Essay:Ken Wars: Oxy Strikes Again
Don't think Ken that anyone failed to notice the fact that you only chose to harp on a piece of snark by myself rather than all of my substantive points in an attempt to pull discussion away from what inconveniences you. In doing so, Ken, you've already forfeit the debate, but I'll be willing to continue playing along for my own amusement.
Ken, you said that a "vast majority of scientists between the years 1565 and 1685" were Christians, no fucking shit they were. This was before the paradigm shift that swung the general direction of science away from Christianity, indeed, by the early 1800s scientists, most of them still Christian, were beginning to realize that, for example, the Earth was far older than merely 6000 years old. They realized it was this way when, for example, fossils of creatures never seen by man were discovered in ancient strata, and specifically they noticed the ordered layer of where these fossil beasts could be found, something that was completely contrary to what would be expected from a chaotic flood. Remember, these were Christians, including preeminent British paleontologist and anatomist Richard Owen, who would be a lifelong opponent of Darwin. How could they, the foremost experts of their day, be wrong and you, some internet troll who's never read a book in his life that wasn't the Bible, be right? Another question that was brought up was why certain creatures were found in the fossil record only in certain places, but not elsewhere. Why were toxodont and glyptodont fossils found in South America but not Europe? The Bible doesn't have the answer for that, but you know who does? That's right, good old Charlie Darwin himself.
Also notice that none of their discoveries were gotten from divine revelation or from meticulous study of the Bible, but by the rigorous, tried-and-true scientific method, and don't try poisoning the well by conflating atheism with science, science is agnostic on matters of faith, it has no place in scientific methodology, this principle being dubbed methodological naturalism of course. Even these religious scientists stuck to that principle when conducting their experiments and formulating their hypotheses, why is that? Try explaining to me why that is in your follow up response, capisce? I don't expect much from an intellectually dishonest cretin as yourself, but I'll wait and see before announcing what has already been rendered inevitable by basic probability and game theory.
Oh yeah, one more thing, the Bible says that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, even though Hipparchus and Copernicus proved the Bible wrong on both counts. Was your god drunk when writing the Bible or what?
- ↑ "More incompetence from the evolutionist and atheist Oxyaena" - from Conservapedia, talk about psychological projection wow
- ↑ "Changing Views of the History of the Earth" by Richard Harter from talk.origins
- ↑ "The Bible Proves the Earth is Round" by Mark Isaak