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.
|
Maybe this will explain about wiki...I found this online.
A vast majority of the responses on Y.A. use wikipedia as a source. Do they not realize a lot of the information on their website is incorrect/false? At the college level, professors will not except quotes from wikipedia. In general, have people become so lazy that internet searches are all about the first hit/result? Why use a source that in many cases is not credible?
P.S. if you didn't realize anyone can add information on wikipedia.