You make a claim and then qualify it with the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."
And you're badgering me over the fact that I didn't save copies of the discussion because...? Oh, right, because you're an ass.
You can't have it both ways: You can't sing the praises of proof, evidence, and the scientific method while suggesting we believe you had an on-line debate with Philip Johnson but you forgot to save a copy and can't give us the link.
You're making less and less sense here. First, when have I ever "sung the praises of proof" on these threads? Oh, right I haven't. On the contrary, several times in this thread I have pointed out that science is *NOT* about "proof".
So just what on Earth are you ranting about here? I have been entirely consistent on that point -- not that your addled brain would be able to notice, apparently.
Second, while I do "sing the praises of ... evidence and the scientific method" as methods of testing ideas about the world, I do so in the appropriate contexts and subjects. I do *not* act like a maniac and begin attacking people for not providing supporting evidence (or "proof") for every anecdote they choose to share concerning the things they have done or experienced. Unlike, say, yourself.
Third, I did not "suggest you believe me" without "proof" when I mentioned debating this topic with Johnson. I described what happened, but as always anyone is free to believe me or not depending upon their assessment of my past posts and my resulting reputation. If you want to get paranoidly uber-skeptical on such a minor thing, hey, go right ahead, it's no skin off my nose if someone wants to be a lunatic. Enjoy.
Finally, as should have been reasonably clear from my earlier posts on this thread, I didn't "forget to save a copy". It's just that during that period, I hadn't yet realized the value of saving my own posts for later reference, and wasn't saving *any* of them. The first post in my personal archives (which marks the date I first began saving them) is dated September 7, 1993.
It's an arrogant double standard
Only if you insist on missing the point entirely, as you seem very adept at doing.
-- not unlike the one that says creationists question evolution because they are ignorant
No, the point is that in general creationists question evolutionary biology *poorly* because they are by and large not as familiar with the topic as they like to think they are.
For some reason, people who would never dream of being able to comptently attack, say, quantum physics, seem to feel as if they know all they need to know about evolutionary biology, and feel qualified to tell biologists what they've been doing "wrong" for 140+ years... It's bizarre.
but evolutionist question creation because they are intelligent.
Evolutionists do not "question creation" as much as they question creationists about why the creationists are attempting to critique evolutionary biology without even a good basic knowledge of the field.
I'm sure your great intelligence, your scientific approach, your cool dedication to the facts and your general dispassionate demeanor will convince many that evolution is factual. This is why you never had a conversation with Johnson. He wouldn't respond to such abrasive insecurity.