Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Hahaha. WIKI RULZ.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"]
Why do you keep defining Theory? Is that your argument against the multitude of things I presented?
|
Would you rather I quote conservapedia instead where they consider science a philosophy instead of the method it is? What's wrong with wikipedia? I'd say it's a fair shot more reliable source of information than the bible. Wikipedia is constantly updated by contemporary, living people. I can see who made the edits. I can check their credentials. I can check their sources. Can I say that about the bible?
You have presented nothing and that's the point. You said so yourself when you said you cannot prove there is a god.
I offer you the definition of a theory, because you misrepresented what a theory actually is. Though I will hand it to you, if it's your goal to beat this argument through attrition rather than presenting a logical case. You'll probably succeed.