Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Ashendant]

What!? Facts don’t contradict themselves because the dictionary says they can’t? Does this mean that facts could contradict themselves before the dictionary was written? I am sorry; you are going to have to do better than that.

No the dictionary is a interpreter of the human language, in English, a fact is

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

or truth, since we know that the universe is a fact(the universe it exists) it's true if the universe would contradict itself

assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial. or a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

the opposite of truth is false since the universe exists, it can't be contradictory or false

Ok, so first it was the law of no contradiction is valid because the universe can’t contradict itself. Then it was the law of no contradiction is valid because the universe is a fact and facts can’t contradict themselves. Now it is, the law of no contradiction is valid because facts are truth and according to the dictionary truth can’t contradict itself. So now the obvious question is, why can’t truth contradict itself?

Because then it would be false which is not truth because false is the opposite of truth, you can't be opposites at the same(ex i can't be a animal and a plant at the same time because animals don't have the ability to photosynthetise and plants do)

Still does not prove intellectual theft. Also, I find it hard to believe that the Israelites would have wanted to copy the commandments of a nation that had just enslaved them for decades. Besides, I thought most of you atheists didn’t believe the story of the exodus, but now you believe the Israelites really were in Egypt when it suits your position? Odd.

I doubt the bible divine status but admit it that it has it's historical value, i'm not aware of any atheist that doubt the historical exodus(if i remember exactly the exodus was a historical event)

No he can’t. There is no biblical basis for the Pope’s authority on such matters. So you can’t argue against biblical accounts using his authority. Again, that is why we had the reformation. Sola Scriptura!

Religions evolve to save their own behinds, the pope came from a need for the church to have a figure head.

Creationism provides an explanation for the natural and physical world so I am sorry, by definition it is a physical and natural science. Remember, your explanation for the natural world does not itself have to be natural, that’s naturalism, not natural science. So no, you didn’t beat me with the dictionary my friend. By your definition, you could not conclude that the greats like Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Blyth, and Bacon were all scientists. If these guys were not scientists then maybe being a scientist is not such a great thing to be haha.

Natural Science
–noun
a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature.

It's not a natural science, even your own argument refutes itself, because it studies the supernatural, and the supernatural is

a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

Since it's outside of the natural order it's not natural, so it's not natural or physical, since the definition of science is

any of the branches of natural or physical science.

It's not science since scientist require to be

an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Therefore there's no such thing as a creationist science or scientist





...
Did i just disprove creationist as science with a dictionary...