@ambulocetus

> No, I won’t give you specific word for word examples, because that smells like a trap to me, and I’m not falling for it.

What does a "trap" mean.. If it means somethign that may prove your assertions wrong, then I fail to see how its a bad thing. If you think it will be used in bad faith, then when have I ever argued with you in bad faith?

Refusing to be specific and to only speak in vaguties that simply arent supported by what actually said sounds like the real trap to be honest, though if you gave specific examples I might have changed my mind.

> If you disagree with me, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not watching it again just because you can’t see my point.

The part where he talks about creationism lasts for about a minute or two, so not really a huge ask when I just watched the whole 30 minutes in consideration of your own point. But do as you like of course.

> I never said that he said anything factually incorrect, maybe you should read what I wrote one more time.

You used the term "misinformation" many times. Misinformation is by definition "factually incorrect". Can you explain to me how you feel he stated misinformation that was somehow also factually correct then? Sounds like back peddling though I give you the benefit of the doubt your discussing in good faith and it is unintentional.

> In my experience, when someone creates a straw-man like that, it usually means they have an agenda.

Strawman, what strawman is that?

> People can watch the video, and keep in mind what both of us have said, and make up their own minds.

They sure can, problem is you didnt actually elucidate your point of view or how you arrived at it in any meaningful way what so ever. You claimed he did several things then when asked for examples to back that up made no effort to really do so. Saying something is so isnt really getting you anywhere if you cant even point int he general direction of the examples that back up your claim. So you simply havent given anyone any real content with which to even consider your point.

In fact I detect a strong undertone to what your saying and defensiveness to an earnest inquiry on your perspective. It seems to me the most likely explanation is you have a strong bias and disgust on anyone who would even discuss spiritual matters along side science (even me who has not explicitly supported the argument) and that that extreme hate/bias is likely fueling your perspective here more than an objective reading. I think this is causing you to attribute things by reading between the lines that simply isnt even there. This is evident because you kept talking about a book you swear this guy is promoting and yet he never mentioned it once in his videos. So clearly you were filling in some things with your own emotional response here that led to a distorted view of what was said. Again I think this is all in good faith and not something you are doing knowingly.