Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

There are other more likely explanations for the low representation of creationists on this board. As mentioned previously creationists are only a very small minority of scientists in the relevent fields such as biology, geology, astronomy. I would suspect that creationists are also a very small minority of those who have received formal education in those same fields. Therefore there would be few such creationists here.The general level of education of creationists seems to be lower than the general population and therefore they are probably daunted at the thought of engaging in an intellectual activity such as posting on this board because of their inadequacies. Preaching does not go down well here and most creationists are ill-equipped to do anything else.And I suspect that most creationists are wrapped up in their own personal salvation and are happy to let the non-bleievers slide into hell without intervening.I have found that the blatant cases of uneven moderation are on boards run by creationists. Irrespective of the personal views of the moderators on this board, they have appeared to moderated in an unbiased manner. I have not agreed with every action or decision they have taken but none of their actions or decisions have been based on the moderators' or the moderated's position on evo/crea.I suspect that your repeated aspersions against the moderators is to divert attention from your own inability to cope with thorough and competent analysis of your assertions.Might I suggest that you abandon your "bull in a china shop" attitude, learn some basic mechanics of this board (like the reply button and the preview facility), take the trouble to provide evidence to support your assertions and concentrate on a couple of threads and give meaningful responses.BTW, as your opening piece covers a huge range of topics it would be difficult for anything in this thread to be off-topic. If you really think that some of your points are strong, how about starting a thread on each individual point and have it analysed.

If you aren't prepared to listen to advice then I'm not prepared to waste further time.

I think that this thread demonstrates that Ken has no real comprehension of what he is talking about. He adopts the shotgun approach of throwing in as many different issues as he can lay his hands on in the hope that the quantity will disguise the lack of quality of his offered material. And of course he relies on links to creationist apologist websites and quote mining as the substance of his argument. Can anyone identify one message in this thread where Ken's response has been substantive and relevent to the point under discussion?I have previously challenged Ken to take one or two of his arguments to a dedicated thread and allow them to be thoroughly analysed. There seems no point in trying to argue the entire range of evolution / creation issues in a single thread which is happening here.BTW, I find it particularly amusing that Ken bemoans the lack of creationists at the board but has a violent theological disagreement with the only other creationist to post on this thread.

And the Gish Gallop only works where the opponent does not have the time or the resources on hand to thoroughly research the assertion and document its fallacy.

Your inaccuracy in detail is noted, even when it has previously been pointed out to you. The most comprehensive response to your shopping list and quote mining was provided by IrishRockhound at message #42. Irish pointed out that most of your quotes do not claim that evolution is false and that the points raised can be explained by the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. He gave a link to an article to demonstrate that the Mark Ridley quote was a misrepresentation. Irish also responds to your assertions about abiogenesis and complexity with opposing assertions.What was your response to the above? Message #44, which only responds in one sentence to abiogenesis but nothing else written by Irish. You have failed to provide an argument for how abiogenesis is linked to evolution. The hyperlink which you provide is on a totally different topic. BTW, no scientist argues that the sun and the universe did not have a beginning. The introduction of the hyperlink is a red herring. Could it be that you don't even understand what abiogenesis means? Whilst that might be of interest to theologans, it is of no relevence to the scientific evidence for or against evolution. You can distinguish between science and religion, can't you? The material has been analysed and found to be wrong, dishonest, outdated or irrelevent. You have not defended the material which you have posted. I wonder. Why does that not surprise me? Perhaps you could indicate what you edited.

Ken, you post is meaningless drivel. I take it that you will be running away shortly.

Irish, butt away. I don't intend to be involved further with Ken's rambling evasions.

I think Ken is now looking to get banned so that he has an excuse for not continuing any meaningful debate and thus avoid losing face. I suppose Ken's faith must be so fragile that he cannot allow it to be exposed to the perceived threat of empirical knowledge.

I suggest that everyone ignore Ken on this thread until he gives a direct answer to the simple question which schrafinator has asked:

He was a cruel man, but fair.Mr Doug Piranah HambreThis post was edited once but changed just about everything in the original post.[This message has been edited by wj, 03-04-2004][This message has been edited by wj, 03-05-2004]

Where's your answer to schrafinator's question on thermodynamics and whether the earth receives energy from the sun, most recently repeated at message #104?Put up or shut up. I wonder if you can even "manage" that.

"Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?

Your link says that the earth is an open system. Do you agree? And where in the 2nd law of thermodynamics is there any mention of a requirement for "(an) existing machine that is at least as complex as that which it produces"?