Replies

Indeed. That would demonstrate intellectual consistency, a characteristic which is worthy of respect. However, ID, which is obviously nothing but stealth creationism, is an unworthy ploy.

Well, back to my point. So far, only one creationist has stepped up to the bar and he essentially said that his end justifies the deceptive means. I'm disappointed - maybe it will be better tomorrow.

So far, only one creationist has stepped up to the bar and he essentially said that his end justifies the deceptive means. I'm disappointed - maybe it will be better tomorrow.

I assume you mean Trib7. I'm impressed that a creationist did have the integrity to admit the reality of the situation; but the rest of them don't surprise me. So many of that school bring extraordinary discredit to their position by their tactics here.

Balrog, quit your belly-aching and step up to the bar yourself. Step up and make the case that we're all supposed to concede to. Make the case, by quoting Dembski's work or providing references to exact work, that Intelligent Design is "stealth creationism". Start by defining Creationism. Next, show us exactly where any part of Intelligent Design work involves the designer. You and your side-kicks really make me laugh. You keep pressing people to concede to the most absurd and embarassingly ad-hoc conclusions imaginable and then wonder why when nobody does. Now, make your case, with references. I dare you. Make me look like a fool, shut us all up once and for all, and make the case. Then book mark your post and make sure you spread it around to all these threads, as I'm sure it will be the comprehensive analysis your boisterous and pompous on-line persona would lead us to believe it will be. I look forward to your scholarly analysis. When we see it, we'll discuss it, and then I and others will no doubt "belly up" to the proverbial bar. Get choppin'!