nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 506:
Line 506: + + + + + + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron: Not an oxymoron
::Well, If we're considering AiG as a legitimate source to cite nearly every reference from, then Adams should be a fine reference. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, If we're considering AiG as a legitimate source to cite nearly every reference from, then Adams should be a fine reference. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It's these sorts of ad hominem attacks that encourage the view that anti-creationists are not interested in rational debate. Anti-creationists rarely explain why "creation scientist" is an oxymoron until pressed, and even then it comes down to the following:
# Creation scientist is an oxymoron because creationism is not science.
# Creationism is not science because we've redefined science in such a way as to exclude creationism.
The argument might get a bit more sophisticated than that, but that's what it boils down to in the end.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)