Hi RAZD,
What's to battle? All he needs to do is show evidence for a flood instead of giving the run around and make stuff up. Most of the posts are repeated requests for him to actually substantiate a position.
No evidence for a flood (not one)
No evidence that skin does not reproduce by mitosis like bacteria
No evidence that tanning is hereditary
No evidence that Darwin's theory had something more to it than descent with modification aka change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation
One can keep going back and adding to the list of items that CTD claims but somehow cannot show any evidence that his opinion is nothing but fantasy.
Now we have a claim that there were two floods, and we still don't have any evidence for the first one.
That's probably more between you and CTD. Some of this talk and terminology between you guys at times is a bit like trying to decipher a discussion between persons talking another language. I enjoy reading it, but struggle to get the gist of it all and the entire picture. So I don't always know who is addressing or avoiding what.
Here's a test for you: the next time he says this scroll up and see if you can find what he is talking about. You say he is holding up well on his own, and I have to wonder why NONE of the creationists are able to provide the evidence. If you really have EVIDENCE rather than more assertion, then it is easy to repeat it:
I see "evidences" or "assertions" on here and to be honest, one would need to know the entire picture in order to state "this is exactly what took place and when and how". I debated somewhat on this much earlier on and provided some easily downloaded videos and pictures etc and whatever is made of them, is fine by me. It's not easy to repeat it RAZD, when you have a sickness like mine that makes it hard to recall and recite, this goes for almost anything (I have the same frustrations in reality). I don't have quite the knowledge or passion in this area than perhaps you do. I can assure you it's not for want of trying.
If the information you provide is "bowl you over evidence" then why not let it rest and let it speak for itself? Why waste your time if you believe someone is continually "dodging"? I tend to believe that if you present something and you believe in it, then it can often speak for itself.
I am sure fellow readers on here can read for themselves quite easily and make their own minds up. I wouldn't worry about it. Painting creationists with a false brush, simply because there aren't many debating on this forum is also a pretty unfair way to give more credence to your arguments. That shouldn't really need to be the case. Let the information speak for itself.
I would like at some point to get back into this. I'm just wary of whether I'll be biting off more than I can chew once I jump back into the arguments. It is a drain, interesting as it is.
