I suggest Richard's pending thread on information be held in abeyance until the questions raised in this present thread are addressed.
I don't plan on promoting any more PNT's from Richard for at least a couple of months, and I agree with you that he should address questions in a science thread. I will try and pin him down as to why he does not address these questions, assuming of course that everyone is being professional. Be right back.
“The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.”Calvin Coolidge "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith - You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide
Except that some of us are not here to debate, but rather to discuss.
A discussion needs an honest exchange of information with each side asking the other honest sincere questions about their position and claims, including the basis of how they had arrived at their position and claims and their lines of reasoning. And receiving honest answers to those questions. Including the type of questions where you ask "Here is what I understand your position/claim to be. Is that correct?" -- IOW, requests for clarification which should be honored.
Of course, complete honesty is an ideal that is too rarely realized with many questions ending up being extra probing and many answers being more guarded and even bordering on evasive, but at a minimum discussion does require a conversation, an exchange of ideas and information, and a goal of attaining clarification, knowledge, and understanding.
Debate is a different matter altogether. A debate is the opposite of a discussion. In a debate the goal is to win by whatever means. In formal settings (eg, debate classes/clubs, formal debate competitions, courtrooms), there are academic and ethical standards that debaters must adhere to. However, in informal settings (eg, creationist debates, forum trolling) anything goes and there is no limit to the dishonest tricks, lies, and deceptions that will be used.
In the decades that I've been involved in this issue, I can only think of one single YEC-type creationist that I encountered who was honest and willing to engage in discussion -- that was on CompuServe in 1993-94 and within a year his honest approach led him to abandon creationism; his story, which I have quoted from a few timeshere , is archived at Did We Evolve?.
The creationists that we keep getting here are the same as the ones that I have been encountering for decades. Evasive, deceptive, arrogant, clueless about the subject matter and even about their own claims, willing to lie about everything and anything, intent on preventing any discussion from occurring. Basically, little more than trolls. Prime examples are candle2 and now cristian_gavrilescu, both nothing but trolls, though the latter appears to not be human but rather a trolling program similar to ELIZA as he repeatedly shoots his mouth off from the hip without any mental process involved with almost immediate turn-around.
Richard L. Wang has not been much better, though not as overtly troll-like. While he should be capable of discussion, he has so far sought to prevent discussion. Which is too bad, because I had hoped that we could finally have a creationist we could discuss things with. Instead, he only wants a debate, the opposite of a discussion, and he wants to push his religious agenda and cram it down our throats no matter what.