This is demonstrably false. You subscribe to the ideology of methodological naturalism (which is a requirement for, and the foundation of, Darwinian evolution); which, by definition, means that you are inherently biased towards the absolute necessity of a materialistic explanation of any/all known phenomena. By definition, your worldview, precludes the existence of anything immaterial.

quote:
You do the exact same thing.

Not exactly.
Similarities: We both truly believe that our positions are firmly grounded in truth, and most accurately reflect reality as we see it. We are both very passionate about our beliefs. We both are willing to expend a significant amount of time and energy towards the goal of change- because we both care enough about the world around us to make the effort. Neither of us (I’d like to think) sees any benefit in intentional deception.
Differences (besides the obvious): I’m willing to admit my bias, and, I’m willing to admit that I can’t prove my position beyond a reasonable doubt. In my view, there is no benefit to mockery (other than the occasional joke to take the edge off). I’m willing to read, understand, and engage with everything you have to say. I don’t think that you are delusional, or intellectually challenged, for adhering to your beliefs.

quote:
What is Pascal chose the wrong bet? What is Mormonism is the correct one?

Again with the deflection.

What’s the matter? If you truly believe that there is no God, and Christianity is false- why not just say “If I'm wrong, I’m going to Hell.” ??? Interesting. If you want to compare and contrast the validity and sensibility of other religions with Christianity- I’m down like a clown Charlie Brown. I could use the study.

quote:
He has shown ID, on planet earth, to be false

Meh. Lots of really smart people beg to differ. The only thing he’s proven, beyond doubt, is that he thinks he’s smarter than the God that he claims doesn’t exist.

quote:
He is not and cannot outright reject the possibility of an intelligence seeding life

Right. Only that it can’t possibly be the Christian God. Aliens though- totally a viable option.

quote:
Totally different

No doubt. One comes with a set of standards and requirements that he (and you) are unwilling to accept, and the other is just a really neat and unthreatening fantasy.

quote:
Ben is conflating the origin of life to evolution, which is misleading.

No. Like you said, he baited Dawkins. Dawkins can hardly contain his excitement at the thought of some other explanation for the origin of life that is not God.

quote:
It doesn’t change that on planet earth, all known life is related genetically. We all share a common ancestor.

Or, we share a common Creator.

quote:
You really should read one of Dawkins books.

Meh. I’ve read enough of his articles, and watched enough of his videos/debates, to know that he is to Darwin what Ahab was to Moby Dick.

quote:
Because the entire book, written and redacted by hundreds of scribes, maybe thousands, is riddled with errors, contradictions, and scientific falsehoods. Do we really have to get into the firmament like a solid cast metal mirror, the sun standing still, the windows of heaven, the stars falling out of the sky, flat earth on pillars, positive evidence of a global flood never happening, sickness caused by demonic possession instead of germs, etc.? Come on, man.

One at a time. Please. There are logical, plausible explanations for any and all apparent contradictions/errors. I’d like to see this positive evidence that disproves the flood though.

quote:
When most of our DNA is junk

Let’s go through some examples. A lot of work has been done recently to refute this claim.

quote:
and every morphological feature is a documented gradual bastardization of an existing feature, and since we can document how and why changes happen naturally,

Tell me more. Be specific. Cite sources.