All of these claims you’re making are from astronomy and are irrelevant to the topic under discussion. It’s an entirely different debate. But what you are basically admitting is that your mind was never open on the topic and regardless of the outcome of the debate you were never open to reconsidering the plausibility of evolution.
Certainly, people do that. I am not saying that I am guilty of that. I don’t need to resort to defending my religion against evidence and reason, because I’m too busy defending it with evidence and reason.
Scientific consilience is not “irrelevant to the topic under discussion” Paul. Scientific theories are meant to be compatible with each other (and with the empirical evidence supporting each other).
If GE is contradicted by astronomical deep time, and the evidence underlying it, then it will be rejected by science.
Yes, I understand that, but when you make the claim of consilience you are claiming that all the evidence fits together and agrees. And I am showing that is far from the case. You don’t have the consilience you seem to think you have. Debates about other realms of evidence are different debates. This concept isn’t hard to grasp. If I had come to my debate with Dr. Hancock with a bunch of slides talking about soft tissue in dinosaur bones, I don’t think that would have been an appropriate thing to do in a debate about genetics.
You have shown no such thing.
Yes, and that debate was with somebody other than Ron and myself, and finished several days ago. Therefore neither Ron nor myself are under any obligation to restrict ourselves to the topic of that debate, nor evidence directly relevant to it.
I would point out that your own evolution-as-religion cracks were likewise irrelevant to that debate. Yet you seem to have no inhibition about making them.
1 Like
Not true. I was raised on Acts & Facts and eagerly proselytized creationism at school, and only saw through the misrepresentations and inconsistencies as an adult. Deep time is relevant to the conversation and astronomy is definitive. Evolution is supported by evidence broad and deep and it is a fool’s errand to seize on some rhetorical pinprick in the hope of popping a balloon. I’m under no obligation to accord nonsense any consideration.
1 Like
Throwing false accusations against people simply for disagreeing with you is using neither evidence nor reason.
It’s the science that gets state funding.