[Liberty1970]

I think, however, that you fraudulently misrepresent the actual position taken by creationists, who normally deny that evolution takes place at all whatever the rate of evolution, and whatever the range of variability between place, time and species might be hypothesized.

Now I know evolutionists have gotten delusional, when they take their own strawmen and figments of their imagination and hold on to them more tightly then the evidence right in front of their face.

I am a Life member of the Creation Research Society and the Lutheran Science Institute. I wrote chapter 1 of Persuaded by the Evidence, a book documenting conversions to biblical creationism based on the scientific evidence. I am a life member of the Creation Museum run by AiG. I read six different peer-reviewed scientific publications produced by biblical creationists, participate on CRSnet, have published a number of book reviews, letters, and articles in creationist publications. Back before the web was widespread I ran a creationist BBS. I've attended three International Conferences on Creationism, a Baraminology Study Group conference and several other conferences, including lecturing at one and helping stage others. I have a personal library of well over three hundred books from a biblical creationist perspective, not counting evolutionist and other non-YEC books on origins.

In short, I think I have a handle on what my fellow biblical creationists believe.

I have no problem with saying I'm in a minority position on this or that point within the creationist camp if that's the case, but when I emphasize that creationists believe in a dynamic living world that we expect, in many ways, to be more dynamic than evolutionists expect, this is a point that is presented without controversy or opposition within the creationist literature. Just browse the articles at any major creationist website and you will see my point.

[AndyJackson]

Your screed is one admirably long diversion from the point at hand. I have three questions for you? 1. Do you, as a self-proclaimed fully paid up card carrying "creationaist" believe in genetic mutation and natural selection as the explanation of the differentiation of the species or do you not?

2. Is this a position agreed upon by other self-proclaimed "creationists?"

3. When you state creationists believe in a dynamic living world that we expect... to be more dynamic than evolutionists expect what are you trying to say? Are you saying:

a. That rapid changes in the morphology of living beings cannot be explained by genetic mutations, even though we can compare the genes of the rapidly evolving morpheme and demonstrate quite conclusively that the morphological changes can be related to genetic changes.

b. Or that environment is irrelevant to the determination of which forms are more likely to survive and which are less likely to survive?

c. That "evolutionists" deny that morphological changes happen at the rate that they are observed to happen by "more careful" scientists, i.e. that sloppy and biased "evolutionists" deny the existence of altered morphologies that are observed, recorded and documented by "more careful" "creationist" scientists.

4. Do you hold with many of your fellow creationists that radiometric dating is flawed and unscientific? In other words, do you disbelieve that the decay rate / half-life, etc. of C14, etc. is a random variable not subject to repeatable observation by different scientists ind different places using different methods of detection?