Dear Severin,
While there is some with which to agree and disagree in your last point, I just wanted to focus on this sentence of praise to George:

“You are one of if not the most enlightened of the Christian posters to this forum” (18/9).

It is good to give and receive praise when it is due for wise works or deeds. And George is one of the more thoughtful among us.

But as a counterbalance to this, it is rarely praise or admiration that a Christian seeks. Jesus was at times loved, but also slandered. He was so despised that he was declared unworthy to live, and was unjustly publically executed. He warned that, just as he was slandered and hated, so too would be his followers.

I would guess that George would at least somewhat agree with me that the goal of a Christian is to be faithful and true to convictions rather than be popularly admired.

Rusty,
I do find your criticisms of myself clear, but they are also unfounded and unwarranted.

I quoted Sagan for a reason. What he said was not particularly remarkable. Others have observed the data similarly. The creationist argument does not rely on odd quotes but is a summation based on the totality of the empirical evidence.

If the evolution case to which you hold was really so well founded, you would be able to cope with Sagan’s and others’ observations, and not need resort to emotional and abusive outbursts (such as last week, 21/9).

You seem keen to make me the issue. I’m not. I am just someone raising and discussing some of the issues already out there. But you want to ‘shoot the messenger’, or at least attack my character.

In regard to my professional activities, my character is never at issue. People may critique my work, but they are not inclined to attack me personally. At least that is not my experience. This only occurs when I write something on the creation/evolution issue. This only highlights the controversial nature of this debate, and shows how irrational and emotional people sometimes get over this issue.

I do enjoy discussing the creation/evolution controversy. I’ve even found some of your points interesting, for you are one of the few that will actually put reasons for your beliefs; most simply assume evolution to be the true nature of our origins. While you make some worthy points, amongst those that are weak, as well as the times where we just talk past each other because of misunderstandings, I am not encouraged to respond and clarify my position when any good points of mine are countered by abuse and personal attacks.

I could accurately reiterate the descriptions of myself used by Davdf or Oliver and others to help defend my character, but again you’d probably accuse me of being a ‘quote minor’ (whatever that is). But briefly, they said I was justified in objecting to being called a liar.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: But as a counterbalance to this, it is rarely praise or admiration that a Christian seeks. Jesus was at times loved, but also slandered. He was so despised that he was declared unworthy to live, and was unjustly publically executed. He warned that, just as he was slandered and hated, so too would be his followers.

Dear Dan,

I accept your word on what a Christian seeks, and I think it would be reasonable if you were to cite a Christian example to base your behaviour on. However, Jesus was not a Christian. Other people after he died invented a religion based on him, but he was not a Christian.

He might be horrified at what people have done in his name. He also might approve. When he said that one could attain the kingdom only through him he sounded most egocentric and uncaring. It didn't matter how good a person you were if you didn't buy his pitch. I certainly wouldn't pick him as a role model. Buddha sounds much more reasonable. He advocated questioning even his words.

Dan,

Your reason was quite clear, it was to be a smartarse.

Sagan's views about evolution and about the the fine detail of mutations in contribution to evolution are clear. I refer you to the works *I* quoted. Perhaps you did not understand the piece you quoted. This is common in quote mining where the contributory quote is taken out of context and superficially acquires another meaning. Execrable in creationist literature, deplorable in a "teacher".

If your position was well founded, you would be able to cope with the fact that Sagan's views are not reflected by your cherry-picked quote, and find something better. Instead you resort to being habitually dishonest.

To clarify, the sentence you quote was in relation to the impact of "mutations" on individuals so identified. On the preceding page, Sagan goes to some length to describe the contributory nature of "mutations" to evolution. Perhaps you neglected to read that bit in your thorough reading? Is it *just* academic dishonesty, or do you benefit directly?

It becomes quite clear that the creationist message depends on nothing but "odd quotes", especially when they have published books to that effect, perhaps you have seen some?

I *know* my views are interesting. If you study hard, you might comprehend the relevance to modern work. You are not in a position to assess the strength of my arguments. Which are weak? How did you assess this? The use of such non-specific doubt-generators is classic revival-tent creationism but cannot be expected to work on adults.

I believe your character is well stained by your own comments, perhaps you should refrain? You certainly may object to the accusation, any miscreant may. I am certainly justified in saying so because you misrepresented Sagan's "thoughts" as opposed to his selectively-quoted sentences, you liar you. Perhaps your professional work comes under insufficient scrutiny, nothing like that of *real* philosophers and scientists?

I've not found your offerings in favour of creationism interesting, barely average. I have participated to ensure that such cheap "misunderstandings" as you offer do not go uncorrected.

Rusty

at/last..a quote..which has...concensus

<<.. -I have/participated..to ensure that/such cheap/"misunderstandings"..as you/offer..do not go uncorrected.>>

for an/who...know..the topic..of evolution
the basic/means..or correcting error..is to quote..[the errant-bit]..then correct..the clear-error

iother ways are to point-out...definitives[via quotes]..that reveal..the truth of doudt..re the theory...

rather that the/delusioon of evolution being a faulsifyable[able to be prooved/replicated]..prove-able-fact

if...a quote...can-be..taken..incorrectly
is this/the..error of the quoter
or of the quoted..not being clear?

clearly..ol rust-buchette...has ego...ergo...his stated importance
of his work..and the errant theory..is is only loosly based-on...with its tenious-links...of a natural/proces..into a scientific..coup-de/grass..[fraudulently]..

or at a minimum...not able-to be validated..via science/standard..it claims to demand..[from others]...when clearly...natural/process.is not scienctific-oprocess..

[and..as all so called macro-evolutions..evolved...and were in egsistance..well prior..to science...and science-theories...

let science be revealed..as but like a blind-man..leading the blinded...while pretending..to see/know...things not/even they can replicate/nor prove..

without using peer-age...validations...
and sainted/god-heads..to sustain..their..persion-age/cult

sport[mutations]..are errors of transcription
they offer..no-means to increase..the genomic/quotent..with-in their genus

clearly..that...so called mmicro-step
between...a cold/blood-fish..
into a warm/blood..beastie

which..science claims..did occure...is a huge/step..[deciete]

so please/reveal..the cold/blood...and its child..warm/blood
WITHIN..THE SAME..breeding-polulation

[ie they will..[must/look[be]..the same
because the micro/evolution[mutt-ation]..
betwixt..cold/warm...is a huge..leap in/faith

clearly unsustainable..by any stretch..of spin

reveal..this cold/blooded..warm-blood..missing link
but you cant...surely..in this is meat..for any thinking man

but not an origonal thought
nor reasoning/between..ya

its laugh-able..to any reading this post's back-pages
[your spin..to have opresented any proof]

i laugh...at you
reveal..
when
where

[reader..please read carefully any links..he pretends..shall reply
the game is destraction/by building a mask/of believability
hoping..no one checks

but..be different...
CHECK..his next..links
if/any

carefully..and it..will-be revealed..
fraud/baffeling/or incom-prehensile-able..
sustained by spin..or plain gibberish

nothing..other-than..a deciever[of children]..
paid/to..trick the innocent...
away from god
with..the latest..godless theory...
or dis-informative...ever missing-link

if..you/dont comprehend..their ex-plain-ation
neither does..the/writer..write..it plainly