Yep, you are right, i am just mad at myself for wasting 12 pages on these idiots. I am trying to do better and not allow myself to get into senseless arguments like that where you can not convince a lunatic one way or another, especially because i become frustrated while arguing with a person who is 100% locked into their beliefs, but it is a slow process for me, and i still find myself wallowing in shit once in a while.
Gayfly, you obviously miss the irony that the "creationist" side of your cartoon exactly fits that stupid teapot analogy you hold so dear. No way can one conclude something about the origin of the universe with a circular argument about a fictional teapot.
Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy illustrates the fallacy of unsupported strong beliefs rather than having anything to do with the origin of the universe. It's about the flaw of reasoning in the belief of something because you can't disprove it rather than because you can support it. I'm sorry you missed that point. I thought it was obvious. And I think when you start second-guessing recognized experts in their fields on the basis of "common sense findings" supported by D-List agenda-driven sources, that's when you find yourself in goofball territory. Not unlike the truthers.
CIA chat room operatives are known to pose as conspiracy nuts, jew haters, etc. ***Public Service Announcement from Mycroft "Shortie" Holmes ***
No, you missed the point. Russell's article containing his flawed teapot analogy was titled "Is There a God?" which absolutely does have to do with the origin of the universe. You also missed the point that Russell's teapot is not necessarily unfalsifiable unless it DOES exist. Which may have something to do with why the article was commissioned but not published. Russell was an atheist with an agenda and his flawed analogy has been overblown by atheists and God-haters to either falsely "disprove" the existence of God or at least argue in favor God's non-existence as you have done. Just because an "expert" says something, it's not necessarily sound. That's more flawed thinking. You really ought to try thinking for yourself for a change.
On a related note, did anyone note the fact that temperatures in the gas pipeline explosion in California were around 1,200 degrees F, far higher than the ignition temperature of natural gas?
If you are not capable of comprehending even the most rudimentary rules of logic, since that was Russell's only point, then I see little point in continuing this discussion. But as a parting thought... Then what about when a simpleton says something?
It was at 2000 psi, duh. PV = nRT There is no ignition source or much oxygen inside the pipeline. Its a little troublesome if it escapes however.