Actuallly it is not my argument.
Do you mean you
plagiarised it from someone else and passed it off as your writing?
... but you seem to desire to make an argument of it.
No, what I am doing is responding to a false argument that has a false representation of evolution and of people that work with evolution, one that demonizes science teachers for no rational or ethical reason. It draws a superious
post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that is not just a logical fallacy but a conclusion unrelated to truth.
... if you read the post it's about deceptive churches who support evolution and the issues that causes.
How do you determine which churches are deceptive and which are being truthful? What is your test of reality?
What issues are caused by teaching scientific truths? Isn't a rational view of the world based on truth?
It actually a thread more about ethics.
So what is your opinion of creationists that make false claims, don't validate their concepts with a test for reality (commonly called a reality check), and think that blanket insults of school teachers is ethical? Can you tell me why - if creationism is true - virtually every creationist website lies about reality, about what evolution really is and what the age of the earth is?
Do you think school children should be taught falsehoods? Known falsehoods?
What do you use to determine truth?
... any definition of evolution will work, just go ahead and pop one of your favorites in there, doesn't make any difference.
In other words you have no real working definition for evolution, you have no idea what the science really studies, you are ignorant of what evolution involves, but that didn't stop you from portraying it as evil. Can you tell me how this is an ethical thing to do?
This also says that you don't care what the true definition is, what reality is, as it doesn't affect your opinion based on ignorance and - no polite way to say it - bigotry.
And you presume to lecture about ethics?
It makes you look really smart by the way.
Thanks.
I notice you were not able to answer the question about where Buddha is buried.
I notice you either did not read or did not comprehend my first post -
I will only reply to the first responses to my posts. This is my policy to prevent being piled on by many different people answering the same post. It's a policy I can recommend to anyone who has been on a forum where they are outnumbered.
Enjoy.
