Summations Only

Goes to show who's really making a fool of themselves.

Which goes to show that, though he was savvy to scientific rhetoric, he was not knowledgeable enough to cite the evidence for Biblical creationism, such as fulfilled Biblical prophecies nor correlate and corroborate historical and other data pertinent to Biblical apologetics.

If that is the case then here is your opportunity to provide support for evidence for Biblical creationism and explain how crap like "fulfilled Biblical prophecies nor correlate and corroborate historical and other data pertinent to Biblical apologetics" can possibly offer any support for Creationism?Please do provide links to that evidence or any "fulfilled Biblical prophecies nor correlate and corroborate historical and other data" that you think exists.

Over the years, I've formed an opinion about honest creationists, that they do not last long, because they either withdraw from discussion upon learning that their position has problems or they eventually give up on creationism and sometimes even join the other side. My first impulse was to state the same opinion of knowledgeable creationists -- and for the most part the same does apply -- but upon reflection I see there's more involved.We can say that there are two kinds of knowledgeable creationists: honest ones and dishonest one. OK, we could talk about a third kind who is severely delusional, but I would tend to lump those with the dishonest ones. Also, by "creationist", I mean those of the "creation science" persuasion rather than anyone who believes in Divine Creation, such as extremely effective anti-creationist and self-described creationist (ie, believer in Divine Creation, being a practicing Roman Catholic) Dr. Ken Miller.An honest knowledgeable creationist will not last long on forums such as this, because the problems with his position and arguments will very quickly become apparent to him and he will need to deal with them. Whichever path he ends up taking, he will most likely retreat from forum participation since he cannot in good conscience continue to argue for things that he knows are wrong. In rare cases, he might continue to participate in order to work things out in his own mind, but I would not expect that to continue for very long.A dishonest knowledgeable creationist would also not be expected to participate on this forum. Examples are most leading creationists, such as Hovind, Gish, Morris, etc, plus many highly active local creationists. Although highly knowledgeable, they remain dedicated to perverting that knowledge in service to their god (arguably the Great Deceiver, but since I'm an atheist, I don't believe in that Christian god either). The reason why we will not see them here is that they know from long and bitter experience that their claims are false and that in a fair discussion they have no hope of success -- eg, they will push ardently for a creationist-style verbal circus debate while at the same time absolutely refuse to engage in an on-line written debate where their opponents have time to research their claims and the audience can see exactly what claims they're making and be able to check on those claims. Also, they know that they must avoid knowledgeable opponents like the plague; eg, a local activist will bully and mock an opponent mercilessly, until he suddenly discovers that that opponent is knowledgeable, whereupon he immediately starts playing super-nice and tries to disengage as quickly as possible.So neither kind of knowledgeable creationist can be expected to last here long. OK, that "third" kind, the highly delusional knowledgeable creationist, may stick it out longer because he's just simply, due to his delusion, clueless of the situation. But how long can he keep that up?So all that leaves us with are the creationists who are not knowledgeable, who don't know what they're talking about. Protected by their ignorance, they can endure.

Well this is a week old, but whatever: The supposition wasn't that he has, it was that he could.

That's a decent explanation, thanks. There's a bit of an issue with God's perfection, and complete knowledge, and us having Free Will. Too, like I said, if he already knows that you want him to intervene, then its kinda silly to make you do the dance first. Ya know?

But see my post #389. That may be a "decent explanation" for why a God neglects his children, but it is worthless as an explanation for why the biblegod does so, because the Bible is all about how the biblegod righteously overrides our merely human and sinful wishes; if the Bible has any central theme, it is that "Man proposes, but God disposes", in the words of the old cliche.

What a load of crap but typical of the attitude here.

"Me thinks thou dost protest to much."

Projecting again, I see.And your continued presence here supports my last paragraph: I have been studying "creation science" since 1981 and been involved in on-line discussion since circa 1987, having cut my teeth, so to speak, on CompuServe; a number of my webpages started as essays I had posted on CompuServe. I have observed much in those years, which has shaped my "attitude" and which I just shared. Including the observation that "evolutionists" last much longer than creationists do, because 1) the evidence is on our side and 2) unlike creationists, we do not need to fear knowledge of nor thinking about science, evolution, religion, etc.Now, if you happen to have some specific comments to make about specific points in what I had written, then do please present them. If instead you just want to complain about it without even trying to think, then you have already given us all the information we need about you and your own attitude, which is sadly typical.Edited by dwise1, : Last two paragraphsEdited by dwise1, : ... and the horse you rode in on!

Pearls before swine.

As a Christian, I need to ask you what it is in dwise1's post that you consider "crap"?

Buz, I've looked over Percy's messages and I see no attempt to moderate you. Can you either point out the offending message, quote the offending text here or stop making a claim you can't support?

The whole thing and you're no Christian.

Shove it up your ass.