Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
No, No, No

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 15, 2002 16:24:26 UTC

You completely do not get it.

***Harv is saying I am irrational because I believe that Noah's ark is not a fairy tale.***

False. I am saying you are irrational because you are interpreting that story in a manner that requires irrational thinking. If you want to believe in Ark, I see nothing wrong or irrational in that. Many fine people who are fundamentalists believe it, I wouldn't even dream of criticizing their beliefs.

What I am saying is that as long as you justify your belief using irrational arguments then you are a negative contributor.

*** He said as long a I believe in noah's ark, he will want me taken out of this forum.***

No. As long as you continue to spout irrational arguments and insulting the scientific-minded that you have justified your beliefs with sound arguments then I think you should be put into a Funny Room where you belong.

***Harv is basically saying that I must not argue against evolution.***

No! I am saying that you should cite peer-reviewed, accredited publications. Your arguments must not rely on exceptions, but must focus on the best explanation possible to explain all the facts. If you can do this in light of the facts of biology, geology, paleontology, etc in a rational manner, then I see no problem in opposing evolution. If you cannot do this, then you can talk about how your beliefs require that you deny evolution even though you do not have an explanation for the facts. This approach is not irrational and is respected by almost everyone.

***He is simply picking noah's ark as something which, if you don't want to know, sounds ridiculous. If I were to start a debate about any other creation idea, he would do the same as he is right now. I believe what the Bible says, and noah's ark is completely feasable.***

I don't care what you believe, I care about what you say. If you argue irrationally, then why even bother coming to a debate forum? We can only argue based on rational grounds. If you deny rationality, then your presence here doesn't make any sense other than to distract from serious debate - that is, you are acting as a distraction and as a troll.

***Harv has of yet to show me anything which would prove otherwise. Here are some links if you actually want to know the facts of the ark.***

Because you have no semblance of what rationality is.

***No matter what I do, I will be irrational in Harv's eyes. He will only say I am rational if I believe what he does. So how can I debate with him? If anyone is 'ruining' this forum, it is Harv, because he is stopping debate about creation/evolution.***

Uh... no. You can argue for creationism as long as you argue rationally. This requires that you know what rationality is I could argue for creationism without being irrational (and do a decent job - thank you very much). However, I would not be intellectually honest since I know that I would eventually lose that debate and have to give up (unless I took your approach and became irrational).


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins