Top Ten Creationist Arguments (Technically Twenty).
August 11, 2010 at 9:21 pm
(This post was last modified: August 14, 2010 at 6:17 pm by chasm.)
Eeyore Wrote:Thanks for noticing.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 1, 2026, 7:34 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Top Ten Creationist Arguments (Technically Twenty).
|
 
It attempted to take Sir Issac Newton with an ad hominem and then tried to prove that the overwhelming majority of scientists dont believe in God. LOL.
This stuff will fuel atheists who know squat. I dont think this guy understands the difference between a scientific and philosphical arguement? Experiences or lack of experience do help us construct our beleifs system. Arguement 9 Part 2. Was an epic fail, not all christians believe that. (Most dont) Arguement 10 was an epic fail. Wow that wasnt very impressing.  (August 12, 2010 at 2:58 am)solja247 Wrote: It attempted to take Sir Issac Newton with an ad hominem and then tried to prove that the overwhelming majority of scientists dont believe in God. LOL.No, it used the fact that Newton was an alchemist (which is true) to illustrate that being a "religious" scientist doesn't mean you aren't susceptible to nonsensical beliefs. Also, the majority of scientists don't believe in God, according to the National Academy of Science in America. That is also true. Quote:No, it used the fact that Newton was an alchemist (which is true) to illustrate that being a "religious" scientist doesn't mean you aren't susceptible to nonsensical beliefs. I got the feeling they were trying to attack some of his weird beliefs, thus attack his character. Quote:Also, the majority of scientists don't believe in God, according to the National Academy of Science in America. That is also true. 40% of scientists believe in God. I was looking for that quote, but I couldnt find it???  (August 12, 2010 at 5:45 am)solja247 Wrote: I got the feeling they were trying to attack some of his weird beliefs, thus attack his character. Even if they did "attack" his beliefs.... that's NOT the same as attacking his character. I think your religious beliefs are fucking stupid. But I'm not calling you fucking stupid, you may be, you may not be - either way, I see no point in calling you so.  (August 12, 2010 at 2:58 am)solja247 Wrote: I dont think this guy understands the difference between a scientific and philosphical arguement?Well, that was a problem I found with the videos, too. It seems to fail to tell the difference between a creationist argument and a fundamentalist christian argument. And I admittedly found the Hitler argument to fall flat. Yes, Hitler was raised Catholic, but it's likely that a lot of his Christian talk was just to appeal to the average German, who would almost certainly be a Christian (either Catholic or Lutheran). However, how they should have approached the argument is to question whether the long history of Anti-Semitism in Christianity (especially pre-Nazi) would have had any more to do with it than one man's atheism? And for that matter, that one man's religious belief system mattered in the formation of the greatest collaborative evil the world has ever known (or at least bothered to look up?)
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png) I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad. 
Are there any more recent studies? I mean, 12 years is very old data.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you 
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
