Russell
Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005
|
Nah. Don't ban him. I don't think it's against the rules to be impervious to facts and logic. And, in a way, I agree with him that this whole exercise is to help him educate the public. For instance, after I asked him countless times to provide the creationist answer to this explanation of the Vitamin C gene defect data: | Quote | | The "Darwinist" position is that [genetic] errors creep in if they're not pruned by selection, and are inherited down through the family tree, leaving an imprinted geneology. |
after dodging the question so many times it became embarrassing, even to afd, he cut'n'pasted this: | Quote | | It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness. It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.) |
It's stunning enough that he thinks that's an explanation at all. He even goes on to say it's a better explanation than the evolutionary one!
Now if that doesn't educate the public as to the quality of creationist thought, I don't know what will.
--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.
|
