Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Richard Simons @ June 13 2008,14:09) | [SNIP]
This never happens with creationist ideas. I don't know of a single creationist explanation (short of 'Goddidit') that clears up two issues at the same time.
[SNIP] |
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold on there my friend. There's a creationist explanation that ISN'T "goddidit"?
That I'd like to see!*
Louis
*And before FTK wanks on about "waaaah you don't read creationist books" etc, shall I take a picture of my bookcase? I have about 20 creationist books, including many of your faves no doubt, they are all, without a doubt, utter bunkum...and that's being nice. There is no creationist claim that isn't either a) miraculous, b) explicitly reliant on divine intervention (different from miracle), c) contradicted by the available evidence, d) makes some appeal to mystery, e) makes some appeal to personal ignorance or incredulity or common prejudice, f) makes some faux relativist epistemological claim or g) all of the above. All options are basically variants of "goddidit" in one way or another. Now if "goddiddoit" then you'd expect that once, juuuuuuuuuuust once, them thar creationists would be able to provide some evidence, but guess what, thus far they haven't. Even when asked reaaaaaaaalllllllyy nicely. It's this AND NOTHING ELSE that makes their special pleading fall on deaf ears.
--------------
Bye.
|
