Then it is no less valid to say that as long as on person in the Creationist field is anti-science you cannot logically say that "Creationism is not anti-science." I understand it is a matter of opinion on both sides, but I don't consider conclusions drawn from the personal opinions of a single source to be of any particular value. It would be just as valid for me to make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the words and actions of Jim Jones.
That is the only point I am making.
If you quantify the Evo retort your might have a valid statement.
My response to Mr. Well's argument is every bit as quantified as his original assertions.
Absolutely! It is just simple logic.
but I don't consider conclusions drawn from the personal opinions of a single source to be of any particular value.
Good for you - not sure what that has to do with this thread.
It would be just as valid for me to make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the words and actions of Jim Jones.
What are you claiming are "sweeping generalization(s)"?
This is simple logic - you can't argue with simple logic. If one in a group has a trait, it is invalid and illogical to claim nobody in the group has the trait.
Examples of illogical invalid statements:
Christians are not murderers
Catholics are not lawbreakers
Evolution is not anti-religion
starting to see the light?