Cold Foreign Object writes:
quote:
Exactly, it is almost like creationists don't really understand what "evidence" is. Interpretations of things (especially when based on faulty logic) is not evidence.
This comment says that evidence is only given status as evidence when it supports ToE.
No, the comment does not say that. The comment does state however that interpretations of things is not evidence. More specifically Razd was replying to straggler when he posted this, the comment was regarding the "apparent design" as the best evidence. This would be faulty logic and therefore not evidence.
This is straightforward faulty circular logic and biased unobjective reasoning. Could we expect anything else from the keyboard of an evolutionist?
First you put words in his mouth and then you call it circular logic and bias! I will not suggest that all creationists use the same keyboard though, It's just apparent that
your keyboard is not very logical.
We know there was a canopy over the Earth
Is your knowledge based on evidence, or just what you think should be apparent?
which shielded harmful sun rays and enabled ancient men to live very long
Do you have evidence that if I remain inside my house I will live a thousand years? (Provided I can quit smoking)
why would anyone doubt Genesis based on the same formula?
Evidence of one item being true is not evidence of the entire book being true. Would you base this same
formula for all things you read or hear? I believe this is another example of faulty logic.
™ Version 4.2