Surely since they can not breed with each other this is an example of macroevolution?

Wiki describes Johnson as the "father of intelligent design", and Darwin On Trial as a "neo-creationist polemic". Reading elsewhere, he seems to be one of those dishonest, naughty fundamentalists like yourself who pretend to have reached their conclusions about evolution entirely independent of the bible. In addition, the man is a lawyer who has little knowledge or understanding of the science he is putting "on trial", but plenty of knowledge about how to misrepresent the facts, twist words, and ignore the truth to favor his argument.

Are you absolutely certain he's not a Flat Earth Creationist? Sure sounds like one...

Darwin on Trial is a controversial 1991 book by the University of California, Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson. A neo-creationist polemic, Darwin on Trial is considered to be part of the central canon of the intelligent design movement, of which Johnson is considered "the father."

Those are the first two sentences of the Wiki article. I do not think it dishonest at all for a Christian to believe in a young Earth - the dishonesty arises if that Christian claims that their belief in a young Earth is independent of their Christianity. You employ this tactic on a regular basis in order to seem logical and reasonable, when in fact you illogically and unreasonably believe that the creation myth in the Bible is fact. If you would admit that your beliefs are simply a reflection of your faith, that would be entirely honest.

You employ this tactic on a regular basis in order to seem logical and reasonable,

Oh yea, and by the way, if I really cared about appearing 'logical and reasonable' then I probably wouldn't be a YECcer at all, would I?  Certainly there are plenty of Christians who are not, such as Francis Collins.  I know this goes back to my question about why I must be dishonest rather than merely mistaken, but it just seems to me to be a really empty claim.  If I was so concerned about appearing 'logical and reasonable' and yet retain my Christianity, then being a YECcer would in fact be the last thing I would do, conclusion:  I don't care about such appearances at all.

What?  That's your answer?  Just a bald assertion?  Well, I ought not to have expected anything more.  Honestly, I think its you who cares about appearance, what with all of your insults I saw in the other thread about going against what all the scientists say and who would do that, and certainly that is your past behavior, too.  Are you an atheist because you wanted to be counted within the 'smart' folks, Mensa-Man?  Is that the sum of it?

Anyway, you still didn't answer why it can't be possible that I'm simply mistaken.  Why do I have to be dishonest?

What about the resurrection itself?  Am I dishonest in stating that I believe that on the evidence?

Do I understand that your assessment of all Christians is simply this:  if they say they believe something and don't claim any evidence for it, or any reason, then, well, they're honest.  If they say they have reasons, they're just rationalizing, and they're dishonest.

Is that it?

"Firstly, SJ, it really gives me a good laugh to hear you act all indignant about my supposedly "insulting" behavior, when the most dismissive, demeaning and downright nasty posts on this forum all have your innocent name on them. Classic, SJ."

Usually in response to actually the most dismissive, demeaning, and downright nasty posts.  Don't worry, you share the blue ribbon on that one.  It is always funny though how atheists want to get away with murder and then they kick and scream when the shoe is on the other foot.  Oh well, no surprise there, either.

I will admit that I sometimes attacked disproportionately, but in the main it was tit for tat, and if you can't handle it, don't dish it.

"Could you please quote from the thread what you refer to? I can't find anything insulting at all."

Nah.  You wouldn't see it as insulting anyway, just as you wouldn't ever have seen any of your own comments as mean and nasty, ever.

"I am not going to state yet again why I believe you are dishonest, I think I have done it three times on this thread already. Read back."

Oh, that's what you're talking about.  Well, that is different actually.  Here we were talking about YEC and not whether or not I chose Christianity from a blank slate, which you objected anyone could do. 

"I'm not discussing the resurrection, let's stay on topic for once."

Right, because assessing the honesty and dishonesty of myself, creationists, and a certain Philip Johnson are all on the topic of Darwin's finches.

"I am "assessing" only you, not all Christians."

Well my friend, you don't know me from Adam.  I think those who do know me would never have thought that my problem was that I care one lick about what people thought of me.  Oh sure, they think I got problems.  That's just not one of them. 

"Didn't think so - because there was nothing insulting at all. You were caught in a lie."

See, there you go again.  You admit to calling me a liar.  Thank you.  We need not argue about that, then.  By your count I guess that means 5 times you've called me a liar.  So you see, it becomes clear just why you might be on the receiving end of some 'demeaning posts.'  Go around calling people liars and people tend to react. 

"I know you very well indeed, SJ, and you are often a dishonest man when you discuss religion. It's a good job God doesn't exist - you'd be in big trouble."

Six times.

And for the record, I'm not citing the 'insult' because there is no point in justifying myself to you.  This is the only instance that I can think of (but then, you do call me a liar a lot, I can't remember them all) where it would be as cut and dried where I made a claim and you might conceivably be able to refute it on the spot.  The other times it was you mind reading, because you couldn't possibly believe that I could actually hold that position.

But hey, if I'm over in that thread again, I'll be happy to copy and post it.  You see, I just don't feel the need to meet your demands.  You're not. shall we say. a good faith debating partner.

Well, good to see we are back on topic.

I know a lot about you, too, Stath.  But as we see from this very thread, if I tell you what I know about you you'll start crying, and then you'll complain about how I retaliate, forgetting somehow (in that special way you know how) that you just called me a liar... six times at least.

I try to inject some humor into the abuse.  :)  The truth is is that one of the things I know about you is that you're kind of fond of me.  You even said I was 'one of the good guys.'  I've never forgotten.  I printed it off and stuffed it under my pillow and look at it before I go to bed.  So I know you're just here to give me grief.  :)

I suppose that all of us here who spend time with the infamous sntjohnny have to admit that we are fond of the guy.  But none of us will ever admit that in public.