Geology, physics and/or chemistry are all considered science because they are testable by the empirical senses. Evolution is not testable by the empirical senses. Therefore it is not science.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for agreeing with me that you believe that people who deny evolution is science are either ignorant--incompetent (basically the same thing) or liars. Were you ignorant when you were a young earth creationist or were you lying? Is you dad ignorant, or is he lying?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"Evolution is not testable by the empirical senses."

If you weren't ignorant and too lazy to research or understood how science works and what it is, you'd realize this statement is, in very simple terms, wrong. Jerry D. McDonald, you are a prime example for a gullible, ignorant creationist - the #1 target for money-hungry people and organizations like Kent Hovind and the CSE Ministry.

Since you think that I am so stupid why don't you produce "empirical evidence" for biological macro-evolution.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Easily speaking, because scientists tend to not work on things that have already been done and repeated successfully often enough.

That's convienent. They have already done it. Produce the documentation!
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Notice how Jerry has shifted the subject. Now it's not just biological evolution. Now he's referring more specifically to macroevolution. Bear in mind he's so clueless about science he thinks the earth didn't exist more than about 6,000 years ago, and so in his scientifically illiterate mind he thinks of the entire fossil record as a chaotic morasse laid down in a worldwide flood. The more YECs pretend they don't ignore the facts, the more they do.

I guess your "un"scientific mind thinks that there is no difference between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, macroevolution IS microevolution. The distinction is that macroevolution refers to the *effects* of microevolution over substantial periods of time. Thus, scientific study of macroevolution involves differing areas of science in some of the same areas as those for microevolution but also different areas (such as paleontology). In regard to having an unscientific mind, all of us - including you - already know that young earth creationism does not exist in professional science today.

Wrong, microevolution is "comparatively minor changes involving the accumulations of variations IN POPULATIONS" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 784) Will continue...

And that's what I said. Again, you keep *demonstrating* that incompetence in understanding concepts that I've mentioned. Thank you for doing so.

You keep demonstraiting your cowardess in refusing to answer specific yes or no questions with a specific yes or no response. You continue demonstraiting your cowardess in refusing to show proof of macroevolution apart from geology or palentology.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Macroevolution is "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as IN SPECIES FORMATION). (P. 745).

Micro is small changes within a kind and macro is large changes in species formation or in other words, going between kinds.

And that's what I said. Again, you keep *demonstrating* that incompetence in understanding concepts that I've mentioned. Thank you for doing so.

I am not demonstraiting any incompetence. You are demonstraiting what a coward you are. You make challenges, but when it comes right down to it you are too much of a coward to debate.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Have scientists, now living, ever observed (empirically) microevolution between two kinds of animals? (Please document).

Have scientists, now living, ever observed (empirically) macroevolution within a kind of animals? (Please document).

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Yes, there is empirical evidence of both. Jerry there is no way we're going to have a serious discussion of this in a forum that limits responses to 500-character posts. We could have this discussion in an appropriate discussion forum, but YOU RAN AWAY FROM THE DISCUSSION FORUM because the illogical nature of your comments was so obvious you had made yourself look so silly it embarrassed you.

You blew any chance of a serious discussion when you refused to debate me on the subject. Now where is any evidence of macroevolution? Where is there any evidence of one kind evolving into another kind?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Without the fossil record and palentology, has macroevolution ever been empirically observed by scientists now living?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for pointing out that it is your purposeful intention to ignore the fossil record and paleontology.

Without the fossil record, and palentology, what record do we have that reptiles gave place to mammals?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for pointing out that it is your purposeful intention to ignore the fossil record and paleontology, that it is your very intention as a creationists to deliberately ignore the scientific evidence that you don't like.

I am not ignoring anything. I wanted to deal with the fossil record (which is a part of geology) in debate but you refused to allow that. You are the one who is evading and ignoring.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

If reptiles gave place to mammals why do we still have reptiles co-existing with mammals?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"If reptiles gave place to mammals why do we still have reptiles co-existing with mammals?"

Jerry, THIS IS BEAUTIFUL!!! Thank you so very much for *demonstrating* the sheer incompetence of the creationist mind!

This is not an answer to the question and you know it. Stop evading the question and answer it.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

The documentation was produced, Jerry, and what have you been doing? Deliberately ignoring it! In my video "Creationist Delusion: 'Evolution isn't science'" I gave you links to relevant professional science journals online (many of them with freely available professional research articles). And what have you done all along? You've been deliberately ignoring their existence, and here you are ignoring their existence again. Why do you ask for things you know you're going to just ignore anyway?

I'm not ignoring anything. I just happen to disagree with you that evolution is science. I don't believe that it is. You can point out all the "professional books and journals" you want, it that fact won't change my mind. I know too much about the issue to ever be led off into the false doctrine that evolution is science.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Hi Jerry, thank you again for openly acknowledging that you are deliberately ignoring the professional science research articles that are published on evolution - and thus for acknowledging that what I pointed out in my video about creationists is exactly right.

Are Chaisson and McMillian professional astronomers?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Chaisson and McMillian certainly are professional astronomers. Now, what is the subject of my video "Creationist Delusion: 'Evolution isn't science'"??? You keep changing the subject, because you're attempting to obfuscate from the fact that you are deliberately ignoring the specifically relevant information I pointed out to you in that video (and in the follow-up video to that one).

No I am not changing the subject. I know what your video topic is, but I also know that you advertised books on geology, books that you said proved evolution. Now you say it is a lazy oversight, but you aren't going to change it. Why? Because you know that biological evolution depends on the fossil record (a part of geology).
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

If I use scholars (evolutionists) who are not on your video, isn't that just as good?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You never did give me a definition of what you consider "professional."
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession" - in the context of this discussion, we're talking about the profession of science, and in particular we're talking about those fields of science that are relevant to evolution, the broad fields being biology and paleontology, though it's actually specific subfields and research in those subfields within biology and paleontology that are relevant (such as population genetics, developmental biology, and so on).

Does any of this make a difference as far as the debate we were proposing is concerned. There is no debate. The opportunity has now passed.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

There you go with another red herring, Jerry. First you ask specifically about THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE, and then you change the subject to the fact that you abandoned the debate. Whether or not you back out of the debate does not change the fact of what the topic of the debate itself was.

My next question is: "Is a scientist who believes in young earth creation, a professional scientist?"
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

If a person conducts professional science research in cancer research, then he (or she) is a professional scientist in cancer research. Of course, this is irrelevant to professional astronomy and irrelevant to professional geology. Of course, you already knew this.

So if a person conducts professional research in the area of astronomy and comes to the conlusion that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old, is he a professional astronomer?

If a person conducts professional research in chemistry, then he is a professional chemist. If he makes silly claims about chemistry based on something he believes the Book of Mormon says on the subject, those claims have NOTHING to do with professional science. Of course, you already knew this, but, Jerry, you do so very much love the red herring.

If someone condcuts professional research in chemistry and makes claims that you disagree with based on the evidence that he finds in his work in chemistry, is he a professional chemist? We are not talking about what one finds in the Bible or the book of Mormon, we are talking about what one finds in the realm of science.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Exactly, Jerry, *I* am talking about professional science research, not religion-based pseudoscience propaganda. In professional science, young earth creationism literally does not exist. You, on the other hand, are indeed referring specifically to religion-based pseudoscience propaganda that has nothing to do with professional science. This is the point.

So, in other words, if a person comes to the conclusion that the earth is young, then this person is basing it on religion, not science, and is therefore not a professional scientist regardless of his credentials or his work?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, as usual you get things backwards and put the cart before the horse. The "conclusion" that the earth is young is not professional science. Period. Young earth creationism literally does not exist in professional geological science today and has not existed in professional geological science for something like 200 years. All of us - including you - know that YECs believe what they believe on the basis of religious doctrine.

So no one who takes the position that the earth is young can possibly be a professional scientist? Yes or No!

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, it is obvious that I have already directly addressed this question (see above). It is also obvious that - as usual with you - you're going to deliberately ignore what I have already stated and then falsely pretend I have not already addressed your question, and then proceed to play word games on this basis.

Do you not know how to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"Do you not know how to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no?" <== This is Jerry McDonald again ignoring my answer and deceitfully pretending I haven't already answered the question.

Why don't you just answer with a "yes" or "no" answer? Is that so hard? You are the one who is ignoring and decietfully pretending. If you believe that any scientist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is 10,000 years old or less is not a professional scientist it looks like you would be willing to answer "yes" or "no"?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry writes: "If you believe that any scientist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is 10,000 years old or less is not a professional scientist..." <== See? I told you. Jerry is doing his very best to obfuscate and ignore the fact that young earth creationism does not even exist in science today. What particular scientists believe about some things because of their religious beliefs in the Book of Mormon, the Quran, the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita is utterly irrelevant to THE SCIENCE.

So, the answer is "NO," this person is not a professional scientist because he did not get this knowledge from science, but religion.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry writes: "So, the answer is 'NO,' this person is not a professional scientist because he did not get this knowledge from science, but religion." The answer (which Jerry has already been given) is that some professional scientists in various fields (such as cancer research) hold beliefs on other subjects that are based on religion, not science. Religious beliefs are religion, not science. Jerry, like so many other YECs, works very diligently to obfuscate and ignore this.

True or False: A geologist who takes the position that the earth is young is a professional geologist.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, name your so-called "professional geologist." Stop making silly false insinuations. Name the man. You cannot do this. Your problem is that it is impossible for you to be straight about anything, because young earth creationism is a pseudoscience and the sole purpose of you guys promoting YEC is to use fallacious propagandistic word games to distort, obfuscate, and hide the facts.

Name the man you are pretending exists. Name just one. I dare you.

"On a muggy afternoon in July, a group of geologists from around the country put on some bug spray and fanned out along one of Ohio's richest fossil beds....John Whitmore, a geologist from nearby Cedarville Universitywho organized the field trip..."

The above came from an article written in the New York Times just recently naming John Whitmore as a geologist who believes in the young earth.

Yes, Jerry, now here is your REAL task, where you prove that John Whitmore is a REAL professional geologist. Cite for us ONE SINGLE piece of scientific research on geology done by John Whitmore that is published in the professional science literature that has ANYTHING to do with supporting young earth creationism. You cannot do it, because it doesn't exist. Game over.

So I take it, that by professional science literature you mean literature that teaches evolution/geology? This is what I have been saying all along. You don't see that anyone who believes in a young earth as being a professional scientist. The only people you believe that are professional scientists are those who believe in evolution.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
Game over.

Yep, there you go again Jerry with the silly young earth creationist conspiracy theory: "Geological science is just an evolutionist conspiracy." You were asked to cit ONE SINGLE piece of scientific research on geology done by John Whitmore that is published in the professional science literature that has ANYTHING to do with supporting young earth creationism. You didn't do it, because you can't do it, because it doesn't exist. Game over.

Look Todd, we can continue these word games until the Lord returns, but what's the point. Let me ask you plainly and I want a clar answer: "Do you believe that any geologist who takes the YEC position is a professional geologist?" A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

I already gave you a clear answer, a clear answer I keep giving you, yet here you are falsely pretending for the umpteenth time that I never answered this. Here it is again: There is not a single scientist conducting/producing professional scientific research having anything to do with supporting young earth creationism. You mentioned a guy named John Whitcomb, but you have utterly FAILED to produce a single example of professional scientific research by him. So your contention is bogus.

I have mistake of accidentally leaving out some words here. I wrote "you have utterly FAILED to produce a single example of professional scientific research by him," and it should have been "you have utterly FAILED to produce a single example of professional scientific research by him in reference to supporting young earth creationism."

Yes Or No?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Cedarville University <== Religion: "Unwavering commitment to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture; Creationist approach to scientific research and study; Required Bible minor a part of all academic programs" Just what I already told you, Jerry. All of us - including you - knows fully well that young earth creationism believed on the basis of fundamentalist religious belief in the Bible. And that's exactly what Cedarville University says. They agree with what I already told you.

All of us are painfully aware of what the evolutionist thinks. Their idea is based, largely, upon Darwinism, a doctrine that has been discredited so many times that I even wonder why it is still being taught.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Except - duh - in this case we're not even talking about evolution. We're talking about geology. We are also painfully aware of what physicists and astronomers think, that the Earth orbits the Sun instead of the other way around. Because that's the way things are. And in the case of evolution, it's science, yet a lot of you young earth creationist love to use the lie that it's "religion" by deliberately ignoring the actual science (that I pointed you to in my video).

We are not talking about Biological evolution per se, but we are talking about planetary evolution, are we not?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You're right, Jerry, the *general* meaning of the word "evolution" is simply "change", and there are indeed all kinds of geological forces on Earth generating geological changes. When young earth creationists - like you - try to pretend that geological changes, as learned about through geological science, are somehow part of some worldwide evolutionist conspiracy about biological evolution, then you prove to everyone just how zany you guys really are.

Thank you.

It is all interconnected and you know it. Even Chaisson and McMillian state this in their book "Astronomy Today." You can't logically deny it.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

I agree Jerry. All of science is interconnected. This is because scientists are studying reality, and thus science should be interconnected because it all needs to be consistent with reality.

I didn't say that all science is interconnected. I said that all phases of evolution is interconnected.

In Christ Jerry
Jerry McDonald

Yep, there you go again Mr. Young Earth Creationist, with your zany "Everything in science we young earth creationists don't like is an evolutionist conspiracy" nonsense. Thank you for again showing just how crazy YEC rhetoric really is.

No, but I find it interesting that even Chaisson & McMillian (whom you call professional astronomers) say that all scientists have accepted evolution; thus showing that if you don't accept evolution you aren't a scientist.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

I don't see you quoting their comment, Jerry. Frankly, I have found through much experience that creationists - and especially young earth creationists - are absolutely terrible at giving correct representations of what people have said or not said, even when they quote them (out of context). I don't believe your representation of them in the least.

Show where I have misrepresented Chaisson and McMillian. I demand that you do that.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Do Chaisson & McMillian say that there are seven phases of evolution and one of them is biological evolution?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

And that means that the other uses of the word "evolution" are NOT "biological evolution." Of course, you are so incompetent at understanding and using the English language that you can't figure that out. Thank you for AGAIN proving the incompetence of young earth creationists.

I'm not incompetent, and neither are you. You are just a liar. You know that there are seven alleged phases of evolution under the term cosmic evolution and biological evolution is one of them.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

From the website: "Cedarville University Doctrinal Statement" "4. We believe in the literal 6-day account of creation, that the creation of man lies in the special, immediate, and formative acts of God and not from previously existing forms of life. Genesis 1:26,27; 2:7-9,16,17; 3:1-19." Thank you, Jerry, you just gave away the store and proved everything I already told you!

You have proved everything I have told you. By professional you mean "evolution/geology." He has done work for creation research papers, but you don't accept them. I could go into the evolutionist manifesto, but what difference would it make?
I gave away nothing, you asked for a young earth creationist geologist and I gave you one.

Here are the facts: You were asked to cite ONE SINGLE piece of scientific research on geology done by John Whitmore that is published in the professional science literature that has ANYTHING to do with supporting young earth creationism. You didn't do it, because you can't do it, because it doesn't exist. Game over.

Again, you haven't stated what you mean by "professional science literature."
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Oh yes I have stated what I mean by it, *at least* a half a dozen time. But, no doubt, you will now play more word games pretending I haven't already told you this either, just as you have played numerous word games before on various other details. Of course, all of us already know that the whole reason you YECs play word games all the time about everything is because word games is all young earth creationism really consists of when it comes to YEC pseudoscience.

Any geologist who holds to YEC is not a professional geologist. That is your belief, correct? Can you answer that one with a yes or no answer, Farrell Till, I'm sorry Todd Greene?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, I have asked you and asked you and asked you and asked to cite even ONE SINGLE piece of real geological research published in the professional science literature by a scientist (in this case, a geologist) that is supporting young earth creationism. You have not done this. All of us - including you - know why you haven't, because you can't, because there isn't any, it doesn't exist. Thus, all you are left with is silly empty word games.

Why are you afraid to answer my question?

Yes or No. "Any Geologist who holds to the YEC position is not a professional geologist.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

There you go again, lying that I have not already answered the question several times. Typical deceitful word games of young earth creationists. Just what we expect from you guys, which is precisely why you have the lousy reputations you have. It's exactly what you deserve.

No Todd you have yet to give a "Yes" or "No" answer. You keep lying and saying that you have, but I challenge you to show where you have. Is the answer "Yes" or is the answer "No"?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

No, Jerry, you have yet to deal with reality, and do anything other than use the standard deceitful tactics of young earth creationist rhetoric to ignore reality and make things up that don't exist. All of us - including you - know fully well that young earth creationism does not exist in professional geological research literature. Everything you are doing is for the sole purpose of trying to ignore this reality. Which is why you keep ignoring my answer and pretending it doesn't exist.

Neither does "evolution."

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, YOUR task has been to produce ONE SINGLE piece of real geological research published in the professional science literature by a scientist (in this case, a geologist) that is supporting young earth creationism. You have not done this. All of us - including you - know why you haven't, because you can't, because such does not exist. So all we get from you are the standard YEC word games to cover up the fact that you have nothing of relevance to science.

You limit me to secular works by calling them professional works and anything that has anything to do with YEC religion.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

The fact of the matter - that Jerry is doing his very best to obfuscate and ignore - is this: In astronomical science and geological science in particular, young earth creationism does not even in science today. This is because young earth creationism was falsified in geology over 200 years ago.

When you refer to "professional science journals," do you mean "secular science journals"?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry writes, "When you refer to 'professional science journals,' do you mean 'secular science journals'?"

Jerry, thank you for *demonstrating*, yet again, that young earth creationism is based on religion, not science. I mean professional science, nothing more and nothing less. You obviously are too incompetent to figure it out, EVEN WHEN I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU DOZENS OF SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE JOURNALS. Typical young earth creationist.

Every example you gave me is a journal the upholds evolution. You can argue with this all you want, but you know that the only thing you consider "professional" are those that uphold evolution.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Yes, Todd, that is exactly what I told you. However, you have not told the reader everthing I told you. I also told you that I did read what Chaisson and McMillian said about SN 1987A. I have asked you a question from a statement that they made and you have ignored it. Why?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

First of all, SN1987A is completely irrelevant to biological evolution, and the fact that biological evolution is science.

Second, I haven't ignored anything, so your statement here is just wrong, as well as irrelevant.

The fact that SN 1987A is completely irrelevant to biological evolution is not my point. You have repeatedly ignored the statements made by Chaisson and McMillian on the ring of red and yellow gas around the star that supposedly was expelled 40,000 years before it went supernova.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Why do you think I've ignored it? Jerry, your claim that I've ignored anything is bordering on the bizarre. Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? At the moment, the evidence (your comments) clearly indicates you don't.

What you have ignored is the fact that I have pointed out that the red/yellow ring supposedly was expelled from sk 69-202 40,000 years before it went supernova. Why didn't we see the red/yellow ring before 1987?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

And as we have seen in discussion elsewhere, not only have I not ignored it, but there's nothing to ignore. The problem - as almost always, is that you young earth creationists simply do not know what you're talking about when it comes to science. You make up questions based on false premises you've conjured up in your mind based on not really knowing anything about the science you're talking about.

No the problem is; you don't like the questions because you don't have answers to them.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

It's a fact I didn't ignore your questions. First, you asked a question so vague it was impossible to tell what you were asking about. Second, you finally did ask a specific question, which was irrelevant to SN1987A having exploded 168,000 years ago. Third, after I pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES that your question was illogical and irrelevant, you finally admitted this. Now you make this statement here ignoring all of this - thus displaying your serious problem of incompetence with basis logic.

Why don't you go to Greene's video and show me where he is just saying that we know little about science. Read his own comment: "The issue is not whether you agree with the science, the issue is that evolution is science, not religion, and the references I gave prove that. People who deny the facts are (1) ignorant, (2) incompetent, or (3) deceitful" (Greene 10 hours ago).
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, do you even know know to comprehend plain English? quedorf wrote, "I think the point trying to be made is that evolution is science, and anyone who says it is not, obviously knows little about science." You YECs deliberately ignore the existence of professional science research on evolutionary biology, and then you deceitfully pretend it doesn't even exist.

I know what quedorf said. What I was trying to get him to understand is that you were saying that creationists were ignorant, incompetent (according to your own comment) or liars. He didn't want to deal with "incompetent."
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald (who can't comprehend pain English).

Hey, quedorf, Jerry's right, don't forget that many times a lot of young earth creationist rhetoric is simply incompetent because they don't understand simple logic and use illogical rhetoric a lot.

Jerry, in fact, in my "Creationist Delusion" video I didn't happen to use the word "incompetent." That was indeed an oversight on my part, because I should have. However, the whole point is that you are STILL deliberately ignoring the subject of the video *that my comments toward the end* were based on in the first place. So in fact you yourself are proving that my comments were absolutely correct. Thank you again!

I have no problem with Greento saying most creationist are ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. If you claim evolution is not science shows an ignorance of science. Incompetent means not qualified. i would dare say that anyone who says creation is not science is not qualified in the scientific method. Liar. if one is competant, and has the knowledge, then to make such a statement is simply lying.

Hey Dude, Take this as ad hominem or adive, I don't care which. How I keep my room is my buisness. It happens to be a spare room in which I have my computer and many of my books, a bed (which is where my wife puts the laundry to fold before she puts it away). If you don't like looking at my laundry, my only advice to you is "Don't Look."

I'll take it as advice and very good advice at that, which was ? "Don't Look." Yes, that's advice I'd give to anyone about your video. Obviously you're not very creative either as you managed to copy about half of my posting into yours. No wonder you're a Creationist it looks like you can't think for yourself, or clean up your room. Your business, when you've posted it on the freeking internet you've made it the worlds business. What do you think this is radio ?

O, I am all broken up, mindoversplatter. Where my wife folds our laundry is none of anyone's business. At least she washes and folds our clothes every day. That's why you see clean laundry on the bed.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

P.S. Other than that, the room is clean.

Someone offers you a little advice on how to better, and more appropriately, further your message and you get all huffy. Somehow I got the idea that Christianity was about 'turning the other cheek,' and taking others into consideration. Guess I was wrong, as your response seems typical. I never said your room wasn't clean. I suppose that the clothes are clean.

The pile is distracting and detracts from your message. So much so that I still haven't figured out what you're complaining about. But that could be delivery, too, I suspect

What has my laundry got to do with my message?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Like I said distracting and detracting. It's one of those, if you don't know already there's probably no hope type situations.

However, mindoversplatter, while I agree with you in regard to "pragmatics," I do agree with Jerry that this is all irrelevant to the subject matter. I'm just making this comment "for the record."

Greento, all so true. I'm a Post-Grad. Psyc. and see Jerry as an interesting study. He seems to be a 'have to get the last word in' sort of personality. This all could have been dropped or ignored at any time. It's not a bit pertinent. Interesting that you've come to the fore to point this out rather than Jerry.

I'll happily bugger off and mind my own business. : )

mindoversplatter, I agree Jerry is a study in something (as most young earth creationists are), and to be honest with you, I'd love having you attempt to get Jerry to deal with (1) the illogical nature of his rhetoric, (2) the errors of his claims about science, and (3) the actual subject matter of the "Creationist Delusion" video that is supposedly what he's responding to even though he's never yet dealt with the subject of the video in any way.

Now, Psychology is a true 'soft science' and some things are, as yet, beyond it's scope.

We have distorted nothing. It doesn't occur to you that we can be just as knowledgeable as you are, look at the same data and come to a different conclusion. We are either ignorant, incompetent or liars as far as you are concerned.

But you aren't Jerry. You already admitted to me in the other group that you had deliberately ignored the substance of my "Creationist Delusion: 'Evolution isn't science'" video. Which is precisely why I made the followup video (that you've also ignored). Indeed, in ALL of your comments on the comments page for my video you've completely ignored the referenced information. Thank you for continuing to prove just how right my comments about YECs are.

You are right, I am not just as knowledgable as you. I am such a liar and so incompetent, just like your dad. I'll bet he is real proud to have such an intelligent honest son.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
P.S. BTW Whatever is in your follow up will not deter from the fact that your first video still teaches that those geology books prove that biological macro-evolution is science.

You don't know hardly anything about my dad, and now instead of acknowledge your distinct errors of (1) deliberately ignoring the referenced information relevant to the topic, and (2) making further statements based on now deliberately ignoring the fact that you deliberately ignored the referenced information and already admitted this, you pile on another error of making statements about my dad based on your sheer ignorance. Good show, young earth creationist!

I don't know anything about your dad. What I am trying to get you to see is that if he is a young earth creationist (which I suspect he is based on the way you are not dealing with my question) you put him in the same catagory as you put me: (1) ignorance; (2) incompetent, or (3)a liar.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Actually, Jerry, what you're arguing is that when you young earth creationists really are ignorance, incompetent, or lying, we should just shut up and not say anything about it, because you don't want people telling the truth about you.

I am not saying that you should shut up, but if you don't want to be called names, don't call names. As far as I am concerned, you are not ignorant, and you are not incompetent, you are just a liar.
BTW is your dad ignorant, incompetent or is he a liar?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

The difference between us, Jerry, is that I have proved exactly what you are lying about. In other words, I've backed it up with the facts. You on the other hand are just calling me a liar because my telling the truth about how you creationists operate upsets you.

Right! What have I lied about?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

It is lying to engage in discussion that is deceitful precisely because it is based on deliberately ignoring the facts pointed out to you on a subject that are directly relevant to that subject, facts that show that your claims on the subject are wrong. You are still to this very minute deliberately ignoring the subject matter of my "Creationist Delusion" video - that you are supposedly responding to even while you've NEVER actually responded to the facts pointed out to you in any way.

Todd, I have responded to you, you just don't like my answer. I will not debate the age of the earth with you without being able to get into the fossil record which requires getting into biological evolution. Now while I don't believe biological evolution is science, you do and I will not be restricted in defending my proposition. If biological evolution is science, why can't I discuss it?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You have "responded" with nothing relevant, and in your irrelevant responses you have been deliberately and studiously ignoring the existence of the professional science journals about evolution that I gave you references to (that's why your responses are irrelevant). Whether I "like" your answer is just another red herring comment by you, used to ignore the facts.

Right, and you are just like your buddy Robert Baty aren't you. You think you have won regardless of what has happened.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You know, I don't care if you shut up or not, just don't get upset when I come back at you. You just can't imagine anyone who is as competent as you are, who is telling what he believes to be the truth and still disagrees with you. Again I ask, what about your dad? Is he ignorant, incompetent or a liar?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

In regard to a debate on the scientific evidence regarding the antiquity of the earth, you can discuss chocolate ice cream and baseball for all I care. What you will not do (with me) is play deceitful word games to change the *debate proposition* so that you change the subject. Of course, you already know all of this, Jerry, having been told it more than a dozen times, so your remarks here are just evidence of further deceitfulness.

How many times do I have to tell you: THERE IS NO DEBATE BECAUSE YOU CALLED IT OFF. If you wanted to debate you should never have called it off.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

No, Jerry, you are the one who backed out of the debate because you wanted to change the subject to biological evolution and I wouldn't let you change the wording of the debate propositions to include biological evolution (since that wasn't the subject). None of this changes the fact of what the topics were.

Question: "Does Biological evolution depend upon the fossil record?"
Question: "Is the fossil record not part of geology?"
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Again, I ask about your dad, "Is he ignorant, incompetent or just a liar"?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

I already responded to you about my dad, but now you're ignoring what I already told you, because you're trying to change the subject. As usual. We're not talking about my dad Jerry. We're talking about you, right here, right now.

So your dad is ignorant and continues to perpetuate a lie! Doesn't that make him a liar?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, you are speaking in ignorance about my dad. But we all know you love to make argument based on ignorance.

What was your dad, a liar? You state that you were ignorant, does that mean that the only thing that made you smart was to become an atheist?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

My dad was just as ignorant about the relevant science, having been misled by the same YEC pseudoscience charlatans. I became more *knowledgeable* about the relevant science by studying some the science itself rather than relying only on YEC propaganda misinformation and ignoring science. Those taking college courses in astronomy or geology quickly learn just how ridiculously silly YEC rhetoric about astronomy and geology is (such as the zany YEC tactic that science is an atheistic conspiracy).

Is your dad still ignorant of it? Does he perpetuate this lie? Does this make him a liar?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

I already answered this question, yet here you are again asking a question that has been asked and answered. In court, this is called "badgering the witness." Good show, young earth creationist! Why do you ask me questions, when you know that you're just going to ignore my answers anyway?

Well, just give them to me and we will see if I ignore them.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, you say, "just give them to me and we will see if I ignore them." Already done. You're STILL deliberately ignoring the existence of the professional science research articles I pointed out to you in my "Creatonist Delusion" video. Indeed, here on this comments page you admitted above that you are ignoring this information on purpose.

I guess Chaisson & McMillian, Arthur Strahler, Anthony Flew, Cain Damman, Lue Yoon, Scott Freeman, Jon Herron, Young&Freedman, Plummer-McGeary-Carlson, Yunus Cengel, Michael Boles are not professional scientists are they?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

This is Jerry trying to pretend that astronomy-is-geology-is-paleontology-is-biology-is-all just one big worldwide evolutionist conspiracy, because young earth creationists are so clueless about basic science that they don't even comprehend how these different fields of science are distinct from one another.

Thank you again, Jerry!

No, that is Chaisson and McMillian. They said that stellar, galactice, biological, planetary, cultural (and two more that I can't remember because I am not at home right now) are the seven phases that make up cosmic evolution. Talk to them.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Cosmic evolution isn't biological evolution. Everyone knows this, including you. YECs like you like to pretend that evolution - change - doesn't exist. But the fact is that change does exist, cosmic changes (in the case of astronomical changes) and geological changes (in the case of geologic changes on Earth in regard to geologic processes and geologic features). But you cannot acknowledge these simple facts, because it messes up your YEC conspiracy theory about biological evolution.

This is Todd acting like Robert Baty and screaming "I WIN, I WIN, I WIN!" regardless of the outcome. Are Arthur Strahler and Richard Dawkins not as professional as the ones you listed. What about Stephen Hawking? Why do I need to go to the links on your list?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

I am not deliberately ignoring anything. I purchased a book that you recommended so that I could use it in our debate and you say it has nothing to do with evolution. Yet on your video you said it does.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Again, Jerry, your statement here is false. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what I really do say in the video.

Oh, wait, that's right, all of this time you've been deliberately ignoring the detailed information I give you in the video, and you're still doing that.

Well, at least you're consistent.

Didn't I buy a book that was included on your list?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

True or False: "I Todd Greene, in my video, showed pictures of books (one in particular-The Age of The Earth) and said that these scientists have written books proving that evolution is science?"
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

And I was looking at the web pages on some of those links, but then you said that I couldn't use them in our debate. So why are you crying now because I am not looking at your links?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You're really funny, Jerry. Please keep showing people that you can't seem to comprehend that everything under the sun isn't relevant to a *debate* that is scoped to a particular topic. Additionally, my "Creationist Delusion" had/has nothing to do with the proposed debate, and never did. I guess you're just not able to figure this out. But thank you for openly admitting that you have been deliberately ignoring the directly relevant references I gave you.

Yes it did because you advertised the book "The age of the Earth" as a book that proves evolution. You say that this was a lazy oversight, but you are too lazy to change it.

We are not in court. I have asked the same question for one of three reasons: (1) you refuse to answer, (2) I want your answer on record so many times that you cannot deny it, and (3) I want to see if you will give the same answer every time. I learned this in Law Enforcement.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You're right, Jerry, we aren't in court, which is too bad, I really wish we were. Creationists always lose in court. This is because in court their illogical arguments and word games and pseudoscience pretensions always get torn to shreds.

I have NOT refused to answer. So you're lying about that. My answer is already on record, and on record *several times* already, so you're lying in pretending it isn't. In regard to law, we already know that young earth creationists don't care squat about the law, which is why they're trying to violate the Firat Amendment all the time to shove their religious dogma down kid's throats in public schools.