Faith, if you are going to try to suppress evidence that disproves your Flood geology, "I suspect it's an illusion" is pretty weak. Especially when the only reason for that suspicion is that it does disprove your Flood geology.
And I would also add that since there is plenty of other evidence against your Flood geology that you ignore or attempt to explain away your claim to have "proven" the Flood is an obvious falsehood. In fact it should be very obvious even to you. If you can't see that then I rather think that you have no grounds to call anyone else "deluded".
Re: YECs don't get to define science for everyone else.
YECs do not get to use their private definitions unopposed. If they want to take unscientific or anti-scientific views then we may certainly point this out. If they want to try to confuse the issue by using their own private definitions we are not required to submit to them and use their definitions. Especially when the motive is clearly dishonest.
The Bible is not scientific evidence.
Your idea of the Bible is - not even Biblical, let alone a dogma that Vhristians must or even should believe. (I would say that no real Christian COULD believe it)
quote: YECs should not have to put up with all this lying crap about how we aren't scientifically minded because we supposedly believe a myth
But it is not just that. It is because YECs let that unscientific belief override the scientific evidence. It is that they make excuses to reject the evidence. It is that they engage in misrepresentation and dishonesty.
Calling dishonest religious apologetics science is just a way to try to steal the prestige and credibility of science. It is just another part of creationist dishonesty.
quote: So I could not care less what YOU believe, but don't tell US what to believe and accuse us of not addressing evidence that you think should be put before the Bible. I don't and YECs don't and it isn't for you to dictate to us and call us unscientific.
You can be as dogmatic and unscientific as you like. Nobody is trying to dictate your beliefs. But if you make false claims we ARE entitled to disagree with you. if you get sickened by the truth that is your problem. You are not entitled to demand that it be silenced. If you start calling the truth "lying crap" then we are quite entitled to draw the obvious conclusions. And I certainly do.
quote: STOP TELLING ME I'M NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC WHEN I KNOW I AM.
If you are going to take obviously unscientific or anti-scientific attitudes you will be called on it. Even if you "know" otherwise. You can't put false claims beyond challenge or correction by wrongly calling them "knowledge"
quote: What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds.
That would depend on what it was. If it was an obscure bacterium or something similar then there would likely be no problem for evolutionary theory. If it was a large multicellular animal or plant there would be questions about it's ancestry.
For creationists, of course, the problem is that we don't find convincing evidence of separate creations. Such evidence should be quite widespread if creationism were true.
quote: I could have chosen any number of posts to make this point but this one is nice and pithy: This accusation is typical of evo misrepresentations of creationist arguments.
Dredge was not making an argument. Dredge was making an assertion about Gould's thoughts which he has no special access to.
quote: Gould pointed out the obvious: the lack of the gradations of transitional forms that Darwin expected and led others to expect if his theory was correct.
And yet the "missing" transitionals are generally those that many creationists believe in - connecting one species to an immediate descendant. While there are many transitionals - as Gould said - which are evidence for evolution at the higher taxonomic levels. Add in the other evidence for evolution and the rational course of action is to look for an explanation.
quote: That prompted Gould to devise his Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to explain this obvious failure of the ToE.
In fact it seems to have happened in reverse. Gould and Eldridge worked out the consequences of Mayr's theory of speciation for palaeontology and then used the shortage of inter-species intermediates as evidence for it.
quote: But what Gould observed DOES call the ToE into question just as Darwin said, and PE is really a laughable way to resolve it, whether Gould believed in it or not.
Please explain what is laughable about using an idea already widely accepted in evolutionary biology to explain a feature of the fossil record.
quote: Whereas when they are not available, such as between reptiles and mammals, the ToE hallucinates them, though at least Gould had the honesty to point out they are simply not there, and further pointed out that unless there is a reasonable explanation that fact spells doom for the ToE just as Darwin asserted.
And now you are just lying. The transitionals between reptiles and mammals are there and calling them "hallucinations" does not change that. Far from denying the existence of transitionals at higher taxonomic levels Gould asserted that they were plentiful.
Well done, making a dumb troll look better by telling an even worse lie.
quote: He is saying Gould recognized the facts that are evidence for Creation, he did not say nor mean to say that Gould drew the conclusion that they point to Creation, he's only saying that he could have if his mind wasn't warped by his committed atheism
In other words it is not an argument, merely an assertion about another's mental processes - which you endorse without even knowing the relevant facts as you have made very clear.
quote: There was no illustration given for this bald assertion and when I read it I thought it as crazy as PE itself.
And yet it happens to be a fact. That you don't like it hardly makes it "crazy".
quote: His ability to come up with rationalizations does not mean Dredge of any other creationist has to accept his rationalizations, and calling us liars for not accepting them is a foul.
You aren't being called a liar for refusing to accept PE, you are being called a liar for your lying, such as your attempt to deny the existence of transitional fossils between mammals and reptiles by calling them "hallucinations".
quote: The fact remains that Gould did observe the lack of transitionals that do indeed prove the ToE wrong, and just because there is no way to prove any absurd theory intended to explain away this inconvenient fact doesn't give you the right to declare them true, quite the opposite.
Let us note that you do not deal with my points concerning the origin of PE, that you have offered no valid criticism of PE nor do you deal with the actual evidence.
quote: But honesty from an evo is of course not to be expected. All we ever get is your dishonesty projected on us creationists along with every other kind of insult, because the evidence does support creationism and not evolution.
Ah, the standard creationist inversion of reality. For someone who tries to avoid lies you tell an awful lot of them.
quote: Dealing with your twisting everything anyone says isn't worth it
Your false accusations are as usual counter-productive.
quote: I'll just say for myself then that Gould's observations support Creation whether he recognized it or not, and at least it's clear that he knew the evidence of the fossil record is exactly what Darwin said would overthrow the ToE, which is of course why he invented PE and tried to make an argument out of population genetics.
So you have to throw in a misrepresentation of Darwin,too. Every thing you say there is just false assertions.
quote: But PE is absurd, and population genetics accounts for the fossil trilobites and coelacanths remaining identifiable trilobites and coelacanths for hundreds of millions of years, and offers not a shred of evidence for reptiles turning into mammals.
Calling PE absurd is not an argument. It's just an assertion which you can't support. Your assertions about population genetics are ridiculous. How can a discipline which deals with the mathematics of changes in allele frequency - that only deals with the effects of different alleles in terms of their effect on fitness possibly provide "evidence" for past evolutionary changes ? When you don't even k ow the genetic changes involved ? Surely we should go to the fossil record,or to genetic comparisons of living species - and the evidence is there.
Arrogant and ignorant assertions are not going to get you anything but the contempt you deserve.
quote: Honestly, I doubt the exodus even happened for real - but that doesn't mean that everything before it is completely untrue.
There is a big gap between "not literal history" and "completely untrue".
And of course you are right to doubt the Exodus. The Book of Exodus was obviously written at a time when the story had become legend - whatever it's origins. Its implausibilities (and I don't mean the miracles!) give more cause to doubt, as dies the fact that archaeology finds no trace of it.
Even other parts of the Bible call the Exodus into question. 1 Chronicles 7 indicates that Ephraim and his descendants were living in Canaan (verses 20-29) with no indication of ever having gone to Egypt, even though Joshua is listed as a descendant.