continuing the dialogue with "Dialogic"

Perhaps it's a matter of technical difficulties, but the discussion with Dialogic has reached what seems to be an abrupt and unfortunate conclusion...

For those who want to read my second attempt to continue things...


OK, I'll re-try with a shorter version:

1.) OK, maybe we'll chat about econ down the road.

2.) You're into dialogue, right?

3.) You prefer to conflate the two? Why?

4a.) Neither of us is an evolutionary biologist. But it should be easy enough to provide a bunch of explanations from that field-- about the development of reproductive and vital organs-- if they existed.

4b.) You seem to be focused on young-earth creationism. Why are you conflating that with old-earth creationism? Are you (equally) unimpressed by both?

5.) Both the theist and the atheist rely largely on narrative rather than explanation. All forms of Creationism say, in essence, that "God did it". All forms of Evolutionism say, in essence, "Evolution did it". (So far, you've said Evolution did it and I have faith in the evolutionary biologists who tell the story.) Neither can explain or document exactly how this happened. The Creationist more or less owns up to this and recognizes the faith he places in that story. The Evolutionist is more prone to illusion about what he knows and is strangely allergic to his inescapable faith.