(April 29, 2013 at 7:25 pm)whateverist Wrote: I'm pretty sure the Gladiator would be considered an authoritative source.

Apparently Min sure thinks so…

---

(April 29, 2013 at 7:53 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Perhaps in your spare time you could put together a website showing that these are all no real contradictions regardless of the words used.

Why would I need to? There are already hundreds of websites and books that prove none of these fit the definition of a logical contradiction. I will tell you what though, you choose the one from this list that you believe is the strongest case for a logical contradiction and I will address it for you (can’t let you get away with “elephant hurling” now can I?). Surely, if your best example of an alleged contradiction fails you’ll have to concede that the lesser examples also fail, eh? Give me your best shot, now’s your chance!

@ Statler Waldorf, he want use the cud chewing rabbit, I've already educated him on that one, of coarse he did not listen, typical with him. So be prepared for insane arguments.

Everyone hold their horses!

There are conflicting statements in my car maintenance manual.

For example:

1) On page 17, it says "Remove the drain-plug from the oil sump".

but

2) On page 33, it says "Make sure the oil sump drain-plug is tightly in place".

What a load of rubbish eh?

There, I have just debunked the myth of car maintenance

(April 30, 2013 at 11:31 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Everyone hold their horses!

There are conflicting statements in my car maintenance manual.

For example:

1) On page 17, it says "Remove the drain-plug from the oil sump".

but

2) On page 33, it says "Make sure the oil sump drain-plug is tightly in place".

What a load of rubbish eh?

There, I have just debunked the myth of car maintenance

Come on, you know that the mechanics will just claim that context explains it because they can't emotionally deal with this rock solid contradiction.

Quote:There, I have just debunked the myth of car maintenance

Take the plug out and drive around for ah hour or so . I promise you a miracle.

And btw, the thing will not come back to life in 3 days unless you put a new engine in it.

(April 28, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Tex Wrote: I'm not claiming that. You cannot know that any more than "there are no aliens". Perhaps there is a skinny version of a rhino running around on some planet.

So you can't prove a negative!

But what if I were to say "I know there are unicorns" wouldn't you want proof? And good proof too.

Would "I read about unicorns in a medieval book which said they were real" be good enough.

And what of the dog heads?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-head

People thought these were real.

There was even a dog head saint.

Quote:in the Eastern Orthodox Church, certain icons covertly identify Saint Christopher with the head of a dog

(April 30, 2013 at 2:17 am)Godschild Wrote: @ Statler Waldorf, he want use the cud chewing rabbit, I've already educated him on that one, of coarse he did not listen, typical with him. So be prepared for insane arguments.

*Preparing*

I sure hope that the cud chewing rabbit isn’t the best argument he’s got. I have a sneaking suspicion that he was merely trying to hurl elephants and hadn’t taken the time to examine all of the alleged contradictions he linked to, so we may not see anything more from him.

(April 30, 2013 at 1:22 pm)John V Wrote:

(April 30, 2013 at 11:31 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Everyone hold their horses!

There are conflicting statements in my car maintenance manual.

For example:

1) On page 17, it says "Remove the drain-plug from the oil sump".

but

2) On page 33, it says "Make sure the oil sump drain-plug is tightly in place".

What a load of rubbish eh?

There, I have just debunked the myth of car maintenance

Come on, you know that the mechanics will just claim that context explains it because they can't emotionally deal with this rock solid contradiction.

And the driver will claim that page 33 means that page 17 doesn't apply, for it is obvious that the creator of the car intends for you to never take the drain plug out.

(April 30, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote: And the driver will claim that page 33 means that page 17 doesn't apply, for it is obvious that the creator of the car intends for you to never take the drain plug out.

Creator of the car? The driver obviously would never believe there had to be a creator or designer of the car. After all, the processes observed taking place inside the car are surely adequate to explain the cars existence. And to point to where these processes do not adequately explain the origin of the car is really just using a “creator of the gaps” style argument. It’s obvious to the driver (since he is a free thinker) that the specified complexity associated with the car’s appearance and operation was really just a result of natural selection acting upon random car parts over billions of years. He knows that cars can naturally evolve, after all just look at the Pepper Moths! Also take a look at the homology between a Porsche and a Volkswagen! It’s obvious that these two cars shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. And what about those engineers at Toyota who claim they in fact created his car? Well obviously they do not exist (since that would only give rise to the question, “who designed the designers at Toyota?”), and to use their words to prove they created the car would really only be begging the question since you cannot establish those are their words anyways (and who are they hiding from? Why don’t they make it evident that they indeed created the car to everyone who ever has lived and ever will live?). In fact, they probably just stole those words from other fictional car companies in order to appeal to Pagans. Let’s be serious here, can anyone point to one single peer-reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates that this particular car was created by engineers at Toyota? I didn’t think so. Yes, believing that cars need designers is irrational; in fact it really is a social construct in order to cope with what we used to not understand. It’s time to stop using it as a crutch, anyone who believes that cars were created and did not evolve through natural unguided processes doesn’t believe in science and is engaging in child abuse if they teach their kids such delusions!!

Did I miss anything? :-P

The driver could visit a manufacturing plant and watch people create cars. The driver could prove, empirically, that cars are the result of manufacturing. Did I miss where someone provided empirical proof that the universe is made by your, specific God?

You do realize that your position would be that which claims that fully-functional cars occur naturally? I just ask because you probably thought you were being clever.