On the last question I asked about Richard Darkins, a lot of Atheist questioned me on exactly what type of contradictions, double-standards, poorly-thought-out arguments, logical fallacies, and glaringly bad scientific factual errors did he made. Here is the list of errors that I found on his book.
Atheists, if please explain or justified theses errors for me.
(1) Science, by definition, deals only with the study of routine, repeatable natural processes. Miracles are, by definition, singularities caused by a supernatural source. Science can neither confirm NOR DENY miracles. (Too bad your homeboy Dawkins can’t seem to figure out this limitation of science). Saying “Miracles can’t happen because they defy the laws of science,” is like saying “2+2 cannot equal 4 because that defys the laws of grammar.” Both are colossal category errors!
(2) Darkins and a lot of Atheists always told me that a theory will not be taken seriously if it is not “peer reviewed”. But as far as “peer reviewed” journals go, do you suppose Galileo had “peer reviewed” journals supporting his helio-centric model of the solar system? Just curious. Do you reject his model too?
(3) Dawkins himself does, in scientific consensus. This is pretty silly in light of the fact which Dawkins himself admits, that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein’s discoveries.Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton’s theories were proven wrong. There’s very little scientific “truth” which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny on “science”? Now who sounds silly?
(4) As far as your claim that the Bible “has been proven wrong” so “many times,” you’re simply showing your ignorance of history, archeology, and Biblical transmission. Every time the skeptics have crowed that the Bible was nonsense because it mentioned some historical detail that wasn’t mentioned in secular history, they were later proven horribly wrong as new archeological discoveries confirmed those details. Now how is the foolish one?
- Science Help. Can someone answer and explain these for me? I’m having trouble in this part of science class.?
- Solar Producer: Does The Shrinking Atmosphere & Recent Lowlevels Of Solar Radiation Help Explain The Mini Iceage & Maunder Min? (6/12/2011)
- Humor me please. I did this when I was a kid but can’t remember how?
- Solar Producer: Could Someone Please Check My Essay For Grammatical Errors And Punctuation ? (6/17/2011)
- Solar Producer: What Are The Answers To The Follwoing Questions? PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK.. GETTING GRADED!? (5/11/2011)