Hi CTD

There is a very simple, and foolproof method for defining the contents of evolutionism: let the evolutionists define it. I do not jest.

No you do not jest, you wiggle and squirm, you twist meanings and juxtapose points unrelated in an amazingly athletic attempt to confuse anyone reading this thread into seeing problems with the theory left right and centre. You have said that I disagree with this formulation but to the extent that you are correct the disagreements are minor and don’t affect the core of ToE. What people here, people who really want to understand should note is that CTD never actually engages with what ToE says. He spends a great deal of time nit picking wording and vague disagreements between parts of this version and parts of that version and the motives of historical figures in this debate. If ToE was so untenable wouldn’t you think he could show some actual flaws in what the theory says? If it were so untenable wouldn’t you think he could come up with a viable alternative, one that fits with the evidence we have already? He has made only a few very feeble attempts to do so to date that I am aware of.

The above work from CTD is a classic example of creationist obfuscation. He has managed to avoid engaging with any of the real issues while throwing enough light weight shrapnel into the air that no one here, even if they seriously wanted to understand what is going on, would have any real chance of doing so. It’s a classic example of the style. Throw out 100 complaints, all easily refuted, and move on. Those following along are likely to run out of steam reading through the refutations before they get to the end and thus will conclude that there was a real problem with the idea of ToE as presented just by the weight of fluff thrown into the air. Watch how he never actually engages with the guts of the theory his complaints focus on wordings.

Can you please try something for me CTD? Can you try to work with us to gain an understanding of what ToE says? I for one would find your complaints far more interesting if they had any actual substance to them. A substance built out of an actual understanding of what ToE says is the idea basis for refuting it. Forget the motives of those who wrote it, forget the minor disagreements between different wordings in various peoples expositions on ToE. Try to do what we all should and see behind these minor points to the guts of the issue. Try to see what ToE is actually saying and engage with that. Can you do that CTD?

I hope you can.

In Reason

Russell