Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said

I think it was probably no worse than many contributions here, and in fact was probably better than most. I don't think a Talmudic dissection of casually written prose is very useful. Even worse, just as with the Bible, completely opposite arguments can be formed just by quoting different portions of RAZD's posts, which is what appears to be happening now.I think anyone who reads all of what RAZD wrote will find his point of view and the point he was trying to make pretty clear. If anyone chooses to focus on a particular subset of what he wrote while ignoring or not comprehending the rest then they can make an argument for question begging, but so what.The real lesson of this thread is that if you don't make the effort to understand the prerequisites of an argument, in this case probability, then you can reach conclusions that are pretty far off the mark.--Percy

The bias isn't against Faith. All you can blame Faith for is not making the effort to understand the fallacies behind the Creationist probability arguments. I guess you can blame her for defending what she doesn't understand, but the lion's share of the blame must go to those who knowingly formulate false arguments. People like Faith have every right to expect that the pamphlets and books and lectures and videos and websites promoting Creationism are upright, well-researched, well-reasoned, and supported by meaningful evidence, and the biggest irony in the whole Creation/evolution affair is that the vast preponderance of chicanery takes place on the religious side of the fence. The inherent vulnerability of the sincerely devout attacts the flim-flam element like no other.--Percy