Former Creationists Out There?

25 views
Skip to first unread message

SLDER

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 10:10:35 AM11/17/02
to
I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

What was it in the end that convinced you?

Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
more "mainline" church?

How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

TIA

--
SLDeR
sderamu...@charter.net


David Jensen

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 10:44:47 AM11/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in
<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>:


>I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
>about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

I was taught creationism as a child.

>What was it in the end that convinced you?

Science.

>Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
>more "mainline" church?

Both, eventually. Creation-evolution was part of my move to ELCA from
Wisc. Synod Lutheran (WELS). Many things contributed to my decision not
to bother worshipping.

>How has it affected your social life?

Had I stayed conservative Lutheran, I would never have married who I
did.

>Have your fundy friends and family disowned you?

No.

> Or do you keep it quiet?

It's not central to our conversations (Two WELS pastors as
brothers-in-law).

JS

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 11:47:30 AM11/17/02
to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

The fact that, when you consider the availiable evidence and with our
present understanding, evolution makes so much more sense than creationism.
It was a matter of intellectual integrity for me. For example the
universality of the genetic code. The fact that structurally we are all
variations on a theme. Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be
extrapolated out to macroevolution. The age of the earth, etc. Oh, and the
lousy, dishonest stories professional creationists have invented to try to
explain it all.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

My temple is all of nature (ducking my head). But, not being omniscient, I
am not atheist. Who knows, maybe the church will, by some strange turn of
fate, turn out to be right. But those who have made their choices based on
what they truly felt to be the right at the time and followed it I would
hope would be spared the Christian hell.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

There came a point when the contradictions were to obvious to ignore and the
answers were lacking. I realized that I would have to leave sooner or later
so I decided I might as well go sooner than remain shackled in what I felt
to be a lie. I wrote a letter to the headquarters of my former church
explaining my reasoning. The local congregation urged my brother and
family, also members of the church, to disassociate with me but 6 months
after my leaving they left as well.

-----------------

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep:
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to,--'t is a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there 's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there 's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels 13 bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red."
-William Shakespeare "Hamlet"

Fross

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 12:38:58 PM11/17/02
to
I was raised in a Baptist family, went to a Baptist public school and my
family went to church every Sunday morning, evening and Wed. evening. I was
taught creationism and they also taught me this weird twisted view of what
evolution was and how it was bad. I remember my Sunday school teacher
telling me that they disproved evolution in a lab by cutting the tails off
lab mice for multiple generations and their tails never got any shorter.
What's weird is my dad is a Biology teacher and was an archaeologist for
many years. When I finally got older and learned some science, I asked him
his views and sure enough he wasn't a creationist. He was a theistic
evolutionist. He said he just kept quiet about the issue and let my mom
handle it. I myself became a theistic evolutionist in Jr. High. It wasn't
any one thing that convinced me. It was the large amount of evidence that
convinced me. I eventually presented a lot of evidence to my creationist
mom and she is now a theistic evolutionist.
I didn't abandon Christianity until I was 23. It had absolutley nothing to
do with my scientific views. I just wanted to research the history behind
my faith. I was hoping to strengthen my faith by doing so, but it had the
opposite effect. I ended up discussing everything with my family and even
my Uncle who is a pastor. They tried to help me, but whenever I brought up
theological issues, or stuff I learned about the ancient middle eastern
cultures, they simply didn't want to hear it. My mother said straight up "I
don't want to question my faith, so I'd rather not discuss this". We all
get along great, but we don't discuss our reasons for faith or lack of
faith.
My social life has not been effected by my views on evolution. I do keep
quiet when I'm in the company of creationists and they start spouting off
some stuff they read on a website. I avoid those debates, because it would
require them understanding what evolution really states, and that takes up
too much time.

later


Fross

AC

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 12:55:01 PM11/17/02
to
In article <utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>, SLDER wrote:
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

Here I am!

>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

When I actually checked the references in the Creationist literature, and
discovered the distortions and outright lies. Let's just say that the JW
out-of-context quote of Dawkins was a pivotal moment.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

I personally abandoned Christianity, and religion in general.

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

Most of the JW members of my family have been pretty good. They know better
now that to try to proseletyze. A few won't talk to me, but I'm not all
that worried about it. They are the kookier ones anyways.

--
AC

Anointed-One.net

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 1:03:34 PM11/17/02
to

"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
macroevolution."

I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
doesn't mean it's true.


Jeff

___________________________ Anointed-One.net


"JS" <@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FRPB9.19681$nQ4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

R. Baldwin

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 1:29:07 PM11/17/02
to
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed
their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

I took an anthropology class in high school from an excellent teacher.
It included hands-on activities such as making stone tools. I realized
that the succession of stone tool technology alone was inconsistent
with the Genesis story. I also realized that the anti-evolution
arguments badly mischaracterized what scientists actually had to say.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over
to a
> more "mainline" church?

I switched to a mainline church, but not over this issue. Evolution
was not as big an issue for fundamentalists at the time. The switch
had more to do with a growing understanding that much of the
fundamentalist message was bigoted and hateful, and contradicted the
teachings of Jesus.

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and
family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

Some members of my family are fundamentalists. When they get going I
practically bite my tongue right off.

>
> TIA
>
> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net
>
>
>
>

Dunk

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 2:03:03 PM11/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:03:34 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
>macroevolution."
>
>I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
>basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
>transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
>scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>doesn't mean it's true.
>
>
>Jeff

So, your position is that some is some but more isn't more?
How does this work with humans & chimps?
How does it work with cichlid fishes?
Dunk


>___________________________ Anointed-One.net

JS

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 2:04:01 PM11/17/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.

Microevolution is change within species, macroevolution is change at or
above the species level. Thus any genetic change which results in a new
species is macroevolution.

Take the polar bear, Ursus maritimus, for example. It's related to the
brown bear, Ursus arctos (two different species), but it has acquired
substantial differences which enable it to thrive in a frigid environment
that the brown bear could not (which is why you don't see brown bears
jumping between ice floes).
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ron.html

More examples?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Lane Lewis

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 2:05:35 PM11/17/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.
>
>
> Jeff
>

There is no such thing as horizontal variation or vertical transformation,
there is only evolution. Animals evolve and there is not a known mechanism
that would prevent animals from evolving into new species one micro step at
a time. No one has to extrapolate anything as there are not two forms of
evolution only one.

Lane

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 2:33:45 PM11/17/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse.

They use it because it's the truth.

> Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically).

Where do you get the idea that evolution is "vertical"? Evolution is just
change, it's not progress, or improvement. Microevolution is little change,
Macroevolution is more change. The mechanism is entirely the same, the only
difference is number of generations.

Also, your assertion that macroevolution or "transformation" has never been
observed is a bit of a straw man. While it's true no one has seen, for
example a dog turn into a cat, that is not what evolutionary theory
predicts. There is ample evidence that over many generations populations
can, and do change in response to enviromental change. Selective breeding
has "transformed" wolves into chihuahuas (this is your "one example", do
dispute?) . If deliberate selection of vairations and mutations can make
that much of a change in only a few thousand years, why can't natural
selection acting on the same vairation and mutation make larger changes over
millions of years?

> Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.

Just because you have religious objections to evolution doesn't mean it's
not true.


Snipping away the post underneath.


DJT


D C

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 3:02:14 PM11/17/02
to

----------
In article <7jeftu4sc87o43r0p...@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:


> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> "SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in
> <utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>
>>I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
>>about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> I was taught creationism as a child.
>
>>What was it in the end that convinced you?
>
> Science.
>


Ooooh, I bet they really miss you.

Eric Gill

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 3:46:00 PM11/17/02
to
"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:

>
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out
> to macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution

Say, "Annointed-One."

I asked if you were able to present a coherent theory of ID - remember?
Don't you think you should at least respond before making similar requests
from other people?

<snip>

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 4:59:11 PM11/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:03:34 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
>macroevolution."
>
>I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
>basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
>transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
>scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>doesn't mean it's true.
>

of course, creationists give no answers at all about anything. they
seem to think 'god did it' is science.

houdini would be proud of creationism. its gullibility masquerading as
magic.

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 4:58:02 PM11/17/02
to

although i never was a creationist, i WAS a christian. i saw a 5 part
series by jerry falwell on creationism which demonstrated a large part
of christianity was, to put it mildly, regressive. thats when i left
christianity.

it had zip to do with evolution, and everything to do with
creationism. creationism is dishonest. i wonder if creationists know
that.

macaddicted

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 5:14:23 PM11/17/02
to
SLDER <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>

I never had much of a problem with evolution. My father, however, did.
We debated the issue through most of my teens.

> What was it in the end that convinced you?
>

In the end it was another source. He attended a religious conference (a
Charismatic conference) where he learned that the Church was not
opposed to evolution in principal. (There are still some issues for the
Church, but that is not important here.)

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?
>

I don't think you can get more mainlie than Roman Catholic. He is still
a Eucharistic minister and has been a minister to a local youth
detention camp for over 20 years.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?
>

Heck, I love to debate. I'll take on anyone on any issue of which I have
sufficient knowledge. (I tend to try to avoid foot-in-mouth disease)

> TIA
>

Your welcome
God bless

> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net


--
macaddicted
9 of the 10 voices in my head think that I am sane.

Anointed-One.net

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 6:17:26 PM11/17/02
to

You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
event? That's impossible.


Jeff

___________________________ Anointed-One.net

"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92C996EBCE695...@24.28.95.158...

Anointed-One.net

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 6:20:44 PM11/17/02
to

Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at least
ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
before then.


Jeff

___________________________ Anointed-One.net


<wf...@ptnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3dd812d0...@news.ptdprolog.net...

Frank J

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 6:22:00 PM11/17/02
to
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

In part Catholic school, circa 1967. One example that I vaguely recall
was my 7th grade teacher, when discussing geologic time, put some
confusing qualifiers on it that made me start thinking critically. And
since I was not allowed to bear false witness, the rest was
(pre)history...
>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just from over to a
> more "mainline" church?

Circa 1969 I abandoned the mythology and the rituals, but not the
moral principles. Evolution was not directly a factor in my decision.

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

I only know one "fundy" and he's rather polite. Although he's a YEC,
he's more the Gosse type than the ICR/AIG type, i.e he doesn't try to
refute me. I never miss a chance to mention to anyone something about
evolution, prehistory, or science in general that may straighten out
common misconceptions.

>
> TIA

Frank J

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 6:28:35 PM11/17/02
to
"JS" <@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<DRRB9.20171$nQ4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
> news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > macroevolution."
> >
> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
> much
> > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > doesn't mean it's true.
>
> Microevolution is change within species, macroevolution is change at or
> above the species level. Thus any genetic change which results in a new
> species is macroevolution.
>
If you choose to define it that way. As you probably know,
anti-evolutionists don't agree among themselves where macro begins and
micro leaves off. That alone suggests that the micro/macro dichotomy
is a false one.

Mark Nutter

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 6:30:18 PM11/17/02
to
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

Lots of things. I started out really enthusiastic about creationism,
and wanted to become a contributor. I thought the place to start was
to take creationist quotes, look up the original evolutionist sources,
and see what else I could find. What I found was that creationists
were being misleading (to put it kindly) with regards to what
evolutionists were really saying. That was the beginning. I also
found the layers in the polar ice caps to be inconsistent with
ICR-style creationism. I read some books detailing scientific
responses to creationism, and found that, rather than running around
worrying about the alleged lack of answers, scientists had quite a lot
of rather good answers, backed up by hard data, as well as telling
critiques of flaws in creationist arguments.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

Eventually I did, though more as an indirect result. Finding I
couldn't trust what conservative Christians said about Genesis, I
began questioning other things as well, which ultimately led to the
realization that there was nothing to Christianity that was so much
supernatural as it was psychological and social.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

I keep it quiet.

m

Dave

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 6:56:50 PM11/17/02
to
Anointed-One.net wrote:

> Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at
> least ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one
> second before then.

Is there not one teeny-weeny piece of evidence for evolution, that you think
is the slighest bit persuasive? Or are scientists all utterly and totally
deluded (or malicious) in every way?

Even if the balance of evidence is inconsistent with evolution, is there
just one piece of evidence that you don't have an answer to?

Admitting to some doubts is more likely to gain my respect than pretending
to have an answer to everything.

Incidentally, some Creationists have been shown to be "stupid for real" well
before the time you mention!

--

Attack is not the best form of defense.

Dick C

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 7:23:40 PM11/17/02
to
"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.

If you want ID taught in science, or want to replace science with
your religion, then that is what you must do.

> "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92C996EBCE695...@24.28.95.158...
>> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
>> news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated
>> > out to macroevolution."
>> >
>> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give
>> > a specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution
>>
>> Say, "Annointed-One."
>>
>> I asked if you were able to present a coherent theory of ID -
>> remember? Don't you think you should at least respond before making
>> similar requests from other people?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>

--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.net

Paul Holbach

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 7:35:54 PM11/17/02
to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

I was never a creationist but I have a friend who's a Mormon who I had a
quite frustrating discussion with one evening about evolution. I'm sure
everyone here has had this discussion with one and know what I'm talking
about so I'll just relate an outline. He pretty much had all the standard
misconceptions about evolution (I don't believe we come from Monkeys, how
could a fish turn into a cat, and so on) and parroted the usual creationist
mythology (men walked with dinosaurs, there was a flood, the earth is 5000
yo). I calmly explained what wasn't so about evolution and why his creation
ideas were indefensibly wrong. In the end, his response was "I just don't
think we came from monkeys and if everything came from chance and god didn't
create us then there is no meaning to life". I just threw my hands up and
dropped it realizing there was nothing that would change his mind.

The punchline is that one of his kids came up and told me he didn't believe
like his dad and wanted me to know he was getting an education despite what
he was being told in Sunday school. It looks like a big deterrent for being
a creationist is to have both a family member that was and a good basic
understanding of science.

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 7:51:07 PM11/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:20:44 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at least
>ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
>before then.
>

IOW when scientists say 'i dont know' creationists get to make up any
answer they want, and they're the true scientists??

ok. just wanted to check with you guys...

Termite of Temptation

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:07:02 PM11/17/02
to
"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message news:<KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.

It's the same extrapolation that allows us to deduce that adding
together small numbers makes a larger number, or that driving a car at
60mph for an hour will probably make you travel 60 miles. There's no
voodoo difference between micro and macro evolution - microevolution
is a small amount of change and macroevolution is a large amount of
change. And I think you'll agree that lots of small changes make a big
change.

thanks for listening
Duncan

Lee Oswald Ving

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:33:15 PM11/17/02
to
"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event?

ID is strictly supernatural and unscientific, then? Interesting. Why didn't
you simply say so?

Pklease, clarify, though. Essentially, you are saying Phillip Johnson and
the rest of the 'ID is an alternate theory' are lying?

> That's impossible.

Probably, since 'supernatural' seems to be an alias for 'imaginary'.

Tell me, why, exactly, something that allegedly interacts with the physical
cannot at least be shown to actually do so.

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:35:52 PM11/17/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.

That's exactly the point. That's why science doesn't deal with the
supernatural. That's why Creationism is not science.

DJT


wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:42:48 PM11/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:17:26 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>event? That's impossible.
>
>

and thus he sums up creationism.

Bigdakine

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:43:17 PM11/17/02
to
>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?
>From: "Anointed-One.net" em...@anointed-one.net
>Date: 11/17/02 8:03 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>

>
>
>"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
>macroevolution."
>
>I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
>basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
>transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
>scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>doesn't mean it's true.

OK.

Examine this series.
Please explain which links are missing and where there is an unwarranted
extrapolation.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm

THanx,

Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

Bigdakine

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:45:18 PM11/17/02
to
>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?
>From: fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
>Date: 11/17/02 1:28 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <38c5d0dd.02111...@posting.google.com>

As used by creationists. However, professional biologists use the terms micro
and macro-evolution.

Bigdakine

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:46:47 PM11/17/02
to
>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?
>From: "Anointed-One.net" em...@anointed-one.net
>Date: 11/17/02 1:17 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>

>
>
>You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>event? That's impossible.
>

So then you admit that ID should not be taught as science?

Bigdakine

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:49:17 PM11/17/02
to
>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?
>From: "Anointed-One.net" em...@anointed-one.net
>Date: 11/17/02 1:20 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <vCVB9.25812$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>

>
>
>Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at least
>ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
>before then.
>

They looked mighty stupid when geologists and astronomers confirmed the true
age of the universe and solar system. They looked real stupid when proto-humans
were found and the creationists claimed they were humans with rickets.

How much more stupid do they need to look? How much more stupid could they
possible look?

Are you a glutton for punishment?

David Jensen

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 8:50:36 PM11/17/02
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:33:15 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Xns92C9C79F9EEA9...@24.28.95.150>:


>"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
>news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:
>
>>
>> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>> event?
>
>ID is strictly supernatural and unscientific, then? Interesting. Why didn't
>you simply say so?
>
>Pklease, clarify, though. Essentially, you are saying Phillip Johnson and
>the rest of the 'ID is an alternate theory' are lying?

That would be accurate from my point of view. Johnson, in particular, is
not at all interested in science.

Alan Wright

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 9:35:13 PM11/17/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:vCVB9.25812$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at
least
> ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
> before then.

God-of-the-gaps argument. Try again.

Alan


Dunk

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 10:01:58 PM11/17/02
to

And have different ideas about what such a term ought to mean.
But they don't do silly things like argue that something doesn't
happen, based on shifting defing definitions.
For instance, one use of 'macroevolution' is to refer to macroscopic
changes [ aka character evolution, where the characters are things
that can be seen in fossils ] as opposed to genetic changes as such.
Of course you know that and the following too. I'm just saying it for
the record.

It is literally impossible to demonstrate macroevolution to a
creationist. This is because they use the term microevolution for
whatever evolution they admit to, even a drastic multiplication of
species since the flood.

Also note that speciation - a splitting of a lineage - invloves the
evolution of mating barriers. These can be of many types.
Two species of fruit flies that specialize on different fruits that
mature five weeks apart can be reproductively isolated just by virtue
of the fact that they mate at different times of the summer.

One could quibble over whether evolving reproductive isolation is an
'extropolation' of other changes.

Dunk

SLDER

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 10:50:58 PM11/17/02
to
Well, I didn't imagine I'd get such a great and varied response. I was
never a creationist myself. I remember first hearing about creationists my
first year in college and couldn't imagine that such people actually existed
who could believe something that was so demonstrably false and went against
everything that our scientific understanding of the world taught us. I had
grown up in a rather mainline Episcopal church where evolution was never
questioned. I didn't even remember it being discussed at all at church. As
a kid I was, like all the other kids, fascinated by Dinosaurs and I knew
that they had lived millions of years ago and no man had ever seen one.

Twenty three years after discovering creationists, I am still fascinated by
them and what makes them think and how they rationalize what is, to me,
completely irrational. I've known many over the years and what always
strikes me as odd is that they are not necessarily uneducated country
bumpkins. A few that I knew in Law School were at the top of the class -
far ahead of me :- ). Heck, at my Brother in Law's recent med school
graduation I met the valedictorian and she too was a fundamentalist
creationist. I don't think you can get through those disciplines at the top
of your class and not be very intelligent. Yet at the same time, they seem
blind to anything that might challenge their fundamentalist beliefs. Which
is why I started this topic to see how and if people can change. My theory
is that most people don't stake their belief on reason or what is
scientifically demonstrated, but on what they grew up with and what their
family and social milieu tells them to believe in. It's hard to come out of
the closet as an evolutionist when your entire family is fundamentalist and
you and all of your friends and even business associates attend the local
Southern Baptist church where "evilution" is demonized every Sunday and
Wednesday nights to boot. It is much easier just to accept what's being
spoon fed rather than risk your own social and even economic destruction.
It's nice to know though that some people do reason their way out and that
my theory is not quite true.

I guess growing up and even into adulthood attending a church that didn't
mind reasoning and questioning adults (there's a great Episcopal poster
showing a crucified Jesus with the caption: "He died to take away your sins,
not your mind."), that it took a lot longer for me to realize that
Christianity too was not rational and contradicted much of what we know
about the history of the Mediterranean of that time period, and was likely
just another one of many Mystery Cults. I finally rejected Christianity
after being challenged by a fundamentalist to find out the real truth and go
one way or the other. I went the other after reading several good books,
including books by A. N. Wilson and Hyamm Maccoby, and later articles on the
internet at www.infidels.org. I've never gone completely atheistic, though
I like to call myself a free-thinker.

I usually keep my views to myself - except when I'm with other like minded
friends. I live in the fundamentalist south, and I'm somewhat afraid that
if my beliefs were known to a larger audience it might affect my business (I
have my own law practice). Lately though, I've started to let people know
more, and when pressed just tell people I'm a free thinker. I like to see
how fundamentalists react. Still, I keep my religious beliefs from my
parents who wouldn't approve (I just don't see the point in upsetting them),
and definitely from my very religious though not fundamentalist inlaws who
for some unknown reason, actually think highly of me. I would hate to ruin
my relationship with them.


SLDeR
sderamu...@charter.net


"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?
>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?
>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?
>

> TIA
>
> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net
>
>
>
>


Dunno

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 10:50:40 PM11/17/02
to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, SLDER wrote:

>
>
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

Information. Something I wasn't exposed to until college.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?
>
> How has it affected your social life?

Not yet, but it will.

> Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you?

Not yet, but they may.

> Or do you keep it quiet?
>

Still in the closet -- environment hostile to science
and knowledge. I'm here being educated for the upcoming
insurrection, that my life will change dramatically is
a foregone conclusion.

-

True adj. 1 (a) Stedfast, loyal. (b) Honest, just.
2 Qualifier for one's beliefs.

False adj. 1 Not genuine
2 (a) Intentionally untrue. (b) Intended to mislead.
3 Qualifier for others' beliefs.


C. Thompson

unread,
Nov 17, 2002, 11:58:04 PM11/17/02
to
wf...@ptnospam.com wrote:
>
> houdini would be proud of creationism. its gullibility masquerading as
> magic.

Let's give credit where its due. Harry Houdini spent a great deal of
time and money debunking so-called psychics, mystics, mind-readers, and
other charlatans.

Chris

David Jensen

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 12:18:07 AM11/18/02
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:58:04 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@erols.com> wrote in
<3DD876...@erols.com>:

Which, we are told, he wouldn't have bothered with if he hadn't had such
a mystic bent. It appears that he truly [believed|hoped] that such
things were possible and his debunking wasn't an intentional crusade.

Of course, that may have been his cover and he knew they were all cons
but used his own apparent credulousness to sucker the con men into
opening themselves up to his tests and debunking.

cheeny weeny

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 6:50:16 AM11/18/02
to
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utgpben...@corp.supernews.com>...

Reading this makes me realise how little I really understand America.
Having to hide such a moderate position sounds absolutely terrifying.

No wonder there is such strength of feeling on t.o.

Just how prevalent is this kind of thing ? Surely it does not affect
the main cities.

C.

<...>

Jeff Hilton

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 7:57:03 AM11/18/02
to

<wf...@ptnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3dd8125d...@news.ptdprolog.net...

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), "SLDER"
> <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> >about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

Even more interesting(and telling) would be to ask to hear from
former
evolution proponents who have switched to creationism. If there are no
respondents then what can we conclude about the validity of creationism?
Assuming one's intelligence increases over time and that philosophies(on
human origin in this case) conform to the confines of one's intelligence
I'd say that having no respondents would be a bad(and accurate)
reflection on creationism's validity.

Jeff Hilton

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 7:57:06 AM11/18/02
to

Jeff Hilton

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 8:07:15 AM11/18/02
to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
> "SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

C. Thompson

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 12:16:51 PM11/18/02
to

My understanding (which may very well be faulty, since it was word-of-mouth)
was that he was desperate to communicate with his deceased relatives, in
order to find out if there was an afterlife.

Chris


Lane Lewis

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 12:30:42 PM11/18/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ___________________________ Anointed-One.net
>

I want to see you get that toothpaste back into the tube.

Lane

David Jensen

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 12:43:29 PM11/18/02
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<arb3ln$mmr$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu>:

That's what I understand, too. I only offer the alternative, because his
desperate desire to communicate would be an excellent cover for him to
debunk the con men.

Frank J

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 6:50:40 PM11/18/02
to
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utgpben...@corp.supernews.com>...
(snip)

>
> I usually keep my views to myself - except when I'm with other like minded
> friends. I live in the fundamentalist south, and I'm somewhat afraid that
> if my beliefs were known to a larger audience it might affect my business (I
> have my own law practice). Lately though, I've started to let people know
> more, and when pressed just tell people I'm a free thinker. I like to see
> how fundamentalists react. Still, I keep my religious beliefs from my
> parents who wouldn't approve (I just don't see the point in upsetting them),
> and definitely from my very religious though not fundamentalist inlaws who
> for some unknown reason, actually think highly of me. I would hate to ruin
> my relationship with them.

At an approporiate time you might want to politely show them this:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=2
If you get a few percent to think for themselves, you've accomplished something.

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 8:40:08 PM11/18/02
to

to hear creationists tell it, they ALL had PhD's in evolutionary
biology, heard their local preacher one day, and BAM...became
creationists because they all of a sudden heard the truth. of course,
it means they were stupid BEFORE this instead of being stupid now, but
that's another subject.

>
>
>
>

Judy Rickley

unread,
Nov 18, 2002, 9:20:41 PM11/18/02
to
JS, it is super-doubtful that the church will turn out to be right about
evolution being false and birds are going to turn out not to have been
dinosaur-descended. Our feathered friends even have the DNA for
toothbuds. And we are discovering more and more that dinosaurs we once
thought had scales were in fact feathered!

Bill Pate

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 12:57:43 AM11/19/02
to
In article <EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>, "Anointed-One.net"
says...

>
>
>You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>event? That's impossible.

That's it? You are satisfied with that zero-thought-content,
explanation? The thing that gets me is that creationists
hear their preacher say/scream, "It sez in this heah book
that Gawd cret'd the earth. Now don be askin innythang more
cuzin' you do, Gawd gonna torture you for aaaal ayternatay."
and are fully intellectually satisfied with that. Wow. There
but for the grace of God go I.

Bill P.

>
>
>Jeff
>
>___________________________ Anointed-One.net
>
>
>
>"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns92C996EBCE695...@24.28.95.158...

>> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
>> news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:


>>
>> >
>> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out
>> > to macroevolution."
>> >
>> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>> > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution
>>

cheeny weeny

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 3:52:23 AM11/19/02
to
womanl...@hotmail.com (Termite of Temptation) wrote in message news:<fb648d5e.0211...@posting.google.com>...
> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message news:<KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...

> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > macroevolution."
> >
> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
> > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > doesn't mean it's true.
>
> It's the same extrapolation that allows us to deduce that adding
> together small numbers makes a larger number, or that driving a car at
> 60mph for an hour will probably make you travel 60 miles. There's no
> voodoo difference between micro and macro evolution - microevolution
> is a small amount of change and macroevolution is a large amount of
> change. And I think you'll agree that lots of small changes make a big
> change.

*Complete and utter rubbish*

Maths does not equal science.

> thanks for listening
> Duncan

Robert Carroll

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 8:16:41 AM11/19/02
to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.

Chez watt?


Bob


>
>
> Jeff
>
> ___________________________ Anointed-One.net
>
>
>
> "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92C996EBCE695...@24.28.95.158...
> > "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
> > news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:
> >
> > >

> > > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out
> > > to macroevolution."
> > >
> > > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution
> >

David Jensen

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 9:03:16 AM11/19/02
to
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:52:23 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in
<1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>:

Maths are a tool of science. So, what, other than variation, time,
isolation and natural selection, would cause macroevolution?

Dick C

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 9:18:12 AM11/19/02
to
"Jeff Hilton" <hilt...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:4u5C9.23418$dr6....@news.bellsouth.net:

There are any number of creationists who come in here and claim that
they used to be atheists/evolutionists. However, it rapidly becomes
clear that they are lying through their teeth. They demonstrate no
understanding of either atheism or evolution. They are simply
more examples of the honesty of creationists.

--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.net

Termite of Temptation

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 12:14:00 PM11/19/02
to
myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in message news:<1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>...

I never claimed it does. You obviously completely missed what I was
trying to say. The fact is the we can measure with a reasonable degree
of accuracy rates of mutation over a SHORT period of time, then we can
multiply by the total amount of time available, to obtain a total
amount of mutation (clearly the actualy result will be more
complicated, since mutation rates can change).

My example was meant to challenge you argument, above, that

>>> Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>>> doesn't mean it's true.

The kind of extrapolation we use in examining evolution is no
different, in a logical sense, than the extrapolation example I gave
above.

Oh and by the way... "distance = velocity x time" is applied maths. As
in, maths used in a scientific context.

Duncan

Lane Lewis

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 12:43:29 PM11/19/02
to

"Termite of Temptation" <womanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb648d5e.0211...@posting.google.com...

> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:<KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > macroevolution."
> >
> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > doesn't mean it's true.
>
> It's the same extrapolation that allows us to deduce that adding
> together small numbers makes a larger number, or that driving a car at
> 60mph for an hour will probably make you travel 60 miles. There's no
> voodoo difference between micro and macro evolution - microevolution
> is a small amount of change and macroevolution is a large amount of
> change. And I think you'll agree that lots of small changes make a big
> change.
>
> thanks for listening
> Duncan
>

I don't think we have to extrapolate in this instant since speciation has
been observed, we do however extrapolate from the fossil record much of how
evolution works which creationist claim is bad science, however
extrapolation based on _evidence_ is one of the ways science works to form
hypothesis and theories.

Lane

TomS

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 1:29:17 PM11/19/02
to
"On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:43:29 +0000 (UTC), in article
<xSuC9.335616$S8.65...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane stated..."

But speciation ... for the creationists ... is not "enough" to count
as *macro*evolution (or "vertical" evolution). Some would argue that
even the appearance of a new genus is acceptable, and that a biological
*family* marks the barrier to macro-evolution. (By the way, the cross
between wheat and rye has produced a new genus, Triticale.) Of course,
it is extremely difficult to give a definition of "genus", other than
something like "a convenient group of species"; or of "family", other
than "a convenient group of genera".

Moreover, even the *loss* of a major function or organ might be
acceptable to creationists, or an *extinction* of a major group of
organisms.

And we don't so much *extra*polate from the fossil record, as we
note that major changes have taken place. It might be *intra*polation.

Tom S.

Rodjk

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 1:51:43 PM11/19/02
to
fn...@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.02111...@posting.google.com>...

> "JS" <@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<DRRB9.20171$nQ4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> > "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
> > news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > > macroevolution."
> > >
> > > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
> much
> > > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > > doesn't mean it's true.
> >
> > Microevolution is change within species, macroevolution is change at or
> > above the species level. Thus any genetic change which results in a new
> > species is macroevolution.
> >
> If you choose to define it that way. As you probably know,
> anti-evolutionists don't agree among themselves where macro begins and
> micro leaves off. That alone suggests that the micro/macro dichotomy
> is a false one.

To them, the split is at the next level up from where their audience
is aware of a change taking place :-)
That, of course, will change depending how aware their next audience
is of science.

Rodjk #613

Rodjk

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 1:56:41 PM11/19/02
to
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

I was raised catholic. I was not taught much about evolution/creation
in school directly (I went to a Catholic school).
But I loved to read and I loved science. The more I read the Greek and
Roman myths the more they sounded like christian stories. I read the
bible and it did not seem that impressive. I was struck by
contridictions and the wanton cruelty of god.
By the time I was in high school, I considered myself to be christian,
but just a follower of god/jesus. In college, I took bio and geology,
which pretty much finished off whatever belief I had remaining.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

The switch was slow, took several years.

>
> How has it affected your social life?

Not much, other than recently. It is a big problem for my inlaws.

>Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

I do not bring up religion unless I am asked, for the most part.
A few people have been shocked, and even more shocked to find out that
I know the bible better than they do.

Rodjk #613
>
> TIA

rich hammett

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 2:47:25 PM11/19/02
to
SLDER sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

> What was it in the end that convinced you?

Science. I was always evidence-based, but was never much interested
in "soft science" like biology. My last biology course was in 8th
grade (around age 13 for you furriners), I made it through high
school and 15 years of university without another biology course.

So I never had to give it much thought. I of course believed in an
old universe and old earth, since I studied the physics a bit, and
those are also definitely beliefs of my church (Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints). Evolution (or the lack thereof) is
not directly addressed in Mormon doctrine, and although there is much
folk doctrine against it, education is very important to Mormons, and
BYU, for instance, has a decent paleontology department, and several
past mormon leaders have publicly accepted evolution.

But the books I was reading were the ones written by a few, prominent
Mormon YECs. You know, some of the John Birch crowd. And they were
fairly effective in several arguments, like the one where they
proved that the current population of the earth _could_ have been
brought about in a few thousand years of an exponential population
expansion. I thought "There! That shows those evilutionists!
Imagine! Trying to say that populations don't expand!"

When I started grad school in engineering, I had some free time, and
read a couple of books about evolution...I don't even remember what
they were. By then end of the first book, I was convinced that the
YECs were either stupid, liars, or both.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

Well, as I said, my church doesn't take a position against organic
evolution. But my examination of the, urm, misstatements of those
leaders who DID oppose evolution made me re-examine a lot of things.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family


> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

My circle of friends at church was freethinking enough to accept me,
even when they disagreed. I've moved a couple of times since then,
though, and haven't made new frien