[edsheppa]

I don't think I'd agree that they are 1) infallible ...

Wow, nice strawman. Stupid me, I'd thought, from your posts, that you were different. Consequently I replied to your post in a direct and thoughtful way. And I'm repaid with that all time creationist favorite, the strawman.

Well, I shall not repay you in kind, but you'll get no respect from me.

... and 2) superior to other methods of knowing things.

Oh look, another strawman with a touch of sophistry thrown in. Where I have said reliable knowledge about the world, you substitute "things."

But strip away your moving the goal posts and yes, I'd say that naturalistic reasoning has proved superior to every other method in developing reliable knowledge about the world.

I'll preempt your next strawman here; I am speaking of the past and present (and near future as clear as I can see it). It is entirely conceivable that some superior method will come along. ID in its present incarnation is not that method.

The only way rock-paper-scissors could be comparable to the A>B and B>C thus A>C example would be to add the additional proposition C>A. But at that point the conclusion A>C would be nonsense. I'm not sure it is helpful to us given the discussion.

It's helpful to those smart enough to follow along. You've missed the point completely. You claimed the transitive rule is self-evident. By showing an interpretation in which the transitive rule does not hold (as any child who's played the game knows), I have shown your claim to be self-evidently wrong.

This may be a simple truth, yet it is one that appeals to our intuition. This requires no further observation to conclude it's truth.

So you not only know little of math and science but are also ignorant of their history. The parallel postulate was a simple, intuitive and undoubted truth for over 2000 years until it was overturned. A prudent person learns from historical facts like that and many others where the simple, intuitive and undoubted are upended. Creationists prefer building their own fantasy history.

You make other mistakes but I don't have the time now to school you. Maybe later.

[RetroFit]

I think that I also replied to you in a direct and thoughtful way. Apparently you took what I wrote in a condescending way towards you. If so, I do apologize to you for that. I certainly don't know nearly as much as I'd like, but I do know that my response to you was anything but disrespectful.

While I appreciated your first post and enjoyed considering the points you raised, I do believe you've jumped to the wrong conclusions on my response to you. You've also implied that I'm:

1)Wanting to move the goal posts of the argument.
2)I'm not smart enough to see that the analogy of the transitive rule you provided (rock paper scissors) is not the transitive rule. It's actually a non-transitive rule. (They are not the same thing and I pointed it out w/out the condescension you've offered)
3)Ignorant of history.

I have no problem admitting if and when I'm shown to be wrong, but it is hard to take anybody seriously who resorts to borderline name calling. Why can't people just have a dialog w/out the ad hominems? If you don't agree and you are choosing to engage a person, why not remain civil? How does your last response show anything but a short fuse?

It's OK. I won't waste more of your time as you seem to now think that I am. Thanks for the earlier response. It was good while it lasted.