mvp54
...@qwest.net (Gromit) wrote in <3A932361.7090
...@qwest.net>:
>~Tina~ wrote:
>> (Tina prev.)
>> EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
>> FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
>> (EROS)
>> Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much
>> all-seeing power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any
>> scientific theory is an absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs,
>> scientific theories are meant to be reviewed, changed and improved with
>> the discovery of new scientific evidence.
>> (Tina)
>> "Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
>> universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
>> "Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
>You are incorrect "life coming from life" is not a law, certainly not in
>the meaning that you seem to be using it. Confusing abiogenesis with
>"life comes from life" is quite common but cannot be supported by any
>evidence. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding.
I do not believe it is a misunderstanding on the part of the professional
creationist who originated the argument. I think "deliberate equivocation"
would be a better description of that behavior.
That the scientifically ignorant are taken in by the equivocation is not,
however, surprising. The target audience of the professional creationist
scam artist is very used to arguments from authority and tends to take them
at face value. And, unless you KNOW the basis of this equivocation, the
fallacy will slip right in.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=========================================================================== ==
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
