| Snoopy said:
Edit: I see that you think I am a waste of time. Good bye then :( |
If you weren't being such a hypocrite, refusing all elements of proof given to you while simultaneously offering none to the contrary, then this wouldn't be a waste of time. You have no interest in debate, you only appear to wish to push your agenda and be right despite being utterly outmatched by others in this thread who are providing far more substantial and respectable counterpoints.
The hypocrisy is what gets me the most, though. You demand absolute proof of what scientists theorize but don't seem to think that God or any god-like being demands equal proof? you're quick to dismiss scientific claims which are unprovable but still have no problem insisting that God just 'is' and that, philisophically, god 'has to be'? Nope, sorry buddy. That's not how you debate, that's how you push a faulty worldview.
The difference between science and religion is that Science doesn't claim to have all the answers while providing many of them while religion claims to have all the answers while providing none.
Edit: Furthermore, I just looked at all of your points and actually facepalmed. It's almost like you don't understand the purpose or process of the scientific method or something. "Poking fun at-" scientists for "Changing their beliefs when they think they know everything" is both a gross misunderstanding of how science works while also ironically a clear example of how science works. It's almost like you actively resist and hate the idea that people could change and update their views or understanding as they learn more about the world or conduct more thorough experiments. It's almost like the very idea that new information could alter one's perception of the world offends you. If that's the case, then it's no wonder you are on the wrong side of history.
Last edited by Alara317 - on 07 September 2018
