Originally posted by googlefudge And who's to say that his weird interpretation is any better or worse than your weird interpretation?
While we're believing based on faith with no recourse to science, logic, and evidence...
Go on, give me a faith based reason why you know better than he does...
Or will you admit that you need logic and evidence and reason to have any objective determination
of anything?
You know better than this. Your argument with me (this one, anyways) is pure fail.
Who ever said I have no recourse to science? I believe in evolution and the 4.5 billion year old history of earth. I've said many times that science has its place.
Originally posted by lemon lime I hope you're not suggesting that some things should never be challenged, because acceptance of that idea can lead to all sorts of abuses... such as determining [b]who should be in charge of what is true or not.
I'm thinking something like instituting a Ministry of Correctness belongs in a Monte Python sketch... and should stay there.[/b]
Some things are facts. Some other things are not.
And it is the business of science to challenge these things and prove what is or is not fact.
The absence of proof does not prevent a thing from being fact. But the existence of proof that makes that thing impossible does.
Originally posted by Suzianne Sorry, not feeding the troll today.
Who was trolling? You? I'm just responding to what you said. This is exactly what you said in reply to the OP on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread:
Originally posted by Suzianne Eh, there are 'pinheads' on both sides of the divide. Any random perusal of this forum should convince you of this.
If one were to randomly peruse the forum looking for these people "on both sides of the divide", would RJHinds be one of the "pinheads" you were talking about or not? If he isn't one of your supposed "pinheads" on his side of this issue, who is?
Originally posted by Suzianne Some things are facts. Some other things are not.
And it is the business of science to challenge these things and prove what is or is not fact.
The absence of proof does not prevent a thing from being fact. But the existence of proof that makes that thing impossible does.
A little extra knowledge goes a long way as well. If the scientists of Galileos time had any idea how far away other (visible) star systems are, they would immediately recognize the impossibility of them being able to circle the earth once every 24 hours... although, it could explain why those stars appear to be moving away from us so fast...
... because the centrifugal force (Fc = mv2/r) would be enormous, seeing as how those stars would need to be moving many times faster than the speed of light. Or as Carl Sagan might say, billions and billions of times faster. It would also lend new meaning into stargazing being the same as gazing into the past, because stars traveling faster than the speed of light would literally be traveling backwards in time.😛
Originally posted by FMF Who was trolling? You? I'm just responding to what you said. This is exactly what you said in reply to the OP on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread:
Originally posted by Suzianne [b]Eh, there are 'pinheads' on both sides of the divide. Any random perusal of this forum should convince you of this.
If one were to randomly per ...[text shortened]... ing about or not? If he isn't one of your supposed "pinheads" on his side of this issue, who is?[/b]
Wow... I'm almost speechless. [almost]
No one has to set you up for you to walk right into something, you're able to do it all by yourself. 😕
not here to feed the trolls, but this was just too good to let pass
Originally posted by lemon lime Wow... I'm almost speechless. [almost]
No one has to set you up for you to walk right into something, you're able to do it all by yourself. 😕
not here to feed the trolls, but this was just too good to let pass
It is Suzianne who is calling people on this forum "pinheads" not me.
Originally posted by Suzianne You know better than this. Your argument with me (this one, anyways) is pure fail.
Who ever said I have no recourse to science? I believe in evolution and the 4.5 billion year old history of earth. I've said many times that science has its place.
So what exactly are you on about, again?
So what exactly are you on about, again?
Isn't it obvious? He can't reconcile a belief in science with a belief in God.
Didn't you know that atheism owns science? So unless you agree with the belief in no-God(s) then you are obviously a science heretic, and have no claim to any scientific insight or knowledge. Only a true non-believer can make that claim.
Originally posted by FMF It is Suzianne who is calling people on this forum "pinheads" not me.
As tempted as I am to say that anyone who consistently indulges himself in personal attacks is a pinhead, I do not believe you have earned that honor yet.
Not everything in this forum applies to everything written in each and every thread found in this forum. If you really want to explore the topic of "pinheads" then start up your own thread and entitle it The Pinheads of this Forum... or give it whatever idiotic title you want.
Originally posted by lemon lime As tempted as I am to say that anyone who consistently indulges himself in personal attacks is a pinhead, I do not believe you have earned that honor yet.
Not everything in this forum applies to everything written in each and every thread found in this forum. If you really want to explore the topic of "pinheads" then start up your own thread and entitle it The Pinheads of this Forum... or give it whatever idiotic title you want.
She said there were "pinheads" ..."on both sides of the divide", with the "divide" in question being exactly what this thread topic is about and exactly what people are discussing on this thread and on recent threads. This "pinhead" epithet is Suzianne's, not mine, and she used it to describe people discussing science topics like the one here. By "pinheads", did she mean people like RJHinds?
Originally posted by FMF She said there were "pinheads" ..."on both sides of the divide", with the "divide" in question being exactly what this thread topic is about and exactly what people are discussing on this thread and on recent threads. This "pinhead" epithet is Suzianne's, not mine, and she used it to describe people discussing science topics like the one here. By "pinheads", did she mean people like RJHinds?
Oh, very well then... your persistence has finally paid off. I hereby grant upon you the title of "pinhead".
Originally posted by lemon lime Oh, very well then... your persistence has finally paid off. I hereby grant upon you the title of "pinhead".
In terms of the faith v science debate, do you think by using the insult "pinheads", Suzianne was referring to people like RJHinds? I know that on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread she wasn't referring to me because she stated that she agreed with my OP.
Originally posted by lemon lime Wow... I'm almost speechless. [almost]
No one has to set you up for you to walk right into something, you're able to do it all by yourself. 😕
Originally posted by FMF In terms of the faith v science debate, do you think by using the insult "pinheads", Suzianne was referring to people like RJHinds? I know that on the "Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?" thread she wasn't referring to me because she stated that she agreed with my OP.
All right! Okay! Stop yelling at me! I'll upgrade that to "pinhead extraordinaire".
If I grant you a title any higher than that I can expect to hear from the Brotherhood of Pinheads Union... and they are no less painful to listen to than you are.
False Science Exposed
05 Feb '15 00:501 edit
Back to Top