15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

13 views
Skip to first unread message

maff

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 2:15:50 PM6/17/02
to
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:11:43 PM6/17/02
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:15:50 -0600, maff wrote:

> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

Mentions to.org in its "other resources" link, too.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Lane Lewis

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:31:48 PM6/17/02
to

"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...

> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>

Seems the staff at Scientific American do not like the all the hoopla in
Ohio. I don't remember any ever seeing a magazine with such prestige use the
term "Creationist Nonsense". I hope the others speak up as well.

Lane

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 6:10:07 PM6/17/02
to
maff <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

Hey, talkorigins.org got a mention! "Wonderfully thorough," I like it. :)

--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"

http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 6:12:10 PM6/17/02
to
Lane Lewis <myn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dQqP8.32703$ks6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

Agreed. It's about time creationism started getting hauled out and knocked down
in the press like this. I think it may actually help the cause of science if
creationism becomes enough of a social phenomenon that it can't simply be
ignored any more - maybe it would galvanize people to actually do something
about it.

Robert Carroll

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 6:47:30 PM6/17/02
to

"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

Rennie's article was right on the button...Even better is the top of the
front cover (exactly as this header) Michael Shermer has had a monthly
column for some time now.


Bob
>


Zaph'enath

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 8:22:07 PM6/17/02
to
maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...

> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
actually good to see them unafraid for a change.

Cheers,

- Zaph'enath

{zaphenath(at)mirai(dot)cx}

Richard Uhrich

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:20:14 AM6/18/02
to
Robert Carroll wrote:

Shermer is the first part I read!

Yang

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 2:04:11 AM6/18/02
to


Actually, ever since Kansas the journal Science and SciAm and been
steadily rallying the scientists to make their voices heard in the
communities.


-----


Yang
a.a.#28
rev -273.15 high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
EAC mole and other furry creature


"We can support the troops without supporting the president."

-Trent Lott

maff

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 3:02:11 AM6/18/02
to
maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

A Total Eclipse of Reason
http://www.sciam.com/1999/1099issue/1099commentary.html

Speaking up for Science
http://www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199scicit1.html

Politicizing Science Education
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/gross.html

Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution In The States
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html

maff

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 6:51:20 AM6/18/02
to

cats...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 7:22:40 AM6/18/02
to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:04:11 +0000 (UTC), eac...@SPAMmail.com (Yang)
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:31:48 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
><myn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>

>Actually, ever since Kansas the journal Science and SciAm and been
>steadily rallying the scientists to make their voices heard in the
>communities.
>

>Yang

You'll have to excuse t.o.ers if we say "About f****ing time!!!"

Creationists have been gutting science textbooks for at least 3
decades through acquisition procedures in California and Texas which,
in turn, affect textbooks all across America because the publishers
don't want to create multiple editions different from those they sell
in the two largest states.

Since the defeat of the Arkansas and Louisiana "scientific
creationism" laws in the 80's, creationists have had a well documented
strategy of working to gain control of local community school boards
and at least water down the teaching of evolution (which you can bet
is *still* going on despite their setback at the state level in
Kansas).

The Discovery Institute formed its "Wedge Strategy", IIRC, in 1996 and
has been busy at it ever since.

And yet, throughout all that (and other examples not coming to mind at
the moment) "mainstream" scientific organizations, with a few notable
exceptions, such as the NCSE, have largely ignored this assault on
science education and treated t.o. as if it were a collection of Don
Quixotes tilting after creationist windmills (or so it seemed to us).
If Science and Scientific American are just entering the lists because
of the Kansas flap, they are damned late!

(Rats, how did that soapbox get in here?)

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

The political motivation behind the Wedge Strategy:

"Religion is the opiate of the masses . . .
and that is a _good_ thing."

-- Bobby Bryant --

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 3:53:52 PM6/18/02
to
<cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d0f185d...@news-server.optonline.net...

Hear, hear! It's about bloody time the real scientists came down out of their
ivory towers and started speaking up against this creationist foolery.

Jim H

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 10:03:09 PM6/18/02
to
j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...

Sorry, but the first response, the one on "fact and theory", was
terribly muddled. It utterly failed to make a clear distinction
between the fact of descent with modification and the neo-darwinist
theory that explains that fact. I groaned as I read it and I'm sure
we'll see passages quoted with glee in all the usual venues.

Jim Hofmann

Wayne Bagguley

unread,
Jun 19, 2002, 3:57:22 AM6/19/02
to
maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.02061...@posting.google.com>...

> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...

> A Total Eclipse of Reason

Those links don't work :(

-
Wayne

maff

unread,
Jun 19, 2002, 4:37:07 AM6/19/02
to

maff

unread,
Jun 19, 2002, 7:42:45 AM6/19/02
to

Roy Thearle

unread,
Jun 21, 2002, 5:46:39 AM6/21/02
to
"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

In the above link, is the sentence:

But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils
embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).

But in Jonathan Safarti's response at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
this is quoted as

But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils
embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).

What is happening? Did SciAm get it wrong in the original article and then
correct the on-line version (without marking the change)? Or has AiG
misquoted the article?

Whichever it is, the AiG article links to the on-line version which gives
the correct date. I've asked them to fix this.

Roy

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jun 21, 2002, 8:05:46 AM6/21/02
to
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:46:39 -0600, Roy Thearle wrote:

> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
>> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>
> In the above link, is the sentence:
>
> But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils
> embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
>
> But in Jonathan Safarti's response at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
> this is quoted as
>
> But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils
> embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
>
> What is happening? Did SciAm get it wrong in the original article and then
> correct the on-line version (without marking the change)? Or has AiG
> misquoted the article?

Yeah, I looked at the print article last night and it does say 65 MYA.

Surely just a thinko, though it's a shame the (other) editors
didn't catch it.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Roy Thearle

unread,
Jun 22, 2002, 11:56:25 AM6/22/02
to
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<aev4v9$htt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...

> > What is happening? Did SciAm get it wrong in the original article and then
> > correct the on-line version (without marking the change)? Or has AiG
> > misquoted the article?
>
> Yeah, I looked at the print article last night and it does say 65 MYA.
>
> Surely just a thinko, though it's a shame the (other) editors
> didn't catch it.

Thanks. I guess SciAm need to hire better proofreaders.

Roy

Al Klein

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 10:53:24 PM6/23/02
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:37:07 +0000 (UTC), maf...@yahoo.com (maff)
posted in alt.atheism:

>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.02061...@posting.google.com>...


>> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...

>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311

Old hat to most of us, but a nice read. The graph on the 3rd page
(page 81 in the print version) is scary.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 11:31:33 AM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:52:51 -0600, Barry OGrady wrote:

> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> just proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if
> evolution was proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly
> wrong it would not prove creation.

Yeah, and the funny thing is that while creationists see the theory
of evolution as The Big Threat, in actual fact geology had already
told us that literal interpretations of Genesis were incorrect well
before Darwin came up with his theory.

I.e., a six day creation, any sort of _recent_ creation, and a
global flood can all be refuted without reference to biology at
all, let alone to the ToE.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

TomS

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 11:36:08 AM8/13/02
to
"On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:52:51 +0000 (UTC), in article
<fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com>, Barry stated..."

>
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H) wrote:
>
>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>>news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>
>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>
>The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just proves
>that
>they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was proven beyond doubt to
>be completely and absurdly wrong it would not prove creation. Creation must
>stand
>on it's own two feet (or is that four feet? I guess it depends on how it
>evolved).
>Creationists seem determined to destroy the system that gives them the computers
>they misuse, and they want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.

While I agree with your intent, I would phrase it a little
bit differently. We have had creationists tell us that the
same evidence that is used for evolution is also evidence for
creation. That is because anything at all would be evidence,
in their minds, for creation: If the sky is blue, that is
evidence that it was created. If the sky is a nice cerise and
fuchsia paisley, that is because it was created.

The basic problem with creationism is that there is given
no definition or description of what creation might be: What
connection there is between the creator(s) (or designers) and
the things created; or: How we can tell the difference between
an act of creation and the normal workings of the natural world.

Tom S.

Reverend Lovejoy

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 11:57:09 AM8/13/02
to
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...

I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
that everthing around them was created for them.

--

"This so called new religion is nothing
but a pack of weird rituals and chants
designed to take away the money of
fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40
times, but first let's pass the collection
plate."
Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 12:13:57 PM8/13/02
to

"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...

> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
proves that
> they have no evidence for creation.

Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
origin of life.

Dunno

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 12:44:57 PM8/13/02
to


Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
Christians. Christians generally don't have a problem with
evolution. Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
True Christians.


(Headers trimmed to four groups)
.

TomS

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 12:54:11 PM8/13/02
to
"On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:31:33 +0000 (UTC), in article
<ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby stated..."

It didn't take geology to tell people that the six-day
creation couldn't be literally true. From earliest times,
people realized that there was something amiss about the
idea that the sun was put in the firmament to mark the
passage of days and nights ... but that before this was
done, there were three days and nights.

Tom S.

Packman

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 1:04:25 PM8/13/02
to

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 1:08:09 PM8/13/02
to

"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...

> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> Christians.

Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
beliefs are.

> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> evolution.

Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.


> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
> True Christians.

One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True Christian",
and as such you are unqualified to state what such people "really believe".

Denis Loubet

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 1:11:08 PM8/13/02
to

"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Evolutionists attack Christianity? Why didn't I get the memo?

--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Michael Painter

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 1:45:39 PM8/13/02
to

"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:cfb69.82741$Yd.37...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Which memo?
The one that said It's not necessary for evolutionists to attack
christianity, they do it better themselves or the one that warned against
Lani_girl.
The latter advised having a barf bag ready when you read her vile attacks.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 2:29:08 PM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:08:09 -0600, Lani girl <Š wrote:


> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what
> their actual beliefs are.

I see that you're "special" style of argument isn't reserved for
refutations of the theory of evolution.


>> Christians generally don't have a problem with evolution.
>
> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked
> with.

See above.


>> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't True Christians.
>
> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True
> Christian", and as such you are unqualified to state what such
> people "really believe".

If you're quite done, God would like to have his throne back now.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Joe Zawadowski

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 2:39:53 PM8/13/02
to
In article <I9a69.121673$8M1.25...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Reverend
Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:


>
> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
> that everthing around them was created for them.
>
> --

Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.

Joe Z. a.a#249

--
"Freedom begins between the ears."
Edward Abbey

"Which ever way your pleasure tends,
if you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind"
Hunter

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 2:45:09 PM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:29:08 -0600, Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

> I see that you're "special" style of argument

s/you're/your/, of course.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Dunno

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 3:12:48 PM8/13/02
to

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:

>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > Christians.
>
> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
> beliefs are.

Can't prove but I can ascertain. Many posters here have stated their
beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary when the
folks state their beliefs.

>
> > Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.

So I've never met or talked with Christians. Chez Watt? I live in the
Bible Belt. Are they all hiding from me?

>
>
> > Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
> > True Christians.
>
> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True Christian",
> and as such you are unqualified to state what such people "really believe".
>

I'm made aware of what Fundies believe on a regular basis. They
regularly attempt to impose what they "really believe" on the rest
of the populace.


.

R. 'Bob' Dean

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 4:15:58 PM8/13/02
to

Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:52:51 -0600, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> > just proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if
> > evolution was proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly
> > wrong it would not prove creation.
>
> Yeah, and the funny thing is that while creationists see the theory
> of evolution as The Big Threat, in actual fact geology had already
> told us that literal interpretations of Genesis were incorrect well
> before Darwin came up with his theory.
>
> I.e., a six day creation, any sort of _recent_ creation, and a
> global flood can all be refuted without reference to biology at
> all, let alone to the ToE.
>
I would question using the bible as a starting point for any attempt
to develop a theory of creation. Indeed I would challenge any attempt
which begins with *creationism* as an objective in mind. Indeed
this would render any *theory of creation* as non-scientific!

The Bible is not a scientific document, therefore, any attempt to
base a theory of origins upon the Bible is futile and pointless.
In the first place, the Bible was not written by men setting
on a rock take direct vocal dictation from God. So, I do not
take the Bible as the literal word of Godd. I believe the
writers of the Bible wrote as they received inspiration of the
spirit of God.
However, they were limited by the lack of experiences
prevailing at the period of history.

However, I believe there is direct evidence for creation
separate and independent of the Bible and thus God is inferred
from direct evidence. My conclusion for this is based upon
the discoveries made by astronomers and astrophysicist over
the past three decades.
For reasons not fully understood the Christian Churches have
not taken notice of these discoveries and have ignored them.
I suspect the reasons is because of the difficulity of conciliating
the caring, loving personal God Christians worship and the
remote, impersonaldispassionate super-intelligence implied by the
cosmic anthropic principle.

>
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
> >
>
>

Jacek Podkanski

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 4:20:23 PM8/13/02
to
Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H)
> wrote:
>

>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>> news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>
>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>

> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just

I believe in creation and do not spend much time atacking evolution. I'd
rather discuss facts of life.

> proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was
> proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly wrong it would not prove

> creation. Creation must stand on it's own two feet (or is that four feet?
> I guess it depends on how it evolved). Creationists seem determined to
> destroy the system that gives them the computers they misuse, and they

Your views are new to me. Why creationists would do it. Do you that
creationists believe that computers appeared as a result of some kind of
abiogenesis and evolved to present form?

> want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.

I think everybody should have chance to make their own mind instead being
indocrinated.
>
>
> -Barry
> ========
> Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
> Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
> Voicemail/fax number +14136227640

--
Jacek Podkanski

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 4:58:35 PM8/13/02
to

"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...

>
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> >
> > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > Christians.
> >
> > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> > beliefs are.
>
> Can't prove but I can ascertain.


Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
the Bible.

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 5:08:07 PM8/13/02
to
"Lani girl @att.net>" <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:nAe69.10958$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

But what has that to do with the composition of "evolution supporters" on
talk.origins, Lani girl?

< unmarked snip by Lani girl here - noted >

Frank J

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 5:59:07 PM8/13/02
to
"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
publications.

rossum

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 6:09:39 PM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
<"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>beliefs are.
>
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.

1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
evolution.

rossum

Jon Fleming

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 6:07:18 PM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
<"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>beliefs are.
>
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.

You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:

"Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
the origin of life"

Or do you really have data to back that up? If so, please trot it
out.

While you're at it, what's your support for your claim that "...given
random genetic mutation and given the time frame that the
Evolutionists claim for the "evolution" of Man from his supposed ape
ancestor, that sufficient mutations could not have occurred." (That's
a direct quote from you, in <http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z12232381>).

<snip>

Demosthenes

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 6:12:18 PM8/13/02
to

"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>

The fact is, as usual, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Evolutionary scientists spend their time searching for new evidence, or
teaching, inschools, about the evidence that exists.

One of the problems with the onslaught of the ignorance called creation is
that real scientists paid little attention to this fraud until creationists
spent more time thrying to force it into public schools.

Still, even now, the main defense against the ignorance of creationism has
been the legal system.

That's why the proponents of Intelligent Design are totally bypassing the
scientific establisment - sinc ethey have no evidence, they would only be
affective trying to sway public opinion and, by legislation catering to
public opinion, the law.


Forest Ghost

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:06:47 PM8/13/02
to

Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > Christians.
> > >
> > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > > beliefs are.
> >
> > Can't prove but I can ascertain.
>
> Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
> the Bible.

Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
the book of Genesis is true?
And regarding this foolishness that Christians can't believe in
evolution, you should consider that 53% of americans believe in
evolution, yet 83% are Christian. Hmmmm. Oh, wait, let me guess. They
lied on the census question about religion. No, wait, the evil atheists
who control our liberal government lied about the numbers. No, it was
the homosexuals! No, the U.N.! Bwahahahahahhahahahahah!!!!!! Here comes
the new world order!!!!
As always, I'm eager to see if you take option a: avoiding the issue or
option b: ignoring me.
-Forest Ghost

Thomas P.

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:38:16 PM8/13/02
to

I suspect it is because you are wrong. There is no scientific
discovery requiring in any manner the existence of a god.

>
>
>
> >
>> > Bobby Bryant
>> > Austin, Texas
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>

Thomas P.

"Men go and come, but earth abides."

Thomas P.

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:26:47 PM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC), fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
wrote:

One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman
Catholicism, does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is
where I was first told about the theory by a nun. I have known many
priests, brothers and nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything
negative about evolution. It was taken for granted as an established
scientific theory.

Dunno

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:38:18 PM8/13/02
to


On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:

>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > Christians.
> > >
> > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > > beliefs are.
> >

> > Can't prove but I can ascertain. <unsnip> Many posters here have

> > stated their beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary

> > when the folks state their beliefs. </unsnip>


>
>
> Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
> the Bible.
>


I really don't see the relevance of that comment to the point in
question unless you have some biblical material handy that supports
your assertion that evolutionists attack Christianity.

.

Dirk Murcray

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 7:38:24 PM8/13/02
to
"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Evolutionists refute creationist's distortions of evolution and attack
their baseless hypotheses. Individual evolutionists may attack
Christianity, but as it isn't a theory, evolutionists as a group do
not attack Christianity. The assertion is a common Tu Quoque ploy of
creationists.

Mark K. Bilbo

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:02:42 PM8/13/02
to

Looni claims to be RCC, by the way...

--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.

[Woden]

Mark K. Bilbo

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:11:20 PM8/13/02
to

I take that back. I saw something in the RC group where she said
"Orthodox."

Apparently she's not RCC...

R. 'Bob' Dean

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 8:45:47 PM8/13/02
to

Thomas P. <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote in message
news:3d59979b...@nyheder.get2net.dk...
How do you explain the strong anthropic principle? Do
you have an alternative explanation?

David Jensen

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:03:31 PM8/13/02
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:09:39 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in
<vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com>:


>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
><"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>>> Christians.
>>
>>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>>beliefs are.
>>
>>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>>> evolution.
>>
>>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
>1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
>evolution.

And we can add that most other Confessional Christians (if you don't
recite either the Apostles or Nicene Creed during Sunday Mass/Service,
you probably are not Confessional) have no problem with evolution,
either.

I'd be surprised if 10% of Christians were "scientific" Creationists.

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:48:03 PM8/13/02
to

"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:2002081319...@hushmail.com...


The other poster admitted he can't prove anything, but insisted he can
"ascertain" things.

I then replied that many of us also can't "prove" things to the satisfaction
of you Atheists, but we too can ascertain things by reading the Bible.

THAT is the relevence, Dunno.

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:48:01 PM8/13/02
to

"Demosthenes" <hon...@man.com> wrote in message
news:yFf69.121025$uj.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

>
> "Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> > > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
> > proves that
> > > they have no evidence for creation.
> >
> > Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> > Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> > origin of life.
>
> The fact is, as usual, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.


No less so than you, Demosthenes.

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:47:34 PM8/13/02
to

"Mark K. Bilbo" <n...@llow.ed> wrote in message
news:ulj860e...@corp.supernews.com...

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:26:47 -0700, Thomas P. wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC), fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:<ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >>> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> >>> > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> >>> > just
> >>> proves that
> >>> > they have no evidence for creation.
> >>>
> >>> Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> >>> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> >>> the origin of life.
> >>
> >>Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
> >>evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
> >>hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
> >>publications.
> >>
> >>
> > One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman Catholicism,
> > does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is where I was first
> > told about the theory by a nun. I have known many priests, brothers and
> > nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything negative about evolution.
> > It was taken for granted as an established scientific theory.
> >
>
> Looni claims to be RCC, by the way...


Nope, no more so than you do, Bilbo.

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:47:59 PM8/13/02
to

"Forest Ghost" <fores...@hatpap.com> wrote in message
news:3D59940C...@hatpap.com...

>
>
> Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > > Christians.
> > > >
> > > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> > actual
> > > > beliefs are.
> > >
> > > Can't prove but I can ascertain.
> >
> > Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by
reading
> > the Bible.
>
> Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
> feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
> the book of Genesis is true?


OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
age.

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:48:03 PM8/13/02
to

"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> >> Christians.
> >
> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> >beliefs are.
> >
> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
> 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.

Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?

> 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.

A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.

The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant third,
and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers,
and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
number of books in their "bible" to only 66.

> 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> evolution.

Except your Point Number 1 is false. Besides, you never talked with the
Pope about that, but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.

Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World of
Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".

Lani girl

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 9:48:02 PM8/13/02
to

"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:du0jlu8op9ofnp5q5...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> >> Christians.
> >
> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> >beliefs are.
> >
> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
> You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
>
> "Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> the origin of life"


Apparently it really bothered you that I took the corresponding statement,
made earlier by the Christian-hater, and simply turned it around on you
Atheists.

Good.

_AnonCoward

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 10:10:05 PM8/13/02
to
R. 'Bob' Dean:
: > >However, I believe there is direct evidence for creation

: > >separate and independent of the Bible and thus God is inferred
: > >from direct evidence. My conclusion for this is based upon
: > >the discoveries made by astronomers and astrophysicist over
: > >the past three decades.
: > >For reasons not fully understood the Christian Churches have
: > >not taken notice of these discoveries and have ignored them.
: > >I suspect the reasons is because of the difficulity of conciliating
: > >the caring, loving personal God Christians worship and the
: > >remote, impersonaldispassionate super-intelligence implied by the
: > >cosmic anthropic principle.
: >
: > I suspect it is because you are wrong. There is no scientific
: > discovery requiring in any manner the existence of a god.
: >
: How do you explain the strong anthropic principle? Do
: you have an alternative explanation?


Ralf:
It would help, of course, to define terms. What precisely do you mean by the
"strong anthropic principle"?


Ralf

David Jensen

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 10:01:10 PM8/13/02
to
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:47:59 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"Lani girl" <"©<:o(docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote in
<xPi69.11359$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:


>OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
>female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
>age.

Science doesn't observe anything about a creation.

David Sienkiewicz

unread,
Aug 13, 2002, 10:07:32 PM8/13/02