This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
A Question for All of you Climate People (Now about Other Stuff!)
Return to board index
Post by
Queggy
the sun far away, we cant see him.
/cough
, you might want to read the description.
Post by
L33tsauce
Personally, I believe that the Sun God Helios rides his horse-driven chariot across the sky each day to make the sun rise and set. There's even a book I read that backs up my beliefs, true story.
I realize what you are trying to do, but for the sake of the argument -
Why then do we have pictures of the sun? Shouldn't it be pictures of him and his chariot?
the sun far away, we cant see him.
Plus, he's a God. I'm sure he can make himself invisible if he wants to.
Post by
Queggy
Plus, he's a God. I'm sure he can make himself invisible if he wants to.
If he's invisible, how can we still get light from the sun?
Post by
L33tsauce
Plus, he's a God. I'm sure he can make himself invisible if he wants to.
If he's invisible, how can we still get light from the sun?
He's
invisible, not the sunlight.
Post by
Queggy
If he's invisible, and he's the sun, then shouldn't the light emanating forth from him be invisible to? Also, what about the picture I linked from Wiki? Shouldn't that be him?
Post by
Queggy
He isn't the Sun, he just pulls it around in the sky. Also, he could be in the picture right there. How do we know what a god looks like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios
Post by
L33tsauce
He isn't the Sun, he just pulls it around in the sky. Also, he could be in the picture right there. How do we know what a god looks like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios
Well, that'll teach me to argue about ancient Greek dieties that I know little about.
Still, who's to say that Helios isn't there, and is surrounded by a giant sphere of fire that we call the Sun?
Post by
Queggy
Except that the people who really knew all about him say that it was just him in his chariot with an aura coming out from his head. Also, what about when he visits Olympus, wouldn't we all be burned up or blinded?
Post by
Laihendi
Face it, there's just as much evidence supporting the ancient greek religion as your own.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Only Queggy could make a topic that hits 28 pages in 4 days.
/bow
And not just spam either, but serious discussion.
Face it, there's just as much evidence supporting the ancient greek religion as your own. False, I don't have to face it. However I could say there is as much evidence supporting evolution as there is the ancient Greek religion.
Post by
Skyfire
Because we have third-party evidence that that is how the world works. The only evidence that creationism has is first-party.
I choose to disagree, but obviously we aren't going to change each other's minds.
That's unfortunate. Still, would you rather:
Let the government watch and report on itself? or
Let an external party watch and report on the government?
Which do you trust more?
Post by
Laihendi
Only Queggy could make a topic that hits 28 pages in 4 days.
/bow
And not just spam either, but serious discussion.
Face it, there's just as much evidence supporting the ancient greek religion as your own. False, I don't have to face it. However I could say there is as much evidence supporting evolution as there is the ancient Greek religion.
The only problem with that is that what you're saying is flat out wrong..
Person 1: That is a tree.
Person 2: No, that is not a tree, that is a firetruck
Person 1: It has bark, it has leaves, it is wood, and it grows, it is a tree.
Person 2: Well I could just say it has bark, it has leaves, it is wood, and it grows, so it is a firetruck.
Person 1: Well you're wrong.
Person 2: Well I could just say you're wrong.
Post by
Queggy
Person 1: That is a tree.
Person 2: No, that is not a tree, that is a firetruck
Person 1: It has bark, it has leaves, it is wood, and it grows, it is a tree.
Person 2: Well I could just say it has bark, it has leaves, it is wood, and it grows, so it is a firetruck.
Person 1: Well you're wrong.
Person 2: Well I could just say you're wrong.
I have not been talking like that.
That's unfortunate. Still, would you rather:
Let the government watch and report on itself? or
Let an external party watch and report on the government?
Which do you trust more?
That's a hard choice because the first example wouldn't want to get itself in trouble and the second might have hidden agendas and therefore could be biased.
Post by
Skyfire
That's unfortunate. Still, would you rather:
Let the government watch and report on itself? or
Let an external party watch and report on the government?
Which do you trust more?
That's a hard choice because the first example wouldn't want to get itself in trouble and the second might have hidden agendas and therefore could be biased.
Wouldn't you say that the government generally has a hidden agenda all its own?
Post by
Queggy
So both choices would be the wrong choice.
Post by
Skyfire
So both choices would be the wrong choice.
What is the right choice then? I'm sure you see what I'm paralleling to, but for sake of discussion, I'd like to know. :)
Post by
Laihendi
Person 1: That is a tree.
Person 2: No, that is not a tree, that is a firetruck
Person 1: It has bark, it has leaves, it is wood, and it grows, it is a tree.
Person 2: Well I could just say it has bark, it has leaves, it is wood, and it grows, so it is a firetruck.
Person 1: Well you're wrong.
Person 2: Well I could just say you're wrong.
I have not been talking like that.
Yes, you have. Laihendi says one thing that's accepted as fact by the vast majority of the educated world. You say "well what if I say that, but replace one word with god, that makes me right now!".
Post by
Queggy
What is the right choice then? I'm sure you see what I'm paralleling to, but for sake of discussion, I'd like to know. :)
Both of them working together.
Yes, you have. Laihendi says one thing that's accepted as fact by the vast majority of the educated world. You say "well what if I say that, but replace one word with god, that makes me right now!".
What I'm trying to do is prove how childish and stupid most of your arguments have been.
Post by
Skyfire
Both of them working together.
How so? Is there a superiority in one of them? Do they coincide without superiority? They obviously can't coincide without dealing with each other at certain points...
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
