You seem to be saying that dwise1 is misleadingly characterizing contemporary creationist views by referencing old publications. What are these new views? Don't repeat yourself if you've already posted this information just a link to the message would be fine.
You seem to be saying that dwise1 is misleadingly characterizing contemporary creationist views by referencing old publications.
Not exactly. Simply, dwise1 has not presented any modern views of contemporary "creationinsts". All his examples are from pre-2000. So my charge that his examples are old are indisputable.
I wasn't questioning your assertion that dwise1's references are old. I was pointing out that the golden age of creationism ended a while ago. If you want to assign the death a specific date you could say it was December 20, 2005, when Judge John E. Jones ruled that intelligent design was just creationism thinly disguised. The wind went out of creationism's sails at that point and it made a strategic choice to back away from challenging science and instead to lobby teachers, schools and school boards to include creationism in the curriculum.
Now, could modern creationists hold to the same old reasonings that dwise1 is presenting?
They not only could, they do. There have not been any new ideas in creationism in a very long time.
It is possible.
It is fact.
But no evidence has been presented to support that.
You can't prove a negative. If you think there are new ideas in creationism then go find some.
I think it is less than likely though. For example, dwise1's rant in Message 41 about an argument over Moon dust is a type of evidence that has been discouraged to be used, even pre-2000, by (those who I think are) contemporary creationists.
If you read dwise1's message again you'll see that he's characterizing the differences between scientists and creationists. In service of this effort he was describing his interactions with creationists that took place at a time when creationists were still actively promoting the moon dust idea. His experience illustrated their dishonesty, duplicity and lack of scholarship. He definitely was not saying the moon dust idea is current among knowledgable creationists.
His examples also appear to be as I described them, fringe. Those arguments might have been more 'creationist' accepted long ago, but today they are not mentioned and/or rejected by contemporary creationists.
If you find some new creationist ideas then you should describe them here.