Quote:
Originally Posted by woot
So the fact that I've never seen it referred to in that way despite caring a lot about the issue and keeping up with all the news makes me irrational? I won't deny that there are people who refer to themselves as old earth creationists, but I haven't heard about them. I think that since creationists, and more recently the "intelligent design" crowd, have been exposed as the "liars for Jesus" that they are, that most of those who technically could be called "old earth creationists" have chosen to avoid any association with the young earth crowd, and therefore eschew the label of creationists. That you have not done similarly places you in the minority, and my use of the term as it is most commonly employed remains acceptable.
I think there are degrees of irrationality. Islam is more irrational than Jainism, creationism is more irrational than stories about Jesus. People love to try to force atheists to declare all religions equally bankrupt, when that is simply not the case.
A strong argument could be made that our best presidents were among the least religious, and that any good the most religious presidents have done has been in spite of their religion. I don't suppose doing so would be of any use to you, however.
|
Now you are just getting ridiculous. Are you really going to try and make an argument that the "best presidents" were the least religious, and where there are exceptions they succeeded in spite of their religion? By all means, Woot, Woot it up!!! I truly cannot wait to read that stimulating Wootercise.
Have you really become so jaded with religion that you can't even acknowledge that some of the nation's greatest leaders WERE religious (and that their religion wasn't a handicap to them)? Seriously, please post your treatise.
And the fact that you are savvy enough to know that there is a category of creationism called "young earth creationism" should have alerted you to the fact that creationism is a general category with subsets and should have alerted you to the fact that there could be another subset dealing with a non-young earth (like old earth). The fact that you haven't heard it used in that context isn't the best evidence you could provide that creationism is redundant with young-earth creationism.
Maybe I should try that tactic. Woot- I have never heard of the big bang. Ergo, there was no big bang. And I REALLY pay attention. So that has to be important.