Hey Loafer, the second show was a little better than the first but I'm not sure if you can have a "people like" creature and Adam and Eve at the same time. Something doesn't seem to mesh there. I do agree however that your salvation is not tied to that issue. Finally, it's not the technology you put into the podcast that gets the listeners, it's the love!
Go Sitter Downers!!
A VAGABOND LOAFER STOLE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS, HOPPED A TRAIN, AND HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN THESE PARTS SINCE.
Regarding scenarios where you have "people like" creatures and Adam and Eve at the same event, please note that this wasn't the point of the discussion.
Instead, the point of the discussion was that a person with a belief that doesn't match up exactly with what Ken Ham asserts doesn't itself mean the person is an evolutionist.
It is your basic garden variety non-sequitur fallacy, specifically, denying the antecedent:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Here are the assertions:
P = believing that you have "people like" creatures and Adam and Eve at the same event
Q = evolution must be true
A VAGABOND LOAFER STOLE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS, HOPPED A TRAIN, AND HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN THESE PARTS SINCE.
Trackbacks
Use the following link to trackback from your own site: http://www.vagabondloafers.com/articles/trackback/30
Hey Loafer, the second show was a little better than the first but I'm not sure if you can have a "people like" creature and Adam and Eve at the same time. Something doesn't seem to mesh there. I do agree however that your salvation is not tied to that issue. Finally, it's not the technology you put into the podcast that gets the listeners, it's the love!
Go Sitter Downers!!
A VAGABOND LOAFER STOLE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS, HOPPED A TRAIN, AND HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN THESE PARTS SINCE.
Hi Torri. Thanks for listening‾
Regarding scenarios where you have "people like" creatures and Adam and Eve at the same event, please note that this wasn't the point of the discussion.
Instead, the point of the discussion was that a person with a belief that doesn't match up exactly with what Ken Ham asserts doesn't itself mean the person is an evolutionist.
It is your basic garden variety non-sequitur fallacy, specifically, denying the antecedent:
If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.
Here are the assertions:
P = believing that you have "people like" creatures and Adam and Eve at the same event
Q = evolution must be true
A VAGABOND LOAFER STOLE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS, HOPPED A TRAIN, AND HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN THESE PARTS SINCE.