I must admit I made several mistakes during last Fridays meeting. One, not limiting comment time to each participant and letting the creationist almost dominate or if to some dominate the proceedings. This also forced me to do a lot of the answers to him, as my training stressed thinking on ones feet and acting quickly if need be. I apologize for that and things have changed for MSS. Each person will be allowed 3 minutes to comment or ask questions and the next person will be called. I will not or try not to answer all the questions. In fact for the next meeting I am trying to get some experts on the economy to speak. The next was trying to understand them. I was a believer at one time, but now evidence has changed my mind and philosophically I am agnostic. So I have some sympathies. However, as you can see from previous post I gave the creationist answers to what would change his mind. The result was saying definitions are semantics. If two are going to debate or discuss topics they need to agree on definitions of terms so each knows what the other is talking about. That is why definitions are first described in contracts. The dictionary is the obvious choice for definitions. Next, by his comments I really don't believe he is interested in finding out about science or evolution. His only goal is to convince me of ID science. And it has been proven, specifically in the Dover case, that it is not science, next case. Next he wanted me to talk about the reliability of the bible. Again in my response I posited books that deal with that issue and its unreliability, next case. Then about revelation. Revelation of whos prophet. The scriptures. Revelations are nothing more than some thoughts that someone has and that someone convinces others that he was talking to god. Today we call someone talking to god schizophrenic and put them on medicine, to get the voices out of their heads. Other religions, not just christianity have had revelations, such as Islam, Hindism, Buddaism, and any other ism you care to mention. So who has the right revelation? There is no way to tell. Next case. So I made a mistake and did something that Dawkins and Gould said don't do. Debate with a creationist. They change the rules; and go off on tangets, they refuse to even aknowledge any evidence other than their own. Their goal is evangilize and convert the heathen athiest to christianity because that is the only right belief and religion in their minds. And being such be less than honest with others is fair. They want to put ID creationism into the schools as it is only fair to teach the controversy. Then they should have no problem teaching evolution in sunday schools to teach the controversy, and it is only FAIR.