quote:
Not at all. I'm saying that equivocating words is a logical fallacy. This is clearly justified when someone uses a definition of creationist so large as to include Buddhism. (which is an atheistic religion if I remember correctly)
You said nothing of the sort. And if you had you would be lying. There is no definition of creationism that singles out any one religion (and Buddhism as such is neither atheistic nor theistic - some branches are effectively atheistic but others are not).
But let us get to the point. Would you not agree that regardless of the definition used, evolutionists are overwhelmingly united behind neo-Darwinism ?
And would you not agree that there are many divisions within creationism even if we do look at the majority, for instance the major and obvious split between Young Earth and Old Earth creationists ?
So why does the definition matter so much ? And why should we restrict ourself to looking at people who use a single interpretive framework when the diversity of interpretive frameworks in creationism is at least part of the problem ?
quote:
Nice strawman, the Bible should be treated as a historical document because it is a historical document. Are you really against this ?
It's no strawman simply a fact - and here is where you did it
Message 24. You actually objected to treating the Bible as a historical document - on the supposed grounds that it should be treated as a historical document ! And accused anyone who DID treat the Bible as an actual historical document of using "a serious double standard".
So no, I am not against treating the Bible as a historical document - YOU are.
Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.