At issue is whether creationism is paying attention to the evidence in the first place. Moneyrunner has found an all-purpose answer to those who would say that it is not. He's strategically insulted. He's tactically a victim. Thus a creationist can ignore all the evidence he wishes and cry "penis-head" when challenged.
Sounds like a "penis-head"-baiting strategy Johnny Cochrane would love.
Wrong, but misrepresenting the argument is a common tactic when it can be shown an evo is losing.
At issue is whether or not so-called scientists are extrapolating unsupported scenarios based on "evidence." In the end, it's not the evidence itself, it's the stories based on them--your "accumulated changes" statement is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Changes take place, but whether or not they accumulate enough over millenia to account for biodiversity is not supported in that evidence. Basically you are advertising one thing but selling another. Try that in business and you'll be arrested.
Have a nice day.
Actually, people who believe in God do pay attention to evidence. Most of us are very open minded, even allowing for the possibility that God used an evolutionary strategy. However, our world-view is not wedded to that concept and so we do not have a need to believe each new twist and turn in evolutionary theory. We are not gullible enough to swallow the pretensions of people who use a bone fragment to try to force-fit a theory into a pre-determined solution. Paleontology deals in probabilities, not certainties.
” Moneyrunner has found an all-purpose answer to those who would say that it is not. He's strategically insulted. He's tactically a victim. Thus a creationist can ignore all the evidence he wishes and cry "penis-head" when challenged.”
I’m sorry that you misinterpreted my comments. And I will not allow you to twist my words. I am not at all insulted and nowhere do I present myself as a victim. I merely suggested that one of the common “evolutionists” tactics on threads like these is to hurl insults by claiming that their opponents are either stupid or deluded. I then suggested that the art of persuasion precludes insulting those who you are trying to persuade.
It appears that the use of Ann Coulter’s term “penis head” has struck a raw nerve. I did not call anyone a “penis head” (re-read my posts). I suggested that the kinds of insults hurled by the defenders of evolution were similar to the quaint childish habit of name calling (such as calling someone else a “penis head.”)
”Sounds like a "penis-head"-baiting strategy Johnny Cochrane would love.”
Ah, but since I did not call anyone a name (see above) your attribution to me of baiting anyone is off-base. However, it once again illustrates the tendency toward name calling on your part. I have to tell you again, insults and name calling are not persuasive.