Sorry I've been away for a bit.
Additionally, you believe the earth is 6000 years old, putting you in conflict not just with biology but with cosmology and history. We have stars in our night sky who's light took millions of years to reach us. Historians will tell you that we have civilizations that are older than 6000 years.
So, no, you don't get to talk about "scholarly consensus." At least not without being a hypocrite.
Evolution is not only the universally accepted theory among biologists, the entire field of study makes no sense except in light of evolution. Disputing it would be like disputing Germ Theory in the field of medicine.
The natural universe is all we experience during our waking hours. The claims of those who say they have experienced the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Every time we solve a mystery of the universe, we end up discarding long held supernatural explanations in favor of predictable, natural ones. To suggest that there is an unseen, undetected, yet-to-be-discovered supernatural realm is an extraordinary claim and requires the claimant to assume the burden of proof.
(September 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes, we both know it was the fallacy of the red herring.When your debate opponent demonstrates hypocrisy on the issue that is the crux of your argument, it's never irrelevant to point out the hypocrisy. You tout "scholarly consensus" in your arguments for The Historical Jesus but you reject scholarly consensus when it works against your mythology.
Quote:There is no reason to compare a scientific theory to historical facts.True, biology is a hard science based on objective data and repeatable experiments. History is a soft science based partially on conjecture and piecing together what seems most likely to have actually happened (I know this because historians have said so). There is therefore more of a rational reason to debate history, especially ancient history, than there is to debate science.
Additionally, you believe the earth is 6000 years old, putting you in conflict not just with biology but with cosmology and history. We have stars in our night sky who's light took millions of years to reach us. Historians will tell you that we have civilizations that are older than 6000 years.
So, no, you don't get to talk about "scholarly consensus." At least not without being a hypocrite.
Quote:Secondly, I do not reject evolution because of any “lack of evidence”, I reject it because of evidence to the contrary.There is none.
Evolution is not only the universally accepted theory among biologists, the entire field of study makes no sense except in light of evolution. Disputing it would be like disputing Germ Theory in the field of medicine.
Quote:Since when did rationality presuppose naturalism and why?It's called "burden of proof".
The natural universe is all we experience during our waking hours. The claims of those who say they have experienced the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Every time we solve a mystery of the universe, we end up discarding long held supernatural explanations in favor of predictable, natural ones. To suggest that there is an unseen, undetected, yet-to-be-discovered supernatural realm is an extraordinary claim and requires the claimant to assume the burden of proof.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
