Summations Only

Dr.A asks I've been thinking about asking someone to come into EvC and try his luck here. I believe he is an Intelligent Design proponent. Not likely a YEC. Conservative politically.I'm not sure about it, and there is a good chance he might refuse the suggestion out of hand anyway. If there were a page I could remember listing the PRATTs so I can have him go through those before retreading one, then he might take interest.

shadow71 writes: Thank you for illuminating a good problem with this board. I was tempted to say something flippant, like "Don't bring a knife to gunfight", but you do make a point.How can the uneducated hope to emerge against the educated? There were many topics in my schooling that were beyond me and my eyes would glaze over and I just squeaked by with a C or something. I was killer in math & science, but the rest? No so much.....In my opinion, the biggest threat to this country and the world abroad is the deterioration of good STEM education. However, to ignore literature and liberal arts and so forth is to stab your eyes out.

I have been following this thread and the forum, itself, for awhile and I sense that there seems to be a strange assumption. The purpose seems to be to encourage a good exchange of debate, but only provided it is under the scope of objective repeatable calibrated scientific evidence. The assumption seems to be that something good will happen.While the scientific community, with it's stumbles and pitfalls corrected and explained as they occur in real time, continues to review and ostensibly only promulgate good science, I have seen nothing personally to form any other conclusion - there is no conspiracy. In fact, the little evidence I have seen from other side that is truly objective repeatable calibrated scientific evidence to dash an earlier version of The Best That We Understand It To Date - rather than being evidence against the scientific method - is instead a testament of how the current model of the universe right down to the nearest quark IS adaptable exactly in a manner that the scientific process would have predicted.So here we are, inviting Creationists to come into debate with us, provided they adhere to the rules of presenting objective repeatable calibrated scientific evidence and rephrasing the conclusions thereof in such a manner as to demonstrate they understand what they are talking about.I ask us all - how can such a constraint produce anything other than defeat for the Creationists? We are asking them to walk into a buzsaw of trouble here.I keep finding myself preferring to read and maybe stick my nose into those threads that are not exactly EvC per se, but rather delve into nuances of those that have accrued a decently sized modicum of respect in my own limited ability to appreciate their talents here.So I am thinking of not inviting my ID facebook friend over here, because I suspect it will not be a good thing.Edited by xongsmith, : Opps - finish thought #1.Edited by xongsmith, : verbiage added for obfuscation and dark matter flows