I've been blacklisted by CMI

[Mark Buchanan]

CMI - Creation Ministries International, is offshoot of AiG.

They have a particularly annoying commenting policy. Anyone can comment
on a recent article and there may or may not be a response and it may or
may not be posted on their site. However, there is really is no good way
of challenging their response. There is an automated email response to
confirm the initial comment (with the contents of the comment included),
then you might get another email if they post it or a response directly
from the article author. In either case the email is sent from the
'nor...@creation.com' email address. The only official way to respond
is to send in a second comment on the same article. Their policy is that
only one comment per person per article however so no matter how
unsatisfying their first response was the article page will never see a
challenge to it.

The above process makes sure they get the last word in, and makes it
appear to the faithful that whatever they wrote was satisfactory.

It wasn't always this bad but has gotten worse in the last couple of
years. I finally got so annoyed that I started guessing the email
addresses of the authors to respond directly. (In my first exchange a
few years ago I got a response directly from the author - with a cc. to
a few other CMI leaders - email addresses are usually easy to guess)
Turns out they didn't like that so this is what I got today:

"... we get a lot of requests for private dialogues/debates, but we do
not think it wise to take time away from our public ministry to devote
to this. So you are free to reply, but I don't plan to respond again.
Some of my colleagues have already had discussions with you, and
together we have decided that this will be our last correspondence."

My experience with professional creationists is fairly consistent. If
you challenge them beyond the simplistic answers they like to deliver
they tend to run away fairly quickly. If anyone is interested in having
a record of any of my exchanges I'll be happy to get them to you.

Mark

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:55:39 -0400, Mark Buchanan
<marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>My experience with professional creationists is fairly consistent. If
>you challenge them beyond the simplistic answers they like to deliver
>they tend to run away fairly quickly. If anyone is interested in having
>a record of any of my exchanges I'll be happy to get them to you.
>
>Mark

No need. By their own definition they do not practice science.
" By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field,
including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
scriptural record. "
http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

So Eve was created after the animals and because Adam could not find a
help meet among them.

This God seems to know less about sex than the priest who gave me my
sex ed class. (Women don't like sex...)

[jillery]

You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.

[John S. Wilkins]

They can't speak, so who was he to talk sports with?
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[eridanus]

yeah. mostly the woman were created to cook food for Adam. Later after
being chased out of paradise garden, they had to make children for they
had become "mortal beings". So the coarse of god was to born children with
pain, and they had to work to feed themselves. Not any more garden of eden,
a state similar to the chimps feeding gratuitously in the rain forest. God kicked them out from the tropical rain forest to harsh and dry environment
of Mesopotamia. Poor chimps.

Eri

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:12:45 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:48:14 -0700, Mike Painter
>> <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:55:39 -0400, Mark Buchanan
>> ><marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>My experience with professional creationists is fairly consistent. If
>> >>you challenge them beyond the simplistic answers they like to deliver
>> >>they tend to run away fairly quickly. If anyone is interested in having
>> >>a record of any of my exchanges I'll be happy to get them to you.
>> >>
>> >>Mark
>> >
>> >No need. By their own definition they do not practice science.
>> >" By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field,
>> >including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
>> >scriptural record. "
>> >http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
>> >
>> >So Eve was created after the animals and because Adam could not find a
>> >help meet among them.
>> >
>> >This God seems to know less about sex than the priest who gave me my
>> >sex ed class. (Women don't like sex...)
>>
>>
>> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.
>
>They can't speak, so who was he to talk sports with?

That' why they're such good listeners.

[rossum]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:12:45 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>They can't speak, so who was he to talk sports with?

God os course...

"Jesus saves!"

"... but Suarez scores from the rebound."

rossum

[Walter Bushell]

In article <pfdrk9hb9l7ksabao...@4ax.com>,

Mike Painter <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> This God seems to know less about sex than the priest who gave me my
> sex ed class. (Women don't like sex...)

Yes, I got a similar speech from my dean of men. The girls dress that
way because they want to be fashionable. Although at the time, most
were pursuing an Mrs. degree.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <38krk9thh7ivj6qfq...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.

And, of course, there is no record in _The First Book of Moses_ about
how long Adam tried out each animal. I suppose he spent only seconds
with each species of beetle, however that is still a long time.

[TimR]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:39:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>
> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.

Why would cooking be necessary?

Eating meat was not allowed until after the flood.

There was no death prior to The Fall, so harvesting plants for food would not have happened either. The only food could have been what fruits were voluntarily dropped by the plants, and those would not have required cooking.

I guess there could not have been any annual plants, either.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <38krk9thh7ivj6qfq...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.

>And, of course, there is no record in _The First Book of Moses_ about
>how long Adam tried out each animal. I suppose he spent only seconds
>with each species of beetle, however that is still a long time.

Adam invented speed dating? Who knew?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/15/14, 11:12 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
snip

>>
>>
>> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.
>
> They can't speak, so who was he to talk sports with?
>

The snake, obviously.

DJT

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 05:47:56 -0700 (PDT), TimR <timot...@aol.com>
wrote:

I have been told that killing plants don't count. Or bacteria. Also,
neither does apoptosis. The mind of a biblical apologist moves in
mysterious ways.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Adam and Cain and Abel were out for a walk. They came along this very high
wall and eventually to a pair of gates, impossible to scale. Through the
gates, however, could be glimpsed an absolutely beautiful garden, all sorts
of beautiful food and strange animals.

"Gosh" said Cain, "that place looks really cool!"

"Don't start me " replied Adam, "We lived there until your mother ate us out
of house and home!"

[Robert Carnegie]

If you listen to different preachers, you get different
authoritative answers. Evidently the thing is to sound
believable, not to be consistent with other teachers.

[jillery]

As if bobbing for apples is a sport...

[Mark Buchanan]

So true, and very true for creationists. The particulars of what got me
blacklisted is related to this. Here is the page with the article and
original exchange:

http://creation.com/does-bible-trump-all-evidence

Kurt Wise's position is very clear but Keaton can't seem to even
understand it. Keaton is not a scientist but Wise is and this is a big
part of the the problem. Wise is very different from most YEC. There are
some very interesting articles in the RNCSE about Wise:

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1792

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/3/1998-international-conference-creationism

Most YEC attack evolution as a matter of course, Wise detests that
strategy. He would rather spend his efforts on a comprehensive creation
model - an impossible task but commendable goal for creationists. He is
also convinced that the evidence for evolution is real and compelling -
this is what drives his fellow creationists wild with rage.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:55:39 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> CMI - Creation Ministries International, is offshoot of AiG.

> They have a particularly annoying commenting policy. Anyone can comment
> on a recent article and there may or may not be a response and it may or
> may not be posted on their site.

The same is true of the anti-creationist, anti-ID "skepticblogs".
Their blogs are moderated, and for a while both John Harshman and I got
swimmingly past moderation, but then someone noticed that Harshman
had persisted in asking a question of Prothero because Prothero's
answer, though helpful in some ways, completely ignored the main
question of Harshman, and Harshman had kept persisting.

So all of Harshman's posts except that initial one and another where
he was completely supportive of Prothero and critical of me, were
deleted from the blog.

They have a policy of letting people off with an e-mail warning if they
are posting inappropriate material, but Harshman never got a warning
and yet was so thoroughly banned from that blog that he couldn't even
compose a reply to Prothero any more.

I got the same treatment, with this difference, that ALL my posts were
deleted (maybe 20 in all) so anyone reading the four (4) posts that are
still there, may wonder who on earth this "Peter Nyikos" could be, that
mysterious someone whom Harshman is accusing
of not having read Meyer's book [at that point--I've read lots of it
since then, and started talking about it already on Prothero's blog
soon thereafter].

I can't complain about that, though, because all my posts having anything
to do with Prothero were critical of him, so I can even tolerate having
the purely scientific posts by me being censored as well.

Harshman, on the other hand, was very supportive of Prothero in his replies
to me, yet those too were censored.

I have apparently been banned from every other "skepticblog" including those
of other article-posters, even if Prothero is not even participating on that
thread. Harshman hasn't tried to post to any of them when last I heard from
him about that, so I don't know whether this also applies to him.

Apparently, the more fanatical anti-ID types have just as much of
a siege mentality as the creationists.

>However, there is really is no good way
> of challenging their response. There is an automated email response to
> confirm the initial comment (with the contents of the comment included),
> then you might get another email if they post it or a response directly
> from the article author.

> In either case the email is sent from the
> 'nor...@creation.com' email address. The only official way to respond
> is to send in a second comment on the same article. Their policy is that
> only one comment per person per article however so no matter how
> unsatisfying their first response was the article page will never see a
> challenge to it.

Here, they are just copying what is absolutely standard procedure of
printed journals, newspapers, etc. So complaining about it isn't going
to get anyone anywhere.

What I love about Usenet is that we can not only go on trying to resolve
issues, but the format is ideal for getting at the truth, because
earlier comments are preserved in replies.

Some will try to get around this in talk.origins, etc. by deleting highly
relevant earlier text, and others will even ridicule people like me
who make new comments to much earlier comments that are still preserved,
but that's the price one pays for being a science-loving,
creationism-attacking BUT outspoken maverick like me.

> The above process makes sure they get the last word in, and makes it
> appear to the faithful that whatever they wrote was satisfactory.

I often have to let my attackers have the last word anyway, because
there are so many of them. You can see the process at work in a
thread I started nine days ago, The "birds are dinosaurs" issue.

> It wasn't always this bad but has gotten worse in the last couple of
> years. I finally got so annoyed that I started guessing the email
> addresses of the authors to respond directly. (In my first exchange a
> few years ago I got a response directly from the author - with a cc. to
> a few other CMI leaders - email addresses are usually easy to guess)
> Turns out they didn't like that so this is what I got today:

> "... we get a lot of requests for private dialogues/debates, but we do
> not think it wise to take time away from our public ministry to devote
> to this. So you are free to reply, but I don't plan to respond again.
> Some of my colleagues have already had discussions with you, and
> together we have decided that this will be our last correspondence."

I get that kind of response all the time, usually when a person
knows he hasn't got a leg to stand on, but he can get away with it
because he has faithfully played "see no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil" to the movers and shakers of this newsgroup.

> My experience with professional creationists is fairly consistent. If
> you challenge them beyond the simplistic answers they like to deliver
> they tend to run away fairly quickly. If anyone is interested in having
> a record of any of my exchanges I'll be happy to get them to you.

I would be interested to see whether they are as highly dishonest and
hypocritical as some of the people I deal with here on a daily basis.
So do please send me a good sample. You may either use the e-mail address
that I use here or the e-mail address listed below.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:

> Here is the page with the article and
> original exchange:

> http://creation.com/does-bible-trump-all-evidence

> Kurt Wise's position is very clear but Keaton can't seem to even
> understand it. Keaton is not a scientist but Wise is and this is a big
> part of the the problem. Wise is very different from most YEC. There are
> some very interesting articles in the RNCSE about Wise:

> http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1792

> http://ncse.com/rncse/18/3/1998-international-conference-creationism

> Most YEC attack evolution as a matter of course, Wise detests that
> strategy. He would rather spend his efforts on a comprehensive creation
> model - an impossible task but commendable goal for creationists. He is
> also convinced that the evidence for evolution is real and compelling -
> this is what drives his fellow creationists wild with rage.

This is confusing--how can he be a YEC and believe the evidence for
evolution is compelling?

By the way, Mark, I see you are not using your real e-mail address in
posting here. That's perfectly OK by me, and I want to reassure you
that anything you e-mail me, as well as your e-mail address, will
be held in strict confidence unless you give me permission to show it
to anyone else.

I have been an Army officer with Secret clearance, so I take confidentiality
very seriously indeed.
Also I am continually made aware of professional standards through
my position on the editorial board of a research journal
that observes the confidentiality of the identity of referees.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
>> Here is the page with the article and
>> original exchange:
>
>> http://creation.com/does-bible-trump-all-evidence
>
>> Kurt Wise's position is very clear but Keaton can't seem to even
>> understand it. Keaton is not a scientist but Wise is and this is a big
>> part of the the problem. Wise is very different from most YEC. There are
>> some very interesting articles in the RNCSE about Wise:
>
>> http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1792
>
>> http://ncse.com/rncse/18/3/1998-international-conference-creationism
>
>> Most YEC attack evolution as a matter of course, Wise detests that
>> strategy. He would rather spend his efforts on a comprehensive creation
>> model - an impossible task but commendable goal for creationists. He is
>> also convinced that the evidence for evolution is real and compelling -
>> this is what drives his fellow creationists wild with rage.
>
> This is confusing--how can he be a YEC and believe the evidence for
> evolution is compelling?

Todd Wood explains this rather well. (He's a YEC too, and a former
student of Wise.) He accepts that the bible is the word of god, to be
interpreted literally. Since the bible and nature, both being works of
god, can't contradict each other, any apparent contradiction must be due
to misunderstanding. And since the bible is (or so he believes) quite
clear on the age of the earth and separate creation of kinds, we must be
misunderstanding the physical evidence. He cannot, however, currently
figure out how. Currently, the evidence for evolution seems very good,
so just what's wrong with our understanding is a mystery to be explored.
Rejection of YEC is however not an option.

[Robert Carnegie]

Everybody knows that your secret is safe with me!

> By the way, [name], I see you are not using your real e-mail address in

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:50:34 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

It's not. This, however...

http://home.wanadoo.nl/fox-1/farside/bobbing.gif

;-)
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:18:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:50:34 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:09:46 -0600, Dana Tweedy
>><reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/15/14, 11:12 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>>>>> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.
>>>>
>>>> They can't speak, so who was he to talk sports with?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The snake, obviously.
>>
>>
>>As if bobbing for apples is a sport...
>
>It's not. This, however...
>
>http://home.wanadoo.nl/fox-1/farside/bobbing.gif
>
>;-)

There were no poodles in Eden. That breed didn't appear until after
the Devil took control of Earth.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:20:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>Everybody knows that your secret is safe with me!

And me!

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:25:19 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:18:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:50:34 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:09:46 -0600, Dana Tweedy
>>><reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 4/15/14, 11:12 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>>>>>> for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.
>>>>>
>>>>> They can't speak, so who was he to talk sports with?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The snake, obviously.
>>>
>>>
>>>As if bobbing for apples is a sport...
>>
>>It's not. This, however...
>>
>>http://home.wanadoo.nl/fox-1/farside/bobbing.gif
>>
>>;-)
>
>
>There were no poodles in Eden. That breed didn't appear until after
>the Devil took control of Earth.

Makes sense; just as Satan is reputed to be extremely
intelligent, so are poodles. So of course he'd want them
around.

[Melzzzzz]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:18:33 -0700

What about viruses and bacteria ? ;)


--
Click OK to continue...

[Dana Tweedy]

they are harder to walk on a leash, and never win "best in show" at
Westminster.

DJT

[Mark Buchanan]

When I first joined this NG I didn't use my full name because that was
what recommended - I did try to avoid the problems of being a newbie.
Most emails were hidden it seems.

For the record here is my email address marklynn...@gmail.com for
all to use and abuse. (Beware however as it is shared with my wife.) My
email is not visible for reasons I don't understand - it has been
visible in the past. Mysteries of Googleware! Currently I use
Thunderbird via Eternal September for posting.

Here is the rest of the exchange between Keaton and I:

< start >

- - - From me to Keaton April 11:

Dear Keaton,

Thank you very much for your response. You really got me interested in
Dr. Wise and I followed up with a little research. His wikipedia[HL]
page basically gives the same information that the CMI site does but
includes some links to some very interesting articles. The articles in
the RNCSE were particularly good.

Your response to me seemed to read to much into what Wise was thinking.
Wise has admitted that the evidence for evolution is extensive and
legitimate - see this[HL]. By evidence he is simply referring to
physical facts that evaluated properly infer evolution - it has nothing
to do with things like morality. He is also committed to the authority
of the bible because of his experience so it is unlikely the evidence is
about the bible.

I watched the video on your bio page. I would be interested in
discussing various topics as long as it can remain cordial (I've have
had some rather nasty experiences with some creationists).

- - - Keaton's response of April 15

Hi Mark,

I wasn't reading things into what Dr. Wise was saying, because my point
was that his statements were ambiguous. He may not have been making the
careful distinctions I tried to make in my response to your comment, but
that's why I said I don't know what he meant. Even if the reporting in
the source you linked to is 100% accurate, it's still not as clear cut
as you indicate. For example, the word "experience" is something you
added. But all this is fussing over a very minor point. In my article I
tried to focus on the issues, not personalities. Regardless of where Dr.
Wise stands, we at CMI do not advocate fideism.

Also, we get a lot of requests for private dialogues/debates, but we do

not think it wise to take time away from our public ministry to devote
to this. So you are free to reply, but I don't plan to respond again.
Some of my colleagues have already had discussions with you, and
together we have decided that this will be our last correspondence.

Anyway, there is a lot of material on our site you can read up on to
better understand our perspective, so I hope you will continue to do that.

Regards

< stop >

There are some inline hyperlinks that didn't come through with the copy
paste.

I am working on a response, this is what I have so far:

< start >

Dear Keaton,


Thank you for your last reply and that I could reply back one more time.
I do hope you read all of this email. It seems like there will only be
one more chance to be heard so it might get long.
Your latest response confused me but I agree that the specifics aren't
that important. After reading up on Kurt Wise more it's clear that he
has a different approach than most young earth creationists and
specifically to CMI.

Concerning the issue of dialogue between myself and CMI there are a few
points to consider:

The discussions I've had with CMI staff (and close associates) have been
very different over the years. One of the first ones was with J.
Sarfati, he replied to me directly from his own email account (and
copied Carl Wieland, Richard Fangrad, and Gary Bates) so it was simple
to guess your email address.

I admit that I might have stepped over some line or have been mildly
rude by emailing you directly, but it was out of some frustration with
the current CMI process that I did so. Here is my understanding of how
the feedback process works:

1 Readers are only allowed to post comments to recent articles (or
recently posted articles). An automated email is sent confirming
reception on the comment from the address no-r...@creation.com.
2 The comment may or may not be posted in the comments section of the
article with a possible response from CMI. There may be a response from
CMI staff without the comment being posted. In either case the commenter
gets an email from the address no-r...@creation.com.
3 The only way for a reader to follow up is to post another comment
on the article page. CMI policy does not allow one reader to have more
than one post / article.

The above process is cumbersome and frustrating for readers and tends to
stifle discussion. It also appears to me that it is misleading: the
general reader only sees the first response to any

< stop >

I would be grateful for any comments or suggestions both on the
correspondence and my next reply. There are more points I want to make
but am a bit busy this weekend.

Mark

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:23:21 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.invalid>:

Why should he even care, other than that they generate
earlier candidates for him? IIRC "Pestilence" is listed as
#2 in the Apocalypse Hit Parade. ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:28:19 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

But as someone once noted about mongrels, they tend to kill
the winners in a fair fight...

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:18:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The standard poodle is a wonder. Even the little ones are great if you
treat them like a dog rather than a baby.

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:39:30 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:48:14 -0700, Mike Painter
><md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:55:39 -0400, Mark Buchanan
>><marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>

>>>My experience with professional creationists is fairly consistent. If
>>>you challenge them beyond the simplistic answers they like to deliver
>>>they tend to run away fairly quickly. If anyone is interested in having
>>>a record of any of my exchanges I'll be happy to get them to you.
>>>

>>>Mark
>>
>>No need. By their own definition they do not practice science.
>>" By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field,
>>including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
>>scriptural record. "
>>http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
>>
>>So Eve was created after the animals and because Adam could not find a
>>help meet among them.
>>
>>This God seems to know less about sex than the priest who gave me my
>>sex ed class. (Women don't like sex...)
>
>

>You misunderstand. There was no death in Eden, so there was no need
>for procreative sex. The real problem was sheep can't cook.

I remember reading that in the Andes women had to travel with the men
who were using llamas as pack animals...
Your Mama is a llama has a nice ring.

Most creationists argue about their being no death before the fall but
they overlook what God said to the other Gods in Chapter three.
Had Eve been told about the other tree we might be piled seven deep by
now.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also
of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to
till the ground from whence he was taken.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:23:36 -0700, Mike Painter

LLama Mamas is an excellent name for an female Peruvian rock group.

>Most creationists argue about their being no death before the fall but
>they overlook what God said to the other Gods in Chapter three.
>Had Eve been told about the other tree we might be piled seven deep by
>now.
>
>3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
>know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also
>of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
>3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to
>till the ground from whence he was taken.

The Bible always said the Lord was a jealous god.

[Chris Thompson]

And poodle mixes, like all mutts, are even better.

Chris