Wounded King writes:
Do you really think there are any non-PRATT's available?
Surely whether we do or not is irrelevant, it was Chuck77 who was claiming there was a substantial body of significant creationist research being published in their own journals that shouldn't just be dismissed as PRATTs. Admittedly so far his examples have been less than stellar on the 'not a PRATT' front.
I think claiming all creationists IDists are only ever recycling PRATTs is a bit unfair. We have had some, such as shadow71 and Smooth Operator, who have brought new arguments based on recent research. These arguments may fit into large overall themes, such as genetic information/entropy or directed evolution, that are frequently raised, but I don't think the arguments as they were presented could be dismissed as PRATTs.
TTFN,
WK
Maybe it's because creationts like Chuck77 does not know that his 'arguments' are PRATTS? He doesn't know that his 'arguments' are lies? He only gets his 'arguments' from creationists and he has never in his life been told about the counter-arguments which destroyed his 'arguments'. He doesn't know that they are lying. I used to be on that side of things. I was never told the truth. I believed it, though.
I was raised in those circumstances. Only heard the 'arguments' from fundies. I was never told that reality is different. Never heard the other side. That's why this forum is very valuable. You hear arguments from both sides.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistaaake and added a few words.
Edited by Pressie, : Another spelling mistaaaaaake and added a capital letter.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
