You mean this scripture?
Holy Scripture
Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
You are absolutely right. That is why such an argument is logically invalid.
Which is why I was somewhat surprised to hear them from someone attacking Creationism--by their own lights, they ought to know better ;-)
Not quite the same thing. Creationism is not a scientific idea, and it is reasonable to attack the people who make moral proclamations, if they fail to live up to them.
The difference is that science bases its authority on the objectivity of its observations, the fact that they can be repeated by any competent person. Religions are based on unique events witnessed by a few individuals, and their credibility is essential to the credibility of the claims to truth.
There have been attempts to censor scientific observations based on morality, excluding from publicationfor example, the data compiled by the Germans and Japanese during WWII in their cruel experiments. Such censorship makes sense only if it discourages future cruelty.
You wrote:
"Not quite the same thing. Creationism is not a scientific idea, and it is reasonable to attack the people who make moral proclamations, if they fail to live up to them."
I believe there is a misunderstanding or two here. ;-)
My point was that scientists (as you went on to explain)
take pains to rely on repeated observation under controlled conditions, etc. They also lay great stress on
_logical thought_ as opposed to revelation.
To paraphrase you "...Evolutionism is a scientific idea,
and it is reasonable to attack the people who make logical
proclamations, if they fail to adhere to the rules of logic."
So far, so good. (*)
The surprise I referred to was that someone espousing
the scientific viewpoint would engage in such an egregious logical fallacy (this bad person subscribes to your belief, so it must be false) to advance their point.
Unless, of course, they were merely trolling.
Cheers!
(*) For the nonce, my doctorate is in molecular collision theory.
So God might have created the world in six days, but in his creation he would have left dinosaur fossils that were already aged a great deal?
That's one allusion you'll not sneak by me unnoticed!
Damon Runyon placemarker.
You mean this scripture?
A pal of Damon Runyon, from Chicago, who carries a 'John Roscoe' and a pair of dice with no dots on them (he had them removed for good luck, but he remembers where they were.)
;-)
See also: "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown"
True. However, the situation we are talking about is covered by lots of evidence that it occurred naturally and is not the result of a one-off miracle.
It's not my fault if you'd rather make make snippy little commments instead of bothering to look at the evidence.
So God might have created the world in six days, but in his creation he would have left dinosaur fossils that were already aged a great deal?
God did create the world in six days.I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.There is definately a way to reconcile it to the biblical account of creation.It just has not been done.As it stands now,it may never be.The antagonism is too great.
You mean this scripture?
Is that the only one you could find?
Did you really miss his point so badly, or are you just pretending to so that you don't have to actually address it? If the latter:
Actually, this cartoon is too kind to the "creationist method". The creationist method, as your own quote above makes clear, is more accurately paraphrased as: "Here's the conclusion -- we shall accept any facts which support what we already believe, and we will reject as 'lies, conjectures, or opinions' any facts which are inconvenient for our desired conclusion."
Did you really miss his point so badly, or are you just pretending to so that you don't have to actually address it?
Apparently I missed it and still do.
(or are you just pretending)
You are under the mistaken impression that I am concerned about being wrong or right.I can assure you that I am not here to prove how intelligent I am or how much vast useless information I have acumulated. I am simply stating what I believe.
Guys. Dolls. Luck Be a Lady Tonight.
"Nicely, nicely; thank you!"
I think his name was something like "Nicely Nicely Johnson," but I don't want to cheat by checking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.