Summations Only

You finally said something that might actually have some merit.The question is why? Do they have so little confidence in their beliefs that they can't defend them adequately against reason? It seems so to me. Creationists prefer to preach rather than debate - it's much safer than arguing fact.

Except snowflakes.And other crystal formation.There are others, but you won't even acknowledge those.

I think you have that wrong.The problem is that they have a huge amount of confidence in their beliefs, but they have no ability at all to communicate a basis for that confidence (probably because there is no basis).

As I understand it you see yourself as an old-earth, young-life creationist, yet have never explained what evidence you are basing this on. After all the evidence that shows the earth is old also shows that life is almost as old, so you suggest that a pre-flood canopy throws out any radiometric data to suggest old life. But this also affects evidence for an old earth, so your position becomes indistinguishable from a YEC. Yet in the topic when you described the actions of your god in maintaining this universe it became quite clear you didn't know what the laws of thermodynamics actually were and that your god completely contravened them. The rest of the topic devolved into everyone trying to explain the problems to you, and you refusing to learn. You just reiterated your original claim as if you didn't understand what was being said to you. What made your insistence on this point odd was that if your god does exist it would be completely understandable if it was capable of contravening the laws of thermodynamics.Just like in this topic where you are adamant that you know what 'crysper' was and proceeded to throw together random words that were vaguely related to genetics as some sort of explanation. I feel sorry for shadow71 who has obviously put in the effort to read up about CRISPR, yet you haven't even made it as far as a wikipaedia article. Now if you were released back into the general populations of this forum and you got involved in a formal topic about CRISPR the exasperation trying to describe the basics to you would affect his chances of getting a fair hearing. In fact your posts, as they stand, would probably drown out his contribution.
Like others I would like to see you start posting again in the main forums, but you are going to have to show a willingness to learn, and to admit your mistakes. Maybe even the "is this science?" forum, since question of what is evidence would fall under this.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

Yes, I've never met a creationist that wasn't extremely confident in their beliefs, but their reaction to being shown evidence of things that might contradict it is often to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala.A Jehova's Witness on anther forum thinks that I am Satan - quite literally - because I try to tell him about evolution. He won't/can't read anything written about it. That doesn't strike me a someone with any real confidence - it seems more like bravado to me.

As we've seen on this thread. Buz, babbled nonsense and refused to accept any reply pointing out the fact as legitimate. Apparently creationists need us to pretend that they are making valid points even when they are being completely clueless. I don't think that the board can work that way and Buz's demands to the contrary are completely ludicrous.Foreveryoung isn't that much better. Apparently he feels the need to violently assault people who contradict him. He's confessed to violent feelings but hasn't pointed to anything that would justify his anger and hate.

In the true spirit of creationism, I'm going to start it any time now. Meanwhile, I'd be glad to answer any questions on an ad hoc basis.Edited by ringo, : Added quote.

Frako's post was about a creationist who believes that the earth is 6000 years old. So it wasn't about you. At all. Does it really make sense to adopt the position that his comments included you so you can claim to be injured? There are still YECs who still post here.I'm beginning to understand Percy's issues with your participation. I still think it would be best to let you post in the science forum, but I no longer see any reason to talk him out of his position.What I find hilarious your complaint included your own shot at YEC beliefs. Sigh.

Yes, the paradigms that make no sense do get lumped together. You and the YECs are identical in the fact that you reject science.

Not at all. The problem is that you, et al, reject any science supportive to to ID Biblical creationism and the existence of a higher intelligence existing in the Universe than what is common to humans,You reject the supernatural realm, including a majestic supreme creator/manager god, angels, both good and evil and all other hosts inhabiting the cosmos, even though scientific evidence has been aired supportive to higher powers. One example being fulfilled predictions of events subsequent to those predictions. Another example, archeological discoveries; another, cultural and historical evidence, such as the phenomena of all cultures of human history being religious.Mysterious objects, such as particles, etc are good to go with you, but narry a thing implicating other forms of life.

Ok show me a scientific method that objectivity shows a young earth, or spontaneous creation, or show meascientific device that goes bleep when thers magic man running about. well oyu reject Apollo, Zeus, and the flying spagethie monster the same evidence supports them.Show me an angel or the residue of an angel, or the energy signature of an angel, anything that points to an angel. YES BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE POINTING TO STUFF LIKE THAT!!!
Dark matter well we have indirect evidence for it. So what do we do we build research stations trying to find concrete evidence for it.What do you do you go and preach the word when by some cosmic fluke something "miraculous" happens that can be otherwise explained, and you deny other explanations. It has to be proof of the judeo Christian god because other gods are just made up, and its pointless to do a scientific inquiry on the event because science cant detect god right? Edited by frako, : No reason given.

And every element or compound that goes from liquid to solid or vapor to liquid. And every infant organism that develops from an embryo. Photosynthesis. Food becoming body parts. Salt water evaporating and then raining down as pure water.We've done this exercise before. Some people never learn.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add attributions to quotes to remove impression that Rahvin is at fault.

In that case perhaps you can provide a link to a post where you have EVER presented ANY science supportive of ID Biblical creationism and the existence of a higher intelligence existing in the Universe than what is common to humans. Great, then can you please provide a link to ANY post where you have EVER provided ANY evidence?

You miss my point. It is not about CRISPR it is that when I make a valid point such as in re Shapiro's writings and theory I am told I don't understand it, by people who have never read Shapiro.Shapiro says I understand it, but the "scientists" on this board, most of whom have never read Shapiro say I don't understand.Whats the point?
If one is set in their beliefs they will not accept any other opinions.That is what they accuse "Creationists" of doing, yet they do not realize that is what they are doing.

I have read Shapiro.He disagrees with neoDarwinism, but he disagrees only in the emphasis. He has different ideas about what is most important, and would like a different theory more consistent with his views.I agree with Shapiro on that point. However, in my opinion, he overstates things when he is talking about intelligence of the cell, and he does not clearly define what he means by some of his terminology.It is hard to know how well you understand Shapiro. For that matter, it is hard to know to what extent he agrees with you. He has not been here participating in these debate, so it is hard to assess what he would have said about them if he had been here.A while ago (it was earlier this year, I think), Dembski raised the question of whether Shapiro is still a Darwinist, even though he criticizes Darwinism. I read about that on the UncommonDescent blog, though I think Dembski may have actually raised the issue on the Evolution News and Views blog (which is an ID blog, in spite of its name). I seem to recall that Shapiro responded, possibly also on ENV. In any case the upshot is that Shapiro's views are such that Dembski would consider him a Darwinist.I'm not sure where that leaves you with your view of Shapiro's ideas. Here's a recent assessment of Shapiro's views by Larry Moran, a biochemist at U. Toronto. Moran is somewhat critical. Incidently, Moran also claims to not be a Darwinist, though I'm pretty sure that most ID proponents would consider him to be Darwinist.