[Dimensio]

Is it just me, or do these two comments of yours placed together create a kind of dissonance?

No. I referred to "dishonest creationists". If I thought that creationists were by definition dishonest, I would have simply said "creationists", because "dishonest creationists" would have been redundant. I wished to make a distinction between the group of all creationists and a subset of that group who happen to be dishonest.

That you are trying to turn my distinction into a generalization only further demonstrates your own fundamental dishonesty.

[gobucks]

No. I referred to "dishonest creationists"

You referred to an 'incurable dishonesty'.

As if folks who believe that Christ rose from the dead are diseased. Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor?

[balrog666]

No. I referred to "dishonest creationists". If I thought that creationists were by definition dishonest, I would have simply said "creationists", because "dishonest creationists" would have been redundant. I wished to make a distinction between the group of all creationists and a subset of that group who happen to be dishonest.

That you are trying to turn my distinction into a generalization only further demonstrates your own fundamental dishonesty.

Well said.

Of course, it begs the question of why the anti-science posters on the crevo threads fall into the latter category. My guess is that your ordinary run-of-the-mill creationist couldn't care less about defeating that imaginary evil-science bugaboo.