See someone try to defend creationism honestly

[borrofburi]

What is evidence? People seem not to understand this most basic fact.
The knowledge of western civilizations rests basically 2 major kinds of evidence:
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Observations
predictions being fulfilled
logic, & a few others.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
Firsthand witnesses
Second hand witnesses
Archaeological data and a few others.

You seem to live in a world where everything must be 100% true, or 0% true (i.e. completely false). This is incorrect. There are varying values of truth and as such there are various forms of evidence that allow us to have different levels of certainty of the truth. And really, you know this already: a story about a friend of a friend (of a friend) murdering someone is nigh worthless compared to the security footage at the grocery store showing the face of the person who murdered the clerk.

I'll grant you that historical evidence exists, but only with the caveat that it's one of the weakest form of evidence. Second hand witness and first hand witness are night worthless evidence. Indeed I even have a nice prepared list for such occasions (of reasons why you should not only be distrusting of other people's "testimonies" but of your own experiential memories):

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Sure I'll certainly accept my friend's first hand account of his BLT for lunch at chile's as evidence that he did indeed have a BLT for lunch; however if I then see video footage that my same friend was actually robbing a bank for the duration of his lunch hour I would conclude that if he had a BLT it was in a hurry and certainly wasn't at chile's. The lesson here of course is that eye-witness account and second hand experience are perfectly fine evidence for non-extraordinary claims, but when they come in conflict with nearly any other kind of evidence it is that higher tier of evidence we accept.

But this isn't the whole picture; I accept my friend's claim he had a BLT for lunch because the claim that he had a BLT for lunch is so unimportant that it takes very little evidence for provisional acceptance. However when my friend claims he slept with Jessica Alba, I'm likely to require far more convincing evidence; in this case the claim, while certainly unusual and non-trivial, is ultimately unimportant, so the corroborating evidence of his friends who were with him in Vegas when he did it will probably be enough for provisional acceptance. However we can imagine a whole spectrum of claims from the trivial ones such as "I am sitting down right now" to the far more extraordinary claims such as "bill gates just wrote me a personal check for five billion dollars that I can do whatever I please with" and as the claim gets more extraordinary we require more *and* stronger evidence to support them. No matter how many times a friend tells me bill gates wrote him that check, and no matter how many of his friends tell me bill gates wrote him that check, unless I see objective and verifiable consequences of him actually having been given that check I will continue to not believe him.

So... I suppose in summary: I'll grant you that first hand and even second hand experience can be considered evidence, however it MUST be acknowledged that first and second hand experience are the lowest forms of evidence (for they are neither objective nor verifiable (only verifiable through other forms of evidence)) and that more extraordinary claims require not only more evidence but higher forms of evidence.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: fighting tooth and nail for a death wish

No, the default position is NOT the null hypothesis. That's a HYPOTHESIS AGAIN, NOT a position of science. Science doesn't make apriori assumptions about which idea or LACK OF AN IDEA is correct or the detail. Only atheists do that.

Neither is it a statment of accuracy that "not believing a God" is the default position to take, if it that was the case then that problem would be solved and you wouldn't even get the chance to present your "evidence". The same way you would be justified in not believing that I had a girafe in my pocket, you can't disprove it, but would you believe it? Would believing it be scientific? Would beliving in anything unsuported scientific?
The negation of belief is not the the belief of the negation, and time and time again you dare unable to understand this. You claim to be an educator, you explain to kids flaws in reasoning, a linguist of sorts, and yet you are unable to understand this so obvious and simple difference, you are unable to understand what it means. You absolutly know nothing of philosophy or logic, that litle nagging thing formalized by the aciet greeks that I taught to be intuitive to anyone and yet most people don't have the slightest clue about. How can there be a serious debate with you, when you can't even acomplish the simple task of understanding what it is people are saying to you, when you have the reason maturity of a toddler?

 

[australopithecus]

Re: fighting tooth and nail for a death wish

Biblical prophesy is at best vauge and open to intepretation, so not evidence.

ABSOLUTELY AND INDISPUTABLY FALSE. But, this is not the time to discuss that.

Then why bring it up? It falls under your evidence for God and by extension creationism so yeah, it is the time to discuss it. Cite 2 examples of Bublical prophesy coming true with unambiguous Bible sources that are not vague or open to interpretation. Methinks confirmation bias is on the horizon. Again.

No, the default position is NOT the null hypothesis. That's a HYPOTHESIS AGAIN, NOT a position of science. Science doesn't make apriori assumptions about which idea or LACK OF AN IDEA is correct or the detail. Only atheists do that.

The default is that there is a lacking until there is evidence of something, it's that simple. The null hypothesis isn't an assumption, it's a conditional explaination. That condition being either evidence for or against. You don't assume there is something when there is no evidence to assume it, either the explaination is validated or rejected and the null hypothesis gives a priori reasons for falsification. If x is false then we should see y or not see y. In the case if evolutionary theory is incorrect we should see truely irreducably complex morphology (we don't) and animal fossilisation in anachronous strata (we don't).

Creationism makes a priori claims constantly, that being there is a God. However while the null hypthesis provides grounds for falsification, creationism doesn't. It doesn't even entertain the idea that it's incorrect and therefore it's not science or scientifically valid.

But I feel I must point out for the second time that atheism is not science. Evolutionary theory and atheism are not mutually inclusive just as creationism and monotheism are not mutually inclusive.

 

[dotoree]

1) AGAIN: Demanding extraordinary evidence of one idea but not another on the same question is a double standard. It's also a violation of following the evidence where it leads and a number of other basic scientific principles. Furthermore, to me, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are some of the most extra-ordinary concepts in history. Like most atheists excuses, this one can be used just as effectively against things that they believe in. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

Dotoree: do you believe in Brahma, do you believe in Santa, do you believe in leprechauns, do you believe in unicorns, do you believe in Zeus, do you believe in Thor, do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, do you believe in Manticores, do you believe in Cthulu, and do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Consider it a question of intellectual honesty: I want to see if you hold yourself to the same "prove (my) god doesn't exist" standards that you're trying to claim we must adhere to. I mean, from your own words "you have GOT to learn the importance of consistent application of principles..."
--
No. I don't believe in most of those (except that we do have fossils of an animal that is VERY similar to a unicorn, with the one horn and all). But, I DO NOT assume ANY default in denying them. That's not good science. There IS NO DEFAULT and when anyone assumes such they often end up being WRONG for long periods of time. Sometimes it's not a huge problem...but in some cases it can and has been disastrous and deadly to human life.

Again, I do NOT assume ANY DEFAULT. Science follows the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE as I keep telling you. IT NEVER assumes anything as a default in terms of a scientific position. NEVER. An opinion, yes. A hypothesis, yes. A scientific default based on no evidence. NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER..

This is how science happens VERY simply.
1) We have a phenomenon of some type. The existence of life. Presents appearing under trees at night, etc.
2) We try to find all possible hypotheses regarding that phenomenon.
3) Then we do experiments, gather evidence, etc. to see which idea has the most evidence.
4) Then you follow the weight of evidence WHEREVER IT LEADS.

How did presents get under Christmas trees? A few hypothesis.
A) Santa brought them.
B) Parents brought them.
C) The neighbors put them there.
D) Chipmunks brought them.

There could be 100s. We usually try to choose the most likely ones by logic and then test those. But, NONE are scientific defaults before you check evidence. NONE. That is extremely bad science.

Which has the most evidence pointing to it? Well, in this case, it's obviously B (But could be grandparents sometimes or a few other causes). So, we FOLLOW THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE WHERE IT LEADS. B is what we accept and teach. B could be imperfect or even incorrect though. So, we continue being open minded to evidence and any ideas that have MORE evidence. Anomalies may happen. Fine. You don't drop a theory because of anomalies. The ONLY way a theory gets dropped is if a NEW theory has MORE evidence. The geocentric theory wasn't dropped for quite a while after heliocentrism was proposed. WHY? Geocentrism had better data and better and more accurate predictions. So, heliocentrism couldn't beat it at first. But with time and more experiments, it was proven to have MORE evidence than the former one. THIS IS HOW GENUINE SCIENCE HAS ALWAYS WORKED. Atheists pervert it into some foolish default where they don't have to present any evidence. This is certifiably insane and nobody who assumes a default without evidence is doing ANYTHING even REMOTELY connected to science. PERIOD.



This is rich, you're the one who first started the irrelevancies in your first post:

I am ... rock solid certain that [Christianity] has numerous practical benefits in this life for those who follow it

The above was the first major tangent in this thread and it's been continuing even until now where you're trying to prove that "biblical living" leads to longevity; it's completely irrelevant to the discussion and it doesn't matter if it does, so it's beyond me why you brought it up and why you continue to waste your oh so precious time on that tangent, but it's simply incorrect to claim that we caused "all the useless distractions, NOT [YOU]". Of course this could be one of those double standards "well if you guys hadn't responded to the irrelevant things then it wouldn't have been a distraction!" pieces of crap; but it doesn't matter because no matter how you look at it you share AT LEAST equal blame in that you continue to respond to the tangents.

EXCUSE ME. YOU are 100% WRONG on that. Aronra explicitly told me that the Bible had no practical benefits and challenged me to prove it when we were talking on youtube even before this forum got started. He made this forum to list proof of that. Here's a quote from Aronra and I have more than this:</COLOR>

he has opened the venue with the claim that Bible science has "observable & directly testable scientific evidence with numerous extremely practical benefits for billions of lives". So I guess the honesty has already been discarded before we even begin

<COLOR color="#FF0000">

This was to be the venue for THAT first. THEN creation vs. evolution.

I AM SO TIRED OF PEOPLE ALLEGING ABSOLUTE FICTION. Please do some indepth reading before you comment before wasting ANYONE'S TIME AGAIN, ESPECIALLY MINE.
Bryan

 

[dotoree]

Re: fighting tooth and nail for a death wish

Biblical prophesy is at best vauge and open to intepretation, so not evidence.

ABSOLUTELY AND INDISPUTABLY FALSE. But, this is not the time to discuss that.

Then why bring it up? It falls under your evidence for God and by extension creationism so yeah, it is the time to discuss it. Cite 2 examples of Bublical prophesy coming true with unambiguous Bible sources that are not vague or open to interpretation. Methinks confirmation bias is on the horizon. Again.[/quote]
--
As BEFORE, I'm waiting for Aronra to agree to let me define my own views. Then we probably should decide on what counts as evidence and what kinds are more credible. I posted my view on that. Nobody responded that I remember.

But, I'll give you one basic level example. There are better ones, but this is one simple one where Daniel predicts three empires by name. There are some verses not listed here that add some more details. But, basically, in 2 visions (this is only 1 of them) Daniel names the next three empires and the major movements of troops, and a 4th that is impossible to not recognize and more.
http://esl.truth-is-life.org/docs/esl/01-Daniels%202500%20year%20prophecy.pdf

This is just one of many that are very easy to prove what they mean and it's not disputable (except by someone who chooses to be willfully ignorant similar to insisting, "The sun rises in the west" regardless of all the observable evidence.
Bryan

 

[borrofburi]

1) AGAIN: Demanding extraordinary evidence of one idea but not another on the same question is a double standard. It's also a violation of following the evidence where it leads and a number of other basic scientific principles. Furthermore, to me, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are some of the most extra-ordinary concepts in history. Like most atheists excuses, this one can be used just as effectively against things that they believe in. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

quote="borrofburi"]Dotoree: do you believe in Brahma, do you believe in Santa, do you believe in leprechauns, do you believe in unicorns, do you believe in Zeus, do you believe in Thor, do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, do you believe in Manticores, do you believe in Cthulu, and do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Consider it a question of intellectual honesty: I want to see if you hold yourself to the same "prove (my) god doesn't exist" standards that you're trying to claim we must adhere to. I mean, from your own words "you have GOT to learn the importance of consistent application of principles..."
No. I don't believe in most of those (except that we do have fossils of an animal that is VERY similar to a unicorn, with the one horn and all). But, I DO NOT assume ANY default in denying them. That's not good science. There IS NO DEFAULT and when anyone assumes such they often end up being WRONG for long periods of time. Sometimes it's not a huge problem...but in some cases it can and has been disastrous and deadly to human life.

Ok, you have good evidence to believe Santa isn't the one who puts presents under the christmas tree; all that means is that Santa doesn't put presents under christmas trees, not that he doesn't exist. You didn't present any "evidence" against the existence following: Brahma, leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Manticores, Cthulu, and Flying Spaghetti Monster (and technically Santa as well).

EXCUSE ME. YOU are 100% WRONG on that. Aronra explicitly told me that the Bible had no practical benefits and challenged me to prove it. Here's a quote from Aronra and I have more than this:

Hmm. Good point. But you're still responding to the tangent and have been for 15 pages or whatever we're on now. If you want a quick way out I don't know if you have one now, but originally it would have been "I disagree, but that's not really relevant to this discussion". Sometimes other people bring up tangents, it's true, but just as you had to learn to say "no" while growing up in real life, while on the internet or debating in general, you have to learn to dismiss tangents as irrelevant.

 

[dotoree]

You seem to live in a world where everything must be 100% true, or 0% true (i.e. completely false). This is incorrect. There are varying values of truth and as such there are various forms of evidence that allow us to have different levels of certainty of the truth. And really, you know this already: a story about a friend of a friend (of a friend) murdering someone is nigh worthless compared to the security footage at the grocery store showing the face of the person who murdered the clerk.

-
Borroburi,
I have never said anything EVEN REMOTELY close to what you allege. I have consistently said that we must follow the weight of evidence. NEVER ONCE have I said that anything must be 100% true or 0% true. NEVER. I MYSELF gave a list of different levels of credibility. Must you insist on continual misrepresentation of me like this????

I'll grant you that historical evidence exists, but only with the caveat that it's one of the weakest form of evidence. Second hand witness and first hand witness are night worthless evidence.

I saw your list of links there about historical evidence. I've read numerous links like that before and can rebut most of what they say easily. The ONLY true thing you said above is in blue. You have a DIRE need of a proper history course. There are many kinds of truths that you can't even begin to test by science. History is the ONLY way to test whether they are true or not. For example,
Who invented the philosophy of hedonism?
Who made the first horse harness?
Who was the first king of Greece?

and many others. Science is almost completely useless in answering certain types of questions. MUCH better at others. Same for history. If we follow your idea above, we'll have to throw out the majority of our history books and shut down the History Channel. Historical knowledge can be more accurate than scientific knowledge sometimes and often gets things right FAR FAR in advance of scientific knowledge.

Historians have ways to check the credibility of witnesses and I listed a couple briefly. There are many more.

I'll agree that second hand witnesses are sometimes less credible than firsthand witnesses, but not always. They are not even close to worthless though. That's a complete myth.

I'm sorry for speaking a bit bluntly to you, you seem to be one of the more rational and civil people here. I commend you on that. I'm just so tired of being misrepresented endlessly by atheists. And it doesn't just happen here. It's the same in ALMOST EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION I've had with atheists. And why does this happen? It's not your fault. The reason is because all evidence about religion was removed from schools. You've been duped into believing all sorts of myths largely due to that. You are a victim and I am far angrier at the system that is intentionally causing people to believe falsehoods than I am at any individual person no matter how badly they misrepresent me. To ban facts about religion is no different from banning facts about science, Darwin or anything else. It's a dogma that distorts rational judgement and makes informed judgement completely impossible.
Bryan

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Was there any actual defending of creationism in this thread anywhere?

 

[dotoree]

Ok, you have good evidence to believe Santa isn't the one who puts presents under the christmas tree; all that means is that Santa doesn't put presents under christmas trees, not that he doesn't exist. You didn't present any "evidence" against the existence following: Brahma, leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Manticores, Cthulu, and Flying Spaghetti Monster (and technically Santa as well).

Tell me what phenomenon Brahma and Zeus and pink unicorns are supposed to explain and then the alternatives and then we'll test them. THERE IS NO DEFAULT. NOT FOR ANYTHING, no matter how irrational it sounds. HORDES of things in the history of science have been thought impossible but later proven true.

EXCUSE ME. YOU are 100% WRONG on that. Aronra explicitly told me that the Bible had no practical benefits and challenged me to prove it. Here's a quote from Aronra and I have more than this:

Hmm. Good point. But you're still responding to the tangent and have been for 15 pages or whatever we're on now. If you want a quick way out I don't know if you have one now, but originally it would have been "I disagree, but that's not really relevant to this discussion". Sometimes other people bring up tangents, it's true, but just as you had to learn to say "no" while growing up in real life, while on the internet or debating in general, you have to learn to dismiss tangents as irrelevant.[/quote]
--
What tangent? We're establishing definitions and how science and history should be done and what counts as evidence. That is absolutely crucial for further progress. We've barely talked about Bible health principles and not even MENTIONED many others that I would like to get to some time, but that's one reason this forum was founded from the start.

Yes, I should do better at ignoring tangents. But, I lost $150,000 due to liars. It's hard not to respond to falsehoods and expose them for what they are since I've gone through such dire pain because of liars (not all who say falsehoods are liars btw. Some are just ignorant. You can only prove someone is a liar if you can prove intent to lie. That's in the dictionary definition. So, I try to avoid using that term most of the time. Aronra misuses that word a lot and other ones as well. The title of his video on youtube misuses vocabulary.) I did refuse to get into several tangents actually...but could do better.

Nice to have a bit more civil conversation with someone, FINALLY.
Bryan

 

[dotoree]

Was there any actual defending of creationism in this thread anywhere?

--
Very little so far since Aronra can't bring himself to let me define what MY OWN VIEWS ARE about what creation science is. He thinks it's his right to define it. He's wrong, unless he lets me define his views. Until he agrees to this most foundational aspect of rational discussion, that the proponents of a view are the ones who have a right to define THEIR OWN VIEWPOINT,. there's not much point in proceeding. Gang up on Aronra and tell him to either:
1) Agree with my definitions on my own views or
2) Let me make up wild definitions for his views that have not the least relation to fact or reality . I can have fun too just as easily as he have. It doesn't take any brains to make straw men like he consistently did about my views and Christians views.


He also mistitled the forum since it was supposed to ALSO be about practical Bible science.
Bryan

 

[Inferno]

Man, I can destroy all evolution theory so easily if I use the tactics you guys are. Just say "I lack belief in evolution", claim my view as the default and then deny that anything you say is evidence no matter how well it follows the scientific or historical method.

The first part of this bit is absolutely correct. Highlighted in red

However, you've gone completely astray on the second part. You then go where the evidence leads you. And the evidence quite clearly "proves" (In a legal sense) evolution.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Was there any actual defending of creationism in this thread anywhere?

--
Very little so far since Aronra can't bring himself to let me define what MY OWN VIEWS ARE regarding creation science, nor let creation scientists define what their views are. Until that happens, there's not much point in proceeding.

He also mistitled the forum since it was supposed to ALSO be about practical Bible science.
Bryan

That certainly sounds like you're misrepresenting the situation. Of course you're allowed to state your views, and the views of creation (make believe) scientists. Is the actual problem that you're not being allowed to redefine words that already have a meaning, in order to shoehorn in creationist non-science?

 

[dotoree]

Man, I can destroy all evolution theory so easily if I use the tactics you guys are. Just say "I lack belief in evolution", claim my view as the default and then deny that anything you say is evidence no matter how well it follows the scientific or historical method.

The first part of this bit is absolutely correct. Highlighted in red

However, you've gone completely astray on the second part. You then go where the evidence leads you. And the evidence quite clearly "proves" (In a legal sense) evolution.

--
I'm sorry, but no the evidence does not prove in even a legal sense evolution in my view (and I've been reading the best evolutionists and atheists for decades). But, I understand why you think it does. You've never read any serious evidence for creation science even though there is MUCH that exists and what you have read has been based on false comparisons and double standards. You've been duped and are a victim of censorship and double standards. I've been duped in the past by American education as well in areas not at all related to religion. There is no way to dispute this fact. If you follow ACCURATE DEFINITIONS, consistent standards and compare questions on the same topic and follow the evidence where it leads, you'll have to follow creation science. Easy. Very little contest. But, most evolutionists fight tooth and nail against doing that, exactly as has happened here.
Bryan

 

[ImprobableJoe]

--
I'm sorry, but no the evidence does not prove in even a legal sense evolution in my view (and I've been reading the best evolutionists and atheists for decades). But, I understand why you think it does. You've never read any serious evidence for creation science even though there is MUCH that exists and what you have read has been based on false comparisons and double standards. You've been duped and are a victim of censorship and double standards. I've been duped in the past by American education as well in areas not at all related to religion. There is no way to dispute this fact. If you follow ACCURATE DEFINITIONS, consistent standards and compare questions on the same topic and follow the evidence where it leads, you'll have to follow creation science. Easy. Very little contest. But, most evolutionists fight tooth and nail against doing that, exactly as has happened here.
Bryan

Now you've added conspiracy theories to your dishonesty. Good work, I think we can close the thread now.

 

[dotoree]

That certainly sounds like you're misrepresenting the situation. Of course you're allowed to state your views, and the views of creation (make believe) scientists. Is the actual problem that you're not being allowed to redefine words that already have a meaning, in order to shoehorn in creationist non-science?

--
No misrepresentation whatsoever. Go back and read the forum. So far Aronra refuses to let me define MY OWN VIEWS. If I use his definitions, I am not a creationist or religious and pretty much no Christian on the planet is.
Bryan

 

[ExeFBM]

Very little so far since Aronra can't bring himself to let me define what MY OWN VIEWS ARE regarding creation science, nor let creation scientists define what their views are. Until that happens, there's not much point in proceeding.

Aronra gave his reasons why the definitions you proposed were unacceptable to him. You have provided no counter arguments to his, or said precisely which definitions you disagree with. If you want the discussion to progress, perhaps you could detail exactly which of his revisions you disagree with and propose a different or modified version. Addressing his arguments as you do so would be more productive. Just saying that he can't define what you believe is not helping in any constructive way.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No misrepresentation whatsoever. Go back and read the forum. So far Aronra refuses to let me define MY OWN VIEWS. If I use his definitions, I am not a creationist or religious and pretty much no Christian on the planet is.
Bryan

Sounds like a steaming pantload to me.

Something I've learned from long experience dealing with creationist lies over the years, is that if the conversation gets bogged down in definitions, it is because the creationist is attempting to pull a fast one. Then, I have come to expect some sort of conspiracy nonsense... and you provided it right on schedule.

You can have your own views, but you aren't allowed to change established definitions to do so.

 

[dotoree]

--
I'm sorry, but no the evidence does not prove in even a legal sense evolution in my view (and I've been reading the best evolutionists and atheists for decades). But, I understand why you think it does. You've never read any serious evidence for creation science even though there is MUCH that exists and what you have read has been based on false comparisons and double standards. You've been duped and are a victim of censorship and double standards. I've been duped in the past by American education as well in areas not at all related to religion. There is no way to dispute this fact. If you follow ACCURATE DEFINITIONS, consistent standards and compare questions on the same topic and follow the evidence where it leads, you'll have to follow creation science. Easy. Very little contest. But, most evolutionists fight tooth and nail against doing that, exactly as has happened here.
Bryan

Now you've added conspiracy theories to your dishonesty. Good work, I think we can close the thread now.

--
Why don't any of you even think to ask questions about evidence before jumping to 100% erroneous conclusions. 2 simple examples:
1) I was taught that Gutenberg invented the first printing press. That's false. The Koreans and Chinese did that centuries before he did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVDsKRb9WPA&feature=channel_page (printing was pioneered in Korea/China)

2) I was taught that the first iron clad ships in history were in America in the 1860s...one of them the merrimac and forget the other one.
This also is false. The Koreans had ironclad ships in the late 1400s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7svUjIXbVk (Admiral Lee Soon Shin, the greatest admiral in history)

The stealth fighter was a conspiracy bomber when I was growing up. A few people thought it existed. Most laughed and thought it didn't. What do we know now? THe conspiracy theorists were right.

To dismiss conspiracies apriori and to trust everything you learned in school as fact is extremely ignorant. Some conspiracy theories have been proven to be fact...others not. Again, FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHERE IT LEADS and avoid making assumptions like you just did above that everything in textbooks and western academia is fact. Not long ago we learned that the Chinese visited America LONG before Columbus did. Since history is written by the winners (and so are science books), healthy questioning of the establishment is always a good thing.

Darwin did that and you respect him. But, you dishonor his legacy when you refuse to question the current establishment. That was the foundation of evolution's success. I assure you that he would not want you to be a sheep. But, you are doing exactly that.
Bryan

 

[Yfelsung]

Still no answer to my manticore question?

Disappointing.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Aronra gave his reasons why the definitions you proposed were unacceptable to him. You have provided no counter arguments to his, or said precisely which definitions you disagree with. If you want the discussion to progress, perhaps you could detail exactly which of his revisions you disagree with and propose a different or modified version. Addressing his arguments as you do so would be more productive. Just saying that he can't define what you believe is not helping in any constructive way.

It depends on your definition of "constructive", doesn't it? If your goal is to "defend creationism" by attacking evolution, science, and reason? Maybe obfuscation, obstruction, and other O words... anyways, by not defending the indefensible position of Creationism over the space of a dozen pages, maybe dotoree is achieving the actual goal?