Re: Why assume it was a lie? (was Why lie?)

Huxter4441@aol.com
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 11:48:43 EST

In a message dated 11/25/99 7:15:29 AM !!!First Boot!!!, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:

<< Reflectorites

This is my answer to Susan's original "Why lie?" post. To save
space I will reply in composite form to the other posts in this thread.

[...]

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:00:33 -0600 (CST) Susan Brassfield
wrote:

First Susan's subject: "Why lie?" Why do evolutionists need to
assume that their creationist opponents are guilty of moral error
(ie. "lie") rather than simply an intellectual error (ie. mistake)? >>

**** Because it ceases to be a simple error when 1) it is presented as fact
2) even after being corrected, it is STILL presented as fact
3) a competent researcher would not make such obvious 'errors'.... over and
over and over.....

Either way, creationists are a sorry lot. Take your pick - incompetence
cloaked in religious arrogance or scientific incompetence paraded as superior
'knowledge'....
Great choice for heros, eh?