How to write a letter-to-the-editor criticizing evolution
Frank J
Every sentence you could ever want has already been written for you
here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Just choose the ones you like best to keep the letter at a reasonable
length. Use your “creativity,” and a Thesaurus if necessary, to keep
from quoting the claims verbatim. Use the words “Darwinism” and
“Darwinist(s)” as frequently as possible.
Here’s an example I cobbled together in a few minutes:
(begin letter)
Darwinists want students to learn only Darwinism because it promotes
their immoral worldview. Just look at the crime rates since Darwinism
has been taught. No Darwin, no Hitler. Darwinists all defend
homosexuality. Fortunately there’s an alternative. The Santorum
Amendment is a Federal law that permits teaching alternatives.
Unfortunately Darwinists continue to censor alternatives, even though
hundreds of scientists are skeptical of Darwinism, and even though
it’s only a theory, not a fact.
We’re not asking that the Bible be taught, only that students learn
the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism, and see how it dogmatically
excludes all but naturalistic explanations. But even the simplest life
is profoundly complex, and cannot be explained naturalistically.
Experiments to create life have only produced toxic chemicals.
Mutations are all harmful and only produce changes within a kind.
Darwin himself said that the eye was too complex to have evolved.
Maybe that’s why he rejected his whole theory on his deathbed. He
would have rejected it even sooner had he known that radiocarbon
dating shows that the earth is only thousands of years old, and that
footprint fossils proved that humans and dinosaurs walked together.
Darwinism has more holes than swiss cheese. Darwinists even had to
fake their evidences with the Piltdown fossil. Haeckel faked his
embryo drawings and Kettlewell glued dead moths on tree trunks! The
fossils that Darwinists claim are intermediate are all fully human or
fully monkey. After 150 years of Darwinism no one has yet proved that
we come from monkeys. In fact they proved the opposite, that we were
intelligently designed. It’s only fair that students learn both sides.
(end letter)
OK, it’s pretty bad, but admit it, you have seen worse.
I saved the most important advice for last: Be very careful not to
acknowledge any of the refutations of your claims that are in the
above link. Just pretend that they don’t exist, and you’ll be fine.
Dakota
Had me going for a bit there. Bravo.
Ron O
I recall a serious essay by creationists talking about how to write a
letter to the editor in support of creationism. Did that ever make it
into the archives? It was put out by one of the creationist
organizations.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Loki for me. ;-)
If I were better with computers (hint hint to those who are) I would
have written a program to generate such letters automatically. A few
years ago I did write a simple Excel program that can generate over a
million (32^4) different statements against evolution. Here are 3
examples:
1. Macroevolution, or "goo to you by way of the zoo" is a secular
religion. Students must be taught about the Genesis Flood because they
deserve better than liberal propaganda.
2. Naturalistic Darwinism is a failed theory that scientists defend to
keep their jobs. Students must be taught alternate theories because
it's their inalienable right, bestowed by the Creator.
3. Materialistic Darwinism is a myth. Students must be taught the
Earth is less than 10000 years old because there is no separation of
church and state in the Constitution.
Frank J
Do you recall which "kind" of creationism it attempted to support? Did
it criticize any of the contradictory "kinds"? Or did it adhere to the
usual "pseudoscience code of silence"?
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
Richard Clayton
It occurs to me it wouldn't be hard to create a simple chatterbot-like
application to automatically write "letters to the editor" of this
nature. Might be handy if you wanted to bombard a forum with posts to
create a false impression of popular support... but of course we know
creationists are far too honest to use bots to try to control the
dialogue on a website.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Ron O
It was scientific creationism which was nearly all YEC at that time.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
So they must have devoted "equal time" to criticizing OEC, right?
Paul J Gans
>Ron Okimoto
Are we allowed to recycle their recyclings?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>If I were better with computers (hint hint to those who are) I would
>have written a program to generate such letters automatically. A few
>years ago I did write a simple Excel program that can generate over a
>million (32^4) different statements against evolution. Here are 3
>examples:
>1. Macroevolution, or "goo to you by way of the zoo" is a secular
>religion. Students must be taught about the Genesis Flood because they
>deserve better than liberal propaganda.
>2. Naturalistic Darwinism is a failed theory that scientists defend to
>keep their jobs. Students must be taught alternate theories because
>it's their inalienable right, bestowed by the Creator.
>3. Materialistic Darwinism is a myth. Students must be taught the
>Earth is less than 10000 years old because there is no separation of
>church and state in the Constitution.
You've got to stop this. Those are better arguments than
some I've seen from creationists!
Frank J
Apologies to the late Jimmy Durante, but I literally do got a million
of 'em (1,048,576 to be exact).
And yet I never read them all, even though I "designed" them all.
Kinda like how the "designer" "designed" the immune system, mix and
match and all.
David Hare-Scott
>
> If I were better with computers (hint hint to those who are) I would
> have written a program to generate such letters automatically. A few
> years ago I did write a simple Excel program that can generate over a
> million (32^4) different statements against evolution. Here are 3
> examples:
>
> 1. Macroevolution, or "goo to you by way of the zoo" is a secular
> religion. Students must be taught about the Genesis Flood because they
> deserve better than liberal propaganda.
>
> 2. Naturalistic Darwinism is a failed theory that scientists defend to
> keep their jobs. Students must be taught alternate theories because
> it's their inalienable right, bestowed by the Creator.
>
> 3. Materialistic Darwinism is a myth. Students must be taught the
> Earth is less than 10000 years old because there is no separation of
> church and state in the Constitution.
These trip off the tougue so smoothly I suspect that you have had practice.
Is your day job in politics or sales?
David
Steven L.
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:346824e6-7b02-4000...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> It's easier than ever!
>
> Every sentence you could ever want has already been written for you
> here:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
What about Nando's arguments??? They're not included!
1. "Every object has freedom"
2. "You should all be sent to gas chambers"
-- Steven L.
Walter Bushell
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:346824e6-7b02-4000...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > It's easier than ever!
> >
> > Every sentence you could ever want has already been written for you
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
>
> What about Nando's arguments??? They're not included!
>
> 1. "Every object has freedom"
But, my dog is not free to not have fleas.
>
> 2. "You should all be sent to gas chambers"
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
Cubist
> In article <Asudnf-k96MlHfXRnZ2dnUVZ_rGdn...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:346824e6-7b02-4000...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > It's easier than ever!
>
> > > Every sentence you could ever want has already been written for you
> > > here:
>
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> > What about Nando's arguments??? They're not included!
>
> > 1. "Every object has freedom"
>
> But, my dog is not free to not have fleas.
decision...
Nashton
This is great.
In the meantime, I believe that way too much time is spent on defending
the ToE by its proponents, who feel so insecure in their religion (it is
undeniable that there is an element of faith which increases the
intensity of the vicious attacks of atheist goon activists on religion),
that they spend countless hours trying to defend their precious beliefs.
Your complex/neurosis is showing.
Note that this is not a phenomenon observed in other scientific
disciplines, it only occurs in the sphere of the ToE where any goon who
is an atheist can repeat several mantras to discredit Christianity.
Just remember Piltdown Man to keep you well grounded.
Friar Broccoli
.
So because Piltdown was a fraud - the entire record of human fossils
is also a fraud? Have I got that right?
Nashton
.
>
>> Just remember Piltdown Man to keep you well grounded.
>
> So because Piltdown was a fraud - the entire record of human fossils
> is also a fraud? Have I got that right?
>
Just a public service to people who lurk and believe that everything
posted, cited or referenced pertaining to the ToE is the holy truth.
That's all.
Eric Root
>
> > Every sentence you could ever want has already been written for you
> > here:
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> > Just choose the ones you like best to keep the letter at a reasonable
> > from quoting the claims verbatim. Use the words �Darwinism� and
> > �Darwinist(s)� as frequently as possible.
>
> > Here�s an example I cobbled together in a few minutes:
>
> > (begin letter)
>
> > Darwinists want students to learn only Darwinism because it promotes
> > their immoral worldview. Just look at the crime rates since Darwinism
> > has been taught. No Darwin, no Hitler. Darwinists all defend
> > Amendment is a Federal law that permits teaching alternatives.
> > Unfortunately Darwinists continue to censor alternatives, even though
> > hundreds of scientists are skeptical of Darwinism, and even though
>
> > We�re not asking that the Bible be taught, only that students learn
> > the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism, and see how it dogmatically
> > excludes all but naturalistic explanations. But even the simplest life
> > is profoundly complex, and cannot be explained naturalistically.
> > Experiments to create life have only produced toxic chemicals.
> > Mutations are all harmful and only produce changes within a kind.
> > Darwin himself said that the eye was too complex to have evolved.
> > would have rejected it even sooner had he known that radiocarbon
> > dating shows that the earth is only thousands of years old, and that
> > footprint fossils proved that humans and dinosaurs walked together.
>
> > Darwinism has more holes than swiss cheese. Darwinists even had to
> > fake their evidences with the Piltdown fossil. Haeckel faked his
> > embryo drawings and Kettlewell glued dead moths on tree trunks! The
> > fossils that Darwinists claim are intermediate are all fully human or
> > fully monkey. After 150 years of Darwinism no one has yet proved that
> > we come from monkeys. In fact they proved the opposite, that we were
>
> > (end letter)
>
> > OK, it�s pretty bad, but admit it, you have seen worse.
>
> > I saved the most important advice for last: Be very careful not to
> > acknowledge any of the refutations of your claims that are in the
>
> This is great.
> In the meantime, I believe that way too much time is spent on defending
> the ToE by its proponents,
Too much, as in "out of proportion" to the amount of attacks it
undergoes compared to other sciences?
(snip)
> that they spend countless hours trying to defend their precious beliefs.
Sorry, scientists did not throw the first punch, it was the
fundamentalist subset of Christianity.
> Your complex/neurosis is showing.
Having a sense of justice is not a neurosis to normal people.
> Note that this is not a phenomenon observed in other scientific
> disciplines, it only occurs in the sphere of the ToE where any goon
-who hates science figures he can attack it with impunity.
(snip off-topic whine about atheism)
>
> Just remember Piltdown Man to keep you well grounded.
Just remember, o lurkers, that people that think Piltdown Man is some
kind of lick against science are neither intelligent or moral, and
pray that a child of yours never makes a mistake and marries one.
Eric Root
RAM
You are a fool.
What you really understand about science is very limited and yet you
persist in your religiously based compulsions in seeing evolution as
propaganda when it is really your religion.
Grow up.
RAM
No that isn't all. It is religious fanaticism that is the source of
such terms as atheist goon.
Particularly when atheism is orthogonal to the issues of science and
isn't manifested and support for science.
But you wouldn't understand that.
Frank J
Unfortunately for anti-evolution activists like you, people with a
truly open mind about evolution *don't* expect to find everything as a
"holy truth." They *expect* that some "Darwinists" will commit frauds,
and they expect that "Darwinists" - *not anti-evolution activists*
will uncover and correct the frauds. And they will find that the
evidence converges exactly where "Darwinists" say it does.
But when they see anti-evolution activists shamelessly pretend that
Piltdown is a significant part of the hominid fossil record - even if
it were legitimate it would be unnecessary given the many others -
they know that *they,* not "Darwinists," have something to hide - or
worse. And if they pay close enough attention, they will notice that
anti-evolution activists' "evidence" does not converge anywhere - even
with their massive manipulation of it.
So yes, do remember Piltdown. And if you must get it from a
"creationist" website, make sure it gives "equal time" to mainstream
science rebuttal. Better yet, just get all your anti-evolution sound
bites from the link in my original post:
Friar Broccoli
.
So what then is the correct way to interpret the human fossils that
are not frauds?
This one for example:
Bruce Stephens
> On 8/16/10 9:00 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
[...]
>> So because Piltdown was a fraud - the entire record of human fossils
>> is also a fraud? Have I got that right?
>
> Just a public service to people who lurk and believe that everything
> posted, cited or referenced pertaining to the ToE is the holy truth.
You know that nobody believes that, right?
bpuharic
>>
>
>This is great.
>In the meantime, I believe that way too much time is spent on defending
>the ToE by its proponents, who feel so insecure in their religion (it is
>undeniable that there is an element of faith which increases the
>intensity of the vicious attacks of atheist goon activists on religion),
>that they spend countless hours trying to defend their precious beliefs.
>Your complex/neurosis is showing.
the taliban is not limited to islam
christianity has its own taliban, who see everything through the lens
of religion
nashton is unable to fathom that his fanaticism is a worldviw based in
superstition and ignorance.
so he projects his religion based hatred on to science
no one 'defends' evolution. what we defend is religious freedom...the
freedom of people not to be indoctrinated with religious ignorance
like that believed by nashton.
christians and muslims who believe this nonsense bring give their
respective religions their disreputable images. they believe religion
should be forced on people
>Note that this is not a phenomenon observed in other scientific
>disciplines, it only occurs in the sphere of the ToE where any goon who
>is an atheist can repeat several mantras to discredit Christianity.
that's because other scientific disciplines are not under attack by
religious fanatics.
i'm a chemist. i dont care whether evolution is true or not. but i
know nasht and the other taliblans want to destroy science
>
>Just remember Piltdown Man to keep you well grounded.
gee. nasht has discovered there is fraud in science.
and religion? i suppose it never has fraud
just suicide bombers
>
bpuharic
more fanaticism.
>
>That's all.
Desertphile
Naw: I think your simulation is just like the real thing. You
could try sending it to WorldNutDaily and see what they do with
it. Or FOX "News."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
In the United States, most proponents of evolutionary theory are
Christians.