Neither. It is out of a recognition that you fail to understand the difference between faith and science.
Really? You grossly misrepresented me in an insulting, childish manner out of a "recognition that I fail to understand the difference between faith and science"?
But how is misrepresenting what I wrote justifiable even I had actually failed to understand that?
Your thought processes (not to mention your moral sense) appear to be... strange.
You also failed to address these other questions:
(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)I count four still unanswered questions in there, as well as a request for you to tell me how many more creationist lies you'd like me to list for you (since you earlier attacked me pointing out that creationist sources distort and misrepresent the evidence for evolution).[...]
Fester, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?
Tell me how many more examples you'd like me to post of creationist distortion of the evidence, and I'll be MORE than glad to post them.
So cut out the crap about how *I'm* the one with a reality problem, son. Have you *no* shame whatsoever?
Or have I already listed enough of them in my most recent post to you that I've supported my point and you will no longer challenge me when I say that creationist sources misrepresent the evidence?
That's question five for you to answer, by the way.
In case you missed the lists of creationist dishonesty (I know your attention to detail isn't too good sometimes) here it is again for easy reference:
Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.
Keep counting your questions. I'll answer the ones I feel like answering while you and your cheerleaders get all excited. I'm not the one trying to pass of a philosophy as if it were science. There has been no gross misrepresentation of your ramblings, only a lack of desire to count them as anything less than an emotional atempt to justify a philosphy that hangs around the neck of science like a ball and chain.