Hi Bex. I do think there is some amount of reaction to replies on both sides that is more based on emotion than on facts and evidence - we are human.

To put it simply, if I can, creationists are here because they think there are some issues about science in general and evolution in particular that need to be resolved with religious views, and that they can do this through debate, while "evolutionists" are here because they think there are some issues about science in general, and evolution in particular, that need to be resolved with religious views, and that they can do this through debate.

We certainly are not here to shout at each other and simultaneously closing our ears to the opposition, as that accomplishes nothing for either end of the spectrum.

Yet this is the reaction that leads you, SoSick, ikester, etc to label posts as "hateful" ... when the most I can see is that they are contradictory, using evidence and logic to present a position that is different from the one you or SoSick or ikester thinks is true.

You can hate a well reasoned and evidence supported argument, but that does not mean that the argument based on logic and evidence is hateful, or that the poster is posting it out of hate.

Take the issue of the Grand Canyon going through a high point along the ridge the canyon crosses:



Is posting the simple facts of objective reality, evidence anyone can verify from numerous sources, of the canyon location geological structure of the ridge hateful?

I don't think so. Not if you want to claim that different interpretations of evidence are equally viable - as you need to apply this to all the evidence.

Is it hateful to point out that the position that Hovind makes is falsified by this evidence?

I don't think so. It is a simple fact shown by the objective evidence, the reality is that there are sections of the ridge north and south where any presumed overflow would erode the ridge before it got to the height of the Grand Canyon section.

Is asking for anyone that is a creationist to explain this fact of reality, and how it requires a biblical flood in the process hateful?

I don't think so - not if you want to present creationism as a viable alternative to science in schools.

Calling Hovind a liar could be construed as "hateful" - especially if it was unsupported and unfounded.

Saying that Hovind has presented a falsehood - and demonstrating how and why it is a falsehood - is not necessarily hateful, it can be just calling a spade a spade.

So if you hate this fact of reality, and you don't know how to resolve it with a creationist model, do you feel that the person posting it must hate Hovind because they posted such facts of reality?

Just curious.

Enjoy.

(Glad you liked the escape key information - I learned from another site where everyone had an animated icon and some were much worse ... one was hilarious: a chicken doing the "chicken dance" ... until you saw it 20 zillion times ... I think of it as a guy poking his head in to see both sides)