Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Who's who in ID

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Beagle

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 1:44:38 PM9/29/05
to
I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
other confused types, you never know.

1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!

2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.

3. Old Earth Creationists. I'm not sure about this lot, but let me
guess. A very busy God created heaven and earth a zillion years ago
and then kept intervening to create each and every distinct species?
Including, of course, ourselves.

4. Not sure about this one. Are there IDers who claim God only
intervenes at the molecular level, i.e. tinkers with DNA? How would
that create new species, though? Horses suddenly giving birth to zebras
(much to their mutual surprise and chagrin)?

5. Neo-cons (often former liberals) who don't believe in God but think
religion is a useful tool for maintaining social order, find scientists
far too liberal, and so throw in their lot with the IDers.

6. President George W. Bush. He's in a class of his own...

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 2:03:00 PM9/29/05
to
Beagle wrote:

> I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
> current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
> other confused types, you never know.
>
> 1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
> 6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
> that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!
>
> 2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
> again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
> fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.

This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.

> 3. Old Earth Creationists. I'm not sure about this lot, but let me
> guess. A very busy God created heaven and earth a zillion years ago
> and then kept intervening to create each and every distinct species?
> Including, of course, ourselves.

There are several varieties of OECs. It can grade into theistic
evolution very easily. Some OECs like the global flood, some don't.
There are two distinct biblical rationales, gap theory and day-age
theory. This group is so heterogeneous that it really can't be
characterized well.

> 4. Not sure about this one. Are there IDers who claim God only
> intervenes at the molecular level, i.e. tinkers with DNA? How would
> that create new species, though? Horses suddenly giving birth to zebras
> (much to their mutual surprise and chagrin)?

This may be what Behe is talking about, though it's hard to be sure. But
surely tinkering could be gradual. This too grades into a form of
evolution indistinguishable from naturalistic by all conceivable tests.

> 5. Neo-cons (often former liberals) who don't believe in God but think
> religion is a useful tool for maintaining social order, find scientists
> far too liberal, and so throw in their lot with the IDers.

Who can tell? It wouldn't be politically wise to admit to such a position.

> 6. President George W. Bush. He's in a class of his own...

We don't know. One feature of creationists that makes it difficult to
study them is that they are frequently coy, or even downright dishonest,
about what they really believe, and especially about why they believe
it. And their expressed views are often internally contradictory, for
that reason and others.

CreateThis

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 2:09:18 PM9/29/05
to
Beagle wrote:

> 6. President George W. Bush. He's in a class of his own...

The remedial one.

CT

Ernest Major

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 2:39:36 PM9/29/05
to
In message <o%V_e.1080$lc1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, John
Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes

>> 2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>> again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>> fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>
>This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
>one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
>prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.

Are you forgetting David the Omphalist?
--
alias Ernest Major


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005

Cyde Weys

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 2:57:58 PM9/29/05
to
"Beagle" <davidl...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1128015878.473411.25090
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


> 4. Not sure about this one. Are there IDers who claim God only
> intervenes at the molecular level, i.e. tinkers with DNA? How would
> that create new species, though? Horses suddenly giving birth to zebras
> (much to their mutual surprise and chagrin)?

Yes, that is the so-called "God of the gaps". And no, horses don't give
birth to zebras, but God is steadily planning a series of mutations that he
implements so that over hundreds of generations horses do turn into zebras.

--
~ Cyde Weys ~

Sub veste quisque nudus est.

Cyde Weys

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 3:01:12 PM9/29/05
to
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:o%V_e.1080$lc1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> Beagle wrote:
>
>> I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct
>> my current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help
>> some other confused types, you never know.
>>

>> 2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk
>> tales again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his
>> creation to fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old.
>> Hmmm.
>
> This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a
> prominent one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims,
> nor do any prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.

I knew a very religious Jewish girl in high school who took this position.
Apparently there's several grades of kosher and she would only eat the more
kosher ones. And she would never wear pants, only ankle-length
skirts/dresses. And she wouldn't write "God" - she wrote "G-d" instead.
And she wrote some sort of Hebrew on the top of each page of each
assignment that said something to the effect of, "By the grace of G-d who
has granted me the intelligence to write this." It was really strange.
I'm Jewish myself but I'd never even HEARD of some of the stuff she was
into.

Craig Pennington

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 3:40:29 PM9/29/05
to
Quoth John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
> Beagle wrote:
[snip]

>> 5. Neo-cons (often former liberals) who don't believe in God but think
>> religion is a useful tool for maintaining social order, find scientists
>> far too liberal, and so throw in their lot with the IDers.

> Who can tell? It wouldn't be politically wise to admit to such a position.

But some come close. Irving Kristol comes to mind. From

<http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml>

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people,"
[Kristol] says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for
children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are
appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate
for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one
set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy.
It doesn't work."

And just who is to be the gatekeeper of inappropriate truths? Kristol was
awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by W.

<http://www.medaloffreedom.com/IrvingKristol.htm>

And it is liberals who are elitist?

Cheers,
Craig

--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 3:42:43 PM9/29/05
to
Ernest Major wrote:

> In message <o%V_e.1080$lc1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, John
> Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
>
>>>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>>>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>>>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>>
>>This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
>>one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
>>prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.
>
>
> Are you forgetting David the Omphalist?

It's "omphalism lite", and he never suggests that there has been any
evidence planted. It's all supposedly functionally necessary appearance
of age, though he was never able to (or interested in) explaining how
that worked.

This was once a real position, that god put fossils in the ground "to
test our faith". But I haven't heard anyone say so in years and years.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 3:44:11 PM9/29/05
to
Cyde Weys wrote:

Did she have a reason at hand why G-d would act that way by planting all
that evidence?

Cyde Weys

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 4:03:38 PM9/29/05
to
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:fuX_e.1767$rl1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

Keep in mind Jews believe in just the Old Testament, not the New
Testament, and the Old Testament is chockfull of downright vengeful and
mean-spirited acts of God. Look at the Book of Job. God and Satan are
feuding and Satan says, "Job believes in you because he has everything.
Take that away from him and he will lose faith." So God destroys Job's
riches, kills his animals, slaughters his FAMILY, and yet Job still has
faith. That is sort of the ultimate test of belief right there. If God
is willing to slaughter someone's entire family to test one's faith,
surely he could put some fake fossils into the ground?

Cyde Weys

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 4:05:55 PM9/29/05
to
Craig Pennington <cpen...@milo.org> wrote in
news:NqX_e.24984$y64.12034@trnddc06:

> But some come close. Irving Kristol comes to mind. From
>
> <http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml>
>
> "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of
> people,"
> [Kristol] says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for
> children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that
> are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are
> appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there
> should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern
> democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

He went on to say,
"There are the truths we know to be true. Then there are the truths that
are unknown to us. And then there are the unknown truths we don't even
know about."

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 4:23:09 PM9/29/05
to
Cyde Weys wrote:

You also forgot the part about sacrificing your first born son, ha-ha,
just kidding. Abraham & Isaac, that is. OK, point taken. But what a
weird world that would be to live in.

Cyde Weys

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 4:47:47 PM9/29/05
to
Sayeth John Harshman:

Ohhh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I believe in it, but I am
saying that it does provide a reasonable justification for one who does
believe.

And yes, every year at Passover I get to hear all about the plague of
the first-born.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 5:38:57 PM9/29/05
to
Cyde Weys wrote:

No, that's a different set of first-born. Egyptians, you know. Nothing
to do with Abraham and Isaac. But that is another demonstration of what
a nasty person YHWH is. God as Marlon Brando with cotton stuffed into
his cheeks?

Frank J

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 5:52:56 PM9/29/05
to

Beagle wrote:
> I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
> current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
> other confused types, you never know.

Apologies if you already have it, but this should clear it up:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

>
> 1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
> 6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
> that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!

In fairness, many of them leave out the last part.


>
> 2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
> again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
> fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.

Actually, these are the least "cunning" as they are inclined to admit
that the evidence will not support their position, which they concede
is faith-based.


>
> 3. Old Earth Creationists. I'm not sure about this lot, but let me
> guess. A very busy God created heaven and earth a zillion years ago
> and then kept intervening to create each and every distinct species?
> Including, of course, ourselves.

There are several varieties. Some (progressive OECs) admit the enitre
timeline of mainstream science, but just deny common descent, and
evolution of course.

>
> 4. Not sure about this one. Are there IDers who claim God only
> intervenes at the molecular level, i.e. tinkers with DNA? How would
> that create new species, though? Horses suddenly giving birth to zebras
> (much to their mutual surprise and chagrin)?

Once you get to the IDers, it's mostly "don't ask, don't tell" about
what they accept. Some, like Michael Behe, publicly accept commom
descent, others, like Paul Nelson, are essentially YECs. But they mosly
discourage debates among the mutually contradictory creationisms,
because they do not want to draw attention to the fatal flaws in all of
them.

>
> 5. Neo-cons (often former liberals) who don't believe in God but think
> religion is a useful tool for maintaining social order, find scientists
> far too liberal, and so throw in their lot with the IDers.

AIUI, most neo-cons are staunch theists. You may have David Berlinski
in mind, who is a noted agnostic ID sympathizer.

>
> 6. President George W. Bush. He's in a class of his own...

Clueless of science, and willing to parrot feel-good sound bites.
Surely his science advisor John Marburger, has tried to set him
straight by now. But either GWB doesn't understand, or does understand
that back-pedaling is not good politically. So, AIUI, he has been
silent on the issue since his comment.

If there is one thing to remember above everything, is that it's not
about what one personally believes, but what one leads *others* to
believe. In addition to the differences in the anti-evolution positions
and strategies, there is a big difference between the snake oil
peddlers and their clueless customers.

NashtOn

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 6:46:02 PM9/29/05
to
John Harshman wrote:
> Beagle wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
>>current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
>>other confused types, you never know.
>>
>>1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
>>6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
>>that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!
>>
>>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>
>
> This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
> one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
> prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.

You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by IDers/creationists.

Why is that?

Nicolas

boikat

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 6:56:19 PM9/29/05
to

"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:K8__e.98722$Ph4.3101996@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...

> John Harshman wrote:
> > Beagle wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
> >>current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
> >>other confused types, you never know.
> >>
> >>1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
> >>6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
> >>that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!
> >>
> >>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
> >>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
> >>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
> >
> >
> > This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
> > one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
> > prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.
>
> You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by IDers/creationists.
>
> Why is that?

It probably has something to do with not wanting to live in a third world
country ruled by a theocracy.

Now, why are you fundies sooo afraid of science, and evolution in
particular?

Boikat
--
<42><

AC

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 6:56:43 PM9/29/05
to

Davey pretty much said things like that, though not about fossils in
particular, but in general about the appearance of age. To be honest, I got
the impression that Davey didn't really buy it himself, he was trying to
offer some accomodation to us heathens that didn't buy into his theology.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

AC

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 6:55:05 PM9/29/05
to
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:03:00 GMT,
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Beagle wrote:

<snip>

>> 2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>> again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>> fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>
> This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
> one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
> prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.

Well, Uncle Davey's Omphalism Lite comes close, though he doesn't say the
Universe is 6k years old. More like 10k, if I recall.

<snip>>

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

VBM

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 7:17:55 PM9/29/05
to

"boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Cg__e.13483$eB3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

>
> "NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message

> > You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by IDers/creationists.


> >
> > Why is that?
>
> It probably has something to do with not wanting to live in a third world
> country ruled by a theocracy.
>
> Now, why are you fundies sooo afraid of science, and evolution in
> particular?

My gosh, even being a devout, Bible-believing Christian, I can think of few
things scarier than living in a country in which the Fundamentalist
Christians ran things the way they would like to!!!!

Glenn

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 7:24:49 PM9/29/05
to

Making assumptions about what Fundamentalist Christians would do
sounds so fundamentalistic.

VBM

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 7:29:34 PM9/29/05
to

"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-oG__e.62$3X4....@news.uswest.net...

Ah, but I am just going by their own agenda and, since I am currently
attending a Fundamentalist church (long story), I know exactly how it would
go if they were given the keys to the vehicle of state.

boikat

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 7:38:02 PM9/29/05
to

"VBM" <v.mca...@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:DC__e.1153$4h2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It's good to live in a police state if you're the police, right?

Boikat
--
<42><
>

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 8:51:49 PM9/29/05
to
NashtOn wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Beagle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
>>>current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
>>>other confused types, you never know.
>>>
>>>1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
>>>6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
>>>that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!
>>>
>>>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>>>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>>>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>>
>>
>>This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
>>one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
>>prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.
>
>
> You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by IDers/creationists.
>
> Why is that?

Perhaps because they are threatening me. Why are you being so defensive?

Do you think that fossils were put in the ground to test our faith?

[snip]

NashtOn

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 11:12:03 PM9/29/05
to

What fossils?
The ones that appear in the Cambrian but refuse to be found in other
eras in a way that would suit your naturalistic ideology?

Nicola

catshark

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 6:56:47 AM9/30/05
to

You can include them if you like (and we can discuss whether your
inferences about them are correct) but how about all the rest that show
that life has massively changed over the 600+ million years since the
Cambrian? How do they fit in your non-naturalistic ideology?

By the way, do you practice non-naturalism when you cross the street?

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

- Philip K. Dick -

NashtOn

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 11:10:30 PM9/29/05
to

Assumptions: The trademark of neo-Darwinists.

Nicola

Beagle

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 9:44:29 AM9/30/05
to
Thanks Frank, and everyone else who contributed. I think I'm getting my
head around this weird conflict. And it really is weird, as if invaders
from the 17th century were trying to take over the 21st, only they had
somehow come to terms with using devil's inventions like the Net.

Incidentally, if it's okay to reject evolution on the grounds of gaps
in the fossil record, it must be legitimate to reject Christianity on
the grounds that there's no material evidence whatsoever to support the
existence of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden, and quite a
few other claims.

Surely both sides should adopt the same rigorous rules of evidence?

Beagle

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 9:46:20 AM9/30/05
to
Isn't believing in God a rather major assumption?

TomS

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 10:35:54 AM9/30/05
to
"On 30 Sep 2005 06:44:29 -0700, in article
<1128087869....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Beagle stated..."

>
>Thanks Frank, and everyone else who contributed. I think I'm getting my
>head around this weird conflict. And it really is weird, as if invaders
>from the 17th century were trying to take over the 21st, only they had
>somehow come to terms with using devil's inventions like the Net.
[...snip...]

Fundamentalism is not from the 17th century. It is a 19th &
mostly 20th century invention. Fundamentalists are famous for
their facility with modern media. 17th century conservative
Christians would be shocked at what they would consider the
idolatry of the fundamentalists.


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"The utmost, therefore that the argument [derived from the analogy with human
art] can prove is an _architect of the world, who is always very much hampered
by the adaptabilities of the material in which he works, not a _creator of the
world to whose idea everything is subject." Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A627

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 3:46:46 PM9/30/05
to
NashtOn wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Beagle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
>>>>>current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
>>>>>other confused types, you never know.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
>>>>>6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
>>>>>that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>>>>>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>>>>>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a prominent
>>>>one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do any
>>>>prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.
>>>
>>>
>>>You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by IDers/creationists.
>>>
>>>Why is that?
>>
>>
>>Perhaps because they are threatening me. Why are you being so defensive?
>>
>>Do you think that fossils were put in the ground to test our faith?
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>
>
> What fossils?

Any fossils


> The ones that appear in the Cambrian but refuse to be found in other
> eras in a way that would suit your naturalistic ideology?

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. Aren't fossils found in
certain periods but not in others just evidence for evolution?

Mark Isaak

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 4:50:53 PM9/30/05
to
On 29 Sep 2005 10:44:38 -0700, "Beagle" <davidl...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct my
>current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
>other confused types, you never know.
>
>1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
>6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And that's
>that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!

This group also denies the Big Bang and insists on a global flood.

>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk tales
>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation to
>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.

As others have mentioned, this isn't so common, though it does exist
in numbers enough to be noteworthy. Also, there is some gradation
between these and the pure YECs.

>3. Old Earth Creationists. I'm not sure about this lot, but let me
>guess. A very busy God created heaven and earth a zillion years ago
>and then kept intervening to create each and every distinct species?
>Including, of course, ourselves.

Probably the most common variant is that the 'days' of Genesis 1 refer
to very long periods of time.

>4. Not sure about this one. Are there IDers who claim God only
>intervenes at the molecular level, i.e. tinkers with DNA? How would
>that create new species, though? Horses suddenly giving birth to zebras
>(much to their mutual surprise and chagrin)?

That's pretty much it. In particular, God intervened to cause the
origin of life, to create the bacterial flagellum, and to spur on the
Cambrian explosion. Mostly, though, they go out of their way not to
say anything about anything, except "it looks designed" and "evolution
is wrong."

>5. Neo-cons (often former liberals) who don't believe in God but think
>religion is a useful tool for maintaining social order, find scientists
>far too liberal, and so throw in their lot with the IDers.

I don't follow these, but I have noticed that the IDers have gone so
far to the right that they have wrapped around to the left and have
adopted postmodernism lock, stock and barrel.

>6. President George W. Bush. He's in a class of his own...

Bush is a nobody. Pay attention to the men behind the curtain
instead.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

Bob

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 5:01:16 PM9/30/05
to
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:10:30 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>>
>
>Assumptions: The trademark of neo-Darwinists.
>

says the guy who thinks the assumption that the bible is literally
true is a fact.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

Frank J

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 5:28:23 PM9/30/05
to

Of course. But ID is even less scientific than classic creationism,
which at least makes testable (but false) claims. ID activists are keen
enough to steer clear of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc,. They seem to
know that the literalist models have even less evidence than (their
caricature of) evolution. But just try getting them to devote "equal
time" to refuting them.

Keep in mind that refuting those events does not reject Christianity,
as many (most?) mainstream Christians do not those events literally
anyway.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 5:55:13 PM9/30/05
to
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:46:02 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:

<snip>

>You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by IDers/creationists.

Oh, my, Nickie the Spelling and Grammar Cop wrote "your'e"
instead of "you're". Do the words "hoist" and "petard" seem
vaguely familiar?

>Why is that?

The significant risk of choking experienced by anyone with
an IQ greater than a cabbage, due to the inability to stop
laughing, when reading their ridiculous claims?

<snip>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 5:54:23 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:slrndjos69.r95....@nobody.here...

I don't want to be dogmatic about how old it is, it may be as young as 6,000
years, but 10,000 is also possible, without undermining Biblical authority.

Can you show me a human memory that can be dated to more than 6,000 years
beyond a shadow of doubt?

Uncle Davey

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 5:58:01 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:GCg%e.1843$Fi3...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

If you really believe in evolution, then why do you use the term "primates"?
In what way are they "prime"? What primacy do they have, from an
evolutionary perspective?

Uncle Davey

Alan Morgan

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 6:07:25 PM9/30/05
to

Can you show me a human memory that can be dated to more than 200 years


beyond a shadow of doubt?

Can you show me a human memory that can be dated to more than a week


beyond a shadow of doubt?

Good thing we don't have to rely on human memory.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

VBM

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 6:29:52 PM9/30/05
to

"Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:dhkcut$9ms$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...

Not only that, but the earth can be billions of years old without
undermining Biblical authority.

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 6:44:45 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:slrndjos9b.r95....@nobody.here...

I certainly do believe that the test of faith is the main test that God
applies to us.

Remember the way the New Testament says that it's either faith or works
(with the slight confusing factor shown in James that faith gives rise to
works, but the motivation for these works is totally different to people who
do works to earn salvation, as if they could) that could differentiate
people in the sight of God.

For works to work we would need to be sinless. In our state, all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags and what seems glorious and holy in man
to us, is a stench in the nostrils of God. Take someone like Bono, who I am
sure is a sincere man and much better in himself than I am, he campaigns for
the rights of the poor and then has his hat flown first class around the
world, and people can see the hypocrisy. I'm not picking on him, I feel
sorry that that happened and many people made fun of him when this is a
human failing and none of us are any better. Works don't work. When we have
done all, we are still unprofitable servants.

The only other test is whether we can believe in another, namely Jesus
Christ, who did those works for us in our stead, and then died for us and
resurrected for us, being very God as well as very man and therefore
uniquely able to do this. The way to be included in Him, and in His covenant
of grace is by faith only. Any works condition would be to degrade the
sufficiency of His sacrifice. God is interested in what we do, in faith,
with the message of His Son.

What precisely our opinions about the Origin are would be of secondary
concern other than the fact that people's preference to believe what their
eyes and empirical evidence tell them, like doubting Thomas, (which of
course isn't really believing at all in the saving sense as you have to let
go of what your eyes can prove to you - we walk by faith not sight and faith
comes by HEARING, and HEARING by the WORD of GOD) to believing what God says
about His Son ("This is My beloved Son - HEAR Him", and "My sheep HEAR My
voice") tends to be pervasive. The person who will prefer the
pseudoscientific establishment explanation of the Origin to the Bible's
account just because they think they are seeing evidence for it (they are
not, actually, but they think they are, and that is what counts) tend to be
the same people who will not believe in Jesus unless either God proves
something to them, or they get a healing, or a spiritual gift, or this,
that or the other. Or they water the message right down until it takes
barely any believing at all - a human Jesus with a political message, and no
Virgin Birth, no resurrection, and a miserable pseudo-Messiah who cannot and
will not save them, but they as often or not do not even understand the need
for salvation, and their faith-free Jesus is more of a Buddy than a Saviour,
and is definitely not the Lord of Hosts coming like lightning to judge the
quick and the dead. Which is of course what He is, and how He is.

I certainly do believe that the earth was created with maturity, and that
perfectly intentionally God included sufficient ambuiguity in it to allow
those whose choice is not to believe but to follow eye-candy pseudo-evidence
to be able to concoct for themselves a viable alternative credo. This only
strengthens the position of those who do believe. When there was nothing
else but six-day creation in the recent past that was a viable option to
believe, then people believed who were not really believing in a saving way,
but merely going along with the consensus. Today that is less the case,
although it can happen in some areas where faith is so strong that it
becomes the majority position, and then many people believe only because it
seems pretty much proven to them by the fact that all their peers believe.
This is not true faith however, and therefore having too strong arguments
for God's creating the world along Biblical lines would be a double edged
sword - creating a situation where more people would be convinced of the
rightness of the Bible, but not by true faith, and therefore not saved
anyway.

This does not mean that God deceives man, but that God gives man the
leverage to deceive himself. God gives man enough rope either to make a rope
ladder to glory or to hang himself. And this is actually essential for the
whole faith thing as I have outlined it to work. Moreover the Bible shows
that God does indeed do this. It is no great secret. See where it says how
God will "send them strong delusion". This is the truth about the Biblical
God. Trade in any other, more sentimentalist versions.

At the outset, of course, all humans alive knew very well that Adam and Eve
where unborn, created beings. They themselves knew it, and everyone alive
knew that they were their relatives. The existence of a ready made world
complete with what you can "fossil fuels" in it for man to use in his short
history or to avoid using in his longer history - that remains to be seen -
did not make them doubt creation even though they had eyes in their heads as
you and I do, and much longer lifespans to make observations about the world
over.

After the flood, Noah certainly knew this and all his family had that
knowledge. They also saw a world with dragon bones in the earth and other
post flood remnants, and they knew what they were. They didn't think that
the iridium layer was millions of years old, they probably thought it was
what had been holding all that water up before the Flood.

Whether everyone in Babel still knew it I cannot say for sure, but my
expectation would be that everyone knew it who was alive at the Tower of
Babel. They had probably no doubts about it. The first time at which people
might have been able to concoct their god-free origin story without seeming
totally off the wall would have been after the break at Babel, at which the
confounding of the languages cause the testimony of the former generations
to be largely lost to the descendants. All over the world, however,
disparate post-babel tribes of man have global flood legends, dragon legends
from Nimrod's days, etc. They are found in disparate parts of the world but
not with complete coverage as it was down to how well the given tribal
elders had handed down the knowledge of pre-Babel days from what they still
remembered from the time they spoke Adamic - a language which no-one could
properly remember, as it had been utterly replaced in their heads by
individual solo languages, and people at the start had a hard enough time
re-establishing contact with their immediate families. People who remained
in the vicinity seemed to have a better chance of remembering, since they
were surrounded by the environmental clues to the former life. That's why
more of the true Pre-Babel history can be glimpsed in Sumerian legend than
in other legend, but legends from all around the world also corroborate
these Gilgamesh details.

And of course most of all we know them from the inspired account of Moses in
Genesis.

I don't see why you have to accuse me of not believing these things merely
because they seem unbelievable to you. I cannot be dogmatic about every
detail, as scripture does not give us much to go on, but I am more than
certain that something very like the above is the true explanation for early
history.

Best,

Uncle Davey

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 7:46:25 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "VBM" <v.mca...@nospam.ejgd.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:A%i%e.5583$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

That may be the case, but for many people the false idea that the earth is
that old is their rationale for rejecting scripture.

If you can present a case to the contrary, go for it.

Nevertheless, I happen to be persuaded that the earth isn't so old quite
independently from being persuaded about the other truth of scripture.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 7:50:20 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> napisał w wiadomości
news:dhkcut$9ms$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...

I am referring to artefacts of memory, such as written literature,
paintings, etc.

We have an unbroken tradition of literature that provides a human memory
right back to Sumerian times.

Why isn't it older than that, if the earth is so old and humanoids have been
developing gradually for so long?

Apparently our brains are no bigger than they are said by evolutionists to
have been hundreds of thousands of years ago.

And not a single written note, for all that putative human memory.

Uncle Davey

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 7:54:55 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:1128115703....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I wonder whether most so-called mainstream christians even take the
resurrection literally.

If they did, they might ask themselves whether they will be waiting for it
for the same billions of years they think it took God to make the first
humanic universe.

Uncle Davey


John Harshman

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:03:29 PM9/30/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

Apparently U.D. does believe that at least some fossils were created to
test our faith. My apologies. But he's one of a very small minority
within creationism.

Here's my favorite part of his rant, most of which I have snipped:

> After the flood, Noah certainly knew this and all his family had that
> knowledge. They also saw a world with dragon bones in the earth and other
> post flood remnants, and they knew what they were. They didn't think that
> the iridium layer was millions of years old, they probably thought it was
> what had been holding all that water up before the Flood.

Iridium layer holding up water? Whaaa?

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:09:01 PM9/30/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

None. It's just a word. In taxonomy, the etymological derivations are
ignored. (I could give you hundreds of examples: Hyracotherium, a horse;
Basilosaurus, a whale; etc.) Linnaeus invented the term because Primates
includes us, and we're the best. At least the members of other orders
have not so far complained about it. You and other creationists have a
tendency to use word magic, as if etymology locks meaning into an
eternal cage.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:15:39 PM9/30/05
to

Cyde Weys wrote:
> Craig Pennington <cpen...@milo.org> wrote in
> news:NqX_e.24984$y64.12034@trnddc06:
>
> > But some come close. Irving Kristol comes to mind. From
> >
> > <http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml>
> >
> > "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of
> > people,"
> > [Kristol] says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for
> > children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that
> > are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are
> > appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there
> > should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern
> > democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
>
> He went on to say,
> "There are the truths we know to be true. Then there are the truths that
> are unknown to us. And then there are the unknown truths we don't even
> know about."

I THINK you might be confused with "Donald Rumsfeld" who said:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we
know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are
things that we know we don't know. But there are also
unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't
know."

Although I am a registered bleeding-heart-liberal, and thus mandated
to heap scorn on everything he says, I regret that I always thought
that this made a lot of good sense.

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:19:45 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:xsk%e.7980$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

If you agree that we are the best, then justify that using evolutionary
philosophy, and if not, then why not change a misleading term?

Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com


Bob

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:25:25 PM9/30/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 01:50:20 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>>
>
>I am referring to artefacts of memory, such as written literature,
>paintings, etc.
>
>We have an unbroken tradition of literature that provides a human memory
>right back to Sumerian times.
>
>Why isn't it older than that, if the earth is so old and humanoids have been
>developing gradually for so long?
>
>Apparently our brains are no bigger than they are said by evolutionists

>have been hundreds of thousands of years ago.

you're arguing culture. that's quite a bit different than biology. try
not to move the goalposts.

>
>And not a single written note, for all that putative human memory.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
>
>

---------------------------

Uncle Davey

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:25:46 PM9/30/05
to

Użytkownik "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:lnk%e.7977$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Well something must have held it up.

I don't say it necessarily did hold it up, I only said they may have thought
that.


Uncle Davey


Friar Broccoli

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 8:32:28 PM9/30/05
to

Mark Isaak wrote:

> >4. Not sure about this one. Are there IDers who claim God only
> >intervenes at the molecular level, i.e. tinkers with DNA? How would
> >that create new species, though? Horses suddenly giving birth to zebras
> >(much to their mutual surprise and chagrin)?

>
> That's pretty much it. In particular, God intervened to cause the
> origin of life, to create the bacterial flagellum, and to spur on the
> Cambrian explosion. Mostly, though, they go out of their way not to
> say anything about anything, except "it looks designed" and "evolution
> is wrong."

I think this is an unfair characterisation. They don't start behaving
this way until 4 or 5 of their assertions are completely demolished.
If
people like you weren't so cruel, I'm sure they would be more
forthcoming.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 9:21:51 PM9/30/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

I accept your correction that you don't consider this theory any more
than random nonsense.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 30, 2005, 9:23:32 PM9/30/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

Names are conserved in order to maintain clarity in scientific
publications, and for no other reason. Enough with the word magic.

Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:28:09 AM10/1/05
to
In message <xsk%e.7980$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, John
Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes

>Uncle Davey wrote:
>> If you really believe in evolution, then why do you use the term "primates"?
>> In what way are they "prime"? What primacy do they have, from an
>> evolutionary perspective?
>
>None. It's just a word. In taxonomy, the etymological derivations are
>ignored. (I could give you hundreds of examples: Hyracotherium, a horse;
>Basilosaurus, a whale; etc.) Linnaeus invented the term because Primates
>includes us, and we're the best. At least the members of other orders
>have not so far complained about it. You and other creationists have a
>tendency to use word magic, as if etymology locks meaning into an
>eternal cage.
>
As a linguist David the Omphalist should already be aware of the
etymological fallacy.
--
alias Ernest Major


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 30/09/2005

Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:39:46 AM10/1/05
to
In message <dhkitn$hda$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
writes

>
>
>That may be the case, but for many people the false idea that the earth is
>that old is their rationale for rejecting scripture.

If your fellow travellers put less effort into convincing people that
Christianity entails a few thousand year old Earth then fewer people
would be led to reject Christianity by the evidence that the Earth is 5
to 6 orders of magnitude older.


>
>If you can present a case to the contrary, go for it.
>
>Nevertheless, I happen to be persuaded that the earth isn't so old quite
>independently from being persuaded about the other truth of scripture.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
>

--

Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 9:25:45 AM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:2F26ZUDS...@meden.demon.co.uk...

> In message <dhkitn$hda$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
> writes
> >
> >
> >That may be the case, but for many people the false idea that the earth
is
> >that old is their rationale for rejecting scripture.
>
> If your fellow travellers put less effort into convincing people that
> Christianity entails a few thousand year old Earth then fewer people
> would be led to reject Christianity by the evidence that the Earth is 5
> to 6 orders of magnitude older.

They have no such valid excuse before God, though, since there are many
Churches that will lead them to Christ with no requirement to believe in the
younger Earth. Neither am I or most fundamentalists on record as saying you
cannot be a Christian if you choose to believe that way.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 9:29:23 AM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:R1Ez10BZ...@meden.demon.co.uk...

> In message <xsk%e.7980$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, John
> Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
> >Uncle Davey wrote:
> >> If you really believe in evolution, then why do you use the term
"primates"?
> >> In what way are they "prime"? What primacy do they have, from an
> >> evolutionary perspective?
> >
> >None. It's just a word. In taxonomy, the etymological derivations are
> >ignored. (I could give you hundreds of examples: Hyracotherium, a horse;
> >Basilosaurus, a whale; etc.) Linnaeus invented the term because Primates
> >includes us, and we're the best. At least the members of other orders
> >have not so far complained about it. You and other creationists have a
> >tendency to use word magic, as if etymology locks meaning into an
> >eternal cage.
> >
> As a linguist David the Omphalist should already be aware of the
> etymological fallacy.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

As a linguist I'm also aware as to how much re-engineering of language goes
on in order to help people not be misled by important points.

But not, somehow, in this case.

"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
really take evolution seriously.

And if socialism survives the dawn of advanced robotics, that'll be another
proof that people in science don't really take evolution at face value.

Best,

Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 9:33:56 AM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:Pwl%e.946$sL3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

I don't have a mechanism for it, but my mind is always open.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 9:49:42 AM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Bob" <wf...@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:433dd755...@newsgroups.comcast.net...

> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 01:50:20 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >I am referring to artefacts of memory, such as written literature,
> >paintings, etc.
> >
> >We have an unbroken tradition of literature that provides a human memory
> >right back to Sumerian times.
> >
> >Why isn't it older than that, if the earth is so old and humanoids have
been
> >developing gradually for so long?
> >
> >Apparently our brains are no bigger than they are said by evolutionists
>
> >have been hundreds of thousands of years ago.
>
> you're arguing culture. that's quite a bit different than biology. try
> not to move the goalposts.
>

I'm not moving them. The term Omphalism Lite was brought up, and the
critical difference between Ompahalism and Omphalism Lite is the issue of
human collective memory.

You cannot make biology out as though it had all the answers. It is only one
branch of knowledge and the cut-off between what is biology and what is
culture is very arbitrary when it comes to humans.

Here's an example I was discussing with a candidate for the role of
secretary in my office last week, because she seemed to think, as you do,
that biology is one thing and culture is another: if we consider that the
typical stats for a western post-christian country is 1.36 children per
female, (this was from a sample of stats from the CIA world handbook I took
during the course of the discussion) and a typical strongly Islamic country,
especially some of the Afican countries, exhibits a statistic of 2.7,m then
what will happen to the populations if we assume the following:

1. equal male and female births and immaterial infant mortality
2. there is free immigration from the islamic country to the non-islamic
country
3. the islamics keep their culture, faith and practices intact in the new
country, along with their relatively high birth rate
4. both countries contain 10 million people now, there are no other
countries involved, and the border is virtually open
5. the economy in the non-islamic country is currently twice as rich as that
of the islamic country.
6. generational length is 30 years
7. children remain in the same faith community as their parents.
intermarriage is also negligable.

I asked her to predict what the state of affairs would look like in 300
years, and she correctly identified that there would be only a tiny minority
of non muslims in the region by that time. In fact, the non-muslims are
about to go extinct.

Does this mean that muslims are biologically different to non-muslims, or is
culture every bit as important as biology in current human evolution?

And if the latter, then, in the words of the song, how long has this been
going on?


Best,

Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com


Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 9:52:19 AM10/1/05
to
In message <dhm34o$msr$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
writes
>

>Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
>news:R1Ez10BZ...@meden.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <xsk%e.7980$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, John
>> Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
>> >Uncle Davey wrote:
>> >> If you really believe in evolution, then why do you use the term
>"primates"?
>> >> In what way are they "prime"? What primacy do they have, from an
>> >> evolutionary perspective?
>> >
>> >None. It's just a word. In taxonomy, the etymological derivations are
>> >ignored. (I could give you hundreds of examples: Hyracotherium, a horse;
>> >Basilosaurus, a whale; etc.) Linnaeus invented the term because Primates
>> >includes us, and we're the best. At least the members of other orders
>> >have not so far complained about it. You and other creationists have a
>> >tendency to use word magic, as if etymology locks meaning into an
>> >eternal cage.
>> >
>> As a linguist David the Omphalist should already be aware of the
>> etymological fallacy.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>
>As a linguist I'm also aware as to how much re-engineering of language goes
>on in order to help people not be misled by important points.

So, who is misled by the use of the term Primata for the clade
Homo+Loris?


>
>But not, somehow, in this case.
>
>"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
>thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
>really take evolution seriously.

You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
you don't take creationism seriously.


>
>And if socialism survives the dawn of advanced robotics, that'll be another
>proof that people in science don't really take evolution at face value.
>

TomS

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:18:09 AM10/1/05
to
"On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:52:19 +0100, in article
<ZSGBcUqT...@meden.demon.co.uk>, Ernest Major stated..."

>
>In message <dhm34o$msr$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
>writes
[...snip...]

>>As a linguist I'm also aware as to how much re-engineering of language goes
>>on in order to help people not be misled by important points.
>
>So, who is misled by the use of the term Primata for the clade
>Homo+Loris?
>>
>>But not, somehow, in this case.
>>
>>"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
>>thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
>>really take evolution seriously.
>
>You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
>Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
>make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
>you don't take creationism seriously.
[...snip...]

It leads me also to question his claim to be a "linguist".


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"The utmost, therefore that the argument [derived from the analogy with human
art] can prove is an _architect of the world, who is always very much hampered
by the adaptabilities of the material in which he works, not a _creator of the
world to whose idea everything is subject." Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A627

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:15:01 AM10/1/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

So open that your brain has fallen out, to paraphrase Carl Sagan.

catshark

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:32:19 AM10/1/05
to

TomS wrote:
> "On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:52:19 +0100, in article
> <ZSGBcUqT...@meden.demon.co.uk>, Ernest Major stated..."
> >
> >In message <dhm34o$msr$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
> >writes
> [...snip...]
> >>As a linguist I'm also aware as to how much re-engineering of language goes
> >>on in order to help people not be misled by important points.
> >
> >So, who is misled by the use of the term Primata for the clade
> >Homo+Loris?
> >>
> >>But not, somehow, in this case.
> >>
> >>"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
> >>thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
> >>really take evolution seriously.
> >
> >You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
> >Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
> >make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
> >you don't take creationism seriously.
> [...snip...]
>
> It leads me also to question his claim to be a "linguist".

But there is no question he is cunning . . .

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides

- Unseen University Motto -

Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:51:16 AM10/1/05
to
In message <1128177139.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> writes
Only tactically, not strategically.

catshark

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 11:14:42 AM10/1/05
to

There's strategy to being a cunning linquist?

So *that's* my problem!

adam

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 11:22:08 AM10/1/05
to

I wonder if you object to calling Hurricane Katrina a 'disaster'. If
you don't does that mean you don't take meteorology seriously and
believe our fates are controlled by 'evil stars'?"

Adam

Bob

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 2:37:44 PM10/1/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 15:25:45 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>

yet the xtian message is compromised by fundies like you. after all,
if i cant believe you on what we can TEST why should i believe you on
faith in christ?

Bob

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 2:42:37 PM10/1/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 15:49:42 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

you arguing lamarckianism here? acquired characteristics can be passed
generation to generation?


islam is not a biological feature. you're taking as a given what
you're trying to prove, that is, muslims have a higher reproductive
rate than non muslims, and assuming that's biological in nature.

it's not. if tomorrow the imams and mullahs decreed celibacy for
muslims, islam would go the way of the shakers.

that's quite a bit different than saying a biological feature like air
breathing leads to higher reproductive success.

Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:19:44 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:ZSGBcUqT...@meden.demon.co.uk...

Someone may think that Loris had some form of primacy over the other animals
or was more "fully evolved" by virtue of being called a primate.

If evolution is true, then the slow loris is no superior than the polar bear
or the giant squid.

> >But not, somehow, in this case.
> >
> >"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
> >thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
> >really take evolution seriously.
>
> You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
> Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
> make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
> you don't take creationism seriously.

The argument is that since you use language which is not consistent with
evolutionary theory to describe evolutionary terms, that you don't really
take evolution seriously.

Best,

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:20:22 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:dhm5r...@drn.newsguy.com...

> "On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:52:19 +0100, in article
> <ZSGBcUqT...@meden.demon.co.uk>, Ernest Major stated..."
> >
> >In message <dhm34o$msr$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
> >writes
> [...snip...]
> >>As a linguist I'm also aware as to how much re-engineering of language
goes
> >>on in order to help people not be misled by important points.
> >
> >So, who is misled by the use of the term Primata for the clade
> >Homo+Loris?
> >>
> >>But not, somehow, in this case.
> >>
> >>"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
> >>thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
> >>really take evolution seriously.
> >
> >You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
> >Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
> >make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
> >you don't take creationism seriously.
> [...snip...]
>
> It leads me also to question his claim to be a "linguist".
>

What qualifications do you bring to that assessment?

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:22:12 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "catshark" <catsh...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:1128177139.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Well, I'm not at least 4 days a month.

Put it that way.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:25:10 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:6n7ZB3xk...@meden.demon.co.uk...

That would depend on whether cunning linguistics is an end in itself.
Which would, of course, be a connetradickshun in terms.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:26:45 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "catshark" <catsh...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:1128179682.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

At this point I could bring in an episode from the life of Napoleon, when
passing through Warsaw, but discretion many be the better part of valour on
that one...

Uncle Davey


Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:41:06 PM10/1/05
to
In message <dhmr66$ml$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>

I'll ask the question again. Who is misled?


>
>> >But not, somehow, in this case.
>> >
>> >"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
>> >thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
>> >really take evolution seriously.
>>
>> You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
>> Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
>> make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
>> you don't take creationism seriously.
>
>The argument is that since you use language which is not consistent with
>evolutionary theory to describe evolutionary terms, that you don't really
>take evolution seriously.

And it's a silly argument. To borrow an example from Adam Yates, would
you argue that calling Hurricane Katrina a disaster means that people
don't take meteorology seriously.

And you're still repeating the etymological fallacy.
--
alias Ernest Major


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:40:55 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "adam" <adam_m...@yahoo.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:1128180128.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

If you think about it, you can see many ways in which Satan has undermined
our language. This is one. And the way that English started to use the modal
verb "do" in conjunction with almost any verb for interrogation and for
emphasis is another, that I was musing on in the hotel bathroom the other
day.

In other languages, you wouldn't find a construction like "do you believe
this?" "yes, I do believe it". In the English of the Reformation period you
will find "believest thou this? Yea, verily I believe it". After this there
came such a sea change in sentence construction that putting sentences
together that way in English now seems stilted and foreign, and yet all
languages related to English did not change their grammar in this radical
way and there is no reason for the evolution of the periphrastic 'do', other
than an attempt by Satan to confuse faith with works in our very thought
tool. He chose English because it was the greatest ever vehicle for the
gospel of salvation through faith, not works. In a Sapir-whorff compliant
way, he brought this term into essential usage in the construction of every
sentence so that every verb becomes about 'doing' - even the verb of faith
'do you believe?' - this confuses faith and works and makes it harder for
people to understand the gospel. Doing is doing, and believing is believing.
Handsome may be as handsome does, but faith is as faith believes.

Yes, I think one could object to it, but for the Christian there is so much
linguistic subversion that we could be offended by every sentence of human
utterance, if we did but take the time to analyse it. For you evolutionists,
on the other hand, the term "primates' should stick out like a sore thumb as
being contrary to your theory and misleading.

Best,

Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com

Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:45:21 PM10/1/05
to
In message <dhmr7b$pj$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
writes
>
>Użytkownik "TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> napisał w wiadomości
>news:dhm5r...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> "On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:52:19 +0100, in article
>> <ZSGBcUqT...@meden.demon.co.uk>, Ernest Major stated..."
>> >
>> >In message <dhm34o$msr$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
>> >writes
>> [...snip...]
>> >>As a linguist I'm also aware as to how much re-engineering of language
>goes
>> >>on in order to help people not be misled by important points.
>> >
>> >So, who is misled by the use of the term Primata for the clade
>> >Homo+Loris?
>> >>
>> >>But not, somehow, in this case.
>> >>
>> >>"Primates" is a term whose meaning is not consistent with evolutionary
>> >>thought. The fact that you people keep using it goes to show you don't
>> >>really take evolution seriously.
>> >
>> >You repeat the etymological fallacy (equating derivation with meaning).
>> >Consequently your subsequent claim is a non-sequitur. The fact that you
>> >make these silly arguments leads some of your readers to conclude that
>> >you don't take creationism seriously.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> It leads me also to question his claim to be a "linguist".
>>
>
>What qualifications do you bring to that assessment?
>
He doesn't need qualifications; he just needs evidence. Your commission
of the etymological fallacy is that evidence.

Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:46:02 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Bob" <wf...@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:433ed72a...@newsgroups.comcast.net...

That's the whole point I'm making. As long as you expect to be able to test
any part of it, you are not coming to Christ like a babe in arms.

A babe does not test its mother, but trusts implicitly. One of the signs
that a child is becoming no longer a child is when it begins to test its
parents, such as whether they will administer the rules consistently,
whether it is possible to play one off against the other, etc, and even
three or four year olds begin to do this. But the child-like coming in faith
that we are required to do is devoid of testing. You will not achieve saving
faith by using emipirical tests of any kind.

So solly. If only it were that easy. And yet, for those who have it, there
is nothing easier. In fact, it is inevitable.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:46:58 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Bob" <wf...@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:433ed7a3...@newsgroups.comcast.net...

Once again you have misunderstood what I am trying to say to you.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 4:48:34 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:FRw%e.1974$Fi3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Let's just say I'm the thickest of the anti-evolution crowd. It's fine with
me. Just don't you let your mind come between you and God. A brain can be as
much an idol as anything else, if not one of the biggest of them all.

Uncle Davey


Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:03:18 PM10/1/05
to
In message <dhmr66$ml$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
writes
>

>Someone may think that Loris had some form of primacy over the other
>animals or was more "fully evolved" by virtue of being called a
>primate.
>
>If evolution is true, then the slow loris is no superior than the polar
>bear or the giant squid.

BTW, Loris is the slender loris; the slow loris is Nycticebus.

Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:15:29 PM10/1/05
to
In message <dhmss6$7js$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
writes
>

>Let's just say I'm the thickest of the anti-evolution crowd. It's fine with
>me. Just don't you let your mind come between you and God. A brain can be as
>much an idol as anything else, if not one of the biggest of them all.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
Have you considered that the last pair of sentences apply to yourself.
You certainly appear to place more value on being a "clever troll" than
on being a Christian.

Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:21:59 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:B7OXW6Vx...@meden.demon.co.uk...

> In message <dhmss6$7js$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
> writes
> >
> >Let's just say I'm the thickest of the anti-evolution crowd. It's fine
with
> >me. Just don't you let your mind come between you and God. A brain can be
as
> >much an idol as anything else, if not one of the biggest of them all.
> >
> >Uncle Davey
> >
> Have you considered that the last pair of sentences apply to yourself.
> You certainly appear to place more value on being a "clever troll" than
> on being a Christian.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

Good point.

I'll watch out for that, thanks.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:24:08 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:Y6aBWPSh...@meden.demon.co.uk...

It is commonly assumed by your side that just because you can pin one or
more of your many and varied fallacy labels on an argument, that that is
good enough to dismiss the particular merits of the case in the argument
under discussion. I would just like to argue by assertion that that is
however not the case.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:30:19 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:rKqNaTRi...@meden.demon.co.uk...

And I did accept in my reply to what he said that in fact there is some
truth in the fact that disaster is a satanically subverted term, not to make
people doubt meteorology, because the calque is of a much earlier vintage
and is common to many romance languages.

I would say that at the time of that subversion it was made in order to make
people subconsciously accept the astrological explanations for events rather
than consider the claims of a personal God. In former times these
superstitions were the permitted viable credible alternative, but they have
been largely superseded and made irrelevant by the larger alternative belief
system offered by post darwinian pseudo-science.


>
> And you're still repeating the etymological fallacy.
> --
> alias Ernest Major

And you're still claiming that pinning on a fancy fallacy label
automatically discards an argument.

That's the fallacy fallacy, that is.

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:33:46 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:1KHKK0TW...@meden.demon.co.uk...

> In message <dhmr66$ml$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
> writes
> >
> >Someone may think that Loris had some form of primacy over the other
> >animals or was more "fully evolved" by virtue of being called a
> >primate.
> >
> >If evolution is true, then the slow loris is no superior than the polar
> >bear or the giant squid.
>
> BTW, Loris is the slender loris; the slow loris is Nycticebus.
> --

My bad for not checking. (Je m'excuse, Geoffroy)

Uncle Davey


Uncle Davey

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:39:39 PM10/1/05
to

Użytkownik "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:dhmvgv$idp$0...@pita.alt.net...

The other thing I just found out about them is that they are venomous, how
do you like that?

Now why didn't that trick evolve in other so-called prosimians, then? Isn't
it a useful survival mechanism?

Uncle Davey


Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 5:54:06 PM10/1/05
to
In message <dhmuut$g28$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com>
You remind of the English teacher who told his class they wouldn't
recognise a cliche if <cliche>. (But you've actually managed to my make
me chuckle for once.)

John Wilkins

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 7:28:29 PM10/1/05
to
Not every survival trait is expected to evolve in every animal, Davey. What
evolutionary theory predicts is that each organism will have a fit for its
environmental challenges; not not for all conceiveable challeneges nor all
conceiveable traits. Some organisms simply cannot get there from here, so to
speak.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 7:53:17 PM10/1/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

The sad thing is that you are by no means the thickest. You're
self-lobotomized.

Bob

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:52:37 PM10/1/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:48:34 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>>
>


>Let's just say I'm the thickest of the anti-evolution crowd. It's fine with
>me. Just don't you let your mind come between you and God.

you seem to be unable to take your own advice.

the question remains: since creationists are wrong about creationism,
why should we have confidence in their view of god?

Bob

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:55:50 PM10/1/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:46:58 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>
>Użytkownik "Bob" <wf...@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
>

>> that's quite a bit different than saying a biological feature like air
>> breathing leads to higher reproductive success.
>>
>
>Once again you have misunderstood what I am trying to say to you.
>

no, you misunderstood what you are trying to say.

Bob

unread,
Oct 1, 2005, 10:55:25 PM10/1/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:46:02 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>
>>


>> yet the xtian message is compromised by fundies like you. after all,
>> if i cant believe you on what we can TEST why should i believe you on
>> faith in christ?
>>
>
>That's the whole point I'm making. As long as you expect to be able to test
>any part of it, you are not coming to Christ like a babe in arms.

but YOU are setting up the test. YOU are saying it's valid. and we
know the test fails.

>
>A babe does not test its mother, but trusts implicitly. One of the signs
>that a child is becoming no longer a child is when it begins to test its
>parents, such as whether they will administer the rules consistently,
>whether it is possible to play one off against the other, etc, and even
>three or four year olds begin to do this. But the child-like coming in faith
>that we are required to do is devoid of testing. You will not achieve saving
>faith by using emipirical tests of any kind.

i'm supposed to put my mind on hold? i'm supposed to look at your
witness, see that it's horribly retrogressive in a matter of profound
understanding of reality, and THEN believe in your metaphysical
message?

why?

adam

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 6:18:18 AM10/2/05
to

Word meanings change. You may attribute that to a sinister (I don't
mean left handed - but I'm sure you knew that ;-) ) agent but I just
see it as a normal process that does not seriously inhibit
communication, which is of course the purpose of language.
I can personally assure you I take evolution seriously and have never
once been misled or puzzled by the use of the word primates. Oh,
actually there was one time when I first saw it used in a religious
context: 'The Primate of Britain' or something like that. It made me
snigger because it conjuered up (and still does, actually) an image of
a baboon in full bishop's regalia lording over a church in England
(note that I also acknowledge that that impulse is not warranted and i
am fully aware that the Primate of Britain is indeed a primate in the
zoological sense).

cheers

Adam

>
> Uncle Davey
> www.usenetposts.com


TomS

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 8:30:07 AM10/2/05
to
"On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:20:22 +0200, in article <dhmr7b$pj$0...@pita.alt.net>, Uncle
Davey stated..."

I did not make an assessment. I questioned your claim. I
continue to be in doubt. What is the meaning of the term
"Primates" which is inconsistent with evolutionary thought?
You appear to be saying - and I may be mistaken in this -
that the etymology of the word determines its meaning. If so,
this is an elementary mistake, one which no linguist would make.


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"The utmost, therefore that the argument [derived from the analogy with human
art] can prove is an _architect of the world, who is always very much hampered
by the adaptabilities of the material in which he works, not a _creator of the
world to whose idea everything is subject." Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A627

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 10:19:11 AM10/2/05
to
Uncle Davey wrote:

At least, you actually address the arguments, which is rare
indeed. So I ask you to look at some slightly more detailed
points.

[... most of proceeding article snipped ...]

>
> This does not mean that God deceives man, but that God
> gives man the leverage to deceive himself. God gives man
> enough rope either to make a rope ladder to glory or to
> hang himself.

To me the rope looks more like a titanium cable. It
includes:

1) 15,000 species of trilobites, a shelled sea animal, that
lived and evolved over a 200 million year period, the
last of which went extinct 250 million years ago.

These animals originally died at the bottoms of,
sometimes very deep oceans, and their remains (detailed
rock imprints) are often found hundreds of feet
underground in rock quarries, below dry land in the
center of continents.

Beautiful remains of trilobites can be viewed in the
geology department of almost any university anywhere in
the world.

2) Coal mines, sometimes a kilometer deep (again below solid
rock), with the stumps of extinct dead trees sitting on
top of the coal seam. These stumps were apparently from
the last tree growing on top of the bog (which became the
coal seam) before it was covered over, by other material.

These fossil stumps are noteworthy because they often go
undetected until all the coal below them has been
removed, whereupon they fall on the miners below,
frequently killing them.

3) Direct observational evidence of galaxies 4 to 5 billion
light years distant. Our nearest neighbouring galaxy is
3,000,000 light years distant. Even under the most
absurd scenarios the light from these objects could not
possibly have reached us within the ~10,000 year biblical
time frame.

If you have any doubts, I can provide detailed references
for all the above.

>
> And this is actually essential for the whole faith thing
> as I have outlined it to work. Moreover the Bible shows
> that God does indeed do this. It is no great secret. See
> where it says how God will "send them strong delusion".

The bible was written a long time ago (at about the same
time as the Hindu scriptures) by people we don't know.

Since all the evidence we are certain about points very
clearly away from recent creation, how can you, with a clear
conscience, recommend that someone accept that position?

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

jerzy.ja...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 11:04:03 AM10/2/05
to

The catholics and some half-baked versions of protestants use the term
"primate" but it is not a Biblical term. God ordained that Christ shall
in all things have pre-eminence, and not the leaders of various parts
of His church, who ought to be more wary of taking on themselves such
potentially Christ-usurping titles.

Best,

Uncle Davey


Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 12:12:46 PM10/2/05
to
In message <1128265443....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
jerzy.ja...@gmail.com writes

>
>The catholics and some half-baked versions of protestants use the term
>"primate" but it is not a Biblical term. God ordained that Christ shall
>in all things have pre-eminence, and not the leaders of various parts
>of His church, who ought to be more wary of taking on themselves such
>potentially Christ-usurping titles.
>
Perhaps you ought to have a word with the creationist currently posting
under the handle of Logos.

Bob

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 4:05:27 PM10/2/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 00:44:45 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Remember the way the New Testament says that it's either faith or works
>(with the slight confusing factor shown in James that faith gives rise to
>works, but the motivation for these works is totally different to people who
>do works to earn salvation, as if they could) that could differentiate
>people in the sight of God.

hmmm...right away a problem with literal interpretation...

>.
>
>I certainly do believe that the earth was created with maturity

well since there's evidence that the earth has changed with time (as
has the universe), apparently god is a liar.


, and that
>perfectly intentionally God included sufficient ambuiguity in it to allow
>those whose choice is not to believe but to follow eye-candy pseudo-evidence
>to be able to concoct for themselves a viable alternative credo.

well there is another choice: follow the evidence. observe and make
conclusions based on what you see, using your god given intelligence.

that, apparently, is much too complicated for creationists.

Bob

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 4:07:13 PM10/2/05
to
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:30:19 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
wrote:

>


>I would say that at the time of that subversion it was made in order to make
>people subconsciously accept the astrological explanations for events rather
>than consider the claims of a personal God. In former times these
>superstitions were the permitted viable credible alternative, but they have
>been largely superseded and made irrelevant by the larger alternative belief
>system offered by post darwinian pseudo-science.

one wonders what such a mythical belief system would entail.
buddhists, christians, jews, muslims, atheists and zoroastrians all
accept evolution. there simply is no 'belief' system from evolution
except in the febrile imaginations of those medievalists callled
'creationists'.

AC

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 10:50:22 PM10/2/05
to
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:10:30 GMT,
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>> VBM wrote:
>>
>>>"boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Cg__e.13483$eB3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>>"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by
>>>>>IDers/creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>It probably has something to do with not wanting to live in a third
>>>>world country ruled by a theocracy.
>>>>
>>>>Now, why are you fundies sooo afraid of science, and evolution in
>>>>particular?
>>>
>>>My gosh, even being a devout, Bible-believing Christian, I can
>>
>> think
>>
>>>of few things scarier than living in a country in which the
>>>Fundamentalist Christians ran things the way they would like to!!!!
>>
>>
>> Making assumptions about what Fundamentalist Christians would do
>> sounds so fundamentalistic.
>>
>
> Assumptions: The trademark of neo-Darwinists.

Useless one-liners: The trademark of a guy who is jealous of other peoples'
accomplishments.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

AC

unread,
Oct 2, 2005, 10:53:22 PM10/2/05
to
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:58:01 +0200,
Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> napisał w
> wiadomości news:GCg%e.1843$Fi3...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>> > John Harshman wrote:
>> >
>> >>NashtOn wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>John Harshman wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Beagle wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>I'm a foreigner and fairly new to this stuff, so can someone correct
> my
>> >>>>>current assumptions about the ID lobby in America? It might help some
>> >>>>>other confused types, you never know.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>1. Young Earth Creationists believe the entire universe was created
>> >>>>>6,000 years ago, as implied by a popular book of folk tales. And
> that's
>> >>>>>that. Take your dirty atheist physics and git, ye goddam commie!

>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>2. Some cunning YECs think the universe is 6,000 years old (folk
> tales
>> >>>>>again) but that God planted vast amounts of evidence in his creation
> to
>> >>>>>fool us all into thinking it's billions of years old. Hmmm.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>This does not seem to be a common position, or at least not a
> prominent
>> >>>>one, these days. Nobody ever comes here to make such claims, nor do
> any
>> >>>>prominent IDiots or creationists take this position.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>You act as though you feel that your'e threatened by
> IDers/creationists.
>> >>>
>> >>>Why is that?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Perhaps because they are threatening me. Why are you being so defensive?
>> >>
>> >>Do you think that fossils were put in the ground to test our faith?
>> >>
>> >>[snip]
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > What fossils?
>>
>> Any fossils
>> > The ones that appear in the Cambrian but refuse to be found in other
>> > eras in a way that would suit your naturalistic ideology?
>>
>> I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. Aren't fossils found in
>> certain periods but not in others just evidence for evolution?

>>
>
> If you really believe in evolution, then why do you use the term "primates"?
> In what way are they "prime"? What primacy do they have, from an
> evolutionary perspective?

Do you honestly think that was even an important, let alone rational
question, Davey?

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages