Your problem is that you find it difficult to analyse an argument which is built on glaring errors of logic, sophistry and deliberate distortions of fact - you're too used to dealing with people who are occasionally wrong but fairly sound in their logic, and who have a healthy respect for facts.
Here, we've got creationists and, reading what they are attempting to say, we're definitely in the shallow end of the gene pool. Poor arguments, elementary failings in logic, and no attempt to seek the facts - or an outright inability to understand fairly simple comparative anatomy.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 02:06 am (UTC)Yes, quite.
Your problem is that you find it difficult to analyse an argument which is built on glaring errors of logic, sophistry and deliberate distortions of fact - you're too used to dealing with people who are occasionally wrong but fairly sound in their logic, and who have a healthy respect for facts.
Here, we've got creationists and, reading what they are attempting to say, we're definitely in the shallow end of the gene pool. Poor arguments, elementary failings in logic, and no attempt to seek the facts - or an outright inability to understand fairly simple comparative anatomy.