32
edits
Changes
Circular reasoning
:::::::"''How can the glaciers of the last ice age form under the flood geology model?''": I've already answered that earlier in this page.
:::::::"''How can the glaciers of the last ice age form under the flood geology model?''": I've already answered that earlier in this page.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:57, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:57, 29 January 2008 (EST)
PJR - you state <i>"...the Bible says that God created everything ''in six days'': That is simply contrary to evolution. Both cannot be true."</i> Indeed so - both cannot be true. But attempting to fit the evidence to the theory that the Earth was created in six days is clearly an exercise in [[circular reasoning]] - 'The Earth took six days to form (or 6000 years), therefore we must develop theories to explain that theory'.
Look at the two arguments. One approach attempts to explain how everything came about, fitting the theories to a specific (and minority) interpretation of a particular book. The other approach continuously re-evaluates its estimates over hundreds of years, and new evidence changes the results. There was no book that said that the Earth was created 6 billion years ago. Were scientists to tell us tomorrow that the Earth is in fact ten billion years old, or two billion years old, no-one would be be much surprised. Yet no matter what evidence is presented to holders of the Creationist viewpoint, the age of the Earth remains the same.
Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of [[circular reasoning]]?. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST)