Prayer ... SERIOUSLY?!

[Minimalist]

Amen, brother.




(Whoops!)

[Statler Waldorf]

[Cinjin]

Could you also please show where I have used a logical argument incorrectly instead of just asserting that I have?

naw -
I think anyone here who has gone one on one with you already knows what I was referring to anyway, and I'm just not willing to pick up the same argument where we always seem to leave off. What would be the point.

I'll limit my remarks to your posts in the future if you'd like -- but hey, how will you ever know when your logic is flawed and your arguments are biased??

[Minimalist]

How in any way does using the same argument over and over again somehow magically make it wrong?

When it is all based on an absurd book of fairy tales?

Your argument ( goddidit ) always fails in the first three letters because god is merely a belief of yours....not a reality.

[eric209]

[Statler Waldorf]

[Epimethean]

But if that last bit is so, then why question me regarding gullibility on why I find no issue with the earth's age being 4 billion years when all the leading experts in the field agree that this is so?

[Cinjin]

Well you just asserting that they are of course does not make it so. How am I supposed to correct the problem if you won't point out where and how I commit it? I guess I will just carry on as usual

lol - you and I both know you would've anyway.

[Statler Waldorf]

But if that last bit is so, then why question me regarding gullibility on why I find no issue with the earth's age being 4 billion years when all the leading experts in the field agree that this is so?

The age of the earth is a scientific question. Scientific questions are never answered by a simple appeal to majority or consensus. If that were the case Science would never progress because new ideas would be shot down immediately.

---

lol - you and I both know you would've anyway.

Maaaaaayyyybbbeee

[DaveD]

Well you just asserting that they are of course does not make it so. How am I supposed to correct the problem if you won't point out where and how I commit it? I guess I will just carry on as usual

lol - you and I both know you would've anyway.

I don't remember which forum it was, but I've seen the same nonsense from Statler Waldorf before, so you're conclusion would seem to be accurate.

---

The age of the earth is a scientific question. Scientific questions are never answered by a simple appeal to majority or consensus. If that were the case Science would never progress because new ideas would be shot down immediately.

Scientists wouldn't get away with such a popularity contest as there are always other scientists waiting in the wings to rip their ideas to shreds. When such attempts fail, only then is a consensus reached.
In contrast, creationists are always falling over themselves agreeing a consensus first (so long as it accords with their reading of their book of fables), then looking for ways to twist or invent evidence to support their conclusion.