Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins

[VehementiDominus]

Let's not bring the crown into the circus, eh?

Then let's not assume two people had anything to do with eachother just because they lived in the same era, eh?

I mean, Pope Leo XIII was alive at the same time as well, why not stick him in there? Queen Victoria, Darwin, Barnum and Leo XIII probably all had a tea party together. Mahatma Gandhi was only a lad, then, but I bet he was there, too.

 

[Delphiki]

And you and all your sci-fi brethren agree on how the moon was formed?

This has been explained to you more times than a flight attendant does their pre-flight dance in a lifetime. Why do you insist on still trolling the same argument? I guess I'll just keep repeating the same answer until you finally decide to read it... Maybe one day...

We all agree that we don't know for certain which model of the moon's formation is the correct one. As we collect new information, it will indicate further which hypothesis is the most accurate. We can do that with hypothesis -- that's the beauty of it. A hypothesis isn't the assertion of alleged facts, it's an educated guess based on prior knowledge. If you knew what the scientific methos is, you'd know this.

See, religion likes to try and discredit science by pointing out that science doesn't know everything. Meanwhile, science can discredit religion because religion doesn't know anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then let's not assume two people had anything to do with eachother just because they lived in the same era, eh?

You assume what you want -- I'll assume what I want.

 

[Skavau]

You assume what you want -- I'll assume what I want.

So you're just gunna assume things to be true that you have no reason to believe?

 

[Delphiki]

So you're just gunna assume things to be true that you have no reason to believe?

Don't tell me you're just now figuring this out.

 

[AV1611VET]

We all agree that we don't know for certain which model of the moon's formation is the correct one.

Then what's your beef with '30,000 different interpretations' -- (like that's even true)?

 

[VehementiDominus]

So you're just gunna assume things to be true that you have no reason to believe?

Isn't that what his whole faith is built on, anyway?

 

[VehementiDominus]

Then what's your beef with '30,000 different interpretations' -- (like that's even true)?

Because each of those 30k interpretations claim to be the inerrent, total and complete "Truth", and that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one - all the others are wrong. Many of them try to push their beliefs on others and force people to live their lives according to what they believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're just gunna assume things to be true that you have no reason to believe?

I went out of my way to phrase that as a QUESTION: 77

So you think what you want -- your opinions can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because each of those 30k interpretations claim to be the inerrent, total and complete "Truth", and that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one - all the others are wrong. Many of them try to push their beliefs on others and force people to live their lives according to what they believe.

I'll ask a second time: What's your beef with 30,000 different interpretations?

I'm not interested about those who claim there's is the right one -- else even two different interpretations would make your point.

You guys emphasize "30,000" -- (the lie, by the way, is 38,000) -- but you guys place your emphasis on the number, not the claim.

So, once again, what's your beef with "30,000"?

 

[Greg1234]

So you're just gunna assume things to be true that you have no reason to believe?

Alternatively, on what basis does he determine the materialist's position of unreliability to be true?

 

[Skavau]

I went out of my way to phrase that as a QUESTION: 77

So you think what you want -- your opinions can take a hike.

AV, why do you bother talking to people here? You don't seem to care what anyone thinks, don't care about accuracy of your beliefs, don't care to be challenged on yours, don't care to learn about other people's beliefs and in general don't seem to be interested in any self-growth.

 

[Skavau]

Don't tell me you're just now figuring this out.

Oh I'm not. It is rare to see it openly admitted though. How often is it that someone says "I don't care what the evidence says, I'll believe and assume whatever I feel like." Do they expect to be taken seriously on anything after that ever again?

 

[Delphiki]

Then what's your beef with '30,000 different interpretations' -- (like that's even true)?

Because each of those 30,000 denominations claim they have the truth. Whereas, in science, there can easily be multiple hypothesis because they are supposed to be hypothetical. That's the difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because each of those 30,000 denominations claim they have the truth.

Then your point -- that there's 30,000 different interpretations -- can take a hike.

 

[Delphiki]

I'll ask a second time: What's your beef with 30,000 different interpretations?

I'm not interested about those who claim there's is the right one -- else even two different interpretations would make your point.

You guys emphasize "30,000" -- (the lie, by the way, is 38,000) -- but you guys place your emphasis on the number, not the claim.

So, once again, what's your beef with "30,000"?

You're really going to avoid the point of the discussion by hanging on the number we used? You can do that if you want, but it actually hurts your case considering I gave a huge underestimation.

Then your point -- that there's 30,000 different interpretations -- can take a hike.

That wasn't the point.

This is the point I am making:
Multiple hypothesis is OK because each one is hypothetical.
Multiple denominations are not OK because each of the 38,000 claims to have the inerrant absolute truth, all different from each other.
This means criticizing science, as a Christian, on the basis that there are multiple hypothesis regarding lunar origins is absurdly illogical.

Thus: Science does agree within itself. Religion does not. Jazer is wrong in saying evolutionists don't agree with each other. Jazer is equally wrong in suggesting that religion does.

Summary: Shut up about the moon, already.

 

[Greg1234]

Because each of those 30,000 denominations claim they have the truth. Whereas, in science, there can easily be multiple hypothesis because they are supposed to be hypothetical. That's the difference.

That's incorrect. A man claims that ERVs are evidence of common descent, another says that it shows no such thing, one claims red shift is the result of expansion another says it's not, one man claims that a compass needle moves as a result of magnetic fields, another can says it's the wind, a visiblist can say it's a future visible cause.

 

[Greg1234]

I'll ask a second time: What's your beef with 30,000 different interpretations?

Darwinism. It's always Darwinism. They're attempting to become a denomination- the bible shows Darwinian evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're really going to avoid the point of the discussion by hanging on the number we used? You can do that if you want, but it actually hurts your case considering I gave a huge underestimation.

Point:
Multiple hypothesis is OK because each one is hypothetical.
Multiple denominations are not OK because each of the 38,000 claims to have the inerrant absolute truth, all different from each other.
This means criticizing science, as a Christian, on the basis that there are multiple hypothesis regarding lunar origins is absurdly illogical.

Then this post:

Is that right?

Yeah I guess that's why there's 30,000 different ways to interpret the Theory of Evolution.... Oh wait... That's the bible.

Why don't you ask Ray Comfort if he believes the same creation story as Kent Hovind or Ken Ham?

... can take a hike.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

That's incorrect. A man claims that ERVs are evidence of common descent, another says that it shows no such thing, one claims red shift is the result of expansion another says it's not, one man claims that a compass needle moves as a result of magnetic fields, another can says it's the wind, a visiblist can say it's a future visible cause.

You respond to a statement about how different hypothesis can exist for the same point because none claim to be true but merely possibilities by listing possibilities and then you claim you have demonstrated that the statement is incorrect?

Worse some of those hypothesis have been proven incorrect and yet you still put them forward as though they're still accepted scientific hypothesis.

Wha?!?