FrenchyBearpaw
Take time for granite.
Do you have any idea what your point even is?Yup -- you shoulda seen the scientists appeal to NASA administration [for the blame] when those seven astronauts separated.
Upvote
0
Do you have any idea what your point even is?Yup -- you shoulda seen the scientists appeal to NASA administration [for the blame] when those seven astronauts separated.
Sure do.Do you have any idea what your point even is?
And your point is?Sure do.
You: Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
NASA scientists: Administration did it!
NASA administration: Don't come to us! That's a logical fallacy! You designed it. You built it. You installed it. You take the blame.
Sure do.
You: Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
NASA scientists: Administration did it!
NASA administration: Don't come to us! That's a logical fallacy! You designed it. You built it. You installed it. You take the blame.
When your done playing with that fish could we give it to my wife, she would like to cook it up for dinner.So you thought you might as well add a red herring to the list?
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This is what separates science from religion.
My degree is in Science, and I have no difficulty reconciling that, and my belief in God (Yahweh) and His Son, Jesus (Yeshua). I am far from alone in this."This is what separates science from religion."
But I did like his explainations, quite able to inspire that bit of wonder we should have when really thinking about what we are. I just wish he wouldnt resort to what I considered to be snide remarks and missrepresentations on the side during his explainations that did nothing to further his point.
You don't know what appeal to authority is do you?Sure do.
You: Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
NASA scientists: Administration did it!
NASA administration: Don't come to us! That's a logical fallacy! You designed it. You built it. You installed it. You take the blame.
You mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt?What proof and evidence can you supply that proves that Atheism is accurate and correct? (Please be specific.)
My two cents:
The majority of self described atheists describe their belief as something like: "We don't have enough evidence to conclude that there is a God."
The reasoning is as follows:
When you hear a claim that hasn't met it's burden of proof, you disbelieve it and don't assimilate it into your worldview. The default worldview is one without God. This is because your worldview doesn't start off with things existing, it starts off with them not existing. This isn't changed until you use your senses or reason to establish the thing exists, directly or indirectly.
Under the definition presented (in the dissenting opinion) most atheists are agnostics. That being said, the definition is wrong, as shown in hollyda's post.
i will give one to your wife and one to you as wellWhen your done playing with that fish could we give it to my wife, she would like to cook it up for dinner.
As a leader in the Field of Science Collins feels there is no conflict between Science and Religion. Why should there be when Science and Religion are both seeking to know the truth."I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views."
Oh, sorry -- thanks for the correction!You don't know what appeal to authority is do you?
The Argument from Authority is when you point to someone with authority in on subject matter and claim that that particular figure's opinion has a greater truth value than your opponent's because of their qualifications.
It has nothing to do with blame.
As a leader in the Field of Science Collins feels there is no conflict between Science and Religion. Why should there be when Science and Religion are both seeking to know the truth.
For a long time, I have wondered about this:
The optimum things that we require for our survival or optimal health are:
* In This Order.
- water
- vegetative foods
- fish / fowl (incl eggs)
- cattle / beasts (sheep, goats, etc)
"Coincidentally".......... this is the order of creation! Hmm...
Genesis 1
Actually, I prefer 99.999% known to 96% unknown.So, you prefer 100% blank to 96%?