Dumb Creationist Sayings
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA
John Wilkins
<cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
|Which one takes the cake?
|
"You can't know because you weren't there."
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
newbie2
Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> Which one takes the cake?
>
>
newbie
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Charles Darwin
news:3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> Which one takes the cake?
Evolution is just a theory and a theory proves nothing.
Jowr
"God did it."
"Evolution is a crock."
Gyudon Z
All of society's problems can be blamed on evolution because it attempts to
disprove God.
Honus
>
> Which one takes the cake?
"I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat," or variations on that
theme.
I've also always been partial to "If we evolved from apes, how come
there are still apes?"
--
"It's too bad ignorance isn't painful."
Anonymous
gg...@my-deja.com
"Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> Which one takes the cake?
>
How about:
I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
You have to believe it before you can see it.
Men have one less rib than women.
The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
There are no transitional fossils.
That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
Evolutionists change their theory everytime they find new evidence.
God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
If evolution is true, why do they still call it a theory?
Yasu!
Greg Gay
A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Marc
another good one is:
Evolution must be false because I have never seen a fish give birth to a frog, chicken or other non fish animal. (by
some 15 year old Oklahoma boy)
Charles Darwin <anon...@bellsouth.net> schreef in berichtnieuws SmB85.7028$f11....@news3.atl...
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> > Which one takes the cake?
>
>
Pat James
(in message <225d4c60...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>):
> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>, "Dr. Rev
> Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> Which one takes the cake?
>>
> God Bless America!
1 what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
2 are you _sure_ that you're not Terry the Traitor?
3 I've been wondering where you where. Nice to have you back, without you
I've been forced to read Zoe and Jabs for amusement. Keep it up, boy.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
ZenIsWhen
>Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA wrote:
>>
>> Which one takes the cake?
*
*
*
*
*
****************************
pagano wrote:
Louann Miller
Honus wrote in message <3962EEED...@earthlink.net>...
>Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA wrote:
>>
>> Which one takes the cake?
>I've also always been partial to "If we evolved from apes, how come
>there are still apes?"
Drat you, you got to mine first.
Louann
howard hershey
>
> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > Which one takes the cake?
> >
>
> How about:
>
> I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>
> You have to believe it before you can see it.
>
> Men have one less rib than women.
>
> The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>
> There are no transitional fossils.
>
> That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>
> Evolutionists change their theory everytime they find new evidence.
>
> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>
> If evolution is true, why do they still call it a theory?
>
> Yasu!
> Greg Gay
>
> A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
> enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From just a few days ago:
> If evolution truly happens why haven't we found evidence of ancient
> humanoid or primate groups with antennae, or beaks, or tusks, or suction
> cups on digits, or trunk noses, or crab-like pincer claws, or sharp
> retractable claws, etc.?
The author of the above is not the ever-popular anonymous, but AVE.
hiero5ant
gg...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8jv6nv$1rc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> Which one takes the cake?
>>
>My favorite is "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
>
>How about:
>
>I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>
>You have to believe it before you can see it.
>
>Men have one less rib than women.
>
>The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>
>There are no transitional fossils.
>
>That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>
>Evolutionists change their theory everytime they find new evidence.
>
>God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>
>If evolution is true, why do they still call it a theory?
From :"The Banana: the Atheist's Nightmare" (i shit you not):
"the banana a) has a biodegradable wrapper, b) is delicious, c) is curved
towards the mouth for easy consumption, and d) has a pointed tip for ease of
entry. yet evolution says that this all came about by random chance."
>Yasu!
>Greg Gay
>
>A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
>enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
funny. my friend claims to have attended a high school in alabama which
adopted a requirement that all students learn at least one foreign language.
an irate mother is reported to have called the principle and said, "if
english was good enough for jesus, it's good enough for my daughter".
perhaps both of us are the victims of an evolving urban myth?
tweedyd
<gg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jv6nv$1rc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > Which one takes the cake?
> >
> My favorite is "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
>
> How about:
>
> I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>
> You have to believe it before you can see it.
>
> Men have one less rib than women.
>
> The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>
> There are no transitional fossils.
>
> That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
I liked the guy who referred to it as MIRCO-evolution and MARCO-evolution.
--
Dana J. Tweedy
superstitione tollenda religio non tollitur
Mitchell Coffey
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> > "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > > Which one takes the cake?
> From just a few days ago:
>
> > If evolution truly happens why haven't we found evidence of ancient
> > humanoid or primate groups with antennae, or beaks, or tusks, or
> > suction cups on digits, or trunk noses, or crab-like pincer claws,
> > or sharp retractable claws, etc.?
>
> The author of the above is not the ever-popular anonymous, but AVE.
This is one of an entire class of dumb creationist quotes, beginning
"If evolution truly happens, why haven't ...", followed by a set of
conditions that, if they _had_ happened, would tend to disprove
evolution.
Mitchell Coffey
_________________________________________
"Buccaneers must expect to rough it."
- Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury
Ferrous Patella
>
>In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> Which one takes the cake?
>>
>Yasu!
>Greg Gay
>
>A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
>enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>
>
We really had a school board member say that here in WA. Very scary!
Ferrous Patella
All unique spellings and mis-information (c)MM
Mitchell Coffey
"Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> Which one takes the cake?
"In the beginning, God created ..."
Honus
> >>
> >> Which one takes the cake?
>
> >there are still apes?"
>
> Drat you, you got to mine first.
<g> I should have been less greedy, and just stuck to one creationist
"line". I'm sure you'll find another one, though...they're not like
hen's teeth. ;)
Personally, I'll be really happy if I hear one that I haven't heard
before.
rich hammett
> From :"The Banana: the Atheist's Nightmare" (i shit you not):
> "the banana a) has a biodegradable wrapper, b) is delicious, c) is curved
> towards the mouth for easy consumption, and d) has a pointed tip for ease of
> entry. yet evolution says that this all came about by random chance."
I don't know if this is what you were talking about, but
http://janne.isomaki.net/bang.shtml
includes the "Banana: the Atheist's Nightmare" as part of the atheist test.
It's worth a shudder or two.
rich
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
newbie2
<01HW.B58892B40...@enews.newsguy.com>, Pat James
<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 0:17:13 -0500, newbie2 wrote
> (in message
> <225d4c60...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>):
> > In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> > Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> >> Which one takes the cake?
> >>
> 1 what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
day, jerk. If you forgot about your at hand subject long
enough you may have understood what the words could
mean.This is, of course, typical of evolutionists.
> 2 are you _sure_ that you're not Terry the Traitor?
> 3 I've been wondering where you where. Nice to have
> you back, without you
> I've been forced to read Zoe and Jabs for amusement.
> Keep it up, boy.
>
glad to amuse you, jerk.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article
:<01HW.B58892B40...@enews.newsguy.com>, Pat James
:<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 0:17:13 -0500, newbie2 wrote
:> (in message
:> <225d4c60...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>):
:> > In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
:> "Dr. Rev
:> > Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
:> >> Which one takes the cake?
:> >>
:> > God Bless America!
:> 1 what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
:Don't disgust me with your personal habits so early in the
:day, jerk. If you forgot about your at hand subject long
:enough you may have understood what the words could
:mean.This is, of course, typical of evolutionists.
Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God Bless America!" a
dumb creationist saying?
[snip]
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Louann Miller
Adam Noel Harris wrote in message ...
>Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God Bless America!"
a
>dumb creationist saying?
Cultural slam, because creationism is being equated with people who
say "my country right or wrong" and then don't finish the sentence.
Louann
(no. Somebody else here surely knows it too.)
R Bishop
>gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> > Which one takes the cake?
>> >
>> My favorite is "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>>
>> You have to believe it before you can see it.
>>
>> Men have one less rib than women.
>>
>> The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>>
>> There are no transitional fossils.
>>
>> That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>>
>> Evolutionists change their theory everytime they find new evidence.
>>
>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>
>> If evolution is true, why do they still call it a theory?
>>
>> Yasu!
>> Greg Gay
>>
>> A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
>> enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>From just a few days ago:
>
>> If evolution truly happens why haven't we found evidence of ancient
>> humanoid or primate groups with antennae, or beaks, or tusks, or suction
>> cups on digits, or trunk noses, or crab-like pincer claws, or sharp
>> retractable claws, etc.?
>
>The author of the above is not the ever-popular anonymous, but AVE.
>
Yeah, but remember, we don't know what AVE looks like.....
Sue, with thoughts of tusks and/or a really ugly beak....
"Never trust anything that thinks for itself,
if you can't see where it keeps its brain."
J K Rowlings
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Which one takes the cake?
Creationism is science, and should be taught in a science class room.
Mark
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://raytracer.org
newbie2
ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God
> Bless America!" a dumb creationist saying?
>
who accept evolution are not necessarily evolutionists.
>
A connection could be made as a result of some of the
attitudes on t.o. towards 'creationists' that all
creationists are believed to be dumb. Certainly when faced
with constant grammar and spelling corrections, reminders of
faulty logic and comprehension skills, etc., a person who
fits the evolutionists definition of creationist would have
some cause to believe the evolutionist's feeling is genuine.
>
Since 'creationist' can not be categorized by using the word
itself into more specific a definition than simple belief in
God as creator, then the 'dumb creationist' saying that
"takes the cake" in my opinion is God Bless America.
The expression 'takes the cake' is usually derogatory, but
not always. The one who wins also takes the cake.
>
And when relating a concept to an evolutionist(I leave that
one up to your interpretation) I switched the common usage
of the phrase takes the cake to push my point. I think that
we all have much to thank dumb creationists for.
>
I'm personally interested in the motive for your question.
Was it because I used the word evolutionist, or because of
the way I responded to Pat James, or because you did not see
that "dumb creationist sayings" could be taken two different
ways. Yesterday was the 4th of July.
>
newbie
tweedyd
newbie2 <sheldon...@phnx.uswest.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:1cca3b29...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com...
> In article
> <01HW.B58892B40...@enews.newsguy.com>, Pat James
> <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 0:17:13 -0500, newbie2 wrote
> > (in message
> > <225d4c60...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>):
> > > In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> > > Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > >> Which one takes the cake?
> > >>
> > 1 what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
> Don't disgust me with your personal habits so early in the
> day, jerk. If you forgot about your at hand subject long
> enough you may have understood what the words could
> mean.This is, of course, typical of evolutionists.
Ah newbie ol' chum, the heading is "Dumb Creationists Sayings". Are you
saying that "God Bless America" is dumb? Are you saying that only
Creationists are patriotic?
> > 2 are you _sure_ that you're not Terry the Traitor?
> Are you sure you are not Bozo the clown?
It's unlikely that newbie is Terry, as Terry was much more arrogant, self
righteous. As for newbie being Bozo the Clown, that's unlikely either,
because Bozo is much more intellegent.
> > 3 I've been wondering where you where. Nice to have
> > you back, without you
> > I've been forced to read Zoe and Jabs for amusement.
> > Keep it up, boy.
> >
> And you couldn't run to Tweedyd for a Pat on the head. So
> glad to amuse you, jerk.
Oh look Pat, I have a stalker too!!
Pat James doesn't need a pat on the head from me. Why do you think he does?
Hint, you amuse people like Pat because you haven't got a clue, and you
stumble around like a blindfolded boxer. Open your eyes, look around, and
find out about what you are attacking. You might even learn something.
Point of fact, I don't find you amusing, I find you pitiful.
tweedyd
Creationist has ever said. I say Contest Over, newbie has won.
newbie2 <sheldon...@phnx.uswest.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:089f08e0...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
Pat James
(in message <1cca3b29...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com>):
> In article
> <01HW.B58892B40...@enews.newsguy.com>, Pat James
> <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 0:17:13 -0500, newbie2 wrote
>> (in message
>> <225d4c60...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>):
>>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>> "Dr. Rev
>>> Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>>>> Which one takes the cake?
>>>>
>>> God Bless America!
>> 1 what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
> Don't disgust me with your personal habits so early
'personal habits'? And it's hardly early; my post went in at 07:23, and your
reply at 15:41. Seven twenty-three ain't early in the morning, and three
forty-one PM ain't in the morning. You appear to be more confused than
normal. Assuming, that is, that the word 'normal' applies to you in any way,
shape, or form.
> in the
> day, jerk. If you forgot about your at hand subject long
> enough you may have understood what the words could
> mean.This is, of course, typical of evolutionists.
Pray exlain yourself further, newbie.
>> 2 are you _sure_ that you're not Terry the Traitor?
> Are you sure you are not Bozo the clown?
>> 3 I've been wondering where you where. Nice to have
>> you back, without you
>> I've been forced to read Zoe and Jabs for amusement.
>> Keep it up, boy.
>>
> And you couldn't run to Tweedyd for a Pat on the head.
you got it bad, don't you?
> So
> glad to amuse you, jerk.
You did it again. Great stuff.
Pat James
(in message <8k0ag2$7v2$1...@hermes.seas.smu.edu>):
>
> Adam Noel Harris wrote in message ...
>
>> Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God Bless America!"
> a
>> dumb creationist saying?
>
>
> Cultural slam, because creationism is being equated with people who
> say "my country right or wrong" and then don't finish the sentence.
Hmm... not being a Merkin, I simply didn't think of that.
Nell P. Wright
<bis...@ix.netcom.com@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <396342...@indiana.edu>,
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>>> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>>> > Which one takes the cake?
>>> >
Y'know, I wouldn't *mind* having sharp, retractable claws...
Nell P. Wright
Bigdakine
>From: Honus hon...@earthlink.net
>Date: 7/4/00 10:15 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3962EEED...@earthlink.net>
>
>Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA wrote:
>>
>> Which one takes the cake?
>
>
>theme.
>
>there are still apes?"
A few ago some guy wrote he wouldn't believe in evolution unless someone could
make a chicken from scrambled eggs.
>
TO which a witty t.o regular retorted," Thats easy.. feed the scrambled eggs to
a chick.."
STuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Bigdakine
>Date: 7/5/00 11:51 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <8k0alf$17l$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>In article <396342...@indiana.edu>,
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>>> > Which one takes the cake?
>>> >
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>>>
>>> You have to believe it before you can see it.
>>>
>>> Men have one less rib than women.
>>>
>>> The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>>>
>>> There are no transitional fossils.
>>>
>>> That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>>>
>>> Evolutionists change their theory everytime they find new evidence.
>>>
>>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>>
>>> If evolution is true, why do they still call it a theory?
>>>
>>> Yasu!
>>> Greg Gay
>>>
>>> A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
>>> enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>>>
>>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>> Before you buy.
>>
>>From just a few days ago:
>>
>>> If evolution truly happens why haven't we found evidence of ancient
>>> humanoid or primate groups with antennae, or beaks, or tusks, or suction
>>> cups on digits, or trunk noses, or crab-like pincer claws, or sharp
>>> retractable claws, etc.?
>>
>>The author of the above is not the ever-popular anonymous, but AVE.
>>
>
> Yeah, but remember, we don't know what AVE looks like.....
>
Stuart
Noelie S. Alito
Nell P. Wright <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:f9m7msk6ufnk1jptu...@4ax.com...
> > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> >>> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> >>> > Which one takes the cake
> >>
> >>
> >>> If evolution truly happens why haven't we found evidence of ancient
> >>> humanoid or primate groups with antennae, or beaks, or tusks, or
suction
> >>> cups on digits, or trunk noses, or crab-like pincer claws, or sharp
> >>> retractable claws, etc.?
> >>
> >>The author of the above is not the ever-popular anonymous, but AVE.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, but remember, we don't know what AVE looks like.....
> >
> >
>
> Y'know, I wouldn't *mind* having sharp, retractable claws...
>
> Nell P. Wright
Duly noted: Wright, N.P.; razorgirl wannabe; black leather optional
Back on topic: On one of the recent megathreads, the creationist
(newbie?) at one point got around to complaining that SCIENTISTS
CHANGE THEORIES TO FIT DATA. Scientists just don't play
fair, you know?
Noelie
---
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
--Willy Wonka
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 0:17:13 -0500, newbie2 wrote
> (in message
> <225d4c60...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>):
>> > In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>> "Dr. Rev
>> > Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> >> Which one takes the cake?
>> >>
>> > God Bless America!
G'Day Newbie, seeing as you are back posting, perhaps you now have
time to deal with the innacuracies in you peppered moth postings that
I pointed out.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Adam Noel Harris
:On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:48:50 -0500, Louann Miller wrote
:(in message <8k0ag2$7v2$1...@hermes.seas.smu.edu>):
:
:>
:> Adam Noel Harris wrote in message ...
:>
:>> Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God Bless America!"
:> a
:>> dumb creationist saying?
:>
:>
:> Cultural slam, because creationism is being equated with people who
:> say "my country right or wrong" and then don't finish the sentence.
:
:Hmm... not being a Merkin, I simply didn't think of that.
I didn't understand what Louann wrote either. Perhaps with the three of
you (Splifford, Louann, and newbie) working on it, you'll get me to
understand the joke.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <slrn8m79ok...@elaine41.Stanford.EDU>,
:ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
:>
:[snip]
:> Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God
:> Bless America!" a dumb creationist saying?
:>
:who accept evolution are not necessarily evolutionists.
Restoring what you wrote in the [snip] above:
:>:Don't disgust me with your personal habits so early in the
:>:day, jerk. If you forgot about your at hand subject long
:>:enough you may have understood what the words could
:>:mean.This is, of course, typical of evolutionists.
I didn't understand why "God Bless America!" would be a dumb creationist
saying. So I figured I might be a typical evolutionist because that's
behavior you ascribe to them.
:A connection could be made as a result of some of the
:attitudes on t.o. towards 'creationists' that all
:creationists are believed to be dumb. Certainly when faced
:with constant grammar and spelling corrections, reminders of
:faulty logic and comprehension skills, etc., a person who
:fits the evolutionists definition of creationist would have
:some cause to believe the evolutionist's feeling is genuine.
:Since 'creationist' can not be categorized by using the word
:itself into more specific a definition than simple belief in
:God as creator,
When used by itself on this newsgroup, creationist usually means Young
Earth Creationist. However, it is best to ask the person using it if it
is not apparent from context.
:then the 'dumb creationist' saying that
:"takes the cake" in my opinion is God Bless America.
Yes, so you say. I am asking why.
:The expression 'takes the cake' is usually derogatory, but
:not always. The one who wins also takes the cake.
Why does that make it a dumb creationist saying?
:And when relating a concept to an evolutionist(I leave that
:one up to your interpretation) I switched the common usage
:of the phrase takes the cake to push my point. I think that
:we all have much to thank dumb creationists for.
How about explaining why it's a dumb creationist saying without switching
meanings and introducing more confusion. Keep it simple for me.
:I'm personally interested in the motive for your question.
:Was it because I used the word evolutionist, or because of
:the way I responded to Pat James, or because you did not see
:that "dumb creationist sayings" could be taken two different
:ways. Yesterday was the 4th of July.
I know what the date was. I can see that it could be taken "dumb
creationist" sayings or "dumb sayings" by creationists. But I still don't
see how "God Bless America!" is either dumb or something more likely to be
said by a dumb person.
My motive was to figure out what the joke was.
gg...@my-deja.com
newbie2 <sheldon...@phnx.uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
<SNIP>
> A connection could be made as a result of some of the
> attitudes on t.o. towards 'creationists' that all
> creationists are believed to be dumb. Certainly when faced
> with constant grammar and spelling corrections, reminders of
> faulty logic and comprehension skills, etc., a person who
> fits the evolutionists definition of creationist would have
> some cause to believe the evolutionist's feeling is genuine.
> >
> Since 'creationist' can not be categorized by using the word
> itself into more specific a definition than simple belief in
> God as creator, then the 'dumb creationist' saying that
> "takes the cake" in my opinion is God Bless America.
> The expression 'takes the cake' is usually derogatory, but
> not always. The one who wins also takes the cake.
Did you take "Dumb" as a modifier for "Creationist"?
I took the phrase to mean "dumb sayings used repeatedly by
Creationists." That phrase is awkward while "Dumb Creationist Sayings"
has a better flow and economy of words with just a taste of delicious
ambiguity. Most of the respondents seem to have taken it that way as
well as the phrases given lack the characteristic grammar, spelling,
and capitalization errors.
I have another one:
If scientists create life in the laboratory, that only proves it takes
intelligence to create life.
Yasu!
Greg Gay
If I can make ice in my freezer, that proves it takes intelligence to
make ice which means some jerk goes around icing up my driveway.
> ><SNIP>
Pat James
(in message <8k0jdm$1gglc$1...@ID-35161.news.cis.dfn.de>):
> Everyone, I think this posting takes the cake for the Dumbest thing a
> Creationist has ever said. I say Contest Over, newbie has won.
I don't know, Boatwright or Karl might be able to beat this if they try. brze
could probably at least equal it. Suzy and Zoe stand a _good_ chance of
equaling it.
>
>
> newbie2 <sheldon...@phnx.uswest.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:089f08e0...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
>> In article <slrn8m79ok...@elaine41.Stanford.EDU>,
>> ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Perhaps I too am a typical evolutionist. Why is "God
>>> Bless America!" a dumb creationist saying?
>>>
>> You are what you know yourself to be. Scientists and people
>> who accept evolution are not necessarily evolutionists.
They're not?! Hmm. Do tell, newbie.
>>>
>> A connection could be made as a result of some of the
>> attitudes on t.o. towards 'creationists' that all
>> creationists are believed to be dumb.
Not all of you. Semismartguy and a few others show actual signs of
intelligence. You, newbie, specifically and unfortunately, are not a member
of that group.
>> Certainly when faced
>> with constant grammar and spelling corrections, reminders of
>> faulty logic and comprehension skills, etc., a person who
>> fits the evolutionists definition of creationist would have
>> some cause to believe the evolutionist's feeling is genuine.
The solution to that might be to improve those skills. I supposed that
thinking that way is evilutionist thinking, too. And, if you improve your
logic and reading comprehension, you might discover that creationism is
bunk... and then you'd no longer be a creationist. Which, I suspect, is the
reason mhy many creationists do _not_ try to improve their skills. (Yes,
newbie, I'm thinking of _you_.)
>>>
>> Since 'creationist' can not be categorized by using the word
>> itself into more specific a definition than simple belief in
>> God as creator,
That's not the definition, boyo.
>> then the 'dumb creationist' saying that
>> "takes the cake" in my opinion is God Bless America.
I still don't see how that follows. I really don't. Merkins, help me out
here. Is newbie just being a complete and utter twit, or am I missing
something that only a citizen of the Home of the Fee can get?
>> The expression 'takes the cake' is usually derogatory, but
>> not always. The one who wins also takes the cake.
>>>
>> And when relating a concept to an evolutionist(I leave that
>> one up to your interpretation) I switched the common usage
>> of the phrase takes the cake to push my point. I think that
>> we all have much to thank dumb creationists for.
Is it just me, or does the above paragraph make even less sense than normal
for a newbie post?
>>>
>> I'm personally interested in the motive for your question.
>> Was it because I used the word evolutionist, or because of
>> the way I responded to Pat James, or because you did not see
>> that "dumb creationist sayings" could be taken two different
>> ways. Yesterday was the 4th of July.
And what does that have to do with anything?
Pat James
(in message <8k0j8u$1hvt2$1...@ID-35161.news.cis.dfn.de>):
>> And you couldn't run to Tweedyd for a Pat on the head. So
>> glad to amuse you, jerk.
>
> Oh look Pat, I have a stalker too!!
>
He's _MINE_. Go find your own. Gans has two or three, maybe he'll share one
wiht you.
gg...@my-deja.com
"Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> Which one takes the cake?
>
(This ignores the Hebrew word for "God" which is plural. Also as if the
verse about a day being like a thousand years to God isn't clearly a 24
hour day in the context, no matter how flexible the original language
was in that case.)
Evolutionists use fossil evidence to calibrate the radiometric clocks
and radiometric clocks to date fossils. That's circular reasoning.
T. rex was a vegetarian.
The behemoth in Job is a dinosaur.
Geological strata were laid down by the Flood.
The more intelligent species escaped to higher ground so they are found
higher in geological column.
Yasu!
Greg Gay
Never surprise a cow from behind.
catshark
gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > Which one takes the cake?
> >
>
> How about:
>
> I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>
> You have to believe it before you can see it.
>
> Men have one less rib than women.
>
> The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>
> There are no transitional fossils.
>
> That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>
> Evolutionists change their theory everytime they find new evidence.
>
> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>
> If evolution is true, why do they still call it a theory?
>
> Yasu!
> Greg Gay
>
> A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
> enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>
>
This one has always been my favorite. It is from Henry Morris' "The
Troubled Waters of Evolution" (though I got it from a secondary source
because I've never been in a library that had the book and I wouldn't
pay for it):
Beneath a frontpiece showing a waterfall for a chapter entitled "Can
Water Run Uphill", he states: "The fact is, the most certain laws of
science state that the real processes of nature do not make things go
uphill, but downhill. Evolution is impossible!"
Well, DUH! Just how does that water keep getting up there *above* that
waterfall, Hank? And this from someone whose supposed
scientific "credentials" are as a hydraulic engineer!
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Ed. Stoebenau
<cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>Which one takes the cake?
Try anything in Randy Wysong's _The Creation-Evolution Controversy_.
Just plain hilarious. I recall (among other claims) something about
him asking for early humans without arms, which he claims must have
existed if evolution were true.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Stephen F. Schaffner
Adam Noel Harris <ad...@stanford.edu.XX> wrote:
>Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>:On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:48:50 -0500, Louann Miller wrote
>:(in message <8k0ag2$7v2$1...@hermes.seas.smu.edu>):
>:
>:>
>:> Adam Noel Harris wrote in message ...
>:>
>:> a
>:>> dumb creationist saying?
>:>
>:>
>:> Cultural slam, because creationism is being equated with people who
>:> say "my country right or wrong" and then don't finish the sentence.
>:
>:Hmm... not being a Merkin, I simply didn't think of that.
>
>I didn't understand what Louann wrote either. Perhaps with the three of
>you (Splifford, Louann, and newbie) working on it, you'll get me to
>understand the joke.
When you figure it out, forward me a clue.
-------
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:21:24 -0500, tweedyd wrote
> (in message <8k0jdm$1gglc$1...@ID-35161.news.cis.dfn.de>):
>
> > Everyone, I think this posting takes the cake for the Dumbest thing a
> > Creationist has ever said. I say Contest Over, newbie has won.
>
> I don't know, Boatwright or Karl might be able to beat this if they try. brze
> could probably at least equal it. Suzy and Zoe stand a _good_ chance of
> equaling it.
Karl Crawford? How in Darwin's name could I have forgetten the Karlpecker?
Martin Crisp
"Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> Which one takes the cake?
There is evidence of a global flood.
For the koalas on the ark dried leaves, eucalyptus oil or a couple of
eucalypt seedlings were all that was needed.
Before the fall there was no death.
Before the fall there were no carnivores. (a corollary of previous I guess)
Adam and Eve should have known that eating the 'apple' was wrong.
Have Fun
Martin
Tim
Bible says so and and any evidence that conflicts with it is false and
evolutionists are narrow minded and creationists are objective and the voice
of scientific reason"
"tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:8jvk38$1ba22$1...@ID-35161.news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> <gg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jv6nv$1rc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> > "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > > Which one takes the cake?
> > >
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
> >
> > You have to believe it before you can see it.
> >
> > Men have one less rib than women.
> >
> > The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
> >
> > There are no transitional fossils.
> >
> > That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>
MARCO-evolution.
hiero5ant
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA wrote in message
<3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>...
>Which one takes the cake?
"the bible never says that the earth is flat!!!"
also, in general, any sentence uttered in defense of the image of
millions of marine organisms frantically swimming uphill to avoid the rising
floodwaters.
LcdrD
>>Yasu!
>>Greg Gay
>>
>>A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
>>enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>
>
>adopted a requirement that all students learn at least one foreign language.
>an irate mother is reported to have called the principle and said, "if
>english was good enough for jesus, it's good enough for my daughter".
>perhaps both of us are the victims of an evolving urban myth?
>
>
>
>
It's not exactly an urban myth. Sometime in the 80's a Texas politician,
arguing against bilingual education in the schools and trying to get English
designated the official language of Texas did say that if English was good
enough for Jesus (he might have said "the Bible) then it was good enough for
Texas School Children. The true story has now generated other versions that
are good, but the truth is always the wierdest.
My favorite Creationist Quote:
Plants are not alive. They do not have an animated force. (???) This means
that all of those observed instances of speciation in plants are irrelevant to
the issue of evolution.
LcdrD
Rey of SynchroniCity
Q. What do you think of Ecclesiastics 3:18
A (creationist) I have a problem with that.
Q. How many hours in a DAY when the LORD created both the heavens and
the earth?
A. 48 hours, it was 2 days.
Q. How many hours in a DAY when the LORD created both the heavens
and the earth in GENESIS 2 (KJV)?
A. 24 hours, or hmm, I think we need to get rid of the KJV and
come out with a modern translation.
Q. Is man or God the center of interpretation.
A. We declare that man is the center of interpretation.
Q. How often does the light from the sun go off and on?
A. Every 24 hours.
Sincerely,
RE
In article <3963AFE7...@pixar.com>,
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" wrote:
> >
> > Which one takes the cake?
>
> Creationism is science, and should be taught in a science class room.
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information
(and more)
> Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://raytracer.org
>
>
--
"Noos is a thinKING PLANiT"
mel turner
Spam....@tesseract.com.au wrote...
[snip]
>Before the fall there was no death.
>Before the fall there were no carnivores. (a corollary of previous I
>guess)
I liked how some [e.g., Karl] would make the above claims and then
turn around and argue that various specialized features of predators
[e.g., woodpecker beaks, anglerfish lures, rattlesnake fangs and
venoms] or defensive features of prey species [e.g., bombardier
beetles' chemical spray, leaf-mimic butterfly camoflage, rattlesnake
rattles, porcupine quills, etc.] were too perfect and could never have
evolved naturally, and so must be the handiwork of the Creator.
If they were being consistent they'd have claimed that these predatory
and defensive features must all have "microevolved" naturally in the
few thousand years since the Fall.
But then, consistency or logic never quite seems to come into it.
cheers
KMT
I am pretty sure gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > Which one takes the cake?
> >
> In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for "day" always refers to a 24 hour day".
> (This ignores the Hebrew word for "God" which is plural. Also as if the
> verse about a day being like a thousand years to God isn't clearly a 24
> hour day in the context, no matter how flexible the original language
> was in that case.)
>
> Evolutionists use fossil evidence to calibrate the radiometric clocks
> and radiometric clocks to date fossils. That's circular reasoning.
>
> T. rex was a vegetarian.
>
> The behemoth in Job is a dinosaur.
>
> Geological strata were laid down by the Flood.
>
> The more intelligent species escaped to higher ground so they are found
> higher in geological column.
>
I have never heard the "higher ground" one. That is hilarious! Good one.
>
> Yasu!
> Greg Gay
>
> Never surprise a cow from behind.
>
mel turner
>I am pretty sure gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> > Which one takes the cake?
>> >
>> In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for "day" always refers to a 24 hour day".
>> (This ignores the Hebrew word for "God" which is plural. Also as if the
>> verse about a day being like a thousand years to God isn't clearly a 24
>> hour day in the context, no matter how flexible the original language
>> was in that case.)
>>
>> Evolutionists use fossil evidence to calibrate the radiometric clocks
>> and radiometric clocks to date fossils. That's circular reasoning.
>>
>> T. rex was a vegetarian.
>>
>> The behemoth in Job is a dinosaur.
>>
>> Geological strata were laid down by the Flood.
>>
>> The more intelligent species escaped to higher ground so they are found
>> higher in geological column.
>>
>
>I have never heard the "higher ground" one. That is hilarious! Good one.
Yep. Of course this means that modern flowering plants [including their
pollen] were more intelligent than all the Devonian and Carboniferous
plants...
cheers
Landis D. Ragon
>>
>>>Yasu!
>>>Greg Gay
>>>
>>>A Texas politician is reported to have said, "If English was good
>>>enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans!"
>>
>>
>> funny. my friend claims to have attended a high school in alabama which
>>adopted a requirement that all students learn at least one foreign language.
>>an irate mother is reported to have called the principle and said, "if
>>english was good enough for jesus, it's good enough for my daughter".
>>perhaps both of us are the victims of an evolving urban myth?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>It's not exactly an urban myth. Sometime in the 80's a Texas politician,
>arguing against bilingual education in the schools and trying to get English
>designated the official language of Texas did say that if English was good
>enough for Jesus (he might have said "the Bible) then it was good enough for
>Texas School Children. The true story has now generated other versions that
>are good, but the truth is always the wierdest.
"If English was good enough for Jesus
Christ, it ought to be good enough for the
children of Texas."
Texas Governor Ma Ferguson, est.
1924. Quoted in All Pianos Have Keys,
1994
>
>My favorite Creationist Quote:
>
>Plants are not alive. They do not have an animated force. (???) This means
>that all of those observed instances of speciation in plants are irrelevant to
>the issue of evolution.
>
>LcdrD
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
Martin Crisp
news:8k2oaq$fdl$2...@news.duke.edu...
That was the one I missed out when commenting on the koalas....
They used to eat stuff other than eucalypt leaves, but since the flood
they've evolved.
> But then, consistency or logic never quite seems to come into it.
Ya can't show what ya don't have.
Have Fun
Martin
Stephen Watson
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>Which one takes the cake?
>
"We rely on God's perfect Word; you rely on man's fallible wisdom"
What's so stupid is the total lack of self-criticism implicit in the
first half of the statement, coupled with the preemptive dismissal of
all contrary evidence implict in the second. What literalists
*really* rely on is a naive hermeneutical approach to an
arbitrarily-chosen text, whose historicity cannot be otherwise
verified. For a full display of this position see this link someone
recently posted:
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/gen12/set001.htm
--
-- Steve Watson
Nortel Networks, Ottawa Canada
swa...@nortelnetworks.com
Louann Miller
Stephen Watson wrote in message
<8k4mi3$9ak$1...@bcarh8ab.ca.nortel.com>...
>"We rely on God's perfect Word; you rely on man's fallible wisdom"
>What's so stupid is the total lack of self-criticism implicit in the
>first half of the statement, coupled with the preemptive dismissal of
>all contrary evidence implict in the second. What literalists
>*really* rely on is a naive hermeneutical approach to an
>arbitrarily-chosen text, whose historicity cannot be otherwise
>verified. For a full display of this position see this link someone
>recently posted:
>http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/gen12/set001.htm
Matthews has courtesy and patience enough for a small army, in my
opinion. I only got four exchanges into the set before blowing out an
irony meter and having to give up.
Louann
grifter
"There were dinosaurs on the Ark. They just fell off during the
flood."
If remember right, this one came from some brainchild in an AOL
chatroom.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Larry Handlin
>
><gg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jv6nv$1rc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <3962DF93.5A18@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
>> "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> > Which one takes the cake?
>> >
>> My favorite is "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> I don't know about you, but my ancestors weren't apes.
>>
>> You have to believe it before you can see it.
>>
>> Men have one less rib than women.
>>
>> The speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago.
>>
>> There are no transitional fossils.
>>
>> That's just MICRO-evolution. What about MACRO-evolution?
>
> I liked the guy who referred to it as MIRCO-evolution and MARCO-evolution.
polo
Just couldn't help myself again.
reply to:lbha...@my-not.com
not-deja--spam protection--figure it out
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-- Carl Sagan
"Unbelievable, that the neutron bomb is found in the Bible."
--Rexalla Van Impe
David Iain Greig
I'm not the Sunshine Superman!
--D.
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
It's either in the 11th or 12th exchange, but the literalist admits
that his justification for Biblical Inerrancy is because "The Bible
says so".
Regards,
Dave
WWW:http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/5885/index.html
(The Legions of the Black Moon - the unofficial Bal-Sagoth homepage)
====================================================================
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley