redfern said:
6days said:
However, I said you were equating science with evolutionism.
Which is false. I never said that, I never implied that. I have said almost nothing about evolution.
You certainly seemed to equate common ancestry beliefs with science when you said "religious people like to misuse science". I 'm not above apologizing if I understood you wrong, but it certainly seems you were saying common creator beliefs is religion, and common ancestry beliefs are science. I already made the point that neither belief system is science; but instead opposing ways of interpreting evidence.
redfern said:
6days said:
Being oblivious to your fallacy of equivocation does not mean you are 'innocent of the crime'.
People who specialize in pointing out everything they perceive as a logical fallacy are often people who have nothing more substantive to offer.
Evolutionists use the fallacy of equivocation to sell their beliefs. We won't need to point out logical fallacies if you use specific and meaningful terms.
redfern said:
6days said:
Evolutionists ALWAYS use the word in ambiguous fallacious ways. The word is used to describe an observable process- adaptation, then in the next breath used to mean their belief in the past- as if this observable process was somehow a proof of their common ancestry beliefs.
Why on earth do you wedge “evolution” into this conversation every other sentence? Are you incapable (or unwilling) to discuss ideas in other branches of science on their own merits?
This whole thread is about evolution which you seem to equate with science. Are you referring to observable processes...or, to your unobservable belief system about the past? (Common ancestry).
What branches of science did you want to discuss?
redfern said:
6days said:
Uh..... biologists and physicists work in totally separate fields of study. There is no need to call a physicist an evolutionist, or a creationist, unless they are talking about their beliefs about the past.
What? If a nuclear physicist studies radioactive decays that indicate what happened in the past, then they must be either a creationist or an evolutionist?
Yes...of course. Surely you don't think any nuclear physicists are a blank slate re our origins? BTW.... the physicist studies radioactive rates in the present and make assumptions about the past. Do they assume that argon existed in the beginning? Do they assume argon exists only as a decay product?
redfern said:
A geologist that studies the evidence for past plate tectonic movement can’t be just a geologist?
So Andrew Snelling should be identified just as a geologist? You are opposed to identifying him as a creationist?
rwdfetn said:
Astronomers watching for supernova that exploded eons ago have to be shoehorned into some artificial category?
So you would be opposed to identifying astronomer Dr Jonathon Henry as a creationist?
BTW... you seem to confuse distance in space with time. They are two different things.
redfern said:
You’re out of your frigging mind.
Well.... my family and friends often say that I am a bit crazy. Ha... but they say it in a loving way.
redfern said:
As to what you said, you did not say that that “our moon is consistent with the Biblical account.” You said the moon’s orbit was “NO LONGER PERFECT.” And that is blithering nonsense, since you are clearly incapable of telling us what it even means for the moon to have a perfect orbit.
I think I said both of those things? Without going back and looking at my exact words.... We assume that we can see evidence of that perfection in the world around us, but scripture tells us that all creation groans....perfection has been lost. There are many features of the Moon where we can see the evidences of our loving Creator.
