And once again...

     And once again Daniel goes running off. This time, it's just to his own blog, where he has the nice, convenient, delete button. Strange, isn't it? When he does it, he calls it "righteous rebuking." When others do it to him, he calls it "flaming" or "trying to steal [his] peace." Now, there is an important difference. Daniel does it on no evidence. The criticisms he receives, are evidenced by his own blog. The recent criticism refers to his own post here.
     I suppose everyone should be able to see his true colors.

It's points time again.

     Seriously, I can't seem to give these points away. Okay, the talk of home-schooling versus public schooling over at Dan's blog reminded me of "A House for the Feeble-minded." There are 150 point available to the first person who can get the reference.

Reynold has said...

     Reynold has said that the first people to think of and to hear of the idea of evolution were creationists. I am not inclined to agree. Sure, they openly claimed to believe in creationism. But, at the time, the church was very much in control. To do otherwise would have ended their careers -- and quite possibly invited a very unpleasant death. To anyone with an inquisitive mind creationism just does not make sense. Evolution has the advantage of making sense.
     The church hierarchy was very interested in weeding out dissent. It could only do so, however, when it could recognize it. As the leaders did not think like scientists, they would not be readily able to recognize disguised heretics.
     I believe large-scale evolution is held as a sacred belief. I also believe that if any scientist openly questioned it, his career would be ruined. Submissions to peer-reviewed journals would be returned unread. Now, this is testable in principle. But no scientist openly questions evolution. To test my idea, a group of scientists would need to do just that, and we could determine whether they continued to get published. The test will not be conducted. Who would put his career on the line in such a manner?

Daniel is back.

     He changed his blog address. I posted which fits in this thread. I am reposting it here as I expect he will block it. I could be wrong. I always hope that he will turn to honesty; but -- I'm not holding my breath. In case anyone is interested, my comment follows.

Daniel:

     No, the lies I called you on, I demonstrated to be lies at the time. That's why I say they were careless. And for me to be bearing false witness, I would accusing someone of something of which I had no reason to think they were guilty.
     My comment was relevant to yours. I think you shut down because you were hiding from truth. I still think that you are trying to create an illusion. I am on no warpath; but I am, to use your terminology, rebuking you. But we shall see.
     Your claim of warpath is without merit, by any standard definition. Maybe you consider me to be "on a warpath" because I actually call you when you say something untrue. Perhaps it's because I don't sing your praises. I think it's because I speak truth and truth is your enemy. But you are always welcome to show me wrong. Or you can show me correct by blocking my comments.

Some notes about presuppositional apologetics as practiced by Sye (and now Dan)

     It is dishonest to call someone to account for something not in dispute. Logic is not in dispute. Furthermore, as logic is necessary to account for anything, any attempt to account for logic would be inherently circular.
     Your god does not account for logic. Please stop pretending that it does. Your god also has not revealed anything to you "in such a way that [you] can be certain." If it had, you would be specifying the method and why you consider the method to be certain. The whole "in such a way" line is designed either to disguise the fact that there was no revelation or to disguise the method to prevent analysis. Either way, the claim is self-refuting.
     Your god is not a necessary precondition for logic. Logic must be present before one can discuss preconditions.