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.
When deciphering, it pays to keep in mind that what you're working with may be illogical or contain no actual meaning at all. This is especially likely to be true when $500 words are present. The idea is to get you so busy looking up the word and trying to figure out which definition applies, that you overlook the fact that the rest of what is written is flawed or just nonsense.
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.
You're too modest. There have been times when I refrained from posting because I didn't want to distract attention from the strong arguments and evidence you presented.
...if only people had been paying attention instead of hiding behind their evogoggles...
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.
That's the whole key. Don't try to argue all issues. Don't try to debunk all bunk. I confess I do set a poor example.
Evolutionism has always been an argument from spam. Just look at Darwin's Origin book. One untruth, or ten thousand, which is easier to tackle? They know this, so they always insist it must all be debunked. If they had a case to present and evidence to back it up... well, they've had a century and a half, haven't they? But we cannot find hide nor hair of any real support for this myth, and neither can they! So instead, they must spam errors. And redefine terms. And obfuscate. And hurl false accusations. And you've seen the rest.
But spam is their strong suit. They have generated a lot over the many decades, and there's no sign they're going to slow down.
Nonparticipants will, if they think a bit, see that there are critical links in the chain. They may also see a pattern: this is false, this is false, that is false, and the rest of the crap remains unaddressed. People tend to recognize consistent patterns quickly.
This thread is but one example. Most of the bunk, perhaps all, wasn't fit to fool anyone. I addressed that which I thought might fool the inattentive, although it's hard to judge what's best in this group of losers. Now I'm accused of dodging.
But anyone can see that I have no need to dodge that which is harmless. This is just the same old spam strategy. If there is evidence which is inconsistent with the creation science model, it is reasonable for the evolutionists to present it and make it crystal-clear. How clear are any of their arguments? Where is the evidence that cannot be reconciled? There is no limit to the number of bogus arguments that can be presented about any subject, but the limit on legit arguments is zero in this case, to the very best of my knowledge. If there
is a flaw in the creation science model, it will be creation scientists who find it. The evolutionists are too busy focusing on straw men.
I actually should probably have ignored everything they've presented so far. They imagine the non-participants are very stupid, but there's no reason for me to accept this assumption. Well, maybe that meander bit - it's worth a little pursuit since meanders will not reconcile with the bogus evostories.
