Replies

Are you being sarcastic, or sardonic, or whatever the proper term is? In my experience, GGG, like most young earth creationists, have no trouble at all using articles that back their creationist beliefs while ignoring the fact that the authors of the article in no way share their belief in a young earth (or creationism, for that matter). Not that that is necessarily a problem, just stating a fact.

A little of both. We do differ, though, on it being a problem. I'd think it would be a rather large problem... I mean, ID states that God could be "dead," that the earth is 5+ billion yrs old, that the evidence shows descent with modification and accepts that natural selection is a result of pressures on populations through vast amounts of time. GGG finds those ideas as abhorrent as evolution - so why in the world he posts ID articles is beyond me.

Furthermore, OEC's accept an earth 5+ billion years old and more or less differ on biblical inerrancy. Oh sure, they can waffle on about what God really meant by "days" and all that, but when you get down to it, this is a HUGE divide. Heck, the ICR says if you don't accept the literal bible you're going to hell. So again, why GGG posts articles from hell-bound liberal satanist OEC's or ID'ers is beyond me.

As for pinging him, you're right. But really, he flits in, posts one or two sentences from his sources, then usually flits out. If he sticks around it's merely to fart out one-liners devoid of substance or defenses of his articles. So after a couple years, pinging him becomes rather moot.

You are right, I generally do flit in and flit out. I used to spend lots of time debating evos, including evo scientists, but I found that no matter how many times I demonstrated that Creation/ID is superior to Darwin’s fanciful creation myth, they clung to their evo-religion regardless. Indeed, I even used to set up debate threads, and ping all the evos to them. But alas, one by one they would all start dropping from the thread like flies, until it was just a bunch of Creationists and IDers talking to each other. So what’s the point? Besides, the articles and papers I post pretty much speak for themselves—and rarely does an evo come along with a comment that warrants any further elaboration on my part.

As for your comments about IDers and OECs. You will notice that I don’t post articles by OECs (proper), but I do post occasional articles and papers from an ID perspective. Can you guess why that is? You probably should’t bother, however, as I’m not sure I would tell you why, even if you guessed correctly.

All the best—GGG