Replies

Dawkins engages in ad hominum argument by questioning the academic credentials of people who disagree with himself. The only thing that should be discussed is whether their ideas are true or false.

~~Dawkins~~ Thucydides engages in ad hominum argument by ~~questioning the academic credentials of~~ misrepresenting people who disagree with himself. The only thing that should be discussed is whether their ideas are true or false.

Dawkins demolishes Wise on a far more basic point than Wise's impeccable education. Wise has simply chosen to ignore the evidence. This is unsupportable if you're going to call yourself a scientist. That Dawkins so handily skewers him for doing the indefensible points up why most creationists are too clever to be honest.

For me, and I would guess the vast majority of creationists on this board, this whole article is a STRAWMAN in that it goes after the YOUNG EARTH creationist position only. That is only a particular interpretation of scripture, and not one that is forced by the scriptures themselves. On crevo threads where we are defending CREATIONISM (or ID) as a whole and not just this one tiny corner of it (the corner least justifiably IMHO) the Creationists are more than holding our own against the evolutionsists on these threads.

Heck, I have not even jumped in the last few threads because gore3000 was handling about five evos all by himself. Their primary response quickly degenerated into juvenile name calling and mockery.

Radio Astronomer, Regarding your #19, I agree that parts of amino acid formation are not random, BUT, many of the ways they are not random actually mitigate AGAINST life forming from non-living matter. In other words, in many respects if they formed randomly they would actually have a BETTER chance of forming life (though still a vanishngly small one) than they actually do. This means evolution never gets a chance to start without a Creator!

As to your prior post about my side being locked into one story where you guys are free to change with the evidence: Both scientific interpretation of nature and creationist interpretation of scripture are subject to change. Evidence form the natural universe and scriptures are reconciled because we believe both have the same Author. From all I have seen, evos are just as unielding in their basic interpretation of the universe as crevos are to their own interpretation of scripture, and neither side has much room for assertions of moral or logical superiorty on that count!

I did not address the discussion of Wise. I merely said that when he opened by saying that a lot of people who disagree with him have academic credentials that he sniffs at, that is beside the point. The credibility of someone's argument does not turn on his credentials, but on the truth of the argument. I have said nothing pro or con about either Dawkins's or Wise's arguments here.