By their fruits Dec. 2017

[RonO]

It seems that some of the newbies would benefit from getting access to
past creationists posts so that they can get some type of clue as to
what goes on around here. The ID/creationist contingent should review
what has gone on before so they don't mess up in the same way over and
over. Really, why are creationists still going on about the bombardier
beetle over 30 years after the argument failed so badly for the
scientific creationists? The ID perps have just put up their 6 best
evidences for creationism and the bogus probability argument isn't
included nor the Bombardier beetle. The no transitional giraffe fossil
argument failed years ago, and didn't make the list.

This is just a list of the posters on the creationist side of the issues
that have recently posted on TO. IDiots, run of the mill creationists
etc. You can look up the links of past By their fruits to see what
things were like years ago. There isn't much difference. That should
be sad in anyone's book.

Anyone can follow the link and use Google Groups pull down menu on the
right to "show activity" and access more of that posters posts. Read as
many as you can stand.

I just go through the last couple of weeks of active threads and take
the first post that I come to, so I may miss someone that has posted
since the last By their Fruits.

Nyikos is posting his IDiot denial junk again.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xCC5NGB-QHI/P91yi0JJCgAJ

Alpha Beta a newbie that should take the time to figure out what is
going on.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/VV0hCO2phG4/pfSKdTmaCwAJ

JTEM:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/VV0hCO2phG4/W5T5yJabCwAJ

Kleinman:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/CxZw7ua9YKg/UYwmb1jLCgAJ

Kalkidas:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Eh8nWAhKWUY/ECHpO92hCwAJ

Ray:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gYD3gF2rRZA/DA-QsvboCwAJ

Dale:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rlJaAFX5-AY/NLCN-AJQCwAJ

Bill:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hQ6-DJ07MuM/LrtZqKmhCgAJ

Jonathan:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/hQ6-DJ07MuM/ylJ3nEypCgAJ

Maggsy, another newbie:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/iqeikysj8B0/0TIPZeF2BAAJ

Seymore4Head, sometimes you can't tell.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/WekXwSjU_7w/InBA-GQvCAAJ

I posted a link to KSJJ in Maggsy's woodpecker thread. "show activity"
will allow you to access KSJJ posts back to 1996.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!activity/talk.origins/UtbHDKAZIncJ

Donald Sauter:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/sXl65nGgfKY/hre4kc4uBwAJ

I only went back to Nov 30th. I know that Dean posted, but he doesn't
make the list this time.

It should be strange that none of the IDiot creationists want to discuss
the 6 best bits of evidence for ID creationism that the ID perps have
come up with, but denial and dishonesty was all intelligent design
creationism had going for it. Denial and dishonesty seems to be all
that the creationists expected out of it. No one seems surprised at how
bogus and stupid the arguments are.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/7PsjXfKQvsc/Qw1IMjGJCwAJ

Here is an old By their Fruits with links to others. You can get back
to 2009 if you want to see how little things have changed. About the
only difference is that denial is about all that the creationists have left.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/cCmhlzxMiAU/r4TQrAPwAQAJ

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

At least two of those people above debate with me on other forums about certain periods of history in which animals evolved into various species. I don't quite understand how they are "Creationists."

[RonO]

That is because you don't know what IDiocy is. I told you to get up to
speed, but you obviously don't want to understand what goes on around
here. Denton and Behe are two IDiots that are fellows at the ID scam
unit of the Discovery Institute, and they understand that biological
evolution is fact. That doesn't keep you from being an IDiot
creationist. Behe thinks that his god tweeks things every once in a
while and Denton believes that his god got the ball rolling with the big
bang and it all unfolded. They are both creationists of different
sorts. Nyikos lies about being agnostic and admits to being Catholic
and going to church regularly, and he is an avid supporter of Behe (a
fellow Catholic) and the irreducible complexity nonsense. He has been
denying what the ID perps have been doing for years. You can see him do
it right now in other threads. The Pope tells Nyikos and Behe that
biological evolution is more than an hypothesis, so no one has to
convince them of that.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

Huh? Whether a prime mover or something else is the "cause" of the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. I don't consider a person who picks one explanation for the Big Bang over another a Creationist. Is a transhumanist who thinks we're a computer program also a Creationist? What is a scientist who theorizes that the universe expands and contracts? or someone who looks to alternate dimensions as the cause? Are all of them Creationists?

What do all people who accept biological evolution think about the Big Bang? I wasn't aware we were all unified on this particular point.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:

Well it's hard to understand how JTEM is a Creationist. Is a Creationist who thinks we evolved from primates some new kind of Creationist?

And how can Nyikos accept that whales evolved from a basal Artiodactyl and developed homodont teeth over time if he is a Creationist?

It makes no sense to me under the definition of "Creationist" I've always known.

[RonO]

A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. IDiots are
all creationists that I have come into contact with. There are
obviously many kinds of creationists.

>
> What do all people who accept biological evolution think about the Big Bang? I wasn't aware we were all unified on this particular point.
>

Someone doesn't have to know that the big bang ever happened to
understand the facts of biological evolution so what is your question?

If anyone proposes that there is some creator being doing whatever they
think got done, they are by definition a creationist. They obviously
believe in some type of creator being. There are all kinds of
creationists. Space alien intelligent designers have been proposed as
our creators and is the most scientific of the ID alternatives, but if
it took us almost 4 billion years to evolve with space alien help how
long did it take the space aliens to evolve? The Universe is only
around 13 billion years old. So if you don't posit that there was
creation in the next county and that we were a second hand creation you
don't have much.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

JTEM claims that apes evolved from humans. Behe and Denton are
creationists that believe that humans evolved from an ape like ancestor.
Behe is a tweeker creationist and Denton is some type of Deist.

>
> And how can Nyikos accept that whales evolved from a basal Artiodactyl and developed homodont teeth over time if he is a Creationist?

Ask him why he goes to church regularly and why he keeps supporting
Behe's irreducible complexity nonsense. Why does he keep lying about
what the ID perps have done. He has said some things about Pascal's
wager, so he may believe that he can lie to God and get away with it.

>
> It makes no sense to me under the definition of "Creationist" I've always known.
>

Your definition is likely incorrect. You are likely thinking of young
earth creationists, but there is only a degree difference between them
and Old earth creationists that don't believe in biological evolution,
and another degree difference between those old earth creationists and
creationists like Behe and then Denton. Denton is about the end of the
line biblical creationist. You also have flat earth and geocentric
creationists. You also have guys like Kalkidas who are Hindu
creationists. Creationists just have to believe in a creator.

When this belief leads to IDiocy they become idiot creationists. That
is the only type left of ID creationists. You won't find an IDiot that
isn't ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. All the competent
informed and half way honest ones went back to being just creationists
years ago. None of them should have become IDiots to begin with.
IDiocy was just a political expedient to get their creationist beliefs
into the public schools after the failure of scientific creationism.

Within the last year Bill claimed that he is no longer an IDiot, but he
is obviously still a creationist. This is the IDiot who within the last
3 years or so claimed that he knew the real ID scientists not associated
with the Discovery Institute who had the real ID science. This was
nearly a decade after the IDiot loss in federal court. He never put up
any names or what their ID science was, but he made the claim. These
are the types of creationists that support the creationist ID scam. You
will find that you have to broaden your definition of creationist.

Ron Okimoto

[Ernest Major]

My working definition of creationism is religiously motivated rejection
of substantial parts of the scientific consensus, especially as related
to biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof. (The last
phrase avoids the issue as to whether the proponent is sincere, or is in
it for the money, or thinks that creationism is a useful instrument of
social control.)

Michael Behe concedes common descent - but he's still a creationist.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Jonathan]

On 12/15/2017 11:30 PM, RonO wrote:


>
> This is just a list of the posters on the creationist side of the issues
> that have recently posted on TO.

You can't name one instance where I supported
the Creationist claims, not one. You just
can't grasp the concepts I discuss so out
of your ignorance assume I must be part
of that crowd.

Put up or shut up!

And another thing, your bias and ignorance
can't grasp the effects of the Creationist
movement, which shined a very bright light
on the gaping holes that remain in understanding
how life first started and how it evolves.

Namely creation and speciation are those gaping
holes and Creationism led directly to the topic
of speciation becoming the hottest topic in
evolutionary thought today.

However I never once said Creationists filled
those holes, quite the contrary, complexity
science fills those holes. Unfortunately
those concepts are way over your head and
like the Church during the Inquisition you
refuse to learn the new science while
waving your arms in the air calling them
blasphemy.

Your refusal to understand or accept the
new ideas are the obstacle to science
moving forward on the secrets to life.

Not the Creationists.

[J.LyonLayden]

So you define Creationism as anyone who thinks a creator being did anything?
I have never heard that before. That is not the definition of creationism in any dictionary.
Are you saying you do not believe in a Creator being for anything at all, even space/time? If so you are not actually a Methodist, but you are lying to the people in your congregation and practicing hypocrisy.
If that's the case, you are worse than Ray. You make up your own definitions and attack your fellow Christians just as he does.
Believing that the Big Bang was caused by a god or prime mover is not a rejection of science in any way. There is no scientific explanation for the cause of the Big Bang as of yet. You cannot reject something that isn't there.

So what is your agenda? Why is an atheist a member of a Methodist Church?

Here is the standard definition of Creationist:

"A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"

I don't see "Big Bang" in that definition anywhere. Matter was created by the Big Bang. Various forms of life and the world were created by the Big Bang. But it doesn't say anything about the Big Bang itself.

Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.

I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."

[RonO]

You never looked up the definition. My definition is usually the first
one given.

Just Google "creationist definition"

QUOTE:
cre·a·tion·ist
krēˈāSHənəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate
from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.
"a renewed campaign by religious creationists"
adjective
1.
relating to the belief that the universe and living organisms originate
from specific acts of divine creation.
"a creationist account of the universe"
END QUOTE:

> Are you saying you do not believe in a Creator being for anything at all, even space/time? If so you are not actually a Methodist, but you are lying to the people in your congregation and practicing hypocrisy.

I never said anything like that. Where did you get that notion?

> If that's the case, you are worse than Ray. You make up your own definitions and attack your fellow Christians just as he does.

Ray is Ray. You likely shouldn't argue with him.

> Believing that the Big Bang was caused by a god or prime mover is not a rejection of science in any way. There is no scientific explanation for the cause of the Big Bang as of yet. You cannot reject something that isn't there.

Creationists only reject the science that they don't like. The major
creationist support base for the ID scam don't like the Big Bang and
don't believe that it ever happened. You can't do anything about that.
Denton and Behe believe that the Big Bang happened, but they are still
IDiot creationists.

>
> So what is your agenda? Why is an atheist a member of a Methodist Church?

Who said that I was an atheist? You shouldn't make junk up or listen to
liars like Nyikos. Just look it up. Good science does not go against
any of the Methodist beliefs. The Catholic church is trying to reach
the same level, but they have IDiots like Behe and Nyikos to contend
with. The Methodists have a range of creationist beliefs. There is a
large young earth faction mainly in the Bible Belt, but we don't make a
big deal about it. The Methodists have been plaintiffs against the
creationist legislation for both Arkansas and won in Arkansas federal
court and Louisiana that ended with the Supreme court loss for the anti
science creationist factions. We are for separation of church and
state, and one reason is that the science doesn't matter, and lying
about having the science isn't anything that a group with such diverse
beliefs wants to leave up to the state.

>
> Here is the standard definition of Creationist:
>
> "A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"

You can get this definition, but it isn't the one that has been in
dictionaries for decades even before the scientific creationists started
their political ploy.

>
> I don't see "Big Bang" in that definition anywhere. Matter was created by the Big Bang. Various forms of life and the world were created by the Big Bang. But it doesn't say anything about the Big Bang itself.

Why would the Big Bang be needed in a simple definition of creationist?
Some creationists believe in the Big Bang and some don't. It is not a
defining characteristic. Belief in a creator being is the defining factor.

>
> Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.

Your definition is likely the warped one.

>
> I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
>

You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.

Hypocrites like you should just look in the mirror and decide why they
need to yap about definitions instead of accept what they are.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

As expected, my post had nothing to do with Creationism/ID.
It doesn't matter though since the point was to make a list
so accuracy is irrelevant.

Your intent is to prejudice an argument before it's made.

Bill

[J.LyonLayden]

Isn't "acts" plural? As opposed to a single "act?"

> adjective
> 1.
> relating to the belief that the universe and living organisms originate
> from specific acts of divine creation.

Isn't "acts" plural? As opposed to a single "act?"


And what will happen if I put the way-back machine on this source? Will it say the same in 1991? Or have atheist editors had time to edit things since 1991?

> "a creationist account of the universe"
> END QUOTE:
>
> > Are you saying you do not believe in a Creator being for anything at all, even space/time? If so you are not actually a Methodist, but you are lying to the people in your congregation and practicing hypocrisy.
>
> I never said anything like that. Where did you get that notion?

You said that some guy believes his God was the impetus for the Big Bang, and therefore he's a Creationist. So how can you simultaneously believe that people who think God started the universe are Creationists, and that you yourself aren't a Creationists?

I can see no other option but a denial of God having caused the Big Bang and/or space/time.

>
> > If that's the case, you are worse than Ray. You make up your own definitions and attack your fellow Christians just as he does.
>
> Ray is Ray. You likely shouldn't argue with him.
>
> > Believing that the Big Bang was caused by a god or prime mover is not a rejection of science in any way. There is no scientific explanation for the cause of the Big Bang as of yet. You cannot reject something that isn't there.
>
> Creationists only reject the science that they don't like. The major
> creationist support base for the ID scam don't like the Big Bang and
> don't believe that it ever happened. You can't do anything about that.
> Denton and Behe believe that the Big Bang happened, but they are still
> IDiot creationists.

is that because they also believe he helped later, after the Big Bang, or what? I don't understand I don't know these people's beliefs.

>
> >
> > So what is your agenda? Why is an atheist a member of a Methodist Church?
>
> Who said that I was an atheist? You shouldn't make junk up or listen to
> liars like Nyikos. Just look it up. Good science does not go against
> any of the Methodist beliefs.

I agree. But doesn't methodism teach that the Universe was created by God? Or has it changed?

I would assume that modern Methodists believe that God started the Big Bang.

The Catholic church is trying to reach
> the same level, but they have IDiots like Behe and Nyikos to contend
> with. The Methodists have a range of creationist beliefs. There is a

Well th pope made a great statement on evolution that does not conflict with science or religion. It seems the current pope accepts Darwin's Theory, or at the very least does not deny it.

> large young earth faction mainly in the Bible Belt, but we don't make a
> big deal about it.

I live in the Bible Belt, and you would be surprised. Most of the few people who don't accept the theory of evolution here never think about science or history anyway.

> The Methodists have been plaintiffs against the
> creationist legislation for both Arkansas and won in Arkansas federal
> court and Louisiana that ended with the Supreme court loss for the anti
> science creationist factions. We are for separation of church and
> state, and one reason is that the science doesn't matter, and lying
> about having the science isn't anything that a group with such diverse
> beliefs wants to leave up to the state.

I live in Savannah Georgia and have mixed feelings about John Wesley. They are only mixed feelings because I didn't know him and realize that the allegations may not be true.

I'm glad that Methodist are taking a stand against those who would represent all Christians. I guess that's why you are so vehement about this. I didn't realize Methodists were so active.

>
> >
> > Here is the standard definition of Creationist:
> >
> > "A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"
>
> You can get this definition, but it isn't the one that has been in
> dictionaries for decades even before the scientific creationists started
> their political ploy.
>
> >
> > I don't see "Big Bang" in that definition anywhere. Matter was created by the Big Bang. Various forms of life and the world were created by the Big Bang. But it doesn't say anything about the Big Bang itself.
>
> Why would the Big Bang be needed in a simple definition of creationist?
> Some creationists believe in the Big Bang and some don't. It is not a
> defining characteristic. Belief in a creator being is the defining factor.

So you are saying that anyone who believes in a Creator being is a Creationist?
Then why aren't Methodist considered Creationists?
Are Methodists not Christians anymore?

>
> >
> > Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.
>
> Your definition is likely the warped one.
>
> >
> > I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
> >
>
> You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
> Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
> clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.

Maybe we just can't figure out what you believe. You seem to be an atheist, but you claim you are not. It's very confusing.

[Öö Tiib]

If you are genuinely interested then may be the materials that they publish
in internet can help? Like that:
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/the-natural-world

[J.LyonLayden]

Well it says exactly what i thought.


"All creation is the Lord’s,"

Ok so God owns creation

" whether and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God’s creation"


So all things are God's creation.
What am I missing?

I cannot reconcile Ron's statements about Creationists and the statement above. I ask again, is this a translation issue? Is English his second language?

Here is what Ron said:

"Some creationists believe in the Big Bang and some don't. It is not a defining characteristic. Belief in a creator being is the defining factor."

So Creationism is defined by Belief in a Creator, but Ron claims not to be a Creationist. He claims to be a Methodist, but Methodist believe in a creator.

I don't get it. Both beliefs cannot exist in the same mind, barring multiple-personality disorder.

Is Ron saying he's a Creationist, just not the bad kind of creationist? Or what?



" and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, and lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, and misuse and overconsumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage that God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God’s creation."



There it is again, "God's creation."

[Ray Martinez]

As a known Paley Creationist, on Ron's list, seen above, I'm not the least bit offended, but am actually quite satisfied and happy to be rejected as an idiot by a person like Ron who actually thinks and believes that the complex organization seen in living things came about via accident (random mutation) and unintelligence (natural selection). I don't want the approval of these people, that is, morons who believe in the Atheist fairy-tale known as evolution where Unintelligence is our maker, which is manifestly impossible.

Ron has built his entire life on the invalid argument-from-authority: he believes it's impossible that all evolutionary scientists could be wrong. Yet the rise of evolution (1859-1872) said all of science prior was wrong.

In reality, it doesn't matter how many scientists believe in and accept unintelligence, it remains an impossible proposition: unintelligence producing its antonym, organized complexity.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

In this world there's literally no shortage of Evolutionists who believe that God created the evolutionary process; and there's no shortage of Atheists who approve and say the preceding viewpoint is legitimate: it's okay to believe that God created through evolution.

Let's re-phrase: Intelligence created an unintelligent process. Normal people immediately wonder, how does unintelligent process indicate the work of Intelligence? And isn't the unintelligent process the very reason why Atheists accept evolution unanimously?

Objective fact: Logic dictates that Intelligence cannot be inferred from unintelligent process.

Conclusions: "Christian" Evolutionists are truly dumb, or truly evil, or both (quote marks justified). Atheist Evolutionists, by protecting "Christian" Evolutionists from the objective facts, seen above, confirm that "Christian" Evolutionists are truly dumb, or truly evil, or both.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:24:16 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Your intent is to prejudice an argument before it's made.

That may be your impression. My impression is the argument itself is
the cause of the prejudice against it.


--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Öö Tiib]

I can't help much there, I am atheist. I can try of course, but it
is my naive interpretation:

Creationists are people who believe that science is mistaken or even
outright fake and they somehow know better how it all happened but
can't find any evidence to it and so try to compensate it with clever
wordplay. That is wrong way to serve the Lord. Methodists are not
such creationists. God created everything, is everywhere, can do
anything, is like Light, Love and Truth. Methodists are men of method.
Science is method of reaching and understanding truth, that is very
useful method and it and its fruit must be taught in schools.

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> In this world there's literally no shortage of Evolutionists who believe that God created the evolutionary process; and there's no shortage of Atheists who approve and say the preceding viewpoint is legitimate: it's okay to believe that God created through evolution.
>
> Let's re-phrase: Intelligence created an unintelligent process. Normal people immediately wonder, how does unintelligent process indicate the work of Intelligence? And isn't the unintelligent process the very reason why Atheists accept evolution unanimously?

No, we accept it because it is well-supported by evidence.

>
> Objective fact: Logic dictates that Intelligence cannot be inferred from unintelligent process.

Then God also cannot be inferred from gravity, an unintelligent process. And yet, you have no problem with that one...

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:55:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In this world there's literally no shortage of Evolutionists who believe that God created the evolutionary process; and there's no shortage of Atheists who approve and say the preceding viewpoint is legitimate: it's okay to believe that God created through evolution.
> >
> > Let's re-phrase: Intelligence created an unintelligent process. Normal people immediately wonder, how does unintelligent process indicate the work of Intelligence? And isn't the unintelligent process the very reason why Atheists accept evolution unanimously?
>
> No, we accept it because it is well-supported by evidence.

Comment says unintelligent causation is well supported by evidence. Yes, that's the claim, but that's not the point here, which you are evading.

> >
> > Objective fact: Logic dictates that Intelligence cannot be inferred from unintelligent process.
>
> Then God also cannot be inferred from gravity, an unintelligent process. And yet, you have no problem with that one...
>

Where did you obtain the idea that Creationists accept non-teleological descriptions of reality?

When Newton lived, the laws of gravity were held designed. Tell me, Sean, what has changed, if anything?

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

Are there other people with your world-view or are you alone in your thinking? Do you guys have a church or do you make up your own interpretations of the Bible? Just curious.

[RonO]

You are an IDiot aren't you. This is an IDiot type of response. It is
worthless. Not only that, but what about the fine tuning and programing
that had to go into the Big Bang. How do you know that it was a single
act even if you are a Deist like Denton.

>
>
>> adjective
>> 1.
>> relating to the belief that the universe and living organisms originate
>> from specific acts of divine creation.
>
> Isn't "acts" plural? As opposed to a single "act?"

You might learn something but I doubt it.

>
>
> And what will happen if I put the way-back machine on this source? Will it say the same in 1991? Or have atheist editors had time to edit things since 1991?

What you can do is go to the library and look at the old dictionaries
from the 1990's on back and see what you find. This is the definition
that has been in the dictionaries for decades. Beats me for how long.

>
>
>
>
>> "a creationist account of the universe"
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>>> Are you saying you do not believe in a Creator being for anything at all, even space/time? If so you are not actually a Methodist, but you are lying to the people in your congregation and practicing hypocrisy.
>>
>> I never said anything like that. Where did you get that notion?
>
>
> You said that some guy believes his God was the impetus for the Big Bang, and therefore he's a Creationist. So how can you simultaneously believe that people who think God started the universe are Creationists, and that you yourself aren't a Creationists?

He is. Deal with reality. Creationists like Denton are creationists.

>
> I can see no other option but a denial of God having caused the Big Bang and/or space/time.

What other option are you claiming is not possible? The YEC believe
that God just created the universe to make it look like a big bang
happened, but it never did because the universe was created only a few
thousand years ago. If the Big Bang were a creation event it would have
had to happen billions of years ago. That is not possible in their
alternative.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>> If that's the case, you are worse than Ray. You make up your own definitions and attack your fellow Christians just as he does.
>>
>> Ray is Ray. You likely shouldn't argue with him.
>>
>>> Believing that the Big Bang was caused by a god or prime mover is not a rejection of science in any way. There is no scientific explanation for the cause of the Big Bang as of yet. You cannot reject something that isn't there.
>>
>> Creationists only reject the science that they don't like. The major
>> creationist support base for the ID scam don't like the Big Bang and
>> don't believe that it ever happened. You can't do anything about that.
>> Denton and Behe believe that the Big Bang happened, but they are still
>> IDiot creationists.
>
>
> is that because they also believe he helped later, after the Big Bang, or what? I don't understand I don't know these people's beliefs.

Denton believes that his creator got the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded as planned. Behe is a tweeker that claims that his
creator tweeks things every once in a while. They are both obviously
creationists, just different types.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> So what is your agenda? Why is an atheist a member of a Methodist Church?
>>
>> Who said that I was an atheist? You shouldn't make junk up or listen to
>> liars like Nyikos. Just look it up. Good science does not go against
>> any of the Methodist beliefs.
>
>
> I agree. But doesn't methodism teach that the Universe was created by God? Or has it changed?

I am a creationist. What do you not get about being a Methodist. I am
just not the cretinist type of creationist. Science is the study of
nature. If you believe, then science would just be the study of the
creation.

The Christian theology has changed over time when they had to consider
the science. That is just a fact. Eddie is a Jehovah's Witness and he
has to deal with the fact that when scientific creationism failed they
were Young Earth creationists that supported young earth scientific
creationism. They weren't 7 day creationists, but believed that each
day was 7,000 years long and that we were still living the 7th day. The
science changed their minds. They don't admit that, but now each day
can be billions of years long and the earth and moon are no longer
created on the 4th day as the Bible claims. These are things that the
Catholic church dealt with decades before the JWs. There are still flat
earth and geocentric creationists, but who cares about them?

>
> I would assume that modern Methodists believe that God started the Big Bang.

Actually, they don't have a position on that, that I know of. We have
YEC Methodists, and those types of beliefs are personal.

That is the thing bout YEC. Some god could have created the universe to
look just like it does and it can be as young as such a god made it.
Science can't demonstrate that, that alternative is wrong. All science
can claim is that the evidence is consistent with something else.

>
>
>
>
> The Catholic church is trying to reach
>> the same level, but they have IDiots like Behe and Nyikos to contend
>> with. The Methodists have a range of creationist beliefs. There is a
>
>
>
> Well th pope made a great statement on evolution that does not conflict with science or religion. It seems the current pope accepts Darwin's Theory, or at the very least does not deny it.

The Catholics hold that biological evolution is more than an hypothesis.
That means that it is likely to be part of the creation.

>
>
>> large young earth faction mainly in the Bible Belt, but we don't make a
>> big deal about it.
>
> I live in the Bible Belt, and you would be surprised. Most of the few people who don't accept the theory of evolution here never think about science or history anyway.

They don't have to.

>
>
>
>
>> The Methodists have been plaintiffs against the
>> creationist legislation for both Arkansas and won in Arkansas federal
>> court and Louisiana that ended with the Supreme court loss for the anti
>> science creationist factions. We are for separation of church and
>> state, and one reason is that the science doesn't matter, and lying
>> about having the science isn't anything that a group with such diverse
>> beliefs wants to leave up to the state.
>
>
>
> I live in Savannah Georgia and have mixed feelings about John Wesley. They are only mixed feelings because I didn't know him and realize that the allegations may not be true.
>
> I'm glad that Methodist are taking a stand against those who would represent all Christians. I guess that's why you are so vehement about this. I didn't realize Methodists were so active.

They aren't the only religious organization that stood up against the
creationist legislation.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Here is the standard definition of Creationist:
>>>
>>> "A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"
>>
>> You can get this definition, but it isn't the one that has been in
>> dictionaries for decades even before the scientific creationists started
>> their political ploy.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see "Big Bang" in that definition anywhere. Matter was created by the Big Bang. Various forms of life and the world were created by the Big Bang. But it doesn't say anything about the Big Bang itself.
>>
>> Why would the Big Bang be needed in a simple definition of creationist?
>> Some creationists believe in the Big Bang and some don't. It is not a
>> defining characteristic. Belief in a creator being is the defining factor.
>
>
> So you are saying that anyone who believes in a Creator being is a Creationist?
> Then why aren't Methodist considered Creationists?
> Are Methodists not Christians anymore?

Why would you claim that Methodists are not creationists?

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.
>>
>> Your definition is likely the warped one.
>>
>>>
>>> I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
>>>
>>
>> You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
>> Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
>> clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.
>
>
> Maybe we just can't figure out what you believe. You seem to be an atheist, but you claim you are not. It's very confusing.

I seem to be an atheists for what reason? Standing up for what is right
and stating the plain and simple facts about current creationist
political scams? Political scams should have nothing to do with
theology. lies and stupidity shouldn't have any place in theology. I
lost all respect for IDiocy when the bait and switch started to go down
and not a single honest IDiot could be found. They all knew that ID was
a creationist scam or they were too incompetent to know much of
anything. Not a single fellow at the Discovery Institute resigned when
the bait and switch started. Philip Johnson "retired" from his Blog the
next month, but he came back for the Dover fiasco before admitting that
there was no ID science and he hasn't supported the ID scam in public
since that I know of.

The situation is just that bad. The bait and switch just went down on
Utah and no IDiots have to wonder why because the Discovery Institute
just came out with the 6 best pieces of evidence for ID and they were
all used by the scientific creationists who failed over 30 years ago.
No progress in the last two decades of the ID scam. You don't have to
be an atheist to understand how wrong that is in terms of ethics and
basic honesty.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

What view of mine is non-biblical? And for your information, my on-topic views were the views of science prior to the rise of Darwinism.

Ray

[RonO]

As usual you have stupid denial where you should just admit to what you
are and put forward your alternative for evaluation so that you might
actually apply some science to it. Not only that, but I take the first
post that I come to and the only reason I pick another is if the post is
so stupid it looks like I picked it to make the poster look bad. Anyone
can look up your other posts using Google and then your denials would be
known to be as stupid and dishonest as they are.

That must be why I picked a random post instead of one of your stupid
denial switch scam posts. What type of creationist would bend over and
take the switch scam after the ID scam turned out to be so bogus?

Ron Okimoto
>
> Bill
>
>

[J.LyonLayden]

But how can your definition of Methodism not conflict with Ron's definition of Creationist above? He said what unites the Creationist is a belief in a Creator being. Isn't that what Methodism is all about?

I bet the only known Methodist here won't step in to explain, though he began this post.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Out of curiosity have you any familiarity with megadeath or running with
the devil? I saw the latter in concert with Dave opening for the Stones.
First concert.

[J.LyonLayden]

OK this clears it up a bit. I didn't realize you considered yourself a Creationist because you are always ranting about Creationists.

You don't usually make a distinction between "cretin Creationists" and "non-cretin Creationists."

I have never considered myself a Creationist before, but I guess under your definition I am one too.

I don't see much difference in the study of evolution whether you are a 'non-Cretin Creationist" or an "Atheist."

Either way it goes like this- Give us one miracle and nature will do the rest.

The miracle being the Big Bang. It might as well be a miracle, since we don't know why it happened.

But under this definition, everyone is a Creationist with the exception of 3% of the population.

Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.

Either way, under your definition, 90% of us are creationists whether we accept the theory of evolution or not. 90% of us are Creationists whether we accept the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe or not.

Because I have always considered the term to apply to a denial of the theory of evolution. And I know Methodists who don't deny the theory of evolution.

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.
> >>
> >> Your definition is likely the warped one.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
> >>>
> >>
> >> You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
> >> Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
> >> clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.
> >
> >
> > Maybe we just can't figure out what you believe. You seem to be an atheist, but you claim you are not. It's very confusing.
>
> I seem to be an atheists for what reason? Standing up for what is right
> and stating the plain and simple facts about current creationist
> political scams?

No I got the impression from your stance on abiogenesis and the cause of the Big Bang, neither of which have anything to do with those organizations you hate.


I couldn't find any room for a Creator in your model of the universe. Even though we can't get past the singularity, you seemed very sure that there was no God beyond the singularity.

> Political scams should have nothing to do with
> theology. lies and stupidity shouldn't have any place in theology. I
> lost all respect for IDiocy when the bait and switch started to go down
> and not a single honest IDiot could be found.

Oh I finally see what you're doing there I thought those capital letters were just typos at first.

> They all knew that ID was
> a creationist scam or they were too incompetent to know much of
> anything. Not a single fellow at the Discovery Institute resigned when
> the bait and switch started. Philip Johnson "retired" from his Blog the
> next month, but he came back for the Dover fiasco before admitting that
> there was no ID science and he hasn't supported the ID scam in public
> since that I know of.
>
> The situation is just that bad. The bait and switch just went down on
> Utah and no IDiots have to wonder why because the Discovery Institute
> just came out with the 6 best pieces of evidence for ID and they were
> all used by the scientific creationists who failed over 30 years ago.
> No progress in the last two decades of the ID scam. You don't have to
> be an atheist to understand how wrong that is in terms of ethics and
> basic honesty.

Is Ray a scam? He denies scientific understandings and continues to believe in ideas from the late 1800s. But I don't think he is trying to scam anyone.

I just don't care much about what these organizations do. No more than I care what the Ancient Alien theorists do. Or the flat earthers. Or whatever you call the Elon Musk people who think we're a computer program.

But if you want to fight them, go for it. I understand you better now. Thanks for clearing things up.

[J.LyonLayden]

I'm not really into metal. I like blues, jazz, prog-rock, psychedelia. I used to tour in the jam band circuit. I like the Stones.

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 13:18:20 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In this world there's literally no shortage of Evolutionists who believe that God created the evolutionary process; and there's no shortage of Atheists who approve and say the preceding viewpoint is legitimate: it's okay to believe that God created through evolution.
>
>Let's re-phrase: Intelligence created an unintelligent process. Normal people immediately wonder, how does unintelligent process indicate the work of Intelligence? And isn't the unintelligent process the very reason why Atheists accept evolution unanimously?
>
>Objective fact: Logic dictates that Intelligence cannot be inferred from unintelligent process.

Of course, logic makes no such dictate. You just made it up, to
rationalize your preconceived conclusions below.

>Conclusions: "Christian" Evolutionists are truly dumb, or truly evil, or both (quote marks justified). Atheist Evolutionists, by protecting "Christian" Evolutionists from the objective facts, seen above, confirm that "Christian" Evolutionists are truly dumb, or truly evil, or both.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)

[Mark Isaak]

More precisely, they are antievolutionists. They believe change
occurred via direct command of God, not by mutation, natural selection,
and such.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[*Hemidactylus*]

So you’re not that author then.

[Ernest Major]

There are several people on the list that not everyone agrees with Ron
are creationists. (There are 4 whose identification as such I'm
uncertain about, including the two I suspect J. Lyon is referring to. I
don't suspected any of the 4 as subscribing to occasionalism.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[Öö Tiib]

It is semantic sort of conflict caused by politicians. Same conflict is
with all words used in politics (for example nationalists, democrats,
socialists, feminists or internationalists).

Methodists believe into God creator and so are by dictionary definition
also creationists. Methodists accept science as good method of finding
truth and so are *not* science-denialist sort of creationists.

> I bet the only known Methodist here won't step in to explain, though he began this post.

I trust Ron will happily explain it, if needed then several times. :D

[RonO]

What type of creationists do I respond to? You even object to calling
them what they are.

>
> I have never considered myself a Creationist before, but I guess under your definition I am one too.
>
> I don't see much difference in the study of evolution whether you are a 'non-Cretin Creationist" or an "Atheist."
>
> Either way it goes like this- Give us one miracle and nature will do the rest.
>
> The miracle being the Big Bang. It might as well be a miracle, since we don't know why it happened.
>
> But under this definition, everyone is a Creationist with the exception of 3% of the population.

Religious belief is just religious belief. What does it matter what the
percentages are? You should look up Deism and get a better idea of what
you are, but I wouldn't call most religious people deists.

>
> Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.

So what?

>
> Either way, under your definition, 90% of us are creationists whether we accept the theory of evolution or not. 90% of us are Creationists whether we accept the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe or not.

What is the big deal? Why would percentages matter. Beliefs are
beliefs and science is science. You believe in a creator, you are a
creationist. You may not be the anti science type of creationists that
they harbor at the Discovery Institute and places like the AIG and ICR,
but you are still a creationist. It is a religious belief and not
scientific. You can lie to yourself about it, but the lies just have
degree inflections. Behe believes in the Big Bang and biological
evolution, but he is a tweeker. Does that make him less of a religious
creationist than Denton? Ken Miller who has made it a point to speak
out against the creationist ID scam is a scientist that accepts the Big
Bang and biological evolution, but he believes in an interactive god.
Ken Miller was one of the pro science speakers that demonstrated how
worthless ID was at the first Bait and switch fiasco in Ohio in 2002.

Well, it obviously applies to the religious concept of believing in a
creator. You can obviously do that and still accept biological
evolution as the fact of nature that it is.

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Your definition is likely the warped one.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
>>>> Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
>>>> clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we just can't figure out what you believe. You seem to be an atheist, but you claim you are not. It's very confusing.
>>
>> I seem to be an atheists for what reason? Standing up for what is right
>> and stating the plain and simple facts about current creationist
>> political scams?
>
> No I got the impression from your stance on abiogenesis and the cause of the Big Bang, neither of which have anything to do with those organizations you hate.

I have just stood up for the science. Have I over stated it?
Abiogenesis is just what it is. The Big Bang is just what it is. So
what? JTEM is a nut job. He doesn't understand that what he believes
is abiogenesis too. That is just the simple facts. When you compare
the two versions of abiogenesis, the science comes out on top. Stating
the obvious shouldn't make you an atheist. Really, you have likely
compared the two options. Abiogenesis may be among the weakest of
sciences, but they actually have something to work with. JTEM like
creationists have nothing by comparison. What they have is worse than
what they claim is not good enough, so that is what they have to deal
with. That is what all creationists have to deal with.

>
>
> I couldn't find any room for a Creator in your model of the universe. Even though we can't get past the singularity, you seemed very sure that there was no God beyond the singularity.

The truth excludes a creator. How do you come to that conclusion. You
are making a lot of theologians unhappy.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Political scams should have nothing to do with
>> theology. lies and stupidity shouldn't have any place in theology. I
>> lost all respect for IDiocy when the bait and switch started to go down
>> and not a single honest IDiot could be found.
>
>
>
> Oh I finally see what you're doing there I thought those capital letters were just typos at first.

I only started calling it IDiocy after the bait and switch went down.
Before that, there was some chance that it could have been an honest
effort. After that and the dishonest and bogus reaction of the IDiot
supporters there was no reason to not call it what it was. The Ohio
creationist rubes obviously wanted to teach the science of ID, but when
the bait and switch went down they did not protest and tar and feather
the ID perps and run them out of town. The Ohio creationist rubes bent
over and took the switch scam from the guys that had lied to them about
the ID science. After the loss of IDiocy in Dover in 2005 the Ohio
creationist rubes decided to drop the switch scam from their state
education policies. The dishonesty was just too much to bear at that
point. The sad thing is that they didn't do it until 2007. There is no
doubt that a creationist scam was run on them by other creationists.
The only IDiots left do not care about that.

>
>
>> They all knew that ID was
>> a creationist scam or they were too incompetent to know much of
>> anything. Not a single fellow at the Discovery Institute resigned when
>> the bait and switch started. Philip Johnson "retired" from his Blog the
>> next month, but he came back for the Dover fiasco before admitting that
>> there was no ID science and he hasn't supported the ID scam in public
>> since that I know of.
>>
>> The situation is just that bad. The bait and switch just went down on
>> Utah and no IDiots have to wonder why because the Discovery Institute
>> just came out with the 6 best pieces of evidence for ID and they were
>> all used by the scientific creationists who failed over 30 years ago.
>> No progress in the last two decades of the ID scam. You don't have to
>> be an atheist to understand how wrong that is in terms of ethics and
>> basic honesty.
>
>
> Is Ray a scam? He denies scientific understandings and continues to believe in ideas from the late 1800s. But I don't think he is trying to scam anyone.

Ray is just Ray, and you shouldn't push him too far unless you like
kicking puppies before their eyes open. That is just my opinion and it
isn't held by the group as a whole.

>
> I just don't care much about what these organizations do. No more than I care what the Ancient Alien theorists do. Or the flat earthers. Or whatever you call the Elon Musk people who think we're a computer program.
>
> But if you want to fight them, go for it. I understand you better now. Thanks for clearing things up.

There would have to be a reason. Are they posting to TO? Do they want
their nonsense taught as science in the public schools?

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

It's just a very different definition of Creationist than the one I was given as a child. This is the first time I've looked up the word in over 25 years. I did not know that Einstein was a Creationist until now.

>
> >
> > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
>
> So what?

Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.

>
> >
> > Either way, under your definition, 90% of us are creationists whether we accept the theory of evolution or not. 90% of us are Creationists whether we accept the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe or not.
>
> What is the big deal? Why would percentages matter. Beliefs are
> beliefs and science is science. You believe in a creator, you are a
> creationist.

A Creationist who accepts every scientific understanding that eductated Atheists accept.

You may not be the anti science type of creationists that
> they harbor at the Discovery Institute and places like the AIG and ICR,
> but you are still a creationist. It is a religious belief and not
> scientific. You can lie to yourself about it, but the lies just have
> degree inflections. Behe believes in the Big Bang and biological
> evolution, but he is a tweeker.

Does that mean he does meth? Or what?

>Does that make him less of a religious
> creationist than Denton? Ken Miller who has made it a point to speak
> out against the creationist ID scam is a scientist that accepts the Big
> Bang and biological evolution, but he believes in an interactive god.

Like appearing in visions to shepherds or what?

> Ken Miller was one of the pro science speakers that demonstrated how
> worthless ID was at the first Bait and switch fiasco in Ohio in 2002.

Wow you have this stuff memorized better than I have hominid molecular dates memorized.

>
> >
> >>
> >> The Christian theology has changed over time when they had to consider
> >> the science. That is just a fact. Eddie is a Jehovah's Witness and he
> >> has to deal with the fact that when scientific creationism failed they
> >> were Young Earth creationists that supported young earth scientific
> >> creationism. They weren't 7 day creationists, but believed that each
> >> day was 7,000 years long and that we were still living the 7th day. The
> >> science changed their minds. They don't admit that, but now each day
> >> can be billions of years long and the earth and moon are no longer
> >> created on the 4th day as the Bible claims.

Genesis mentions the Moon? My understanding is that even before Darwin, lots of Christian sects considered Genesis a summary or metaphor. The idea that a day in God's eyes was only 24 hours was mostly an American thing. There's a passage that says a day is a thousand years in the eyes of God, but the way its written does not convey that 1000 years=24 hours. It's a metaphor. I don't know how one caveman would tell another caveman about billions of years in the infancy of mathematics.

>These are things that the
> >> Catholic church dealt with decades before the JWs. There are still flat
> >> earth and geocentric creationists, but who cares about them?

I care more about their theories than 7-day creationist theories because at least their theories are entertaining.

> >>
> >>>
> >>> I would assume that modern Methodists believe that God started the Big Bang.
> >>
> >> Actually, they don't have a position on that, that I know of. We have
> >> YEC Methodists, and those types of beliefs are personal.
> >>
> >> That is the thing bout YEC. Some god could have created the universe to
> >> look just like it does and it can be as young as such a god made it.

That would be highly deceptive and purposeless.

> >> Science can't demonstrate that, that alternative is wrong. All science
> >> can claim is that the evidence is consistent with something else.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The Catholic church is trying to reach
> >>>> the same level, but they have IDiots like Behe and Nyikos to contend
> >>>> with. The Methodists have a range of creationist beliefs. There is a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well th pope made a great statement on evolution that does not conflict with science or religion. It seems the current pope accepts Darwin's Theory, or at the very least does not deny it.
> >>
> >> The Catholics hold that biological evolution is more than an hypothesis.
> >> That means that it is likely to be part of the creation.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> large young earth faction mainly in the Bible Belt, but we don't make a
> >>>> big deal about it.
> >>>
> >>> I live in the Bible Belt, and you would be surprised. Most of the few people who don't accept the theory of evolution here never think about science or history anyway.
> >>
> >> They don't have to.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The Methodists have been plaintiffs against the
> >>>> creationist legislation for both Arkansas and won in Arkansas federal
> >>>> court and Louisiana that ended with the Supreme court loss for the anti
> >>>> science creationist factions. We are for separation of church and
> >>>> state, and one reason is that the science doesn't matter, and lying
> >>>> about having the science isn't anything that a group with such diverse
> >>>> beliefs wants to leave up to the state.

Good for you guys.

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I live in Savannah Georgia and have mixed feelings about John Wesley. They are only mixed feelings because I didn't know him and realize that the allegations may not be true.
> >>>
> >>> I'm glad that Methodist are taking a stand against those who would represent all Christians. I guess that's why you are so vehement about this. I didn't realize Methodists were so active.
> >>
> >> They aren't the only religious organization that stood up against the
> >> creationist legislation.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the standard definition of Creationist:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"
> >>>>
> >>>> You can get this definition, but it isn't the one that has been in
> >>>> dictionaries for decades even before the scientific creationists started
> >>>> their political ploy.

That's what my definition has been for 30 years, as explained to me as a kid by teachers.

> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see "Big Bang" in that definition anywhere. Matter was created by the Big Bang. Various forms of life and the world were created by the Big Bang. But it doesn't say anything about the Big Bang itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would the Big Bang be needed in a simple definition of creationist?
> >>>> Some creationists believe in the Big Bang and some don't. It is not a
> >>>> defining characteristic. Belief in a creator being is the defining factor.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So you are saying that anyone who believes in a Creator being is a Creationist?
> >>> Then why aren't Methodist considered Creationists?
> >>> Are Methodists not Christians anymore?
> >>
> >> Why would you claim that Methodists are not creationists?

Because up until this thread, I had a very different idea of what Creationist were.

> >
> >
> > Because I have always considered the term to apply to a denial of the theory of evolution. And I know Methodists who don't deny the theory of evolution.
>
> Well, it obviously applies to the religious concept of believing in a
> creator. You can obviously do that and still accept biological
> evolution as the fact of nature that it is

So by extension, if you answer "What caused the big bang" with anything other than "I don't know" then you are religious?

>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your definition is likely the warped one.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
> >>>> Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
> >>>> clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.

Up until now, your position seemed to me that universe generated itself and God had nothing to do with anything at all.
I don't think you are being very clear about your position when you verbally attack uneducated people. But I take back what I said about hypocrisy because I understand you better now.

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we just can't figure out what you believe. You seem to be an atheist, but you claim you are not. It's very confusing.
> >>
> >> I seem to be an atheists for what reason? Standing up for what is right
> >> and stating the plain and simple facts about current creationist
> >> political scams?

No. For implying that even though we can't get past the singularity, God is not beyond the singularity.

> >
> > No I got the impression from your stance on abiogenesis and the cause of the Big Bang, neither of which have anything to do with those organizations you hate.
>
> I have just stood up for the science. Have I over stated it?
> Abiogenesis is just what it is. The Big Bang is just what it is. So
> what? JTEM is a nut job. He doesn't understand that what he believes
> is abiogenesis too. That is just the simple facts. When you compare

I think that you don't understand JTEM. I think he says things he doesn't believe all the time to evoke response and thought on a subject. I think he knows exactly how to get you upset and enjoys doing it.

You take things very literally. Just yesterday you responded to Alpha with logical facts. Why? Nothing you can tell him will change his mind. He could watch an animal evolve and not believe that it evolved.

> the two versions of abiogenesis, the science comes out on top. Stating
> the obvious shouldn't make you an atheist. Really, you have likely
> compared the two options. Abiogenesis may be among the weakest of
> sciences, but they actually have something to work with. JTEM like
> creationists have nothing by comparison. What they have is worse than
> what they claim is not good enough, so that is what they have to deal
> with. That is what all creationists have to deal with.

JTEM was making a point that you missed.

>
> >
> >
> > I couldn't find any room for a Creator in your model of the universe. Even though we can't get past the singularity, you seemed very sure that there was no God beyond the singularity.
>
> The truth excludes a creator. How do you come to that conclusion. You
> are making a lot of theologians unhappy.

No it doesn't. Not until we find a scientific explanation of why the Big Bang happened.

So you think these guys have accepted evolution but are lying about it now?
You think they've actually given up all effort and are just running a scam now?

> >>
> >> The situation is just that bad. The bait and switch just went down on
> >> Utah and no IDiots have to wonder why because the Discovery Institute
> >> just came out with the 6 best pieces of evidence for ID and they were
> >> all used by the scientific creationists who failed over 30 years ago.
> >> No progress in the last two decades of the ID scam. You don't have to
> >> be an atheist to understand how wrong that is in terms of ethics and
> >> basic honesty.

There's lots of unethical organizations in many different fields. I would think that Ancient Aliens are doing far more damage than those people. 49% of Americans are convinced we've been visited for thousands of years.

> >
> >
> > Is Ray a scam? He denies scientific understandings and continues to believe in ideas from the late 1800s. But I don't think he is trying to scam anyone.
>
> Ray is just Ray, and you shouldn't push him too far unless you like
> kicking puppies before their eyes open. That is just my opinion and it
> isn't held by the group as a whole.

I don't kick Ray. I am just restating a fact that he has stated about himself.

>
> >
> > I just don't care much about what these organizations do. No more than I care what the Ancient Alien theorists do. Or the flat earthers. Or whatever you call the Elon Musk people who think we're a computer program.
> >
> > But if you want to fight them, go for it. I understand you better now. Thanks for clearing things up.
>
> There would have to be a reason. Are they posting to TO? Do they want
> their nonsense taught as science in the public schools?

It doesn't take schools to make 49% of Americans believe in BS. Even if ID were in schools, 49% of Americans would not believe it.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > >
> > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> >
> > So what?
>
>
> Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.

No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
statistics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> >
> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>
> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> statistics?

Ron did by association. He says anyone who believes in God is a Creationist. The percentage of Atheists in the U.S. is known to be 3%, but some estimates put it at 10% because of the chance that some Atheists are lying about their position.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

This link is meaningless to Ron. He says you can accept evolution and still be a Creationist if you believe in a Creator God at the beginning of space/time.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:50:27 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.

<http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/>

*************************************************
The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely,
saying humans and other living things have existed in their present
form since the beginning of time.
*************************************************

34% is hardly a "very small percentage". And why limit your
consideration only to "educated" people? How much education do you
demand before you accept a person's religious beliefs as valid?

Your line of reasoning is similar to what others have posted, who
refuse to recognize the large fraction of people who express a
religious commitment to denying biological evolution.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:45:56 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
>> > >
>> > > So what?
>> >
>> >
>> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>>
>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> statistics?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>
>This link is meaningless to Ron.

Whether it's meaningless to Ron is for him to say, not you.

>He says you can accept evolution and still be a Creationist if you believe in a Creator God at the beginning of space/time.

And what does that have to do with your comment above, that only a
"small percentage" deny biological evolution?

[Bill Rogers]

I think your definition of creationist is too broad to be useful. It's almost equivalent to theist. And it's not even compatible with the definition you cited earlier...

"Just Google "creationist definition"

QUOTE:
cre·a·tion·ist
krēˈāSHənəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate
from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.
"a renewed campaign by religious creationists"

The key phrase is "specific acts of divine creation." Not just setting the whole thing in motion. Not designing evolution and letting it work. Not creating a single celled organism and letting evolution take over from there. Individual "specific acts of divine creation" to make stars and planets and hydrogen atoms and rabbits and polar bears and people.

I doubt most mainstream protestants would consider themselves creationists, since the word is closely tied to Biblical literalism. You can use your own definition, if you want, and tell everybody else they're in denial for not accepting it, but doing so won't help you communicate.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:50:27 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>
>
> <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/>
>
> *************************************************
> The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely,
> saying humans and other living things have existed in their present
> form since the beginning of time.
> *************************************************
>
> 34% is hardly a "very small percentage". And why limit your
> consideration only to "educated" people? How much education do you
> demand before you accept a person's religious beliefs as valid?

I don't think denial of evolution is valid. If denial is a part of their religion, then it is invalid by association.

>
> Your line of reasoning is similar to what others have posted, who
> refuse to recognize the large fraction of people who express a
> religious commitment to denying biological evolution.

Yes and some people believed that a comet was going to lead to their ascension. I don't think their claims were valid, and I don't think they rode the comet.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:45:56 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> >> > >
> >> > > So what?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> >>
> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> >> statistics?
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
> >
> >This link is meaningless to Ron.
>
>
> Whether it's meaningless to Ron is for him to say, not you.

He already did say above. Do you guys read the whole thread or just the bottom?

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:45:56 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> >> > >
> >> > > So what?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> >>
> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> >> statistics?
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
> >
> >This link is meaningless to Ron.
>
>
> Whether it's meaningless to Ron is for him to say, not you.

As kindly pointed out by Bill, this is what Ron said:

"You believe in a creator, you are a
creationist."





>
>

> >He says you can accept evolution and still be a Creationist if you believe in a Creator God at the beginning of space/time.
>
>
> And what does that have to do with your comment above, that only a
> "small percentage" deny biological evolution?

90% of people in the US claim to believe in God. Only 34% deny evolution.

I thought the percentage would be smaller than 34%, but still it's less than half of religious people in the U.S.

Some of that 34% might be atheists, as I have met atheists who believe life was seeded and manipulated by aliens.

George Tsoukolos from Ancient Aliens regular says that aliens are a better explanation than God for the various straw-men he presents on his TV show.

[Mark Isaak]

The crucial aspect of creationism is its rejection of evolution. Many
people believe that God created the Big Bang, and that the process he
set in motion resulted, via evolution, in humans. So in that sense he
created humans. But creationists require God to have more direct
involvement, and in particular they assert that evolution (unless it
requires divine miracles) was not a significant part of the process.

[J.LyonLayden]

This what I thought too. I'm glad Mark and Bill agree with me. Ron told me my definition of Creationist, which is the same as yours, is not valid and has never been valid.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:32:30 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:50:27 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/>
>>
>> *************************************************
>> The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely,
>> saying humans and other living things have existed in their present
>> form since the beginning of time.
>> *************************************************
>>
>> 34% is hardly a "very small percentage". And why limit your
>> consideration only to "educated" people? How much education do you
>> demand before you accept a person's religious beliefs as valid?
>
>I don't think denial of evolution is valid.

Their denial of evolution doesn't justify your denial of their
existence.

> If denial is a part of their religion, then it is invalid by association.
>
>>
>> Your line of reasoning is similar to what others have posted, who
>> refuse to recognize the large fraction of people who express a
>> religious commitment to denying biological evolution.
>
>
>Yes and some people believed that a comet was going to lead to their ascension. I don't think their claims were valid, and I don't think they rode the comet.

You conflate two separate issues, the number of people who deny
evolution with the veracity of said denial. There's a difference.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:46:57 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:45:56 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So what?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>> >>
>> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> >> statistics?
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>> >
>> >This link is meaningless to Ron.
>>
>>
>> Whether it's meaningless to Ron is for him to say, not you.
>
>
>As kindly pointed out by Bill, this is what Ron said:
>
> "You believe in a creator, you are a
> creationist."

Not sure how you think the above quote shows the link above is
meaningless to Ron. Will you elaborate?

>> >He says you can accept evolution and still be a Creationist if you believe in a Creator God at the beginning of space/time.
>>
>>
>> And what does that have to do with your comment above, that only a
>> "small percentage" deny biological evolution?
>
>90% of people in the US claim to believe in God. Only 34% deny evolution.
>
>I thought the percentage would be smaller than 34%, but still it's less than half of religious people in the U.S.
>
>Some of that 34% might be atheists, as I have met atheists who believe life was seeded and manipulated by aliens.
>
>George Tsoukolos from Ancient Aliens regular says that aliens are a better explanation than God for the various straw-men he presents on his TV show.

I am aware there are people who argue God as ET. I don't view them as
atheists, but instead as ordinary theists with a modern name for their
deity.


And I still don't see how you describe 34% as "a very small
percentage".

[RonO]

This definition is apt, what don't you get about it. It means that Kalk
and Eddie are both creationists by this definition. Why shouldn't they
both be creationists when that is what they are?

>
> I doubt most mainstream protestants would consider themselves creationists, since the word is closely tied to Biblical literalism. You can use your own definition, if you want, and tell everybody else they're in denial for not accepting it, but doing so won't help you communicate.

My guess is that they wouldn't know unless someone told them the facts
of life. The definition above has been in dictionaries for decades.

Ron Okimoto
>
SNIP:

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:32:30 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:50:27 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> >> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> >>
> >>
> >> <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/>
> >>
> >> *************************************************
> >> The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely,
> >> saying humans and other living things have existed in their present
> >> form since the beginning of time.
> >> *************************************************
> >>
> >> 34% is hardly a "very small percentage". And why limit your
> >> consideration only to "educated" people? How much education do you
> >> demand before you accept a person's religious beliefs as valid?
> >
> >I don't think denial of evolution is valid.
>
>
> Their denial of evolution doesn't justify your denial of their
> existence.

Did I deny that these people exist? What were we arguing about again? I think I've lost track.

>
>
> > If denial is a part of their religion, then it is invalid by association.
> >
> >>
> >> Your line of reasoning is similar to what others have posted, who
> >> refuse to recognize the large fraction of people who express a
> >> religious commitment to denying biological evolution.

What percentage is that and how do they affect us? Are they an identifiable group with a name or names?

> >
> >
> >Yes and some people believed that a comet was going to lead to their ascension. I don't think their claims were valid, and I don't think they rode the comet.
>
>
> You conflate two separate issues, the number of people who deny
> evolution with the veracity of said denial. There's a difference.

You've gone over my head again. I'm not following.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:46:57 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:45:56 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> >> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, ? Tiib wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So what?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> >> >> statistics?
> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
> >> >
> >> >This link is meaningless to Ron.
> >>
> >>
> >> Whether it's meaningless to Ron is for him to say, not you.
> >
> >
> >As kindly pointed out by Bill, this is what Ron said:
> >
> > "You believe in a creator, you are a
> > creationist."
>
>
> Not sure how you think the above quote shows the link above is
> meaningless to Ron. Will you elaborate?

We were discussing Creationist and how "Creationist" is defined. Ron stated that denial or acceptance of the theory of evolution is independent from whether or not a person is a Creationist. They can accept evolution, but are still Creationists if they believe in a Creator Being(according to Ron).

You wrote:

>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> statistics?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

Since the link you provided was placed directly after the sentence you wrote, I assumed they had something to do with each other. It is a link on percentages of people who accept evolution. It has nothing to do with Ron's definition of "Creationist."

Whether or not people accept the Theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether they are Creationists according to Ron.

Allow me to take more time to explain it again.

You wrote:
>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> statistics?

My source is Ron, since I was responding to Ron. If Ron's definition is true and anyone who believes in a Creator God is a Creationist, then the U.S. is a Creationist country because 90% or more of the people in it believe in a Creator Being.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg


Let me put it yet another way.

You wrote:

>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> statistics?

My source is the percentage of people who believe in a Creator Being in the U.S., since those people are Creationist according to Ron. The following link you provided has nothing to do with whether or not a person is a Creationist, according to Ron. It is about whether or not people accept the theory of evolution.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg


I can think of more ways to say the same exact thing if you would like to keep mincing words.

[J.LyonLayden]

OK. Then by your definition of Atheist, we have LESS than 3% Atheists in the nation, with a maximum of 7% if some Atheists are lying about their religious views. This means we have MORE than 90% who believe in a Creator being, which makes us 93~% Creationists by Ron's definition.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:19:02 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:32:30 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:50:27 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> >> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/>
>> >>
>> >> *************************************************
>> >> The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely,
>> >> saying humans and other living things have existed in their present
>> >> form since the beginning of time.
>> >> *************************************************
>> >>
>> >> 34% is hardly a "very small percentage". And why limit your
>> >> consideration only to "educated" people? How much education do you
>> >> demand before you accept a person's religious beliefs as valid?
>> >
>> >I don't think denial of evolution is valid.
>>
>>
>> Their denial of evolution doesn't justify your denial of their
>> existence.
>
>Did I deny that these people exist?

Since you asked, effectively yes. From the quoted text above:
****************************************

Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a
"Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people
deny biological evolution.

*******************************************
What is your reason for characterizing 34% as "a very small
percentage"?

>What were we arguing about again? I think I've lost track.

To refresh your convenient amnesia, refer again to the quoted text I
copied immediately above.

>> > If denial is a part of their religion, then it is invalid by association.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Your line of reasoning is similar to what others have posted, who
>> >> refuse to recognize the large fraction of people who express a
>> >> religious commitment to denying biological evolution.
>
>
>What percentage is that and how do they affect us?

Since you asked, and to again refresh your convenient amnesia, that
would be the 34% identified by the survey I cited. And depending on
who you mean by "us", they affect us because they vote, typically as a
bloc, and the politicians they vote for implement foreign and domestic
policies which affect us, and they pressure school districts to teach
their world view, which affects us.

What's your point?

>Are they an identifiable group with a name or names?

Since you asked, yes. What's your point?

>> >Yes and some people believed that a comet was going to lead to their ascension. I don't think their claims were valid, and I don't think they rode the comet.
>>
>>
>> You conflate two separate issues, the number of people who deny
>> evolution with the veracity of said denial. There's a difference.
>
>
>You've gone over my head again. I'm not following.

To review: You originally claimed the number of people who denied
evolution is "a very small percentage". I challenged your
characterization. Your response to me was:

"I don't think denial of evolution is valid."

Unless your comment above is a non sequitur, I infer from it that your
point is their beliefs are invalid and so you are free to ignore them.
If I inferred incorrectly, then say what is your point to your
statement I quoted above.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:34:48 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

IIUC you actually meant to say that the link is meaningless to your
interpretation of Ron's position.

嘱 Tiib expressly cited the link to refute your percentages of the
people in the U.S. who deny evolution. That is a very different thing
from your interpretation of Ron's position. And it remains unclear if
these percentages "mean" anything to Ron wrt his position, because he
hasn't commented on them.


>You wrote:


BZZT! The following is from 嘱 Tiib.

>>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>>> statistics?
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>
>
>Since the link you provided was placed directly after the sentence you wrote, I assumed they had something to do with each other. It is a link on percentages of people who accept evolution. It has nothing to do with Ron's definition of "Creationist."
>
> Whether or not people accept the Theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether they are Creationists according to Ron.
>
>Allow me to take more time to explain it again.
>
>
>You wrote:

BZZT! The following is from 嘱 Tiib.

>>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>>> statistics?
>
>My source is Ron, since I was responding to Ron. If Ron's definition is true and anyone who believes in a Creator God is a Creationist, then the U.S. is a Creationist country because 90% or more of the people in it believe in a Creator Being.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>
>
>Let me put it yet another way.
>
>
>You wrote:

BZZT! The following is from 嘱 Tiib.

>>> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>>> statistics?
>
>My source is the percentage of people who believe in a Creator Being in the U.S., since those people are Creationist according to Ron. The following link you provided has nothing to do with whether or not a person is a Creationist, according to Ron. It is about whether or not people accept the theory of evolution.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>
>
>I can think of more ways to say the same exact thing if you would like to keep mincing words.

I can think of better ways for you to show you have no idea what
you're talking about, but the above works just fine.

I love a good petard hoist.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:41:41 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

I specified no definition of Atheist. At most, I described a
particular feature related to Atheists.

>we have LESS than 3% Atheists in the nation, with a maximum of 7% if some Atheists are lying about their religious views. This means we have MORE than 90% who believe in a Creator being, which makes us 93~% Creationists by Ron's definition.

Even assuming for argument's sake that your interpretation of Ron's
definition is correct, Öö Tiib expressly posted the Wiki link to
refute your statistics, which is a separate issue from Ron's
definition, or your interpretation of Ron's definition. IOW your
reply above is a non sequitur.

>> And I still don't see how you describe 34% as "a very small
>> percentage".

Still waiting.

[J.LyonLayden]

I did not know it was 34%, as stated above your latest comments.
Please provide evidence that this 34% votes as a block. I think your 34% is made up of people of many different spiritual beliefs, from Hindu to Christian to Atheist. Please provide evidence that they vote as a block.

[J.LyonLayden]

What would like to do? Flip a coin to see if the consensus numbers or the Wiki's numbers are more correct?

[J.LyonLayden]

I'm not interested in having a mince-words argument with you every time God or Atheism are mentioned. If you want to continue pretending that you don't know what I mean or don't understand what the context, I can go ahead and kill-file you right now. then you can whine about me being a coward to your little heart's content.

Everyone else here knows what Ron said, and knows exactly what I meant. Only you seem to need tedious explanations.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:51:25 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I'm not interested in having a mince-words argument with you every time God or Atheism are mentioned.

Then stop mincing words and start saying what you mean.

>If you want to continue pretending that you don't know what I mean or don't understand what the context, I can go ahead and kill-file you right now.

Not on GG you won't. But do what you think is best. You don't need
my permission. All the better if you don't reply to me with your
irrational crap.

> then you can whine about me being a coward to your little heart's content.

Now you let your troll colors show. I will do what I think is best. I
don't need your permission to do so.

>Everyone else here knows what Ron said, and knows exactly what I meant. Only you seem to need tedious explanations.

Did you take a poll? Or did you appoint yourself speaker for
everybody else?

Of course, what Ron said isn't even the issue here, but you're not
interested in facts.

[J.LyonLayden]

I might get a reader just to get rid of you. You took issue with something I said when I came back to this forum, and then you proved that I was right about it. You just did to me EXACTLY what I described. The EXACT thing you took issue with right off the bat.

You want to force me to say that all three of the listed theories of the cause of the big bang listed in Wikipedia are more "scientific" than the philosophy of the Unmoved Mover, but you cannot describe why. Did the quantum physicist have better acid than the philosopher or something?

We don't fucking know what caused the BIg Bang or even if there was a cause. A purple dong with a spout is as likely and "scientific" as anything else. You are an extremely hateful person and exemplary of what I was talking about on the first day back. I am sorry I apologized for calling it like I saw it.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:40:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

Cough up some evidence for the 34% voting as a block, liar.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:38:19 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:


For someone who insists long and loud about how he's not interested in
mincing words with me, you sure are posting a lot to mince words with
me. Is there a gun to your head?

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:40:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:51:25 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I'm not interested in having a mince-words argument with you every time God or Atheism are mentioned.
>>
>>
>> Then stop mincing words and start saying what you mean.
>>
>>
>> >If you want to continue pretending that you don't know what I mean or don't understand what the context, I can go ahead and kill-file you right now.
>>
>>
>> Not on GG you won't. But do what you think is best. You don't need
>> my permission. All the better if you don't reply to me with your
>> irrational crap.
>>
>>
>> > then you can whine about me being a coward to your little heart's content.
>>
>>
>> Now you let your troll colors show. I will do what I think is best. I
>> don't need your permission to do so.
>>
>>
>> >Everyone else here knows what Ron said, and knows exactly what I meant. Only you seem to need tedious explanations.
>>
>>
>> Did you take a poll? Or did you appoint yourself speaker for
>> everybody else?
>>
>> Of course, what Ron said isn't even the issue here, but you're not
>> interested in facts.
>

>I might get a reader just to get rid of you.

PLEASE do, the sooner the better. Then you might stop yammering on
and on about it, as if you opinions are something you lower yourself
to share with the proletariat.

>You took issue with something I said when I came back to this forum, and then you proved that I was right about it. You just did to me EXACTLY what I described. The EXACT thing you took issue with right off the bat.

Only in your delusional wet dreams. You and other lying trolls have
that in common.

>You want to force me to say that all three of the listed theories of the cause of the big bang listed in Wikipedia are more "scientific" than the philosophy of the Unmoved Mover, but you cannot describe why. Did the quantum physicist have better acid than the philosopher or something?

Don't pretend to be a mindreader. You have enough trouble reading
written English.

>We don't fucking know what caused the BIg Bang or even if there was a cause. A purple dong with a spout is as likely and "scientific" as anything else. You are an extremely hateful person and exemplary of what I was talking about on the first day back. I am sorry I apologized for calling it like I saw it.

You refused to back up your asinine assertions then, and you refuse to
back them up now. You're just posting noise. Not sure why you even
bother.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:30:32 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:40:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:51:25 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I'm not interested in having a mince-words argument with you every time God or Atheism are mentioned.
>>
>>
>> Then stop mincing words and start saying what you mean.
>>
>>
>> >If you want to continue pretending that you don't know what I mean or don't understand what the context, I can go ahead and kill-file you right now.
>>
>>
>> Not on GG you won't. But do what you think is best. You don't need
>> my permission. All the better if you don't reply to me with your
>> irrational crap.
>>
>>
>> > then you can whine about me being a coward to your little heart's content.
>>
>>
>> Now you let your troll colors show. I will do what I think is best. I
>> don't need your permission to do so.
>>
>>
>> >Everyone else here knows what Ron said, and knows exactly what I meant. Only you seem to need tedious explanations.
>>
>>
>> Did you take a poll? Or did you appoint yourself speaker for
>> everybody else?
>>
>> Of course, what Ron said isn't even the issue here, but you're not
>> interested in facts.
>>
>

>Cough up some evidence for the 34% voting as a block, liar.

For someone who insists long and loud about how he's not interested in
mincing words with me, you sure are posting a lot to mince words with

me. Tell me why I should answer your question, liar.

[J.LyonLayden]

Pretty soon you'll be talking to no one but Bob, and we'll be laughing at how JTEM abuses you all day. I wonder how long you'll keep paying for your newsreader when you're a joke and a ghost.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:52:52 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

So you have no reason. I didn't think so, liar.

>Pretty soon you'll be talking to no one but Bob, and we'll be laughing at how JTEM abuses you all day. I wonder how long you'll keep paying for your newsreader when you're a joke and a ghost.

I hope it's soon. Then I wouldn't have to wade through your crap.

[J.LyonLayden]

You are not worthy to wade through my crap, but I bet you'd like that brown-tongued girl.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:21:22 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

So you have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised.

[J.LyonLayden]

You wrote that same exact sentence on the other thread when it got to hot for you to take. Do you think copying and pasting because you have no imagination is more intelligent somehow?

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:52:17 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

Since you asked, no. I'm not the one claiming to be the smart one.

I got you hooked.

You're welcome.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> >
> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>
> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> statistics?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.

I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:

I might be close to a Deist, but I don't absolutely exclude revelation.

>
> >
> > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
>
> So what?
>
> >

> > Either way, under your definition, 90% of us are creationists whether we accept the theory of evolution or not. 90% of us are Creationists whether we accept the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe or not.
>
> What is the big deal? Why would percentages matter. Beliefs are
> beliefs and science is science. You believe in a creator, you are a
> creationist. You may not be the anti science type of creationists that
> they harbor at the Discovery Institute and places like the AIG and ICR,

> but you are still a creationist. It is a religious belief and not
> scientific. You can lie to yourself about it, but the lies just have
> degree inflections. Behe believes in the Big Bang and biological
> evolution, but he is a tweeker. Does that make him less of a religious
> creationist than Denton? Ken Miller who has made it a point to speak
> out against the creationist ID scam is a scientist that accepts the Big
> Bang and biological evolution, but he believes in an interactive god.
> Ken Miller was one of the pro science speakers that demonstrated how
> worthless ID was at the first Bait and switch fiasco in Ohio in 2002.
>
> >
> >>
> >> The Christian theology has changed over time when they had to consider
> >> the science. That is just a fact. Eddie is a Jehovah's Witness and he
> >> has to deal with the fact that when scientific creationism failed they
> >> were Young Earth creationists that supported young earth scientific
> >> creationism. They weren't 7 day creationists, but believed that each
> >> day was 7,000 years long and that we were still living the 7th day. The
> >> science changed their minds. They don't admit that, but now each day
> >> can be billions of years long and the earth and moon are no longer
> >> created on the 4th day as the Bible claims. These are things that the
> >> Catholic church dealt with decades before the JWs. There are still flat
> >> earth and geocentric creationists, but who cares about them?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I would assume that modern Methodists believe that God started the Big Bang.
> >>
> >> Actually, they don't have a position on that, that I know of. We have
> >> YEC Methodists, and those types of beliefs are personal.
> >>
> >> That is the thing bout YEC. Some god could have created the universe to
> >> look just like it does and it can be as young as such a god made it.
> >> Science can't demonstrate that, that alternative is wrong. All science
> >> can claim is that the evidence is consistent with something else.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The Catholic church is trying to reach
> >>>> the same level, but they have IDiots like Behe and Nyikos to contend
> >>>> with. The Methodists have a range of creationist beliefs. There is a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well th pope made a great statement on evolution that does not conflict with science or religion. It seems the current pope accepts Darwin's Theory, or at the very least does not deny it.
> >>
> >> The Catholics hold that biological evolution is more than an hypothesis.
> >> That means that it is likely to be part of the creation.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> large young earth faction mainly in the Bible Belt, but we don't make a
> >>>> big deal about it.
> >>>
> >>> I live in the Bible Belt, and you would be surprised. Most of the few people who don't accept the theory of evolution here never think about science or history anyway.
> >>
> >> They don't have to.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The Methodists have been plaintiffs against the
> >>>> creationist legislation for both Arkansas and won in Arkansas federal
> >>>> court and Louisiana that ended with the Supreme court loss for the anti
> >>>> science creationist factions. We are for separation of church and
> >>>> state, and one reason is that the science doesn't matter, and lying
> >>>> about having the science isn't anything that a group with such diverse
> >>>> beliefs wants to leave up to the state.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I live in Savannah Georgia and have mixed feelings about John Wesley. They are only mixed feelings because I didn't know him and realize that the allegations may not be true.
> >>>
> >>> I'm glad that Methodist are taking a stand against those who would represent all Christians. I guess that's why you are so vehement about this. I didn't realize Methodists were so active.
> >>
> >> They aren't the only religious organization that stood up against the
> >> creationist legislation.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the standard definition of Creationist:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"
> >>>>
> >>>> You can get this definition, but it isn't the one that has been in
> >>>> dictionaries for decades even before the scientific creationists started
> >>>> their political ploy.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see "Big Bang" in that definition anywhere. Matter was created by the Big Bang. Various forms of life and the world were created by the Big Bang. But it doesn't say anything about the Big Bang itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would the Big Bang be needed in a simple definition of creationist?

> >>>> Some creationists believe in the Big Bang and some don't. It is not a
> >>>> defining characteristic. Belief in a creator being is the defining factor.
> >>>
> >>>

> >>> So you are saying that anyone who believes in a Creator being is a Creationist?
> >>> Then why aren't Methodist considered Creationists?
> >>> Are Methodists not Christians anymore?
> >>
> >> Why would you claim that Methodists are not creationists?
> >
> >
> > Because I have always considered the term to apply to a denial of the theory of evolution. And I know Methodists who don't deny the theory of evolution.
>
> Well, it obviously applies to the religious concept of believing in a
> creator. You can obviously do that and still accept biological
> evolution as the fact of nature that it is.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wikipedia has a warped definition of "Creationism" that isn't quite as ridiculous as yours, but I can see where you get this idea from reading it. They have expanded Creationism to include "the universe," where it only applied to LIFE before. This is probably because Atheists want to ridicule religion of all kinds and make it look stupid, not just Creationism anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your definition is likely the warped one.

> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to know why an atheist is a member of a church. If you can't give me a good answer, then you are more of a liar and a hypocrite than anyone else here. So please stop calling the kettle "black."
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You shouldn't make up junk about people. Slime ball assholes like
> >>>> Nyikos already exist to do that. You shouldn't add to it and you should
> >>>> clean up your act if you don't want to be compared to him.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we just can't figure out what you believe. You seem to be an atheist, but you claim you are not. It's very confusing.
> >>

> >> I seem to be an atheists for what reason? Standing up for what is right
> >> and stating the plain and simple facts about current creationist
> >> political scams?
> >
> > No I got the impression from your stance on abiogenesis and the cause of the Big Bang, neither of which have anything to do with those organizations you hate.
>
> I have just stood up for the science. Have I over stated it?
> Abiogenesis is just what it is. The Big Bang is just what it is. So
> what? JTEM is a nut job. He doesn't understand that what he believes
> is abiogenesis too. That is just the simple facts. When you compare
> the two versions of abiogenesis, the science comes out on top. Stating
> the obvious shouldn't make you an atheist. Really, you have likely
> compared the two options. Abiogenesis may be among the weakest of
> sciences, but they actually have something to work with. JTEM like
> creationists have nothing by comparison. What they have is worse than
> what they claim is not good enough, so that is what they have to deal
> with. That is what all creationists have to deal with.
>
> >
> >
> > I couldn't find any room for a Creator in your model of the universe. Even though we can't get past the singularity, you seemed very sure that there was no God beyond the singularity.
>
> The truth excludes a creator. How do you come to that conclusion. You
> are making a lot of theologians unhappy.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Political scams should have nothing to do with
> >> theology. lies and stupidity shouldn't have any place in theology. I
> >> lost all respect for IDiocy when the bait and switch started to go down
> >> and not a single honest IDiot could be found.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh I finally see what you're doing there I thought those capital letters were just typos at first.
>
> I only started calling it IDiocy after the bait and switch went down.
> Before that, there was some chance that it could have been an honest
> effort. After that and the dishonest and bogus reaction of the IDiot
> supporters there was no reason to not call it what it was. The Ohio
> creationist rubes obviously wanted to teach the science of ID, but when
> the bait and switch went down they did not protest and tar and feather
> the ID perps and run them out of town. The Ohio creationist rubes bent
> over and took the switch scam from the guys that had lied to them about
> the ID science. After the loss of IDiocy in Dover in 2005 the Ohio
> creationist rubes decided to drop the switch scam from their state
> education policies. The dishonesty was just too much to bear at that
> point. The sad thing is that they didn't do it until 2007. There is no
> doubt that a creationist scam was run on them by other creationists.
> The only IDiots left do not care about that.
>
> >
> >
> >> They all knew that ID was
> >> a creationist scam or they were too incompetent to know much of
> >> anything. Not a single fellow at the Discovery Institute resigned when
> >> the bait and switch started. Philip Johnson "retired" from his Blog the
> >> next month, but he came back for the Dover fiasco before admitting that
> >> there was no ID science and he hasn't supported the ID scam in public
> >> since that I know of.
> >>
> >> The situation is just that bad. The bait and switch just went down on
> >> Utah and no IDiots have to wonder why because the Discovery Institute
> >> just came out with the 6 best pieces of evidence for ID and they were
> >> all used by the scientific creationists who failed over 30 years ago.
> >> No progress in the last two decades of the ID scam. You don't have to
> >> be an atheist to understand how wrong that is in terms of ethics and
> >> basic honesty.
> >
> >
> > Is Ray a scam? He denies scientific understandings and continues to believe in ideas from the late 1800s. But I don't think he is trying to scam anyone.
>
> Ray is just Ray, and you shouldn't push him too far unless you like
> kicking puppies before their eyes open. That is just my opinion and it
> isn't held by the group as a whole.
>
> >
> > I just don't care much about what these organizations do. No more than I care what the Ancient Alien theorists do. Or the flat earthers. Or whatever you call the Elon Musk people who think we're a computer program.
> >
> > But if you want to fight them, go for it. I understand you better now. Thanks for clearing things up.
>
> There would have to be a reason. Are they posting to TO? Do they want
> their nonsense taught as science in the public schools?
>
> Ron Okimoto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hypocrites like you should just look in the mirror and decide why they
> >>>> need to yap about definitions instead of accept what they are.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron Okimoto
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[J.LyonLayden]

But Deism is part of my point. the leaders of the French revolution and the American Revolution were Deists. They had rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis long before Origin of Species. They were already at "God started it with one action, then let nature do it's work."

Equating Creationist only with Christians like they tried to do above with the "34% who vote as a block" is an error. There were Gnostics and Agnostics and other sects long before the Revolutions, and then there were Deists. I have read that literal "7 Day Genesis" Christians have always been rare, and the idea resurfaced in America among certain demographics. To look at the stats compared with Europe, I might say this is still the case. The majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution, and a lot of us don't think they should be considered "Creationist" in the traditional sense.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:39:41 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

嘱 Tiib and I both noted at the same time the same error you made.
That error had nothing to do with Ron's definition of Creationism, or
with atheism. What should have been a simple acknowledgement of a
factual error, you turned into a long-running, hate-filled, irrational
and incoherent rant.

Based on your other posts from this morning, you intend to continue
blaming me for your problems. I'm sorry your mommy didn't give you
the attention you wanted, but I am not her. Enjoy playing with
yourself.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:39:41 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> >> > >
> >> > > So what?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> >>
> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> >> statistics?
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
> >
> >I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.
> >
> >I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.
>
>
> 嘱 Tiib and I both noted at the same time the same error you made.
> That error had nothing to do with Ron's definition of Creationism, or
> with atheism. What should have been a simple acknowledgement of a
> factual error, you turned into a long-running, hate-filled, irrational
> and incoherent rant.

Your absolute bullshit on the other thread would piss of the Dali Llama. You wasted my time for three fucking days. I was only answering your stupid questions to be polite and so that you wouldn't follow me to every thread shouting "Coward!" like you did before.

Just like Erik said, "You always get your way don't you?"

Little princess.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

Well I still have no idea what the error you and your friend noticed was, and apparently neither do Mark or Bill. Why can't you come out and explain it instead of wasting everybody's time with your snide self-aggrandizing bullshit?

[jillery]

>> >>>> cre戢暗ion搏st
>> >>>> kr???SH?n?st/

Of course, it's no surprise that the comment to which you refer
doesn't appear anywhere in the quoted text above, nor does said
comment have anything to do with "equating Creationist only with
Christians.

This is just another case of you making stuff up because you have
nothing intelligent to say.

>There were Gnostics and Agnostics and other sects long before the Revolutions, and then there were Deists. I have read that literal "7 Day Genesis" Christians have always been rare, and the idea resurfaced in America among certain demographics. To look at the stats compared with Europe, I might say this is still the case. The majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution, and a lot of us don't think they should be considered "Creationist" in the traditional sense.
>

[J.LyonLayden]

Well tell us how Hindus, Muslims, Atheists and Christian evolution denialists are a single voting block, little princess.

>
> This is just another case of you making stuff up because you have
> nothing intelligent to say.

Here comes the big bad deity to steal your vibrator and Haagen-Daaz, societal leech.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:29:38 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:39:41 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So what?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>> >>
>> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> >> statistics?
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>> >
>> >I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.
>> >
>> >I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.
>>
>>

>> ? Tiib and I both noted at the same time the same error you made.

>> That error had nothing to do with Ron's definition of Creationism, or
>> with atheism. What should have been a simple acknowledgement of a
>> factual error, you turned into a long-running, hate-filled, irrational
>> and incoherent rant.
>

>> Based on your other posts from this morning, you intend to continue
>> blaming me for your problems. I'm sorry your mommy didn't give you
>> the attention you wanted, but I am not her. Enjoy playing with
>> yourself.
>
>Your absolute bullshit on the other thread would piss of the Dali Llama. You wasted my time for three fucking days. I was only answering your stupid questions to be polite and so that you wouldn't follow me to every thread shouting "Coward!" like you did before.
>
>Just like Erik said, "You always get your way don't you?"
>
>Little princess.

So you still have nothing intelligent to say. Thank you for proving
my point for me.

[Mark Isaak]

I stopped reading Jillery because when I do, I get tempted to respond,
and she brings out the worse in me. I see she has that effect on you, too.

(I really should do the same with Nyikos, but continue reading many of
his posts for the same reason I look at train crashes.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:34:23 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:39:41 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>> >> > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So what?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
>> >>
>> >> No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
>> >> statistics?
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>> >
>> >I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.
>> >
>> >I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.
>>
>>

>> ? Tiib and I both noted at the same time the same error you made.

>> That error had nothing to do with Ron's definition of Creationism, or
>> with atheism. What should have been a simple acknowledgement of a
>> factual error, you turned into a long-running, hate-filled, irrational
>> and incoherent rant.
>>
>> Based on your other posts from this morning, you intend to continue
>> blaming me for your problems. I'm sorry your mommy didn't give you
>> the attention you wanted, but I am not her. Enjoy playing with
>> yourself.
>>
>

>Well I still have no idea what the error you and your friend noticed was,

Your "clarification" to 嘱 Tiib above puts the lie to that.

>and apparently neither do Mark or Bill.

Neither Mark nor Bill even addressed the issue, so your "apparently"
is delusional.

>Why can't you come out and explain it instead of wasting everybody's time with your snide self-aggrandizing bullshit?

Already have, multiple times. Like you said, I was wasting my time.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:44:13 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

<massive mercy snip>

>> >Equating Creationist only with Christians like they tried to do above with the "34% who vote as a block" is an error.
>>
>>
>> Of course, it's no surprise that the comment to which you refer
>> doesn't appear anywhere in the quoted text above, nor does said
>> comment have anything to do with "equating Creationist only with
>> Christians.
>
>
>Well tell us how Hindus, Muslims, Atheists and Christian evolution denialists are a single voting block, little princess.
>
>
>
>>
>> This is just another case of you making stuff up because you have
>> nothing intelligent to say.
>
>
>Here comes the big bad deity to steal your vibrator and Haagen-Daaz, societal leech.

Thank you for proving once again that you have nothing intelligent to
say.

[J.LyonLayden]

Yes she certainly does. She's pretty good at pissing off people for no discernable reason, about virtually nothing. The only reason I was even talking to her about the BB was because she had temporarily become polite. She followed me around for two weeks demanding I answer some stupid question until I dug it up for her and apologized.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:03:06 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>I stopped reading Jillery because when I do, I get tempted to respond,
>and she brings out the worse in me. I see she has that effect on you, too.
>
>(I really should do the same with Nyikos, but continue reading many of
>his posts for the same reason I look at train crashes.)

Not sure how you can wade through his crap and then blame me for it.
Once again, you show your willful blindness.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:03:06 -0800, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
> >I stopped reading Jillery because when I do, I get tempted to respond,
> >and she brings out the worse in me. I see she has that effect on you, too.
> >
> >(I really should do the same with Nyikos, but continue reading many of
> >his posts for the same reason I look at train crashes.)
>
>
> Not sure how you can wade through his crap and then blame me for it.
> Once again, you show your willful blindness.

And she uses weirdo phrases like the above. They sound like the evil witch's lines from a B-Movie. I'm hearing the "Again" with a hard consonant on the second syllable. Do you think she did some Xstacy and got locked in a cosplay?

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:18:18 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

The above is Mark Isaak's explicit admission he doesn't read my posts,
and so has no idea what he's talking about here.

>Yes she certainly does. She's pretty good at pissing off people for no discernable reason, about virtually nothing. The only reason I was even talking to her about the BB was because she had temporarily become polite. She followed me around for two weeks demanding I answer some stupid question until I dug it up for her and apologized.

Yes, some people get really pissed when others point out that they
haven't backed up or retracted their bald assertions. Only a
sociopath would be surprised about that.

And don't worry about your apology. I didn't expect it was sincere. A
cautionary tale for others who receive your flatteries.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:47:27 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:03:06 -0800, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I stopped reading Jillery because when I do, I get tempted to respond,
>> >and she brings out the worse in me. I see she has that effect on you, too.
>> >
>> >(I really should do the same with Nyikos, but continue reading many of
>> >his posts for the same reason I look at train crashes.)
>>
>>
>> Not sure how you can wade through his crap and then blame me for it.
>> Once again, you show your willful blindness.
>
>And she uses weirdo phrases like the above. They sound like the evil witch's lines from a B-Movie. I'm hearing the "Again" with a hard consonant on the second syllable. Do you think she did some Xstacy and got locked in a cosplay?

So you again have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised.

And you're still posting unnecessary duplicates. Apparently you're
hand goes into spasm from playing with yourself.

[J.LyonLayden]

I am likely one of the few left who read your post. I was going to stop reading them, but then I stopped taking them seriously. Your idiocy has become entertaining. Your cluelessness of what others think of you enhances the amusement factor greatly.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:16:34 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"

If so, I am willing to forsake that "honor".

> I was going to stop reading them, but then I stopped taking them seriously.

Of course... not. You're hooked. I control you.

>Your idiocy has become entertaining. Your cluelessness of what others think of you enhances the amusement factor greatly.

Really? Let's refresh your convenient amnesia about what the most
recent recipient of your obsequious sophistry says about you:

*************************************************
Certainly you cannot reasonably deny that you deserve every insult
that has been given to you, and then some.

[and]

I don't read sci.paleo, so I don't know what transpired there. But
from a week of reading your posts here, I can tell that you know far
less about what you talk about than you think you do, and that you
don't react well when someone corrects you. I don't suggest you "shut
up and take it", but you would be well advised to look long and hard
at how you have contributed to the problem.

[and]

I have the minimal backbone not to be pressured by your unconscionable
bullying.

[and]

When others call you an asshole, they are being kind.

[and]

I think you might enjoy learning science if you ever gave it serious
consideration. You probably would not enjoy the initial steps,
though, because you clearly enjoy fooling yourself, and you would need
to give that up. However, you can still enjoy fantasy and science at
the same time; you simply need to recognize that they are separate
disciplines.

[and]

I don't know if you are careless with your thinking or are lying on
purpose. I suspect the former, but the end result is the same.

[and]

Reference, please. I have learned to doubt you whenever you tell what
other people have said. (And "doubt" is quickly heading to
"disbelieve".)

[and]

Very nearly all teachers love to teach students who want to learn. You
are not one of those students. Instead, you have an agenda you want
to push. Part of that agenda is the implicit assertion that
essentially all vertebrate paleontologists, at least relative to you,
are idiots. It is not surprising that professors react negatively to
that.
**********************************************

AOTA, plus your repeated and explicit admissions that you're
gratuitously trolling me, is why I remain unsure how Mark Isaak blames
me for your behavior.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 18 December 2017 17:40:07 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> > > >
> > > > So what?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> >
> > No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> > statistics?
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
>
> I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.

U.S. is creationist country by polls, I said that no one has brought
it up. I also asked source of your "very small percentage" figures.

>
> I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.

The figures of Wikipedia I gave are likely close enough to reality.
Each aspect of human worldview has various shades of radicality.
Creationism is likely not exception there.

Let me give row of rhetoric questions. Do you have single and clear
group of Creationists in your head? What the Creator God supposedly
did? Did He create universe and life? Doesn't that belief contradict
with current biology, paleontology, geology and cosmology sciences?
Will it reduce the controversy to mix up beliefs with science? Is the
way out of that situation to groundlessly oppose those sciences?
Is it good idea to lie about having alternatives to mainstream science?
Does spectacular failure in court improve reputation? Who should be
most angry at such underdogs?

Indeed ... with dishonest loser friends no enemies are needed.
I have taken no offense of anything. I am usually merely interested
in new knowledge, insights or humor in discussions. When there are
not much of that then I can lose interest.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 5:10:05 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Monday, 18 December 2017 17:40:07 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > > > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> > >
> > > No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> > > statistics?
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
> >
> > I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.
>
> U.S. is creationist country by polls, I said that no one has brought
> it up. I also asked source of your "very small percentage" figures.

I didn't have a source. I live in the Bible Belt and meet very few people who don't accept evolution. When I do, they are generally non-collegiate rural folk who also believe in a lot of other unscientific things or they are college grads who believe in ancient aliens and genetic manipulation.

Some of them also believe in the pig-lady, who steals kids and turns them into pigs if they get near her house.

I wonder how many of those 34% are mentally stable, and what else those people believe besides I.D.

I have said that I didn't think it would be as high as 34%, but it must be true despite my experiences.

I don't think that 34% has much to do with whether evolution is taught in schools, since only 10-15% of schools fail to teach evolution.

It seems we are about even with Japan and only slightly above Turkey in the ignorance of evolution department.

Is it because of Education? America has a long history of Biblical literalists, which was a minority in Europe even before Charles Darwin. The pilgrims were not typical Christians.

Japan and Turkey are not Christian nations, so equating evolutionary ignorance to Christianity doesn't quite work. Jillery suggested these people vote in a block.


I am not sure what to do about the 34%. Maybe shame Florida into repealing their law? Make lots of Floridiot jokes on SNL featuring 7 Day Creationists in the shortest of jorts?

>
> >
> > I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.
>
> The figures of Wikipedia I gave are likely close enough to reality.
> Each aspect of human worldview has various shades of radicality.
> Creationism is likely not exception there.
>
> Let me give row of rhetoric questions. Do you have single and clear
> group of Creationists in your head? What the Creator God supposedly
> did? Did He create universe and life? Doesn't that belief contradict
> with current biology, paleontology, geology and cosmology sciences?

To me, a Creationist is a person who believes in a God or gods and rejects the theory of evolution.
I have never heard that everyone who believes in a creator God is a Creationist until Ron. I don't think many people agree with him.

Why is a quantum tunnel not a god?
Why is the Big Bang not itself a god?


A creator doesn't disagree with theories on what caused the Big Bang, because we don't know what caused the Big Bang. There are several competing theories of what created space-time and what initiated the Big Bang. Even if one were proven true, we would still wonder how the quantum tunnel or the computer program came to be.

Since we don't know what dark matter or dark energy actually are, there isn't even anything saying they aren't gods themselves, depending on your definition of "God."

> Will it reduce the controversy to mix up beliefs with science? Is the
> way out of that situation to groundlessly oppose those sciences?

I don't suggest opposing science. I don't know why telling a confused Creationist layman on this forum about quantum physics is going to solve anything, though.

> Is it good idea to lie about having alternatives to mainstream science?
> Does spectacular failure in court improve reputation? Who should be
> most angry at such underdogs?

I'm still not sure they lied. Maybe they thought they had something.
I'm more angry about the fact that actual college grads want to talk ancient aliens any time I start talking about the evolution of hominids.


I'm more afraid people won't accept my prehistoric fiction because they want aliens to build the megaliths than I am that they won't accept my ape-men.

>
> Indeed ... with dishonest loser friends no enemies are needed.
> I have taken no offense of anything. I am usually merely interested
> in new knowledge, insights or humor in discussions. When there are
> not much of that then I can lose interest.

Thanks a bunch I totally understand your sentiment.

[Mike_Duffy]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:50:40 -0500, jillery wrote:

> And you're still posting unnecessary duplicates. Apparently
> you're hand goes into spasm from playing with yourself.

C'mon. This happens to all of us once in a while.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:50:05 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 5:10:05 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Monday, 18 December 2017 17:40:07 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 17 December 2017 16:55:06 UTC+2, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 9:05:06 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/16/2017 11:47 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only 3% of the population admits to being atheists, although some studies have concluded it might be as much as 10%.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well I would have never thought the U.S. could be called a "Creationist" country since a very small percentage of educated people deny biological evolution.
> > > >
> > > > No one called U.S. "Creationist" country. What is source of your
> > > > statistics?
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#/media/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
> > >
> > > I'd like to clear something up here with you. I think you and Jillery got this conversation why out of context. Ron said the all those who believe in a creator being are creationist. I looked at the census stats to the U.S. and found that nearly 90% or more claimed to believe in a God. If Ron's definition and the stats were correct, then it would follow that the U.S. is a Creationist nation.
> >
> > U.S. is creationist country by polls, I said that no one has brought
> > it up. I also asked source of your "very small percentage" figures.
>
> I didn't have a source. I live in the Bible Belt and meet very few people who don't accept evolution. When I do, they are generally non-collegiate rural folk who also believe in a lot of other unscientific things or they are college grads who believe in ancient aliens and genetic manipulation.
>
> Some of them also believe in the pig-lady, who steals kids and turns them into pigs if they get near her house.

I am ignorant how integrated the society is in U.S. I have heard that
"neighbourhoods" have official status there and people may even
get into (official and non-official) trouble for showing up in wrong
neighborhood.

> I wonder how many of those 34% are mentally stable, and what else those people believe besides I.D.
>
> I have said that I didn't think it would be as high as 34%, but it must be true despite my experiences.
>
> I don't think that 34% has much to do with whether evolution is taught in schools, since only 10-15% of schools fail to teach evolution.
>
> It seems we are about even with Japan and only slightly above Turkey in the ignorance of evolution department.

Perhaps you meant Greece not Japan? Over half of Japanese are not believing
in creator God.

>
> Is it because of Education? America has a long history of Biblical literalists, which was a minority in Europe even before Charles Darwin. The pilgrims were not typical Christians.
>
> Japan and Turkey are not Christian nations, so equating evolutionary ignorance to Christianity doesn't quite work. Jillery suggested these people vote in a block.
>
>
> I am not sure what to do about the 34%. Maybe shame Florida into repealing their law? Make lots of Floridiot jokes on SNL featuring 7 Day Creationists in the shortest of jorts?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.
> >
> > The figures of Wikipedia I gave are likely close enough to reality.
> > Each aspect of human worldview has various shades of radicality.
> > Creationism is likely not exception there.
> >
> > Let me give row of rhetoric questions. Do you have single and clear
> > group of Creationists in your head? What the Creator God supposedly
> > did? Did He create universe and life? Doesn't that belief contradict
> > with current biology, paleontology, geology and cosmology sciences?
>
> To me, a Creationist is a person who believes in a God or gods and rejects the theory of evolution.
> I have never heard that everyone who believes in a creator God is a Creationist until Ron. I don't think many people agree with him.

I understand your view but I don't understand what did the creator create
if it wasn't universe and life?

> Why is a quantum tunnel not a god?
> Why is the Big Bang not itself a god?

Perhaps it has to do something with sentience of those entities.
Omnipotent being can certainly communicate me His will so I
am apparently free to pick my Lords.

> A creator doesn't disagree with theories on what caused the Big Bang, because we don't know what caused the Big Bang. There are several competing theories of what created space-time and what initiated the Big Bang. Even if one were proven true, we would still wonder how the quantum tunnel or the computer program came to be.

From "we don't know" follows only one conclusion that we are ignorant.
That must not be surprize? A creator can not conflict with anything.
Technically we ourselves can create life from non-living materials. We
do not yet understand the purpose of at least third of nanotechnology
involved. Since we have plenty of "working" examples we can just blindly
copy it in "cargo cult" fashion. Disagreement comes from details about
when and where.

> Since we don't know what dark matter or dark energy actually are, there isn't even anything saying they aren't gods themselves, depending on your definition of "God."

Yet from "we do not know" can only follow conclusion that we are
ignorant.

> > Will it reduce the controversy to mix up beliefs with science? Is the
> > way out of that situation to groundlessly oppose those sciences?

> I don't suggest opposing science. I don't know why telling a confused Creationist layman on this forum about quantum physics is going to solve anything, though.

Quantum physics are not under focus of creationists. Origins of universe,
its suitability for life, origins of life and origins of mankind are the typical
topics.

> > Is it good idea to lie about having alternatives to mainstream science?
> > Does spectacular failure in court improve reputation? Who should be
> > most angry at such underdogs?
>
> I'm still not sure they lied. Maybe they thought they had something.
> I'm more angry about the fact that actual college grads want to talk ancient aliens any time I start talking about the evolution of hominids.

It may be that they did not know that all they had was same old
and already thoroughly refuted junk. I remember Behe agreeing
in court that with evidence base like that also astrology would
be science. It at least feels more like desire to change meaning
of the word "science" than actually to do it.

I like the ancient astronaut diggers, cryptozoologists and ghost
hunters more since those happily try to use scientific methods
for finding evidence to their theories. It really sounds like fun
hobby.

> I'm more afraid people won't accept my prehistoric fiction because they want aliens to build the megaliths than I am that they won't accept my ape-men.

Goodness of fiction is usually in believable but interesting
personalities, captivating situations, well thought thru
intriguing events and presence of humor. No need to give
them what they want (like aliens or zombies) to make it sell.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:40:04 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

- show quoted text -
Yes I don't know why I thought Japan.
The chart is all 1st world countries, I assume.

China and Central America/ South America are not listed.
Latin Americans are supposedly very big on rejecting evolution, so I would expect the south American countries to be much lower. This also goes for "border states" in the U.S.

Australia is also unlisted, though I thought it was 1st world.

>
> >
> > Is it because of Education? America has a long history of Biblical literalists, which was a minority in Europe even before Charles Darwin. The pilgrims were not typical Christians.
> >
> > Japan and Turkey are not Christian nations, so equating evolutionary ignorance to Christianity doesn't quite work. Jillery suggested these people vote in a block.
> >
> >
> > I am not sure what to do about the 34%. Maybe shame Florida into repealing their law? Make lots of Floridiot jokes on SNL featuring 7 Day Creationists in the shortest of jorts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand that you have some alternate figures. I do not dispute them. I do not care about the stats themselves or which stats are true. I was having a debate with Ron. Several have agreed that his definition for Creationist is wrong. If you would like to call anyone who believes in God a Creationist, go right ahead. I did not mean anything against atheists by quoting the census stats. I did not mean to trigger Jilleries hatred. I have nothing against atheist, I was only trying to understand Ron's position. He is a Creationists who rants about Creationists, and I didn't know that he has different degrees of Creationists in his head. he does not always specify exactly who he is criticizing.
> > >
> > > The figures of Wikipedia I gave are likely close enough to reality.
> > > Each aspect of human worldview has various shades of radicality.
> > > Creationism is likely not exception there.
> > >
> > > Let me give row of rhetoric questions. Do you have single and clear
> > > group of Creationists in your head? What the Creator God supposedly
> > > did? Did He create universe and life? Doesn't that belief contradict
> > > with current biology, paleontology, geology and cosmology sciences?
> >
> > To me, a Creationist is a person who believes in a God or gods and rejects the theory of evolution.
> > I have never heard that everyone who believes in a creator God is a Creationist until Ron. I don't think many people agree with him.
>
> I understand your view but I don't understand what did the creator create
> if it wasn't universe and life?

I don't know how it is in Europe, but here in the southern U.S. "Creationism" refers to the idea that species were created individually by the deity.
It rejects abiogenesis.


Ron disagrees with that definition, but some others here have seconded the idea that "Creationism" specifically refers to manipulation by a Deity after the Big Bang or formation of the Universe.

Believing in the divinity of "Christ" does not necessarily mean you are a "Christian," because there are some Buddhists who believe that "Christ" was a divine being.

I think the difference is between capitalized "Creationist" verses the non-capitalized "creator being." The capitalization denotes a well-defined social organization or political party, such as Methodist as opposed to "methodic."

>
> > Why is a quantum tunnel not a god?
> > Why is the Big Bang not itself a god?
>
> Perhaps it has to do something with sentience of those entities.
> Omnipotent being can certainly communicate me His will so I
> am apparently free to pick my Lords.

But not all Christians believe that God is omnipotent.

>
> > A creator doesn't disagree with theories on what caused the Big Bang, because we don't know what caused the Big Bang. There are several competing theories of what created space-time and what initiated the Big Bang. Even if one were proven true, we would still wonder how the quantum tunnel or the computer program came to be.
>
> From "we don't know" follows only one conclusion that we are ignorant.
> That must not be surprize? A creator can not conflict with anything.
> Technically we ourselves can create life from non-living materials. We
> do not yet understand the purpose of at least third of nanotechnology
> involved. Since we have plenty of "working" examples we can just blindly

> copy it in "cargo cult" fashion. The disagreement comes from details about
> when and where.


I agree.

>
> > Since we don't know what dark matter or dark energy actually are, there isn't even anything saying they aren't gods themselves, depending on your definition of "God."
>
> Yet from "we do not know" can only follow conclusion that we are
> ignorant.

Yes. Therefore we must use other means. Mysticism or spirituality, or personal experience.

Using only the scientific method, it would be very hard to solve criminal cases. Even using the Occam's razor and deductive reasoning, we couldn't "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that O.J. Simpson killed someone. Despite this, do you think O.J. Simpson is innocent?

If you have an opinion, it goes beyond what the scientific theory can show.

>
> > > Will it reduce the controversy to mix up beliefs with science? Is the
> > > way out of that situation to groundlessly oppose those sciences?
>
> > I don't suggest opposing science. I don't know why telling a confused Creationist layman on this forum about quantum physics is going to solve anything, though.
>
> Quantum physics are not under focus of creationists. Origins of universe,
> its suitability for life, origins of life and origins of mankind are the typical
> topics.

But we don't have any good theories as to what caused the Big Bang yet, or even good evidence to show that there was really "nothing" before the Big Bang.

It's fine to propose the theories and argue for them, but to say they are the only possibilities "because science dictates thusly" is dishonest.

>
> > > Is it good idea to lie about having alternatives to mainstream science?
> > > Does spectacular failure in court improve reputation? Who should be
> > > most angry at such underdogs?
> >
> > I'm still not sure they lied. Maybe they thought they had something.
> > I'm more angry about the fact that actual college grads want to talk ancient aliens any time I start talking about the evolution of hominids.
>
> It may be that they did not know that all they had was same old
> and already thoroughly refuted junk. I remember Behe agreeing
> in court that with evidence base like that also astrology would
> be science. It at least feels more like desire to change meaning
> of the word "science" than actually to do it.

It may be. I just don't think Ron has made a strong case that all members of the organization willfully lied. Some may have been deluded, ill-informed, etc.

>
> I like the ancient astronaut diggers, cryptozoologists and ghost
> hunters more since those happily try to use scientific methods
> for finding evidence to their theories. It really sounds like fun
> hobby.

Yes but it's hard to talk history when everyone wants to stick an alien in it.

>
> > I'm more afraid people won't accept my prehistoric fiction because they want aliens to build the megaliths than I am that they won't accept my ape-men.
>
> Goodness of fiction is usually in believable but interesting
> personalities, captivating situations, well thought thru
> intriguing events and presence of humor. No need to give
> them what they want (like aliens or zombies)

The zombies are never (or rarely) claimed to be real on those TV shows.

[J.LyonLayden]

This is true, however...

I do not want to read stories from the 1800s in which the moon is reached via cannons or catapults. They disrupt my suspension of belief.

I don't like stories from the early 1900s depicting cavemen fighting dinosaurs.

I want better suspension of disbelief. The reality of our prehistoric world is actually more fantastic than all of those fantasies.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 11:35:02 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> It seems that some of the newbies would benefit from getting access to
> past creationists posts so that they can get some type of clue as to
> what goes on around here.

What they get where I am concerned is a pack of lies by you.

<snip irrelevant stuff about the bombardier beetle that I've
never been stupid enough to advocate>

> This is just a list of the posters on the creationist side of the issues
> that have recently posted on TO. IDiots, run of the mill creationists
> etc. You can look up the links of past By their fruits to see what
> things were like years ago. There isn't much difference.

You are burying your head in the sand about the difference.

> That should
> be sad in anyone's book.

It is your cowardly denial about a scam you have been running
for something like a decade that is the really sad thing.

> Anyone can follow the link and use Google Groups pull down menu on the
> right to "show activity" and access more of that posters posts. Read as
> many as you can stand.
>
> I just go through the last couple of weeks of active threads and take
> the first post that I come to, so I may miss someone that has posted
> since the last By their Fruits.
>
> Nyikos is posting his IDiot denial junk again.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xCC5NGB-QHI/P91yi0JJCgAJ

It's my first of several posts about YOUR denials, Ron O, and your
perennial bait and switch scam about the DI ALLEGEDLY running one of their
own. Anyone can see that by clicking on the link you've ignorantly
provided.

You never dared read what I wrote in it about YOUR scam, did you?

All you have been able to demonstrate in the places where
you run YOUR scam is a mountain of information about what
would be a switch if there were any bait to switch from.

And you are in PATHOLOGICAL denial of my demolition of
the evidence you claimed for the ***bait***.

Here is an excerpt from the FOURTH post about whose
contents you are in pathological denial about in
just the past week. You had the stupidity to keep
referring to it as a post from which I "ran away"
and now I finally called your bluff about it:

____________________________________________________

> Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

This is the laughable "evidence" you provided for the "bait" here:

I also found the article where Wells is said to have claimed that there
was enough scientific support for ID that it could be required to be
taught in the public schools.

Are you sufficiently demented that you think "is said to have claimed"
is any kind of evidence? Hell, he's been said to have claimed it
innumerable times by YOU, and you have never been able to find a
quote by Wells himself.

Didn't you ever hear the law in countless films about trials? "Hearsay
evidence is inadmissible."

> It wasn�t

In all the times you reposted this vomit, didn't you ever try putting
in an ordinary apostrophe from your keyboard?

> a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
> known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
> other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
> and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
> switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio.

So why didn't you ever post it? In the pathetic post of yours that
you link above, you only quote the following from the alleged document:

QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:

You really must be demented if you think there is the slightest
evidence of bait in this. And yet, in that same miserable post
that you've linked above, you baited your poor readers with:


In this report Wells claims that he and Meyers discussed
the issue with others and decided to run the bait and switch
scam before they went to Ohio.

But, as your pathetic quote demonstrates, you pulled a REAL
bait and switch scam on your readers, because all your quote
does is to show what would be a switch if there had been
any bait to switch from.


> Their presentation
> on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
> comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
> ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools

Why did you not quote this comment? Is it because you've been lying
all along about there ever having been such a comment?


> was just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
> science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
> the ID scam

Is the whole substance of the alleged ID scam the pathetic QUOTE above?
If so, you are one sick puppy.


> and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
> that did not even mention that ID had ever existed.

Really? Nowhere in the whole presentation were the words
"Intelligent Design" ever uttered?

Then what is the following all about, in another
post that you accuse me of running away from:

Subject: Re: Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94%5B26-50%5D

Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer of the Disco �Tute
participated in a 2002 panel discussion before the Board that was
originally set up to examine whether Ohio should include intelligent
design creationism (IDC) in the state science standards (Kenneth Miller
and Lawrence Krauss argued the contra side).

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/03/the-disappearin.html#more


The IDC is editorializing by the propagandist at Panda's Thumb.

That is, unless there was discussion as to whether
*both* ID *and* creationism should appear in the state science standards.

I'm certainly not holding my breath to see whether you can demonstrate
this. In fact, I'm laughing at you for the stupid way you
swallowed that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

I may try to chase down who that propagandist was, when I have more
time. Then I could also add "rod, reel, and fisherman."


What immediately followed could hardly have been done without mentioning
ID, you shameless obfuscator:

In the discussion Meyer
pulled a bait and switch, retreating from arguing that IDC should be
included and suggesting that the so-called �scientific controversy�
about Darwinism be taught instead.
END QUOTE:

> I will also note
> that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
> qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
> schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch.

Since you never demonstrated any bait, there need not have been
any hurry to add that caution against exercising their
Constitutional rights to present ID. It was a prudential
decision, due to the fact that ID theory is no more advanced
than MACROevolutionary theory, which is ALSO inadvisable to
teach in the public schools. It might awaken doubts:

"Is *this* all there is to evolutionary theory besides the stuff we were
taught about moth coloration?"

============================================= end of excerpt from:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xCC5NGB-QHI/B7vXD_KBCwAJ

Readers can follow either this link or the one you ignorantly
provided to see some other posts of mine about whose contents
you are in pathlogical denial about. Like a little kid pulling
the blankets over your head, you think that just leaving in
everything I posted in rebuttal to your idiocies while posting
completely irrelevant personal attacks is somehow negating them.

> Here is an old By their Fruits with links to others. You can get back
> to 2009 if you want to see how little things have changed. About the
> only difference is that denial is about all that the creationists have left.

Liar. The big difference is that I have finally gone over that "Wells 2002"
post of yours and gone a long way towards demolishing it.


> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/cCmhlzxMiAU/r4TQrAPwAQAJ
>
> Ron Okimoto

Here is the parting shot to my latest reply to you on that thread
you linked and then I linked:

_________________________________________________________

I'm going on my usual month long posting break for the Christmas
season. If you dare to list me with IDiots on your next wildly misnamed
"By Their Fruits" thread, you will be hearing plenty from me about it.

For Christmas, will you be worshipping the creator you've never
dared to describe to anyone all these years?

You have been in violation of Christ's admonition not to hide
your light under a bushel -- perhaps because, as he suggested,
the light of your alleged belief is darkness.

==============================================================

Unbeknownst to me, you had already started your latest thread --
this one. And what you are hearing from me now is nothing
compared to what you will be hearing from me if you ever post
another of these "By their fruits" thread. [The very title
of these threads is evidence of you being a hypocrite as
bad as any whom Jesus condemned. It is almost blasphemous
how you are twisting these words of Jesus that your Subject
lines are quoting.]


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Following up to myself to set straight a careless wording by myself:

I was careless here. It is the following post, and
not my recent post, about which you wrote so stupidly
and on which I finally called that bluff:

> ____________________________________________________
>
> > Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

<snip rest of excerpt>

As can be seen from the rest of the excerpt, I demolished RonO's claim
of there having been a BAIT AND switch SCAM documented by him
as having taken place in 2002 in Ohio.

Peter Nyikos