>>People who "love science," they "just have a problem accepting evolution" turn out to have problems with cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and nuclear chemistry, not to mention at long last biology.<<Is this a joke? The people who don't exist in your world must have three different ping lists on FR. Wouldn't surprise me if you're on at least one. Relatively few creationists are not in this category. For instance, do you accept published radiometric dating results as providing a useful estimate of the age of a fossil when such are mentioned in news articles?I discuss this with people quite a bit. I have yet to meet a person who fits the description you give.
>>You guys not knowing what a theory you claim to be wrong EVEN SAYS gets old.<< I have noticed that few people on either side of this discussion (on internet discussion sites, anyway) know what "it" says.
The situation is not symmetrical at all. Any of the core group of evo posters could describe it perfectly, and give you a capsule of the major points of ID, OEC, and YEC. Creos who can both things are rarer than Precambrian rabbits.
The problem is that "evolution" is like Interstate 90. It is a different animal depending on where you are and what you are discussing.
I don't recall that you're one of the creos who shows any particular educability.
Like I said, the corvette has evolved...
And there you go.
"... are rarer than Precambrian rabbits." Hmm, rabbits are mammals, precambrian hundreds of millions of years of life were mostly single celled thingies, not mammals ... nope, no marginalizing there, completely exclusionary. I like the analogy though, has a humorous ring to it, kind of like the bumper stickers of a turtlesque thingy with the word darwin inside juxtaposed with the fish shape and the play on ichthos for Jesus Christ Son Of God Savior of Mankind. But don't these marginalizing games grow tiresome?