216
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 20:28, November 15, 2007
, 20:28, November 15, 2007→Flawed First Premise
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)
:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
== But What is really important here? ==
== But What is really important here? ==