Going through Snopes earlier today, I found a piece about an older "soapbox" rant penned by legend Charlie Daniels.
I did a bit of browsing around, and I found this <a href="http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2006-010706.htm">this</a> lovely piece. There are so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to begin.
Has it really come to this? Have we sunk this far?
I did a bit of browsing around, and I found this <a href="http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2006-010706.htm">this</a> lovely piece. There are so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to begin.
Has it really come to this? Have we sunk this far?
Damnation, sorry for f'n up the html, y'all. :-/
haha
so, daniels thinks that the theory of evolution says:
1. there is no afterlife and everything is morally acceptable
2. [this point is incoherent--abortion is a form of natural selection?]
3. everything is morally acceptable
how about this for things wrong with what daniels has written:
a. poorly written
b. poor logic
c. inconsistent
d. poor justification
better yet, i think what hume wrote in an enquiry concerning human understanding applies perfectly:
so, daniels thinks that the theory of evolution says:
1. there is no afterlife and everything is morally acceptable
2. [this point is incoherent--abortion is a form of natural selection?]
3. everything is morally acceptable
how about this for things wrong with what daniels has written:
a. poorly written
b. poor logic
c. inconsistent
d. poor justification
better yet, i think what hume wrote in an enquiry concerning human understanding applies perfectly:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
My problem is, as is generally the case with things of this nature, is that even if you point out the problems inherent in the argument, it won't make a lick of difference.
Lately, I've been amassing "trap questions" about certain things because I encounter the same stuff over and over and over again. I've managed to get two people so far to say, "I don't know." when confronted with them. I'll take victory where I can get it.
Lately, I've been amassing "trap questions" about certain things because I encounter the same stuff over and over and over again. I've managed to get two people so far to say, "I don't know." when confronted with them. I'll take victory where I can get it.