Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:04:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
841 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> He addresses every point that you mentioned in your previous post so
> rather than me try and defend him I urge you to read the defense written
> by himself.
Actually, he doesn't address the points I make - all he produces is more
sophistry and verbal obfuscation, the main thrust of that being that
anything with the word "evolution" in it is akin to Darwin's Theory of
Evolution. I have provided a logical audit trail of why his statements and
bets are inconsistent, and his FAQ does nothing to refute it.
I've been thinking about this a bit, and have to say that if I were a
creationist (which I may or may not be) I would say what I have been saying
anyway. Whether creation or evolution is "The Truth", or something else
entirely, Dr Dino's rhetoric on that page is logically inconsistent. One
does not have to believe in anything in particular to see that.
I am not interested in theological, ethical, philosphical or metaphysical
discussions here; I would criticise an inconsistent scientist in exactly the
same manner as I criticise Dr. Dino.
Jennifer Clark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
