|
----Which is the more legitimate method of reasoning: 1. Looking at all the evidence and forming conclusions based on the evidence, which may change over time as new evidence is discovered, or 2. Starting with the conclusion, for which there's usually no evidence at all, and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, regardless of how much new evidence may emerge?---- I don't know. But you are not falling under choice 1 in any of your arguments. The vast majority of FOLLOWERS of faith based science fall into number 2. The conclusion has already been made...God does not exist and nothing anyone can say will change that statement of faith. Have you seen me post on this forum that Christianity or Judaism or any other faith is based on fact? No! I am so tired of those that give Darwinists a bad name by not making it clear what the real belief is. It is not about evolution nor pre-historic beasts. essay, your type bases every belief on your opinion that God does not exist. If you will just admit that, I will leave you alone. But, if what the Christians say is true, you might be in for a pretty nasty eternity. I guess my annoyance is not nearly as bad as a lake of fire.
|
