It's all part of the definition war. Evos claim that because they own science, as it were, they have the right to define what and who is and is not a scientist, claiming that non-scientists don't have that right.
Then they turn around and demand the right to define non-scientific terms, rather than let those who name the name of Christ define what qualifies one to be a Christian.
If they have the right to those definitions and demand that we accept them, then by the same standard, which should be equitably applied, Christians should have the right to define what is Christianity and they should have to accept that.
Spot on about the hypocrisy. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
[[It’s all part of the definition war.]]
That’s exactly what it is- their ammo is so lacking, that their only recourse is symantics and quibblings about irrelevent issues- instead of addressing the actual science, they get into symantics wars- We’re up to 100 posts now, and I’ve not seen one evo address the topic of hte article per usual- all they can do is misrepresent what creation science is all about, and falsley claim that ICR said somethign that they didn’t- it’s like another poster who keeps tryign to indict all Christians by guilt by association for ‘not beleiving Catholics are saved’ when the FACT is that Christians DO acknowledge soem catholics are ifnact saved- that they have taken the step of salvation that the bible talks about, but remain in an institution that preaches salvation by works (note, NOT all catholic churches teach salvation by works, soem actually DO preach salvation by Christ alone) but because Christians point out the error in doctrine of Catholicism as a whole, then by golly, Christians must apparently think all catholics are unsaved accordign to some posters who yell and scream that ‘Christians don’t get to determien who is and who isn’t saved’ but turns aroudn and determines what Christians must think if they point out doctrinal error- it just never ends with these folks