Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 11612

Which way is simpler, to use the Bible as the foundation of truth, and notice that the universe fits what it says, or invent a plethora of undetectable, mathematical things like "empty space stretches the light passing though it" to protect our arche [foundational assumption about the nature of matter] that matter (atoms) cannot change-together - as a relationship?

ptolemy, EvC Forum 32 Comments [5/12/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Talisman
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Gadren

Goddidit is always easier, but that doesn't make it right.

5/12/2006 8:19:04 PM

Papabear

Just because mindless faith in religion is easier than scientific inquiry, doesn't make it correct.

The universe does not fit with what the Bible says. Read the Bible when you're sober sometime.

Just because you don't understand a plethora of mathematical things does not mean that they are not true. It may just mean that you are stupid or ignorant.

5/12/2006 8:25:44 PM

NotMe

You do not (or at least should not) hold a flawed self contradicting book to be the ultimate truth about anything.

The universe doesn't work as the bible says (Pi being roughly 3.14 instead of 3), empty space doesn't stretch light. The wave length changes, but light isn't \"stretched\" and atoms can change. The indestructible atom theory is outdated.

5/12/2006 8:30:36 PM

JohnRaptor

\"Goddidit is always easier, but that doesn't make it right.\"

But what about Ocham's razor! Simpleranswerisalwaystherightone! Goddidit is the simplest answer of all, so it must be the answer to everything! [/ fundy imitation]

5/12/2006 8:46:19 PM

Crosis

The problem is that the universe doesn't fit with the Bible, as Papabear pointed out.

5/12/2006 8:59:44 PM

Napoleon the Clown

And jumping over the edge of the GRand Canyon is much simpler than taking the donkey ride to the bottom.

5/12/2006 9:01:11 PM

mad dog

little red riding hood is even more simple to read than the bible

5/12/2006 9:16:23 PM

TDR

In reference to Occam's Razor, I would reply that Goddidit is NOT, in fact, simpler. I would instead argue that, however apparently complicated, a natural explanation is always, by definition, simpler than a supernatural one.

5/12/2006 9:18:03 PM

Huffers

Whats simpler, understanding ptolemy's point of view... or deciding he's a dumass?

5/12/2006 9:55:26 PM

Alex W.

Hey NotMe, whats up with this 'Pi=3' thing that I keep hearing?

5/12/2006 11:31:35 PM

Papabear

JohnRaptor -- Godditit may seem the simpler answer at first, but it leads to the question of the origin of God.

Moot anyway.

5/12/2006 11:35:11 PM

Julian

John the Raptist - Ockham's Razor states:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity/

Entities. God + universe has one entity too many. Can you guess which one?

5/12/2006 11:45:29 PM

whitewater55

The universe only fits what it says if you don't look at the universe, or look at it through the eyes of a 3000 year old goat herder. Otherwise, you are totaly full of shit.

5/13/2006 12:08:17 AM

Tara Mobley

Simpler != better.

5/13/2006 12:52:22 AM

Julian

Ptolemy is abundant proof of that!

5/13/2006 1:00:24 AM

Aesmael

I would have expected someone calling themself ptolemy to understand the difference between ad hoc overcomplicated descriptions of reality founded in ignorance and simpler, more elegant and (best of all) more accurate descriptions of reality founded in observation.

5/13/2006 3:09:59 AM

JustinGG

Argument by I don't understand?

5/13/2006 4:14:38 AM

ssdexecutor

Hey, Ptolemy, I've been meaning to ask you what you think of this new \"Heliocentricity\" thing. I mean, it's silly, isn't it? You and Aristotle were right, weren't you?

5/13/2006 4:34:04 AM

Prager

Must not think! Must not be rational! Must not use logic! There, now everything is so much simpler.

5/13/2006 2:32:52 PM

Meth

Originally posted by ptolemy

undetectable, mathematical things like \"empty space stretches the light passing though it\"

a) Relativity says that mass stretches space, which results in the bending of light. Try and actually know what you are talking about.
b) Relativity is detectable. In fact, it has been detected. Light from stars behind the sun deviates from its expected position (measurable during a solar eclipse).

5/13/2006 4:05:12 PM

NonHomogenized

Originally posted by Meth


a) Relativity says that mass stretches space, which results in the bending of light. Try and actually know what you are talking about.
b) Relativity is detectable. In fact, it has been detected. Light from stars behind the sun deviates from its expected position (measurable during a solar eclipse).


Until I read this, I had no idea what he was even trying to convey by \"empty space stretches the light passing though it\". I realized from the rest of the post that this guy isn't too bright, but, wow, what a moron.

5/13/2006 9:20:53 PM

David D.G.

Another fundie literally touting ignorance as a virtue and condemning knowledge as something to be avoided. Let's just hope he never runs for office; conservatives would love him.


~David D.G.

5/14/2006 2:26:08 AM

Maronan

Simple does not always imply more likely correct. Ptolemy here is simple, but he's also wrong!

5/14/2006 5:50:11 AM

JohnRaptor

Julian and to a lesser extent PapaBear:

I'm afraid you might have mistaken my ironic comment for a serious one.

5/15/2006 2:25:09 AM

Berny

Alex W. (#38798) asks Hey NotMe, whats up with this 'Pi=3' thing that I keep hearing?

The Bible states in 2 Chronicles 4:2 that
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Thereby making pi equal to three.

5/15/2006 6:18:53 PM
1 2