OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
**Warning, this is kind of a rambling post, I was thinking as I was writing. I hope there's a nugget or two of value in here.**
Yep, it's done, you lost.
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we. C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.
You still haven't explained why he, as a Christian, can think there is no controversy and yet you claim, any Christian must realize that there must be a controversy.
Anyway, I think the important point here is that quotes are basically useless for debate. If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".
On the other hand, the people who think that there is no controversy keep trying to get you, Floyd, to define certain things, then explaining to you how your own defintions do not match what you claim, and how your interpretation of scripture is just that, your interpretation. One that is not shared, so far as I can find, by anyone else.
To give you an example: I can argue about how bees can't possibly fly through the laws of aerodynamics, yet I make this argument on my fornt porch watching bees fly from flower to flower. My interpretation of aerodynamics is obviously flawed in this case because of the massive amounts of evidence against it. I could quote hundreds of engineers who said that bees can't possibly fly, yet there they go, making idiots of us all.
It's the same way with creationists. You can quote all you want, you can bemoan how you're treated all you want, you can claim conspiracy all you want, and you can ignore reality all you want. Until the bees fall to the ground, it's all just words.
I think part of the fundamental problem with this 'debate' is the whole point that scientists are trying to get you to understand. Religion (any religion) and science are not two sides of the same coin, they are not in any way related, and they do not describe the same thing in mutually contradictory ways. They are different.
Science can't explain religion. Science doesn't want to explain religion (I refer to hard sciences here, no one understands what psycologists do). Science doesn't care.
Religion shouldn't try to explain science. Real religions don't care why gasoline burns, as long as it gets the congregation to Luby's before noon. Religion just looks silly when it tries to explain science.
People on the other hand, do have opinions about both science and religion, sometimes both at the same time. Since there are so many religions and not a few interpretations of some sciences, there are disagreements. However, as has been pointed out, opinions about religion or science are just that, opinions.
Basically, this entire arguement is wanking.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
