Replies

I guess you don't know eiter [sic] then, or else surely you would have answered the question. Feel free to take a stab at it -- note that the word "science" is included in the question, so tailor your answer appropriately.

You are mistaken again. Not all ignorant questions deserve an answer. Note I did not answer all of your questions. Some questions are designed only to detract from the issue at hand, as is yours. If the issue is painful, change the subject.

I'm not sure I should attempt an answer to your question because any attempt at an answer casts a shadow on your education. Although I don't intend to belittle your intelligence let me say that any discipline except evolution lays out a path of understanding that includes opposing theories.

Therefore the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms.

The second step is summarizing opposing theories.

The third step is showing the weaknesses of the opposing theories.

The fourth step is to show why your position is superior.

Now that I've helped you understand the solution to the problem, feel free to apologize for the accusation. Feel free also to implement this approach in the public schools. Wait--- maybe that's why you asked?

You said: "[A]ny discipline except evolution lays out a path of understanding that includes opposing theories. Therefore the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms."

In the curriculum that Remedy directed me to (one that is admittedly for K-6, and therefore rudimentary) there is the admonition that students be taught the following: "Man is always man; dog is always dog; frog is always frog; and plants and animals always reproduce after their kind."

Since "the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms" (and assuming that "kinds" are fundamental to not only a grade school understanding of Creation Science, but also to advanced studies in Creation Science), perhaps you could define a "kind." And Dataman, this is not an attack. You have to realize that in a debate as in science, it is appropriate to ask for definitions of terms that are not otherwise self-evident. You have identified this as a prerequisite yourself.

[Feel free to take a stab at it -- note that the word "science" is included in the question, so tailor your answer appropriately. ]
You are mistaken again. Not all ignorant questions deserve an answer. Note I did not answer all of your questions. Some questions are designed only to detract from the issue at hand, as is yours. If the issue is painful, change the subject.
I'm not sure I should attempt an answer to your question because any attempt at an answer casts a shadow on your education. Although I don't intend to belittle your intelligence let me say that any discipline except evolution lays out a path of understanding that includes opposing theories.
Therefore the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms.
The second step is summarizing opposing theories.
The third step is showing the weaknesses of the opposing theories.
The fourth step is to show why your position is superior.

Now that I've helped you understand the solution to the problem, feel free to apologize for the accusation. Feel free also to implement this approach in the public schools. Wait--- maybe that's why you asked?

Congratulations, that's one of the most pompous, long-winded dodges I've seen in quite a while. You must be so proud.

Now, are you going to answer the question or not? I guess "not". What a waste of time, don't you have any better hobbies?