From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 19:40:11 EDT
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:00:59 -0600 John W Burgeson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Josh wrote: "One troubling aspect for me
> was that they felt that the particular rhetorical strategy of Ken
> uses the word evolution in the place of methodological naturalistic
> was not out of place due to the mass perception of what evolution
> This tactic was also evident in the YEC talk today by Sebeny. By
> committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, he, like Ham,
> presents the
> audience with the choice of "accept God or accept evolution."
> To me, it is a reprehensible act not to clearly define words when
> KNOW that they have multiple meanings.
Don't you realize that they cannot carry their case without obfuscation,
if not prevarication? Why else is it that, should they remove every
misinterpreted and miscopied quotation from their literature, it would be
reduced to almost nothing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 19:45:39 EDT