Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: snarks_when_bored
that creationists are largely impervious to evidence and argument.

Well, your statement is vague. It could either mean:

Most creationists are impervious to evidence and argument, or:

All creationists are impervious to most evidence and argument.

I have specific problems with both of these statements.

And, er, "that's not uncommon, these days"? Generalization?

Nope. Fact. Easily demonstrated by evidence and argument - and it probably wouldn't even require me to go outside of FR to do it.
40 posted on 12/03/2004 7:32:56 AM PST by beezdotcom (I'm usually either right or wrong...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: beezdotcom
You wrote:

Well, your statement is vague. It could either mean:

Most creationists are impervious to evidence and argument, or:

All creationists are impervious to most evidence and argument.

I have specific problems with both of these statements.

The position of 'largely' before 'impervious' rules out the second interpretation. And to expand on my statement, where are the articles published by ID writers in peer-reviewed journals of biology and paleontology? Where are the compilations of the evidence that would force reasonable evolutionary theorists to abandon their views on how life developed? I've asked on earlier threads for links to such articles and compilations of evidence, but have received no responses.

And I must insist that "that's not uncommon, these days" is in fact a generalization. Perhaps it's supportable by evidence on FReeper threads, as you say, but it's a generalization nonetheless.

45 posted on 12/03/2004 7:45:11 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson