Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Cerebrawl:

Westaway:
In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

They had nothing to publish. The church was effectively reclusive monasteries wherein the monks would copy previous works, mostly the Bible but not exclusively. These were responsible for saving a large amount of works, besides the fact that if someone actually sought for "education" they would get it at the church. The clergy were the only literate people in continental Europe.

Cerebrawl:
We regained some of the works from the old great thinkers of greece and rome because it was preserved by the muslims, and some of this being left behind in al-andalus(spain) when the Ottomans were driven out. This refinding of knowledge brought about the renaissance and the age of enlightenment, where people moved away from faith and more towards reason. It was in the islamic world that had been preserving knowledge and making advances up to this point, much of that because they welcomed everyone, including "doubters", as fine a name for atheists as any. (this before islam turned anti-science not much later).

So to say that the church was the preserver of knowledge is historical revisionism at its very worst!

Humanism was the Renaissance. The true break from faith (theism to deism) happened during the enlightenment. Everything else you have said was correct, but not at all contradictory to what I said. I was clear that the Muslims in Spain/Northern Africa/Ottoman Empire also preserved a great deal of knowledge.

Semes:

Westaway:

immortalfrieza:
Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I'd love some citations on this claim in particular.

I find it amusing you request citations when a previous claim by yourself, that theistic philosophy in greece created the scientific model is complete fiction. So do you have any sources to back that up?

I find it amusing that you believe Aristotle is a fiction.
http://www.egs.edu/library/aristotle/articles/

Westaway:

Cerebrawl:

Westaway:
In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

They had nothing to publish. The church was effectively reclusive monasteries wherein the monks would copy previous works, mostly the Bible but not exclusively. These were responsible for saving a large amount of works, besides the fact that if someone actually sought for "education" they would get it at the church. The clergy were the only literate people in continental Europe.

Yes, an enforced monopoly on literacy and learning that lead to a thousand years of stagnation. A thousand year void in innovation, discovery and progress. During which medical knowledge plummeted and those who had any were persecuted because "the Lord" was supposed to have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

Westaway:

I find it amusing that you believe Aristotle is a fiction.
http://www.egs.edu/library/aristotle/articles/

You think Aristotle religious? Considering how little we know about his life, I feel you may have trouble back that up with anything.

Cerebrawl:

Westaway:

Cerebrawl:

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

They had nothing to publish. The church was effectively reclusive monasteries wherein the monks would copy previous works, mostly the Bible but not exclusively. These were responsible for saving a large amount of works, besides the fact that if someone actually sought for "education" they would get it at the church. The clergy were the only literate people in continental Europe.

Yes, an enforced monopoly on literacy and learning that lead to a thousand years of stagnation. A thousand year void in innovation, discovery and progress. During which medical knowledge plummeted and those who had any were persecuted because "the Lord" was supposed to have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

They were the Apple of their time.

Hmm, Apple... that reminds me of something. Something about a tree and a garden...

Semes:

Westaway:

I find it amusing that you believe Aristotle is a fiction.
http://www.egs.edu/library/aristotle/articles/

You think Aristotle religious? Considering how little we know about his life, I feel you may have trouble back that up with anything.

Aristotle's Metaphysics is an entire work about the existence of God.

Cerebrawl:

Yes, an enforced monopoly on literacy and learning that lead to a thousand years of stagnation. A thousand year void in innovation, discovery and progress. During which medical knowledge plummeted and those who had any were persecuted because "the Lord" was supposed to have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

The Dark ages is to put it bluntly, bollocks. Intellectualism did not shrink after the fall of Rome it carried on growing as normal and some would argue people were actually more free intellectually in certain parts of Christian Europe than they would have been under Rome.

Really it seems to me that some people simply want to believe in this supposed Christian oppression of science because it conforms to there view of Christianity as being inherently unscientific (which granted is hardly an unwarranted view given the amount of crazy creationist they have) and that the Church in the middle ages saw science as blasphemous pursuit, when the truth is really quite the contrary and that actually science was seen then as a highly Christian pursuit (because they saw Natural Philosophy as an attempt to understand God's creation.) Despite what people would like to believe Christianity and Christian Philosophy actually had a huge part in establishing modern scientific thought and that understanding of the natural world.

Westaway:

Aristotle's Metaphysics is an entire work about the existence of God.

No, its not. Its about causality, forms and structure. Just because post-Aristotle religious scholars have interpreted an "unmoved mover" into their deity does not mean that is what Aristotle meant. Remember Aristotle lived and died before 300 BC. Long before Judaism was anything but a tiny religion in a small area to the east.

Not this shit again...

For fucks sake. It's not even a question of opinions. It's facts vs. fiction. Stop acting like they're on equal footing, because they're not. Not even in the same ballpark, hell, they're not even playing the same game. Just no.

I had a friend (note the had)that went completly gaga for Ken Hamm. I was trying to be respectful and open minded, even though he believed that dinosaurs were dragons and sodomite became one of his favorite words. Then he turned this crap against me for really no reason at all. Im a lot less tolerant than I used to be.

You can be a scientist who is also a creationist (they are rare, however), but there is no such thing as "creation science". The religious underpinnings and justification for creationism are just that - religious, not scientific.

Creationists aren't "stupid" - but they are fanatically devoted to their religious beliefs. God created the world, and to them, that's the end of the story. Their belief is true, because to them, it just IS. There is no scope or room for argument with genuine creationists. Any proof you give that their biblical account of creation might be wrong will inevitably be written off as "not good enough" or "a conspiracy by the secular humanists" or "lies" or, in the worst cases, "planted by the devil". You've even got creationists who believe that God INTENTIONALLY created the world to make it LOOK like it is 6 or so billion years old and that life evolved, because he wanted to "test our faith".

Creationists are never willing to even hazard a thought that they might be wrong. They never offer hard and fast rules on the falsifiability of their own theories, and as such they are not scientific theories. Just once I'd like a creationist to openly say "If I saw X, I'd stop believe in creationism".

I think it's a splendid idea and in return, Neil DeGrasse Tyson can revise all of the science textbooks in Texas okay?

I may not understand this show's production schedule, but isn't it a bit late to be asking for this kind of thing? I mean, even if they would consider it, aren't pretty much all the episodes so far along they're either done and ready for airing, or in advanced post production? It's like they're asking them to scrap an episode and remake it to include creationism segments. It's just not realistic in terms of time consumption and money it would cost them for the producers to do that.

On the other hand, maybe Faulkner means that he wishes that creationism was considered from the beginning. But it's a show being funded and produced by people who don't believe in that; it's their money and their time. You can easily go fund and produce your own show about creationism if you're feeling so underrepresented. Granted, you're not going to have all that sweet, sweet Seth McFarlane and Neil Degrasse Tyson money and name recognition. But they're not required to give your views the time of day if they don't want to, just as you wouldn't be required to if you did make your own creationism show.

"let me just shut up and accept anything I hear as fact"

What, you mean like you did with the Bible?

Don't start whining because your fairy tales have no evidence to back them up. I don't see you complaining that the Hindu creation myth isn't getting airtime, or Australian Aborigine's creation myth, or any of the ancient religions that have just as much validity as Christianity's creation myth.

JazzJack2:

Really it seems to me that some people simply want to believe in this supposed Christian oppression of science because it conforms to there view of Christianity as being inherently unscientific (which granted is hardly an unwarranted view given the amount of crazy creationist they have) and that the Church in the middle ages saw science as blasphemous pursuit, when the truth is really quite the contrary and that actually science was seen then as a highly Christian pursuit (because they saw Natural Philosophy as an attempt to understand God's creation.) Despite what people would like to believe Christianity and Christian Philosophy actually had a huge part in establishing modern scientific thought and that understanding of the natural world.

I feel like what you've written is half true. You were right that they were not out to get science as a practice. Rather they were out to find those that had ideas that challenged the scripture that held up for several centuries. But most of those ideas were the product of people who practiced science or had far reaching ideas (like Giordano Bruno). The Ptolemaic universe was so widely accepted for hundreds of years since its inception. It wasn't until Copernicus and Galileo with his invention of the telescope were these heliocentric ideas submitted for review. And the Catholic church was not the happiest with Galileo. They didn't like the idea that the sun had sunspots (they viewed it as perfect), or that the Earth went around the sun. It wasn't science that they were after, it was the products of science.

Now it could be my lack of background with religious history (so please forgive me if I'm wrong), but I've never heard of it being mentioned that the Church was a supporter of science. According to James Burke in his Connections series, the traditionalists did not like the idea of being able to challenge the authority and test that same authority. And this came about from the new found knowledge in old books regarding the sciences of astronomy and medicine. People wanted to learn how to use science to use these practices, but the Church wasn't so happy about the methods they used. Now, that isn't to say there weren't any religious thinkers in other eras in history that took a part of science (take a look at Kepler). So could you help fill in the gaps so my brain can work this all out? What source says that the Church was a supporter of science?

Nooners:
Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it isn't true.

OT: You want airtime for Creationist theories? Prove it. Come find proof that God not only exists, but also created the universe. Until then, go sit in the corner.

Even if you could "disprove" the fact that species evolve over time, that doesn't mean the creation myth of religion X is automatically true by default.

Chessrook44:
See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

IKsn't that basically how they try and back-door in intelligent design?

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

I actually came here to say pretty much that.

Also, there are very few scientists who don't accept Darwinian evolution, and even fewer who would seriously endorse creationism.

Nooners:
Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it contradicts most specific ideas of God, makes God pretty much superfluous, and is pointless padding?

I mean, if you want to believe it, fine. I have no evidence that it's not true. But it doesn't jive with the issues at hand for sure.

Thoralata:

OT: You want airtime for Creationist theories? Prove it. Come find proof that God not only exists, but also created the universe. Until then, go sit in the corner.

Or, you know, since it's TV, make your own special. If people can make 9-11 hoax documentaries....

Korolev:
You can be a scientist who is also a creationist (they are rare, however)

They're not rare. What's rare is creationists in specific, shall we say "relevant" fields.

Creationists aren't "stupid"

Some are, some aren't.

I guess what you're saying is true if you mean they're not inherently so, but you then go on to replace one blanket statement with another, so I doubt that very much.

Rhykker:
Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I like how you ask others not to attack anyone's religious views when you ... just did that.

Furthermore, evolution still has many holes to work out of its mythos before it can be considered anything other than just a theory. Anyone who says otherwise is just as ignorant as they accuse others of being.

Also, I will not be revisiting this thread, so anyone replying to my comment trying to troll me into some petty little flame war will be disappointed. Go watch Kent Hovind instead.

Neta:
Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

Hey, I totally want to talk about how the universe was created by Uranus copulating with Gaia and that's why Altas has to hold the sky up or else he'll crush everyone trying to have sec with the earth again.

It's as valid a creation theory as Genesis.

Failing that, Can I tell my theory about how the world was created from Ymir's dead body? Okay, it's not my theory but it's still bloody awesome.

thewatergamer:
how do we know that an intelligent designer created earth and then used evolution as its way of creating us?

You tell me. How do we know there aren't leprechauns prancing around that disappear as soon as someone looks at them with their magic powers, which they use to erase all evidence of their existence? Because your question is of a similar nature.

thewatergamer:
they have nothing to disprove our theories

Because your hypothesis is non-falsifiable. Which is a problem for creationists, not the rest of us.

thewatergamer:
they are asking for some exposure and if people truly want this to be "fair" they should be allowed to express their opinions

Should we teach Islamic, Jewish and Hindu creationist stories, the origin myths of the Greeks and Norse, and Native American creation tales as well? What? Can they not express their opinions now? Shall we include UFOs in history books? Show them building the pyramids? It's somebody's opinion, after all. How about the flat earthers? They're still around. Where do we draw the line, and on what basis?

James Rednok:

I will not be revisiting this thread, so anyone replying to my comment trying to troll me into some petty little flame war will be disappointed. Go watch Kent Hovind instead.

I was hoping to actually discuss the whole "it's only a theory" thing, but suit yourself.

Sofus:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

Is that odder or otter? Either way all praise the Great Otter. Let us all give thanks and partake in the ritual consuming of sacred muffins.

Dalisclock:

Neta:
Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

Hey, I totally want to talk about how the universe was created by Uranus copulating with Gaia and that's why Altas has to hold the sky up or else he'll crush everyone trying to have sec with the earth again.

It's as valid a creation theory as Genesis.

Failing that, Can I tell my theory about how the world was created from Ymir's dead body? Okay, it's not my theory but it's still bloody awesome.

I hate to say this, you've got it all wrong. Allow me to tell you about my faith, The Church of the Eternal Timelord. We believe our mystical savior has saved the Earth countless times from alien invasions that have been covered up. Including one that started all live on Earth, and is also the reason why the Mona Lisa we currently have is a fake! (But *THEY* won't tell you that.) We have a lot of documentation you can either read, or watch, and learn how our savior died for your sins. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died.

We're all pretty sure he's gonna die at least another 12 times for your sins.

Nooners:
Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Prove it.

Thats all scientists (real scientists I mean, not make believe ones) are asking. It's not a case of not understanding. Religion has its place but not in science. The case for creationism put forward with 'scientific' rationale by creationists comes across a lot like the 'science' the Nazis used to justify racial superiority.

James Rednok:

Rhykker:
Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I like how you ask others not to attack anyone's religious views when you ... just did that.

Furthermore, evolution still has many holes to work out of its mythos before it can be considered anything other than just a theory. Anyone who says otherwise is just as ignorant as they accuse others of being.

Also, I will not be revisiting this thread, so anyone replying to my comment trying to troll me into some petty little flame war will be disappointed. Go watch Kent Hovind instead.

The traditional response from a creationist when they know they have lost the argument...

"i'm not talking to you anymore!"

James Rednok:

Rhykker:
Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I like how you ask others not to attack anyone's religious views when you ... just did that.

Furthermore, evolution still has many holes to work out of its mythos before it can be considered anything other than just a theory. Anyone who says otherwise is just as ignorant as they accuse others of being.

Also, I will not be revisiting this thread, so anyone replying to my comment trying to troll me into some petty little flame war will be disappointed. Go watch Kent Hovind instead.

Oh that whole attempt to drag science down to your level again. It's not a religion, it's science.

Oh and in scientific terms a theory is the highest order of knowledge. We've been over this a few times in this thread already but the relevant explanation is here: In depth rebuttal.

But since you said we should watch some Kent Hovind, let's do that:

Oh right that's why we don't listen to that convicted fraud, because he has no idea what he's talking about.

Actually I might as well link the whole video, for any patient viewers, it's quit a fun one:

Dalisclock:

Neta:
Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

Hey, I totally want to talk about how the universe was created by Uranus copulating with Gaia and that's why Altas has to hold the sky up or else he'll crush everyone trying to have sec with the earth again.

It's as valid a creation theory as Genesis.

Failing that, Can I tell my theory about how the world was created from Ymir's dead body? Okay, it's not my theory but it's still bloody awesome.

I was always fond of the theory that the world began as a bunch of broken eggs a giant naked lady rolled on. (Kalevala)

I recall writing an essay on how this was supported by the geology and the fossil record (as much as Genesis myth, at any rate), I need to dig it up for occasions like this.

Lieju:

I was always fond of the theory that the world began as a bunch of broken eggs a giant naked lady rolled on. (Kalevala)

I recall writing an essay on how this was supported by the geology and the fossil record (as much as Genesis myth, at any rate), I need to dig it up for occasions like this.

I like the one that is basically one of the early Star Trek episodes, where the maniacal creator with godlike powers turns out to be a little kid having fun and gets scolded by his energy being godlike parents.

You are free to believe whatever you want; you may even consider our beliefs to be facts.

But asking a scientific program, a show that stakes it's claim on dealing in facts, to regard and regurgitate your beliefs as if they were supported by logic and evidence is unreasonable, and a little bit irresponsible.

DragonStorm247:

Shaidz:

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Ieyke:

But the fact remains, when we get down to pedantic brass tacks, anyone who claims to be a true Atheist is as much an idiot as a Creationist is.
Agnostic, fine.
Agnostic Theist, fine.
Agnostic Atheist, fine.

Claiming to be a true Atheist - i.e. that you truly KNOW there is no such thing as a deity - is folly. You cannot definitively KNOW. It is utterly impossible. It's as much folly as claiming belief in Creationism, or any other idea disproved by science.
It's fine to be an Agnostic Atheist - to THINK, and FEEL very sure that there are no gods, just as long as you acknowledge that you do not actually KNOW that which is impossible to know.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when debating from the Atheist point of view. We're here opposing falsehoods and nonsense, not championing the "truth" of things that cannot be proven.

I challenge that on the ground of specific claims, only. We cannot claim that unspecified "gods" (as a general term), do not exist but it could be argued that we could know that a specific god, with detailed qualities does not exist.

For example, anyone who claims that their god as creator of everything is all powerful, all-knowing and good, can be told that their god doesn't exist since the those qualities are incompatible with each other. Also any chrsitan who claims that the bible is true and accurate can be told that their god, specifically, does not exist since the bible is self-contradictory and demonstrably factually incorrect. Of course you'd have to add a disclaimer that there could still be "a god", just not that one, with those specific qualities.

kael013:
And in turn you use me, my family, two-thirds of my friends, etc. etc. as examples without knowing us. Now, I can't speak for them, but if science could create life from nothing or definitively answer any of the "we still don't know how this happened" questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists then I would reconsider my stance.

This is known as the God of the gaps approach. The problem is that just because you don't know the answer to a question, it doesn't make all other answers equally possible. For instance, no one knows the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but if I started claiming that it was me, people would quite rightly think I'd gone nuts.

In short, I'm like you, stop generalizing a group as big as "religious".

Let's look again at that quote:

VanQ:
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

As you can see, the key word is "almost". The fact that you could be persuaded by evidence does not change the fact that many religious people could not, any more than the fact that Neil deGrasse Tyson has his own TV show changes the fact that most people don't.

I've never understood why people think of science and religion as separate, opposing viewpoints. Why couldn't God have created everything to run in a logical, scientific way?

The reason they're "opposing viewpoints" isn't that they produce contradictory outcomes (necessarily), it's their approach to knowledge. Religion generally emphasizes faith, while science demands evidence. Look at the story of Doubting Thomas, for instance. The moral many religious people take away is that Thomas was wrong to doubt Jesus, and that "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." By contrast, any scientist would tell you that Thomas was acting quite sensibly.

KazeAizen:

I'd never insist Creationism is a science and I'm one of the people who believe in it. I believe in Evolution too. Oh dear God I just contradicted myself. I'm a sane religious person who doesn't dismiss certain sciences but still believes in happenings like Creationism! Yeah if you couldn't tell I'm sick to freaking death of stuff popping up like this and then I come under fire because I so happen to be a believer. Anyone who claims themselves as a Creation Scientist is ignorant. Now a "Creationist" as in someone who believes in The Creation fine. There are some of us out there who actually believe certain things in the Bible are more metaphorical than literal. Who knows? Perhaps The Big Bang and The Creation are one and the same thing? One day the Universe is just there.

That's a fallacy called "argument from ignorance" You don't know what else did it, therfor god. We don't know how the universe started, as in what was before the big bang, but there's no good reason whatsoever to claim that a god made it. There's literally no more justification for saying it was god, than saying that a giant, purple, cupcake-shitting unicorn, farted the universe into existence.

KazeAizen:
An interesting theory was shown to me one day by a Religion Professor at University of Dallas. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have some form of second coming or coming of the savior at the end of the world. While she was explaining this she drew two parallel lines and then had them slowly intersect showing that while we may follow different beliefs and practices they are all converging on the same point in the end. Who's to say that The Big Bang and The Creation aren't similar to that? I'm mad at these threads showing up here. I'm mad because I know the majority rule of the place and then I suddenly feel alone when I'm the one guy on the opposite side of the fence trying to inject logic or at least some decency into the thread but get jumped on because I share the unpopular opinion.

Well for one thing, islam and christianity both stem directly from jusdaism, so it's natural that they would incorporate some of it's beliefs. What about all the other religions, which massively outnumber these 3, which DON'T have messianic apocalypses? They're not all convergin on the same point in the end. Oh and just because someone is a professor, deosn't mean they know a thing about the universe. That's a fallacy called appeal to authority. You can be important and wrong.

Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to believe that magic created the universe, but you're in the wrong to get mad at people discussing religious extremists who try to get their demonstrably wrong, magical ideas aired on scientifc journals and you can't seriously expect people not to ridicule them for it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here