Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 02 Dec 2005 00:29:37 +0000
Ken Down wrote:
> Of course, Harrison and a few others have made a minor mistake in the age of
> the earth - 4.56 billion years instead of 6,000 - but I don't think that a
> little thing like that need disturb us unduly, or lead us to reject his
> findings - which are that the evidence supports the Biblical account of
> early Earth and not the evolutionary one.
You have defined "evolutionary" to mean something like "according
to Ken Down's current misconceptions about present-day science".
Assuming for the sake of argument that Harrison is right, that
"New Scientist" has adequately reported his work, and that you
have accurately reported what "New Scientist" says, that would
mean that a new scientific discovery has been made, which in no
way conflicts with evolution. So your argument (as usual) appears
to be:
- Scientists who believe in evolution have generally believed X.
- Another scientist who believes in evolution has found evidence
that not-X.
- [Somehow this step always seems to be missing.]
- Therefore evolution is wrong and the triumph of creationism
is just around the corner.
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gordon Hudson
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Kendall K . Down
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- References:
- Hades - or Eden?
- From: Kendall K . Down
- Hades - or Eden?
- Prev by Date: Re: Hades - or Eden?
- Next by Date: Re: Evolutionists in disarray
- Previous by thread: Re: Hades - or Eden?
- Next by thread: Re: Hades - or Eden?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|