Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

On 4/10/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/10/07, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu > wrote:
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > I have to say that there's very little here (affirmations/denials 1-6
> > and specific actions 1-6) that I disagree with. In fact, I think if
> > you take out the rejection of evolution in the specific actions, at
> > first glance, I don't think there's anything here I disagree with.
> >
> > Affirmations/denials 7-19 and the rest of the document, of course,
> > are a different matter. It continually amazes me that there can be so
> > much agreement on the foundations and so much divergence elsewhere.
> >
> > TG
>
>
> Same here and it's why I presented it without commentary. The core
> principles are for the most part non-controversial at least for
> evangelicals. What I do think is happening is non-necessary conclusions are
> drawn from those principles that lead both to YEC and anti-environmentalism.
> I can see denying those principles would lead to the conclusion that we
> aren't orthodox Christians and why given the non sequiter they conclude we
> are. In summary:
>
> good foundation + non sequiter + modus tolens = unnecessary conflict
>

Let me rephrase:

 I can see denying those principles would lead to the conclusion that we
aren't orthodox Christians. I can also see that given the non sequiter they
believe that we are denying those principles when in fact we are affirming
them.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 10 17:29:58 2007