Not relevant to the discussion. >Did you read the site name? > >On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Michael, your reverse list bears no resemblance in any way to the original >> list. >Why? If one list can be a stretch from point A to point B, why can't >another list be stretched as well? > >> >> And where/how did atheists get brought into this discussion? >Did you read the site url? > >> >> The original list was created with the premise (with a little >> stretching) that if an invention was created BY USING THE PRINCIPALS >> of a science that you do not believe in, you should not benefit from >> or use that invention. >Except the premise is wrong. There is no problem believing in a >technology and its uses while disbelieving how ONE application of the >technology is used. A creationist can believe that the results from >Hubble are wrong or are based on a wrong data. > >> A list of items create by a creationist inventor BASED ON THE SCIENCE >> of creationism, or new earth science, etc, would be a comparable list. >Except that many religious people, at the core of their religion, is a >belief that the universe was created by a creator. Maybe not in 6000 >years (human years, that is) but there is a creator behind it all. > >I'm only beating down on the list because I think the logic is faulty. >I expect better from an argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:341308 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
