[qs]DO YOU- Straggler, recognize the difference or not, when a creationist writes, "Evolution by a million years imples this..." and "Creation based on 6,000 years is looking for that..."
YES OR NO-qs
YES. I recognise the difference.
But inferring logical conclusions, whether rightly or wrongly, from a premise is in itself not science.
"Evolution by a million years implies this conclusion and here is the observational/experimental evidence that verifies/refutes said conclusion" would be getting closer (if somewhat simplified) to that which we call science.
In practise creationists treat evolution is wrong = creationism is right so with their predermined conclusions in tow the statements as you define them often get confused.
Well, are you questioning the logical need vs the use of logical thought itself?
If the former you would need me to scan in the argument of Kant first, which I mentioned in this thread but have not provided, if the latter that is not my problem if you cant answer the question
Which is the former and which is the latter. There is only one question?
You do not need to ask the specious question about my personality for YOU to answer that!!!
You seem to be intentionally unintelligible to me. I apologise if that offends you but that is the way it seems to me.