The problem with EVC

It is not that your education does not count. Many here, including myself, have in the past commented on the general intelligence of your posts. What HAS been commented on many times is simply your total hubris regarding what you feel are valid scientific criticisms against topics that you have know knowledge about and in fact have expressed no desire to gain knowledge of. So many of your basic misconceptions about geology for example would be remedied by even a half hearted attempt to try to understand the theories behind relative dating, rock formations, etc. It is easy enough to glean some basic info from the web or from what you get on the form but it is so glaringly obvious to anyone who has even taken an introduction to geology course that you need to go quite a bit deeper before you can even begin the handwaving that normally peppers the threads we have had in the past. I am sure this case is similarly true regarding biology.From what I have read of robin's posting the problem is similar but resides not in a specific science. Robin claims logic in many of his arguments but what he means is not the logic that some of us who have actually had formal/mathematical logic training see as logic. To Robin logic means sound reasoning. To many of the rest of us logic means much more than that and it is why many people continually ask him to actually supply what we would consider definitive logic. To him he has already done this because his argument makes sense in his own head. To him it is sound reasoning and he can trace the steps from one "logical" position to the next even though it has nothing to do with logic but rather his own measure of "sound" and "reasonable". To me, and what seems like many others, that is wholly insufficient. It ends up being digested in exactly the same manner as, for example, what you see as a reasonable incredulity for the formation of sedimentary layers.So it is not that your humanities education doesn't count. It just means that it does not automatically put you on par to make an equivalently justified conclusion about a topic you know nothing about.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I understand where you are coming from. The problem is that robin wants the freedom of the weaker common definition of logic (i.e. "That seems logical") combined with finality that you get from formal logic.This in effect is taking what he wants and sees as reasonable and trying to push it as a proof in the QED sense. I am fine with him providing a basis for his worldview that he sees as reasonable. It is only when he demands that it is the only outcome because the "rules of logic" insist that it is so. Because he is using the broader logic=reasonable, he does not have formality and thus there is no such thing as the "rules of logic".Those of us who DO KNOW formal logic can tell the difference and that is exactly what he is doing. He wants the authority of mathematical logic with the subjectivness of what you might call a humanities logic.That is probably where most of his complaints stem from. People DO answer his questions and DO respond to him with appropriate challanges. But because they don't meet HIS litmus test for "logic" (read robin-style-reasonableness) then they are simply hand waved away.You do the exact same thing just replacing logic with biblical literalism. You have a different standard that you conform to but the result is the same. Frustration ensues and threads descend into madness.The point is, if you want to say logic or science or whatever and have it carry the same weight and authority that it does in its formal definition then you have to be able to meet the rigor therin. If you want to claim something else such as "reasonable" or "personally obvious" then there are no standards to meet. Just don't expect everyone else to jump on board.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

It is because nobody else at EVC will understand that God and the FSM are "logically" the same. Because this is such rigid point of discussion then it derails the whole conversation. If only the rest of EVC knew about "logic" then all of this nonsense would go away.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think that would go a long way in resolving some of your problems. Then you would eliminate everyone always asking you spell out the logic.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)