From: allenroy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 17:58:06 EDT
Michael Roberts wrote:
> To attempt a reply. You have misunderstood both Ratsch and Gould in your
> desire to keep in with Ellen White's revelation, and then have the gall to say
> I know nothing about the philosophy of science.
You have not demonstrated, other than by assertions, your understanding of
philosophy. By the same token you have not demonstrated your understanding of
Ratszch and Gould. What you have demonstrated is your hatred (and utter
ignorance) of Ellen White.
> You make a silly dismissal of early religious geologists by claiming they had
> bought into Baconian science and thus wrong.
If it's so silly, lets see someone present a logical case which takes my account
to task. So, far only one person has responded, you, and that is simply an
assertion. I said that those studying under Baconian science were deluded into
thinking that empirical observations were neutral. Today, we know better.
> And then say that before the Flood uniformity doesn't apply.
I believe that uniformity of law and process has held true ever since the
beginning. I do not believe that these have ever been suspended or superseded.
The Flood cataclysm does not require anything other than uniformity of law and
process and causality.
> There is no rational response to inaccuracy and irrationality.
> It is the usual problem of not being able to discuss with those who move
> goalposts and are determined to misunderstand almost every aspect of science.
Or, with those who don't even know where the goal posts are or are playing where
there are no goal posts. You like to make assertions, but never back them up.
I have been providing evidence for my position. You don't have to like them,
and that's ok. but where's your evidence?
> All because you want to reject what most Christians have always beleived, that
> Genesis is not literal.
Another assertion with no basis. What kind of opinion polls do can you quote
that show that 15th century Christians did not believe Genesis literal. Or,
14th century, or 10th century, or 5th century, or 3rd century, etc. Plainly,
that kind of assertion cannot be proven.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 18:01:22 EDT