshire]] 21:12, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 03:36, March 8, 2008
, 03:36, March 8, 2008Reverted edits by Staffordshire (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment
:: "''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.
:: "''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)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)