happy holidaying, dmcg.
Thank you. Because of that, though, this will be my last post for some weeks. I assume the thread will probably have faded into oblivion by then, or at least gone quite a different way.


on the A or B, I have always said that I am presupposing that creation is right, and that evolutionists presuppose evolutionism is

Actually, no! There's two problems with that. Firstly: The question, if you recall, was whether A or B gave a better explanation, so you can't really say "I haven't looked at either argument, but I've decided A is better." That's not really a defensible stand.

Secondly, you say that's exactly what evolutionists do. But if you look back, one of the first questions I asked was "How many beetles on the Ark?"   Look carefully. Our mutual friend Shaw would probably say that that's a nonsense question because there never was an Ark. But what I did was to assume creationism was right and ask the questions from that perspective. And it has been the same for every question I have asked you. Since we started this most recent discussion, anyway, I have been careful never to say creationism is wrong. What I have always said, in essence, is: Let us assume it is correct. What questions does that raise and can it answer them?

So I repeat, we cannot decide to choose between two arguments A and B, say we are presuming one is right before we even look, and claim we are being rational.