Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Last Visible Dog
(Opening note: Non Sequitur doesn't show up on spell check, bit of a pain since I admit to being spelling challenged at times)

If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.

Ah. I see what is happening here. We don't have a logic problem, we have a language problem. The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."

That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.

What this ends up doing is making the statement "Evolution is anti-religious" meaningless, since almost everything is anti-religious. Unless that is your point: that almost everything is anti-religious. But if that is your point and we are discussing TToE, it becomes moot, like saying "Evolutionists breathe air."

Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.

I love it when someone who asks "Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?" ends their post with an ad hominem attack.

729 posted on 09/29/2006 8:31:34 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies ]


To: freedumb2003
(Opening note: Non Sequitur doesn't show up on spell check, bit of a pain since I admit to being spelling challenged at times)

I only point out spelling errors when I am being called ignorant of something.

The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution."

I have said nothing about that statement - my position applies to this statement: "Evolution is not anti-religion" which was used as proof Wells is lying. Read the thread.

The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."

Nope - wrong again - I said nothing about the statement "evolution is anti-religion"

That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.

Non Sequitur - since I am not supporting in any way the statement "evolution is anti-religion"

736 posted on 09/29/2006 9:18:36 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies ]

To: freedumb2003
(Opening note: Non Sequitur doesn't show up on spell check, bit of a pain since I admit to being spelling challenged at times)

But it IS one of my favorite cartoons!

785 posted on 09/29/2006 2:50:26 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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