Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauling
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.
|
So this is to make a point regarding my remark about science being a religion? Fine I misspoke regarding the word theory. I am glad you finally decided to argue a point ITT. To bad your point has nothing to do with the several rebuttals to your original arguments. You know...the ones you could not argue against other than to say...eventually science will prove it (maybe not now, but in the future.) Wow, you guys sure did beat me down on that whole science is a religion thing...haha. I am glad you guys could find something you can feel you "won" on. Now what about "Closed System", "True Christians not killing in Christianity's name", "The bible verses" someone wanted explained...etc?