A rare admission around here. Aquaticus still has not directly admitted that he made a false statement about Discovery’s promotion of Denton, for example.
An interesting statement, given that you posted many times under a 901-post discussion of his ideas about scientific research:
In that discussion, my replies to you several times included the name “Turner”, and it never occurred to you to ask who I was talking about, or to notice that he was the author of the article that the discussion was about?
Nothing I have read in your posts here over the past several years indicates to me that you would be qualified to judge a serious thinker if you saw one.
No, it didn’t, if you take ID to mean “intelligent design” in the broad sense, in which case it predates what is normally called creationism (i.e., a modern phenomenon originating in America) by over 2,000 years.
(ii) is logically irrelevant, for reasons that have already been given; and (iii) is not true, since among others Mike Behe has no personal interest in “teaching creationism” – he explicitly and repeatedly denies being a creationist, and his beliefs about origins are condemned by creationists.
How can I, when you haven’t yet, despite writing thousands of words, given your analysis of the Gospel passage you are pretending to explain? You have rambled on, issuing a stream of factoids about Greek grammar, but you have said nothing (zip, 0, nada) about the actual passage you purport to explain. Give me your interpretation of the passage. I don’t think you are capable of writing two coherent paragraphs of exegesis about it.