Announcement -- New Creation Science FAQ

42 views
Skip to first unread message

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97
to

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


>"These creation events are no longer occuring. As such, they are not
>observable or repeatable."


fwa...@chi1.uncfsu.edu writes:

>If a tree falls in the forest, it is not
>necessary for anyone to observe that event for us to know that it fell.
>Nor is it necessary for the tree to fall repeatedly. The fact that it is
>lying on the ground, roots exposed and a hole where the roots had been is
>generally sufficient evidence for any reasonably sighted, intelligent
>observer to be reasonably sure that it fell.

=====================================

If during all the centuries of observing trees, NO ONE had
witnessed a tree falling, then only religious zealots
would ban the teaching that trees do only whatever it is
that trees can be observed repeatably to do.

You would have been as sure in 1890 that, though no one
had witnessed it, the ether drift would be clearly measurable
by any reasonably sighted, intelligent observer with a
reasonably accurate interferometer.

Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
on the teaching of your opposition?

--
Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com


James S. Lovejoy

unread,
Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --snip--

> Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
> on the teaching of your opposition?
>

I know you won't get it, but for any listening in, again what is your
evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
as banning.

The evidence as presented only shows the creationist side using state
power to enforce their views:

1. State Laws *have* banned the teaching of evolution.
2. State Laws *have* required that creationism be taught.

There is AFAIK no state law requiring the teaching of evolution.
There is AFAIK no state law banning the teaching of creationism.

> --
> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

--
Creation 'science' fundamentalism: recruiting arm of Atheists of America

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

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

[[In North America, only two banning religions have survived
the epidemic of free speech.

One surviving religion is evolutionism. The other is
creationism.]]


>>Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
>>on the teaching of your opposition?


dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) writes:

>This is like objecting to someone
>who wants to teach children that 1 + 1 = 3.


Well, evolutionism is MUCH less than 1 + 1 = 3.

Anyone can count their three fingers to see that
1 + 1 < 3.

Evolutionism is quite different--because the number of
apes that can be demonstrated to evolve from any Single-celled
creature is much less than even ONE finger's-worth.


>Why should anyone accept teaching
>crackpot maths,


The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
or any OTHER--maths.


>cacophonous music,


Are you suggesting that someone should ban
the PUNKS?


>or magic
>instead of science.


Apparently evolutionism is the ONLY "science" that has
such weak evidence that it has had to claim protection
under the United States Constitution as a religion in
order to survive.

Creationism TRIED to claim protection as a religion under the
Constitution--but could not make the grade.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

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


>> Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
>> on the teaching of your opposition?


"James S. Lovejoy" <ji...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>I know you won't get it, but for anyone listening in, again what is your


>evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
>to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
>as banning.

==========================================

Perhaps then you should explain

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html


"The District Court therefore held that
the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
Clause either because it prohibited the
teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
creation science with the purpose of
advancing a particular religious doctrine."

Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection
from advancing armies?

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

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

>>If you don't know the difference
>>between a story, and science, maybe you should read the faq.


Micheal (Chris) Keane wrote:

>There is no such thing as creation science.

-----

>>>Huh? Government teaching religion as if it were science is not
>>>establishment of religion? Nice theory.

-----

>Complete nonsense. Why are *only* Christian fundamentalists creationists?

===================================

Not only are the Christian fundamentalists creationists,
the EVOLUTIONIST fundamentalists are creationists as well.

The evolutionists just call their event by a Latin name
and adhere to a different entity as the ONE infallible source
of evidence.

Both the evolutionist and creationist fundamentalists avoid
the simple truism that life is merely another
physical state of chemicals.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

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

>>"The District Court therefore held that
>>the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
>>Clause either because it prohibited the
>>teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
>>creation science with the purpose of
>>advancing a particular religious doctrine."

>>Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection

>>from the advancement of religion?


ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) writes:

>Because the creationism act violated the law.

>What else do you suggest ?

========================

Purpose to promote a religion would be irrelevant to any person that
is neutral to religion.

Enturbulated

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

In <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) writes:

>"The District Court therefore held that
>the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
>Clause either because it prohibited the
>teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
>creation science with the purpose of
>advancing a particular religious doctrine."
>
>Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection

>from advancing armies?

Because the creationism act violated the law.

What else do you suggest ?

Pim


---Annoy a fool, ask him to back up his beliefs with facts---
"An enemy may be deprived of property, lied to, tricked, sued
or destroyed by any means" L Ron Hubbard--Fair Game Policy,

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> Purpose to promote a religion would be irrelevant to any person that
> is neutral to religion.

Why do you assume 'neutrality' is the same as 'non-interference'?

A person neutral to religion might require equal teachings of all
religions, no?
Therfore, intent to promote a specific religion would not be acceptable.

Kind of like a referee in a football game;
just because he is 'neutral' doesn't mean he doesn't take part...

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
> country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
> or any OTHER--maths.

Perhaps that is because there is no one stupid enough to
TRY to teach it as mathematics...

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

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

[[The United States Supreme Court has promoted a religion
or some other superstition in attempting to
separate the churches from the states.]]


>> Purpose to promote a religion would be irrelevant to any person that
>> is neutral to religion.


"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Why do you assume 'neutrality' is the same as 'non-interference'?


Specific instances are sometimes easier than the abstractions.

For example, any ban on the speech that had a purpose of "promoting
a witchcraft" would be establishing a view that there is
"something to witchcraft."

If one believes that there is nothing to witchcraft,
only then could one be neutral
to the "witchcraft" and judge the speech merely for natural--
not supernatural--qualities.

>A person neutral to religion might require equal teachings of all
>religions, no?


Hardly. If one is neutral to "religion," then one would
vote AGAINST teaching ANY "religion" because there are POSITIVE
things like math plus signs, cations, and rising revenues
that are much more useful learnings.

>Therefore, intent to promote a specific religion would not be acceptable.


Speech with the intent to promote a "witchcraft" is pure fantasy and should
be judged as pure fantasy--like whether it increases box office
receipts or whether it is delivered in a manner that demonstrates
a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness.

>Kind of like a referee in a football game;
>just because he is 'neutral' doesn't mean he doesn't take part...


What would you say of a referee that makes calls based
on whether the four-letter word was made with the intent
to promote a "witchcraft"?

Making such calls would not say much empirically about the
delivery of the four-letter word. But looking at the
pattern in which a referee made such calls
would tell you MUCH about the superstitions
of the referee.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

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

[[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]


>> The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
>> country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
>> or any OTHER--maths.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Perhaps that is because there is no one stupid enough to
>TRY to teach it as mathematics...

========================

Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
mathematics.

Mathematics as an intellectual pursuit has demonstrated
extreme tolerance for alternative axioms. For example Lobachevski
had no problems of a legal banning when he
taught that there are an infinite
number of parallel lines that can be drawn through any
point external to a line.

Everybody sees that there is only ONE. Try THAT one on paper.

But evolutionism has a very different kind of problem.

For evolutionism hopes to BAN the science-class teaching that
is counter to the principal axiom of the evolutionists'
religion that all life descended from the same
Scout troop of Single-celled creatures.

Arturo Magidin

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>,

Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
>mathematics.
>
>Mathematics as an intellectual pursuit has demonstrated
>extreme tolerance for alternative axioms. For example Lobachevski
>had no problems of a legal banning when he
>taught that there are an infinite
>number of parallel lines that can be drawn through any
>point external to a line.


You have no idea of the history of mathematics, do you? These sort of
progress came by at great cost and against great opposition.

Read Decartes' papers on Analytic Geometry, to hear him talking about
'imaginary quantities' (he meant negative numbers). What we now call
imaginary numbers were hotly contested until Gauss game them an
interpretation people could live with (points in the plane), and even
then they resisted. Gauss didn't publish his results on non-Euclidian
geometry because of the expected backlash, and Lobachevski encountered
quite a bit of resistance to his postulates. It wasn't until Hilbert
that the idea of an axiomatic system as the "rules of the game" instead
of the "rules describing the universe" was accepted. For other examples,
look at Brower (sp?) and how he renounced his early results on
Topology because they used the Axiom of Choice, and the constant
attempt of many mathematicians to avoid Choice when they can.

In short, learn some history of Math before making judgements like
the incorrect one expressed above.

Before I get quoted out of context though, you will notice that all of
these progresses came to be accepted despite the original opposition
to them. Why? Simple: because they were useful, because they worked.
Science has an excellent track record of correcting itself, and of
accepting the off-beat when the evidence is in favor.

>Everybody sees that there is only ONE. Try THAT one on paper.

Again, you betray ignorance. It depends on what you call a "line"
and what you call a "point", you see. I can model hyperbolic
geometry on paper.

In any case, what you think of as a parallel line you are drawing on paper
really isn't. If you truly extended them indefinitely, they would either
meet (if they are true lines, ie geodesics), or they aren't really lines.

Guess common sense gets kicked in the teeth again.

>But evolutionism has a very different kind of problem.
>
>For evolutionism hopes to BAN the science-class teaching that
>is counter to the principal axiom of the evolutionists'
>religion that all life descended from the same
>Scout troop of Single-celled creatures.

Cite a single law or ->BAN<- that attempts to allow ->only<- evolution.
All the court cases I am familiar with are about laws that either
attempt to ban ->evolution<-, or make the teaching of evolution conditional
on the teaching of something else.

Please, court cases and citations, not hearsay.

======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
mag...@uclink.berkeley.edu
mag...@math.berkeley.edu

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

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

[[When was the last time you saw any "science" other
than evolutionism or creationism accomplish certainty
by the banning of speech rather than by empirical
proofs?]]

>>Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
>>mathematics.

>>Mathematics as an intellectual pursuit has demonstrated
>>extreme tolerance for alternative axioms. For example Lobachevski
>>had no problems of a legal banning when he
>>taught that there are an infinite
>>number of parallel lines that can be drawn through any
>>point external to a line.


mag...@raiders.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) writes:

>What we now call
>imaginary numbers were hotly contested until Gauss gave them an


>interpretation people could live with (points in the plane), and even
>then they resisted. Gauss didn't publish his results on non-Euclidian
>geometry because of the expected backlash, and Lobachevski encountered
>quite a bit of resistance to his postulates.

No neutral observer would expect the evolutionists to be
polite.

And there is no injustice if a debate is merely
hotly contested. Even impoliteness and resistance could
comport with any neutral standard of free speech.

What is unacceptable is a legal banning of a teaching on the
basis of some nonobjective and superstitious label like "religion."


mag...@raiders.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) writes:

>All the court cases I am familiar with are about laws that either
>attempt to ban ->evolution<-,


To any neutral observer the banning is reprehensible of ANY teaching that
the majority elects to teach. It would not matter whether
the majority would elect to teach republicanism, evolutionism,
or creationism.

Whatever the teaching that the majority elects should not be
banned--UNLESS you have objective and empirical evidence that
the power of some certain sequence of words surpasses ordinary
understanding to shatter glass, cause wine to turn to water,
or cause some other repeatable mayhem.

>or make the teaching of evolution conditional
>on the teaching of something else.


Perhaps you have some empirical evidence that "making
the teaching of one subject conditional on the teaching
of another" causes some harm that no one has detected yet.

"Making one thing conditional on another" seems to be
a normal way to do things in legislatures. Perhaps
you object to representative democracy. But you
have no rational reason for making a special exception
about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
you think THAT is.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
> >Why do you assume 'neutrality' is the same as 'non-interference'?
>
> Specific instances are sometimes easier than the abstractions.
>
> For example, any ban on the speech that had a purpose of "promoting
> a witchcraft" would be establishing a view that there is
> "something to witchcraft."

Oh, no. Once again, back to the silly argument.

> If one believes that there is nothing to witchcraft,
> only then could one be neutral
> to the "witchcraft" and judge the speech merely for natural--
> not supernatural--qualities.

Do you assume the unbiased observer is completely stupid, or what?

Empirical evidence SHOWS that different words cause different reactions
in biased people. Hitler's speeches, based purely on physics, are not
significantly different than those of the Pope's. However, any unbiased
observer would NOT say the two are qualitatively the same.

> >A person neutral to religion might require equal teachings of all
> >religions, no?
>
> Hardly. If one is neutral to "religion," then one would
> vote AGAINST teaching ANY "religion" because there are POSITIVE
> things like math plus signs, cations, and rising revenues
> that are much more useful learnings.

So this means the neutral observer would do exactly what the writers of
the Consitution did? And if the Supreme court were unbiased it would
follow
those instructions?

Well then what the heck are you arguing about?!?!?!?!?!?

> >Therefore, intent to promote a specific religion would not be acceptable.
>
> Speech with the intent to promote a "witchcraft" is pure fantasy and should
> be judged as pure fantasy--like whether it increases box office
> receipts or whether it is delivered in a manner that demonstrates
> a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness.

But ANY 'intention of speech', is "pure fantasy",
how can it EVER 'promote imminent lawlessness'?

You are speaking with a forked tongue.



>>Kind of like a referee in a football game;
>>just because he is 'neutral' doesn't mean he doesn't take part...
> What would you say of a referee that makes calls based
> on whether the four-letter word was made with the intent
> to promote a "witchcraft"?

I'd say he doesn't belong in a footbal game, because as far as I am
aware,
the rules say nothing about the promotion of witchcraft on-field.

Except, perhaps with regard to 'delay of game'...



> Making such calls would not say much empirically about the
> delivery of the four-letter word. But looking at the
> pattern in which a referee made such calls
> would tell you MUCH about the superstitions
> of the referee.

Or lack of superstitions.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> What is unacceptable is a legal banning of a teaching on the
> basis of some nonobjective and superstitious label like "religion."

Would it be fine with you if it was an objective ban?

> Whatever the teaching that the majority elects should not be
> banned--UNLESS you have objective and empirical evidence that
> the power of some certain sequence of words surpasses ordinary
> understanding to shatter glass, cause wine to turn to water,
> or cause some other repeatable mayhem.

How exactly does one acquire objective and empirical evidence for
'repeatable mayhem'?

> But you have no rational reason for making a special exception
> about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
> you think THAT is.

Why of course there is.
You just stated it.

Why should "religion" be banned from the science class?
Because it is "whatever supernatural domain you think THAT is".
Guess what; science has no place for "THAT".

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
>
> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]

Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
given the opportunity.

Now, as to why the superstitions ARE so powerful; I have no idea.

> >> The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
> >> country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
> >> or any OTHER--maths.
>

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>

> >Perhaps that is because there is no one stupid enough to
> >TRY to teach it as mathematics...
>
> ========================
>

> Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
> mathematics.

Irrelevant, isn't it?

IF someone were actually to TRY to teach that 1 + 1 = 4, do you
deny that it would NOT be permitted in the mathematics classroom?

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

In talk.origins Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
> --------------------------------

> For evolutionism hopes to BAN the science-class teaching that
> is counter to the principal axiom of the evolutionists'
> religion that all life descended from the same
> Scout troop of Single-celled creatures.

Talking with this guy sure has its limits. Anyway...

Evolutionists have never banned anything. Furthermore, the
supreme court has never banned science from a science
class room. Any scientific theory is free to challenge
and ultimately defeat the current theory of evolution at
any time. There is simply no competition.
Jeff

My Cross

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

"James S. Lovejoy" <ji...@ix.netcom.com> purported:

>Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>>
>> --snip--

>> Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
>> on the teaching of your opposition?
>>

>I know you won't get it, but for any listening in, again what is your


>evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
>to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
>as banning.


Just for your information - it is well known on the net that Riley
Sinder (Cinder-rella) is a 'bot. It's a computer program designed to
spew nonsense and keep a debate going, but going nowhere.

Don't bother.


>The evidence as presented only shows the creationist side using state
>power to enforce their views:

> 1. State Laws *have* banned the teaching of evolution.
> 2. State Laws *have* required that creationism be taught.

>There is AFAIK no state law requiring the teaching of evolution.
>There is AFAIK no state law banning the teaching of creationism.

>> --
>> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

>--

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

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

[[The evolutionists insist that "religious speech" should be
banned from science class because "religious speech" has
some quality distinguishing it from ordinary speech.]]

>> You have no rational reason for making a special exception


>> about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
>> you think THAT is.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Why of course there is.
>You just stated it.

>Why should "religion" be banned from the science class?
>Because it is "whatever supernatural domain you think THAT is".
>Guess what; science has no place for "THAT".

=========================================

Nevertheless, the evolutionists' obsession with "THAT"
generates many lawsuits to eliminate "THAT" from science class.

But it is obvious to any neutral observer that NO
speech has even a tinge of "THAT"--for there is no
"THAT" such that the supernatural domain of "THAT"
is greater than any part of zero.

Hence, the evolutionists' fear of "THAT" is only a
paranoid superstition.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

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


spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:

>Evolutionists have never banned anything.


That may or may not be a true statement depending
on what data you encounter.

SOMEBODY sure banned the teaching of creationism
from science curriculums.

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html


"But because the primary purpose of the
Creationism Act is to endorse a
particular religious doctrine, the
Act furthers religion in violation of
the Establishment Clause (15)."

So the only test left is to see if the evolutionists
did it.

Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.

Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
teaching of creationism?

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

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

[[What would be a NON-superstitious basis for banning
creationism speech from science classes?

One non-superstitious basis for a ban would be to
ban all nonsense. But unfortunately the evolutionists
sue to ban ONLY the speech that they believe in
their heart-of-hearts to have supernatural powers
beyond the mere utterance of sound sequences.]]


>> If one believes that there is nothing to witchcraft,
>> only then could one be neutral
>> to the "witchcraft" and judge the speech merely for natural--
>> not supernatural--qualities.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Empirical evidence SHOWS that different words cause different reactions
>in biased people. Hitler's speeches, based purely on physics, are not
>significantly different than those of the Pope's. However, any unbiased
>observer would NOT say the two are qualitatively the same.

===============================

Assume that you are correct.

Are you then saying that Hitler's speeches should be banned
while the Pope's should not?

Probably, if you search your soul, you will find that you
would ban ONLY the Pope's speech from science class because
you believe that the Pope's speech has some supernatural
power that you cannot for the life of you measure.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

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

[[Evolutionists apparently are very surprised to learn that
the teaching of creationism is banned from science
classes.]]

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html


"But because the primary purpose of the
Creationism Act is to endorse a particular
religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of
the Establishment Clause (15)."

-----

>>I know you won't get it, but for any listening in, again what is your
>>evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
>>to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
>>as banning.


myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) writes:

>Just for your information - it is well known on the net that Riley
>Sinder (Cinder-rella) is a 'bot. It's a computer program designed to
>spew nonsense and keep a debate going, but going nowhere.

>Don't bother.

================================================

The following questions and answers were posted to red...@netcom.com
in response to the above conjecture.

-----

: Just a sampling of the prayers being offered to Red...@netcom.com

-----

: Dear Mr. Sinder:
:
: I have a very slow computer and all this posting concerning your
: physical reality is costing me a lot of time I could use for actually
: reading what I want to read. So I would greatly appreciate if you would
: answer the following questions:

: 1. Are you a real person by the actual name of Riley Sinder?


Answer: Yes and no.


: 2. If yes, how can I verify?


Answer: I have been working on this issue myself for some time. I know
why I want verification, but why would you?


: 3. Why can't I find Riley Sinder in the San Francisco telephone
: directory?


Answer: That is a LEC question. The LEC is the San Francisco
local telephone company, the local exchange carrier.


: 4. Has anybody speculating on your existence actually bothered to ask
: you?


Answer: Nobody, to my knowledge, has speculated on
the existence of Riley Sinder. Only verification issues.

Existence, and closely related issues, would best be
dealt with in a fresh Usenet group, such as
alt.lightness.of.being.

Ted Holden

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:13:58 -0500, "Brian F. King"
<bri...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
>> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]
>
>Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
>given the opportunity.

In the case of evolutionism, that certainly is not the case; science
is not involved at all. You obviously are concerned that the other
fellow's superstition might be taught instead of YOURS, but
but that could hardly be seen as any sort of a lowering of standards
or anything like that. In fact the most ignorant superstitions in
the world (other than evolutionism) would be vast improvements
(over evolutionism). When you look at Voodoo, Santaray,
Rastifari, thugism, or any similar doctrine, you never see any sort
of a requirement for infinite numbers of violations of probabilistic
laws as is the case with evolutionism.

In fact, comparing a rastifarian or a voodooer to an evolutionist is
almost like comparing a man to a baboon. You could, in fact,
construct a new religion by taking the single most ignorant doctrine
from all of the current religions and throw in human sacrafice and
cannibalism to boot, and what you would get would STILL make a great
deal more logical sense than evolutionism does and, in fact, be more
humaine. I mean, the Aztec system, sacrafice and cannibalism
included, could hardly be judged worse than the communist and nazi
regimes of this century, which were logical fallouts of the
evolutionist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" being the only
moral law in nature.

Think about it.

Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html

. . , ,


____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._

,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.

,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.

| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |

,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.

|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '



Splifford the bat says: Always remember

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.


Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

In article <332a30ef...@newsreader.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) wrote:

I'm afraid I'm all hung up on one point: how did you find out the Aztecs
were Darwinians?

--
Paul Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:
>
> >Evolutionists have never banned anything.
>
> That may or may not be a true statement depending
> on what data you encounter.
>
> SOMEBODY sure banned the teaching of creationism
> from science curriculums.
>
> http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html
>
> "But because the primary purpose of the
> Creationism Act is to endorse a
> particular religious doctrine, the
> Act furthers religion in violation of
> the Establishment Clause (15)."
>
> So the only test left is to see if the evolutionists
> did it.
>
> Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
> did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
> evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.
>
> Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
> teaching of creationism?

No.
I would wager that it was a neutral observer.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
>
> [[The evolutionists insist that "religious speech" should be
> banned from science class because "religious speech" has
> some quality distinguishing it from ordinary speech.]]
>
> >> You have no rational reason for making a special exception
> >> about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
> >> you think THAT is.
>
> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
> >Why of course there is.
> >You just stated it.
>
> >Why should "religion" be banned from the science class?
> >Because it is "whatever supernatural domain you think THAT is".
> >Guess what; science has no place for "THAT".
>
> =========================================
>
> Nevertheless, the evolutionists' obsession with "THAT"
> generates many lawsuits to eliminate "THAT" from science class.

Once again, slowly.

Science has no place or time for superstition.
That is why science does not want superstition in the science classroom.
REGARDLESS of its potential effect.

> But it is obvious to any neutral observer that NO
> speech has even a tinge of "THAT"--for there is no
> "THAT" such that the supernatural domain of "THAT"
> is greater than any part of zero.
>
> Hence, the evolutionists' fear of "THAT" is only a
> paranoid superstition.

You have a very stupid neutral observer.
One could substitute a rock in his place.

Remember that Adolph Hitler originally had no power beyond the force of
those words proclaiming his "superstition".

Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know human
beings.
Confucius.

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

> No neutral observer would expect the evolutionists to be
> polite.

> And there is no injustice if a debate is merely
> hotly contested. Even impoliteness and resistance could
> comport with any neutral standard of free speech.

> What is unacceptable is a legal banning of a teaching on the

> basis of some nonobjective and superstitious label like "religion."


What I find funny is that some how there is a 'debate' going on.
ItÕs really just a bunch of ill informed people believing their
religion is a science. And....oh wait....I'm 'talking' to
Riley.

[ignored]

Jeff

Raistlin Majere

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:

>
> The following questions and answers were posted to red...@netcom.com
> in response to the above conjecture.

>

> : Dear Mr. Sinder:
> :
> : I have a very slow computer and all this posting concerning your
> : physical reality is costing me a lot of time I could use for actually
> : reading what I want to read. So I would greatly appreciate if you would
> : answer the following questions:
>
> : 1. Are you a real person by the actual name of Riley Sinder?
>
> Answer: Yes and no.

Answer: Riley's a sophisticated bot created by psych majors at some
college.

> : 2. If yes, how can I verify?
>
> Answer: I have been working on this issue myself for some time. I know
> why I want verification, but why would you?

That is impossible being that you are merely a bot.

> : 4. Has anybody speculating on your existence actually bothered to ask
> : you?
>
> Answer: Nobody, to my knowledge, has speculated on
> the existence of Riley Sinder. Only verification issues.

Answer: many people have speculated, and we've found that you are a
bot.

Kids, the jig is up. It's time to pull the plug on Riley.

Raist
--
e-mail address fake to foil spam-bots
real: dkr...@execpc.com

"God did do it, science just ignores him": John P. Boatwright

*****************************************************************
Well I don't want no preacher telling me about the god in the sky
No I don't want no one to tell me where I'm gonna go when I die
I wanna live my life with no people telling me what to do
I just believe in myself, 'cause no one else is true
******************************************************************
((J)O.Osbourne/T.Iommi/W.Ward/T.Butler. From "Under the Sun/Every Day
Comes and Goes" Black Sabbath. _Sabbath Vol 4_)

Lenny Flank

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Brian F. King wrote:
>
> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.
> >
> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
> > teaching of creationism?
>
> No.
> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.


Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one. All but two
were representatives of mainstream religious denominations who filed
suit
either on behalf of their denomination or on behalf of members
of their church who lived in Arkansas. These denominations included the
Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptists, the Episcopals and
the Methodists.

The argument made by the plaintiffs in this case was crushingly simple
and
very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
denominations, and was therefore mandating unconstituional favoring of
one
religious view over others. The court indeed ruled that creationism was
not science at all, but merely literalist biblical doctrine, and thus
unconstitutionally gave state support to the biblical literalist
religious view over the religious views of the plaintiffs. The law was
declared unconstitutional and was thrown out.

The cretinists tend to forget that it was Christian Protestant churches,
not "evolutionist scientists", who filed suit to have their equal time
bill thrown out.

=====================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life."

Check out my herp photos:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
Creation "Science" debunked:
http://www.users.fast.net/~lflank
=====================================================

Damian Hammontree

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to
[ rambling snipped ]
>> ... I mean, the Aztec system, sacrafice and cannibalism

>> included, could hardly be judged worse than the communist and nazi
>> regimes of this century, which were logical fallouts of the
>> evolutionist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" being the only
>> moral law in nature.

>I'm afraid I'm all hung up on one point: how did you find out the Aztecs
>were Darwinians?

It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic
vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle.

It's a myth - therefore it's gospel truth!

D
--
Damian Hammontree dam...@groucho.med.jhu.edu
"A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
...forever in debt to your priceless advice...

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

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

=============================================

You may be right.

The only way that democracy and glasnost will survive
is by keeping people from exercising democracy and glasnost.

On the other hand, you may simply be reciting the superstition
that has no power if only Adolph Hitler believes it.

However, if a whole nation believes your superstitious
fear of mere speech, then you may write your own end
to the joke which cannot be funny.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

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

>> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
>> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
>> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.

>> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
>> > teaching of creationism?

-----

>> No.

>> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.


Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:

>Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
>banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
>was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.


Exactly.

This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.

Anyone who lacks religious beliefs would not find
creationist speech more offensive than Santa Claus speech
or vile republicanism.


>The argument made by the plaintiffs
>in this case was crushingly simple and
>very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
>plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
>state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
>literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
>denominations, and was therefore
>mandating unconstituional favoring of one
>religious view over others.


Well, there you have it.

To any neutral observer, no one could sue under the
Establishment Clause without showing harm to religious
sensitivities.

For to any neutral observer, religion is only secular
speech and drama.

Now of course much speech and drama is Nonsense. And
if the Supreme Court had acted as a secular agent, then
the Court would have banned the teaching of creationism
under the Anti-Nonsense Clause of the First Amendment.

After all, the speaking of much nonsense
is well known to interfere with Free Speech.


>The court indeed ruled that creationism was
>not science at all, but merely literalist biblical doctrine, and thus
>unconstitutionally gave state support to the biblical literalist
>religious view over the religious views of the plaintiffs. The law was
>declared unconstitutional and was thrown out.


And THERE is the Court's logical error.

The Court cannot recognize that some mere nonsense is
an establishment of religion unless the Court
believes the religion that says the nonsense is
a religion.

To any neutral observer, religion is only secular
drama and speech.

The Supreme Court merely voted its own religious bias
that the Bible is a Word of God and not the mere mad
wonderings of secular sinners hoping to avoid personal
responsibility.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

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


>> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
>> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]


ras...@highfiber.com (Charles Dye) writes:

>For precisely that reason. A superstition that is not powerful
>poses no threat to civilization.


So you are proposing that the purpose for banning speech is
to reduce the threat to civilization?

Well, just about every worthwhile notion to come out in the
last hundred years has been a threat to the civilization
entrenched at the time of the invention.

Evidently, the Supreme Court has only superstitious bases
for banning speech. Never in any of the cases where the
Supreme Court banned speech did the Court consider ANY
threat to the civilization.


>It's the deceptions that are
>potent -- the ones that appear to work -- which threaten to topple
>the world back into barbarism.


Ah ha!

So the more empirical evidence that some threatening
notion has--which appears to make it work, then the more
certain should be the ban on the speech.

>It's the powerful deceptions
>that men of integrity are most bound to oppose.


Certainly you are right.

Men of integrity would not waste their time banning speeches
that have not truth in them. For speeches that have
not truth in them would be transparently funny to
the public.

The true usefulness of banning speech arises when the
truth begins to erode your conception of what civilization
should be.

And the speech of the truth that everybody wants to ignore
is the most threatening of all and, apparently from the
Supreme Court's record, deserves the highest priority
for banning as a "religion"--whatever superstitious
category THAT is.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

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

[[The only speech that the Supreme Court has banned
is religious speech.

For example, the Court has banned creationist speech
from science classes.]]


> >Again and again and again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers


> >to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
> >as banning.

-----

>> Perhaps then you should explain

>> http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html

>> "The District Court therefore held that
>> the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
>> Clause either because it prohibited the
>> teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
>> creation science with the purpose of
>> advancing a particular religious doctrine."

>> Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection
>> from advancing armies?


ji...@ix.netcom.com (James S. Lovejoy) writes:

>The better question to ask is why do the creationists
>depend upon legislation requiring their "theory" to
>be taught and/or banning evolution from being taught.

>Please note the decision did *not* say that either creation
>can *not* be taught, or that evolution *must* be taught,
>*only* that the state cannot *mandate* either.

============================================

Lucky for your argument, the ACLU has completely reformed
and today will be found suing to protect instead of suppress
free speech.

But the ACLU's conversion to the camp of enlightenment is very
recent.

Why just as recent as last May 1996, the ACLU published the
following assertion that the Supreme Court had banned
creationist speech from science classes.


http://www.aclu.org/news/w051396e.html

[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
[Image]

May 13, 1996: Creationism Not OK, Ohio ACLU Says

[Image]

The ACLU of Ohio has announced its intention to take legal action
against Lakewood Public Schools System if the district does not
adopt written policy against teaching creationism, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer reported.

Advocating creationism is a clear violation of the "U.S.
Constitution's mandate of separation of church and state," the
ACLU said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that
creationism is religious theory, not science, and has no place in
public classrooms."

Recent reports in the Plain Dealer have revealed that two Lakewood
physics teachers have been promoting creationism in their
classrooms. One teacher has been doing so for the past five years,
passing out creationist material as "critical thinking exercises."

ACLU attorney Ray Vasvari said that "'critical thinking skills'
are buzzwords in creationist circles on how to get these ideas
through the door."

The other teacher, the Plain Dealer reported, told his students
that "evolution doesn't make sense," adding that homosexuality is
wrong and gay people "won't go to heaven."

Lakewood school board members have taken these accounts very
seriously, the Plain Dealer reported. The board has already held
one meeting to address the issue, and is planning on holding
hearings as well.

The ACLU wasted no time in alerting the school board as to the
unconstitutionality of allowing religious doctrine in public
schools.

In a letter submitted to the school district superintendent, the
ACLU outlined the actions that the school system must take in
order to avoid a lawsuit.

Besides adopting an official policy banning creationism, the
letter demanded that the policy be clearly communicated to all of
the district's teachers and that the two teachers who have taught
creationism illegally should be "specifically cautioned."

According to the Ohio ACLU director Christine Link, the ACLU is
interested in settling the matter amicably.

"We will make every effort to work with the Lakewood schools to
ensure that their physics curriculum remains in the scientific
realm and does not cross the line into religious dogma," Link
said.

[Image]

Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union

Lenny Flank

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> >Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
> >banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
> >was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.
>
> Exactly.
>
> This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
> establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.
>


Idiot. Your fundie friends LOST this case.


> Anyone who lacks religious beliefs would not find
> creationist speech more offensive than Santa Claus speech
> or vile republicanism.
>


So you'd have no objection to having evolutionary science taught in
fundie Sunday schools? After all, since evolution is obviously
falser and satanic, said fundies should find it no more offensive
than Santa Claus or Democrats . . . . .


> >The argument made by the plaintiffs
> >in this case was crushingly simple and
> >very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
> >plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
> >state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
> >literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
> >denominations, and was therefore
> >mandating unconstituional favoring of one
> >religious view over others.
>
> Well, there you have it.


Indeed, there we have it. Creation "science" is the legal establishment
of one religious view over others, and is therefore unconstitutional.
I wouldn't expect a CD-ROM like "you" to understand the concept,
but fortunately for us most Federal judges have more brainpower than
"you" do.


>
> To any neutral observer, no one could sue under the
> Establishment Clause without showing harm to religious
> sensitivities.
>
> For to any neutral observer, religion is only secular
> speech and drama.
>


Blah blah blah. Fix your prgramming, bot. You're starting to blither.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> However, if a whole nation believes your superstitious
> fear of mere speech, then you may write your own end
> to the joke which cannot be funny.

There is no such thing as "mere" speech.
And no, the power of words is not funny.


However, if we take your stand that there does exist such a thing:

'Mere speech' can not possibly cause harm, because it has no physical
manifestation
in a neutral observer, correct?

Since it has no physical manifestation in a neutral observer, it also
cannot
cause GOOD in that observer. So why put it in a classroom, where it
would be a
completely unproductive waste of time?

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>

> >> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
> >> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]
> >

> >Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
> >given the opportunity.
>
> In the case of evolutionism, that certainly is not the case; science
> is not involved at all.

"Obviously".

Not in quantum mechanics, either.

> You obviously are concerned that the other
> fellow's superstition might be taught instead of YOURS, but
> but that could hardly be seen as any sort of a lowering of standards
> or anything like that.

Of course.
There are NO Christians, Jews, or Buddhists who believe in evolutionary
theory.
It would be beneath their morals.

> In fact the most ignorant superstitions in
> the world (other than evolutionism) would be vast improvements
> (over evolutionism).

Most ignorant superstitions in the world?

> When you look at Voodoo, Santaray,
> Rastifari, thugism, or any similar doctrine,

And you didn't include Fundamentalist Christianity in the list?

> you never see any sort
> of a requirement for infinite numbers of violations of probabilistic
> laws as is the case with evolutionism.

Of course not.

What are the odds of a benevolent anthropomorphic deity not only
existing, but
creating the world in under a week?

What are the odds that an apple contained all that knowledge about good
and evil!
[Wow, talk about "brain food!"]

What are the odds of it raining for 40 days and 40 nights, causing a
world-wide
flood which extinguished ALL life on the planet (even the fresh water
fish) except
for those living aboard a single boat?

Great "odds" - easily calculated... d'oh.

No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul
boldly
set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.
G.B. Shaw

*----

On to other "statistics".
I really would like to know how these 'violations of probability' are
calculated.

I am quite sure that the odds of life spontaneously appearing on the 3rd
planet
from the star called Sol in the Milky way galaxy such that by the 20th
century
AD mankind would have evolved enough so that it could travel to that
planet's moon
are quite slim.

Simply beause you named specific locations and instances.

Just like the odds of Bill Smith, who lives in a blue house at
1431 Wilkinson drive in Washington DC, winning the Publisher's Clearing
House
sweepstakes on his 43rd birthday are REAL DAMN slim.

Now.

How many planets are there in the universe?
How old is the universe?

So what are the odds of life forming on SOME planet out of, what,
billions?, in a time-span of 5 billion or so years?

MAYBE pretty good, MAYBE pretty slim.
We don't know what those odds are; anyone who claims to know is a fool.

So to say "the odds are 1 in a billion" is a bunch of malarkey.

Similarly, what are the odds of SOMEONE winning the Publisher's Clearing
House
sweepstakes SOME year?

*-

BTW: evolution in and of itself does not deal with 'first cause'.
It does not say HOW life got here; just what happened after.

> In fact, comparing a rastifarian or a voodooer to an evolutionist is
> almost like comparing a man to a baboon. You could, in fact,
> construct a new religion by taking the single most ignorant doctrine
> from all of the current religions and throw in human sacrafice and
> cannibalism to boot, and what you would get would STILL make a great
> deal more logical sense than evolutionism does and, in fact, be more
> humaine.
>

> I mean, the Aztec system, sacrafice and cannibalism
> included, could hardly be judged worse than the communist and nazi
> regimes of this century, which were logical fallouts of the
> evolutionist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" being the only
> moral law in nature.

Survival of the fittest is not a moral law.
Evolution does not deal with morality.

Actually, science "period" does not deal with morality.

So I guess that mixing the most ignorant of doctrines and throwing in
cannibalism
to boot would also be more "humane" than mathematics from your
perspective...

> Think about it.

Ditto.

Men of faith know that throughout history, the crimes committed in
liberty's
name have been exceed only by those commited in God's name.
Mills E. Godwin

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

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

[[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
speech on the basis that the students would be better off
studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]


>> Any speech by a demagog such as a Hitler has no power.
>> Rather, any effect of a Hitler's speech follows from the
>> people's avoidance of personal responsibility. And any harm
>> following the mere speech derives from the dysfunctional beliefs
>> of the hearers--not from the wrongness of the speech.

>> However, if a whole nation believes your superstitious
>> fear of mere speech, then you may write your own end
>> to the joke which cannot be funny.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>There is no such thing as "mere" speech.
>And no, the power of words is not funny.


All right. If you are correct then it should be easy
for you to design the demonstration to distinguish empirically
between, on the one hand, what you ban as "religion speech"
and, on the other hand, the speech of an
imposter that merely seeks to impress
the audience--not the heavens.

It is interesting that the evolutionists' whole theory
of banning depends on the assertion that there exists
some quality of "religious speech" that is NOT secular.

But the evolutionists' dogma counters the totality of empirical
evidence--that if you remove all the secular elements of
any "religious speech" there is NOTHING left over that any
rational person could reasonably say is "religious."

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

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

>> >> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
>> >> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]

-----

>> >Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
>> >given the opportunity.

-----

>> In the case of evolutionism, that certainly is not the case; science
>> is not involved at all.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>"Obviously".

>Not in quantum mechanics, either.

==========================================

When did quantum mechanists ban the teaching of some competitive
theory that the majority of taxpayers voted to teach?

The historical record suggests that, unlike the evolutionists,
the quantum mechanists have real-time demonstrations that
will do their convincing for them. No banning is necessary.

You might find between quantum mechanists
and critics MANY competitive discussions of
whether the ultimate quantum is a "tiny string" whose
undulations create all the particles and forces in the universe.

And quantum mechanists even tolerate such notions as the
"duality"--that the elementary quantums are made up of
the very particles they create.

But what the quantum mechanists seek is a theory of everything
that EXPLAINS the repeatable experiments.

In contrast, the evolutionists assert as primary data what
cannot be demonstrated--such as that all life descended from
the ONE pool of primordial Single-celled creatures.

John Boston

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:58:20 GMT, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>-----------------------
>
>>> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
>>> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
>>> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.
>
>>> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
>>> > teaching of creationism?
>
>-----
>
>>> No.
>
>>> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.
>
>
>Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>

>>Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
>>banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
>>was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
>establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.

Which religion was preferred?


>Anyone who lacks religious beliefs would not find
>creationist speech more offensive than Santa Claus speech
>or vile republicanism.

What an interesting, but useless statement.

>
>>The argument made by the plaintiffs
>>in this case was crushingly simple and
>>very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
>>plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
>>state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
>>literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
>>denominations, and was therefore
>>mandating unconstituional favoring of one
>>religious view over others.
>
>
>Well, there you have it.
>

>To any neutral observer, no one could sue under the
>Establishment Clause without showing harm to religious
>sensitivities.

So than an atheist couldn't sue under the E.C.?

>For to any neutral observer, religion is only secular
>speech and drama.

Please define or describe the characteristics of this neutral observer.

>Now of course much speech and drama is Nonsense. And
>if the Supreme Court had acted as a secular agent, then
>the Court would have banned the teaching of creationism
>under the Anti-Nonsense Clause of the First Amendment.

>After all, the speaking of much nonsense
>is well known to interfere with Free Speech.

>
>>The court indeed ruled that creationism was
>>not science at all, but merely literalist biblical doctrine, and thus
>>unconstitutionally gave state support to the biblical literalist
>>religious view over the religious views of the plaintiffs. The law was
>>declared unconstitutional and was thrown out.
>
>
>And THERE is the Court's logical error.
>
>The Court cannot recognize that some mere nonsense is
>an establishment of religion unless the Court
>believes the religion that says the nonsense is
>a religion.

Since the court didn't rule on "mere" nonsense, the above comment is
meaningless. We are dealing with "religious" nonsense. Which is different than
"scientific" nonsense or "mathematic" nonsense.


>To any neutral observer, religion is only secular
>drama and speech.

Again, who is this neutral observer, and should we care?
Is this neutral observer, you...by any chance?

>The Supreme Court merely voted its own religious bias
>that the Bible is a Word of God and not the mere mad
>wonderings of secular sinners hoping to avoid personal
>responsibility.

Interesting commentary.

Ted Holden

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

On 15 Mar 1997 18:42:04 GMT, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian
Hammontree) wrote:


>It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic

>vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle...

HMS Beagle...

Did any of you guys ever stop to think about the the sort of life this
guy Darwin was living? I mean, everybody else out on the oceans at
the time is in some sort of a ship called the Mary-Ann, the Helen,
the Sarah-Marie or some such and they're hanging out on the polynesian
islands talking to all the exotic <women>; and then you get Darwin out
on <The Beagle> looking for exotic animals... You get the feeling he
might have had a picture of Snoopy as a pin-up??

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

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

>>>> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
>>>> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
>>>> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.

>>>> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
>>>> > teaching of creationism?

-----

>>>> No.

>>>> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.

-----

>>>Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
>>>banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
>>>was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.

-----

>>Exactly.

>>This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
>>establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.


No.spam@John's.address (John Boston) writes:

> Which religion was preferred?


The Supreme Court established the religions that sued to
get protection from the teaching of creationism.

Certainly no neutral observer and no non-religious scientist
could sue to get protection under the Establishment Clause--
because the neutral observer and the non-religious scientist
could show no injury to their "religion" since they
do not have one.

John Wilkins

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <332ddcd1...@newsreader.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) spammed to a plethora of irrelevant groups, which I deleted in
this reply:

| On 15 Mar 1997 18:42:04 GMT, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian
| Hammontree) wrote:
|
|
| >It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic
| >vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle...
|
| HMS Beagle...
|
| Did any of you guys ever stop to think about the the sort of life this
| guy Darwin was living? I mean, everybody else out on the oceans at
| the time is in some sort of a ship called the Mary-Ann, the Helen,
| the Sarah-Marie or some such and they're hanging out on the polynesian
| islands talking to all the exotic <women>; and then you get Darwin out
| on <The Beagle> looking for exotic animals... You get the feeling he
| might have had a picture of Snoopy as a pin-up??

Ted! That's almost humour. You want to watch out, you might start making
sense soon.

My only problem is with Louis Agassiz, the well-known special creationist
and catastrophist - his last trip was on a ship by the interesting name of
"The Hassler". Significant? I think so.

--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research [Remove .UNSPAM from header address]
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote

Michael Agney

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

Ted Holden (med...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: On 15 Mar 1997 18:42:04 GMT, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian
: Hammontree) wrote:


: >It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic
: >vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle...

: HMS Beagle...

: Did any of you guys ever stop to think about the the sort of life this
: guy Darwin was living? I mean, everybody else out on the oceans at
: the time is in some sort of a ship called the Mary-Ann, the Helen,
: the Sarah-Marie or some such and they're hanging out on the polynesian
: islands talking to all the exotic <women>; and then you get Darwin out
: on <The Beagle> looking for exotic animals... You get the feeling he
: might have had a picture of Snoopy as a pin-up??


: Ted Holden
: http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html

Well, at least it's funny.

<bat re-released to the wild>

--
Michael Agney

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> [[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
> speech on the basis that the students would be better off
> studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]

Repeatedly, it is not "evolutionists".

Furthermore, regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory even
existed,
creation theory should not be permitted into the science classroom
because:
1. It is not science. 2. It is religion.

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>

> >There is no such thing as "mere" speech.
> >And no, the power of words is not funny.
>
> All right. If you are correct then it should be easy
> for you to design the demonstration to distinguish empirically
> between, on the one hand, what you ban as "religion speech"
> and, on the other hand, the speech of an
> imposter that merely seeks to impress
> the audience--not the heavens.

Well, first I would like to point out that quite a few "religion
speeches"
fall into your first category anyway - that is, seeking to impress the
audience
and not the heavens.

Second, as I have stated before, there is quite OBVIOUSLY no 100% purely
unbiased means of determining whether or not speech is "religious" or
not.

And that fact is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

*-

"Religion" has certain qualities which are "understood" by the majority
of
the population - a general consensus, if you will. Judgements are based
on
those ideas.

In your own terms, how does one "empirically" distinguish between first
degree
murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or even self defense?
Dead is dead, right?

Quite obviously, your variation of unbiased observer is unable to make
any judgements based on emotion, morals, ethics, intent, cause, or
anything
even close to those.

Heck, he can't even tell you that a color is "blue" without running it
through
a spectrograph.

Pretty useless observer, it would seem.

*-

BTW: My dictionary says that "empirical" means
"based on experience or observation alone" - no "unbiased"
required.

> It is interesting that the evolutionists' whole theory
> of banning depends on the assertion that there exists
> some quality of "religious speech" that is NOT secular.

Secular adj, Not relating to or concerned with religion.

"Religious speech" by DEFINITION is NOT secular.

Similarly, speech about "love" is not speech about "hate",
regardless of the vibrational harmonics of the air waves.



> But the evolutionists' dogma counters the totality of empirical
> evidence--that if you remove all the secular elements of
> any "religious speech" there is NOTHING left over that any
> rational person could reasonably say is "religious."

Rational?
I would tend to say "irrational".
[What would the "secular elements" of religous speech be?
The word "the", the word "a"; any word which is not "God"?
That would be rather silly.]

Even the emotionless Spock understood the CONCEPT of emotion.
That is MUCH more than can be said for your kind of 'neutral observer'.

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In talk.origins Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------

> Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
> rational argument if scientists
> legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
> and Latin from science classes.

I have yet to see English teachers claim that 'English' has
a viable theory to biological origins that explains the
fossil record better then the current theory of evolution.


> --
> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

Jeff


Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

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

>> [[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
>> speech on the basis that the students would be better off
>> studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]


"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Repeatedly, it is not "evolutionists".


"Evolutionist" is a term of art. Any standard English dictionary
will explain that an "evolutionist" is any person that advocates
or believes in biological evolution.

Let B be the set of all people that justify a ban on
creationist speech. If you look at the empirical data,
you will find that over 90% of the
people in set B are evolutionists--that
is, over 90% of the people in set B believe in biological evolution.

>Furthermore, regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory even
>existed, creation theory should not be permitted into the science classroom
>because:
> 1. It is not science. 2. It is religion.


If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
would be no religious injury to claim standing
under the Religion Clauses of the United States
Consititution.

Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
rational argument if scientists
legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
and Latin from science classes.

--
Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com


Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

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

[[The evolutionists claim that, even if there were no
religion of evolution to claim protection under the Religion
Clauses of the Constitution, STILL creationist speech should be
banned from science classes merely because, they claim,
creationism is not "science."]]


>> You would have the beginning of a
>> rational argument if scientists
>> legally banned ALL non-science speech such as English


>> and Latin from science classes.


spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:

>I have yet to see English teachers claim that 'English' has
>a viable theory to biological origins that explains the
>fossil record better then the current theory of evolution.

===================================

R I G H T!

But you reveal more than you intended.

So, you say, evolutionism bans only the speech that appears to
explain the fossil record better than the current theory
of evolution.


Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
> would be no religious injury to claim standing
> under the Religion Clauses of the United States
> Consititution.

I don't recall evolutionary theory needing protection AS a religion,
merely protection FROM religion.

> Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
> rational argument if scientists
> legally banned all non-science subjects such as English


> and Latin from science classes.

As far as I am aware, neither "English" nor "Latin" are attempting
to be taught as a subject in a science class...

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

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

>> If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
>> would be no religious injury to claim standing
>> under the Religion Clauses of the United States
>> Consititution.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>I don't recall evolutionary theory needing protection AS a religion,
>merely protection FROM religion.

=================================

To get standing under the Establishment Clause, even atheists
must claim "standing" by asserting a personal religious domain which is
harmed by the state's establishment of a competing religion.

After all, until you have indoctrinated yourself that doing the
rosary has some imagined NON-secular significance, doing the rosary has
no religious quality that distinguishes doing the "rosary" from doing
the "poker deck."

Thus, to the unindoctrinated, there is NO non-secular quality to
any act of anything animal, vegetable, or mineral.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<rednbluE...@netcom.com>...
> --------------------------------------------
>

Item One:

> >> [[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
> >> speech on the basis that the students would be better off
> >> studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]
>
>

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>

> >Repeatedly, it is not "evolutionists".
>

Item Two:

> "Evolutionist" is a term of art. Any standard English dictionary
> will explain that an "evolutionist" is any person that advocates
> or believes in biological evolution.
>
> Let B be the set of all people that justify a ban on
> creationist speech. If you look at the empirical data,
> you will find that over 90% of the
> people in set B are evolutionists--that
> is, over 90% of the people in set B believe in biological evolution.
>
>
>
> >Furthermore, regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory even
> >existed, creation theory should not be permitted into the science
classroom
> >because:
> > 1. It is not science. 2. It is religion.
>

Item Three:

>
> If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
> would be no religious injury to claim standing
> under the Religion Clauses of the United States
> Consititution.


Item Four:


> Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
> rational argument if scientists
> legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
> and Latin from science classes.
>
>
>

> --
> Riley M. Sinder
red...@netcom.com
>


Note the evident use of a random number generator to produce
sinder_object's responses to issues of fact:

1. Item One does not, of course, actually represent anyone's justifications
for excluding psuedosciences from science claseses.

2. Item Two is a nonsequitur, the sinder_object having cut the relevant
points from the post it claims to be quoting from.

3. Item Three is wildly inaccurate, as no knowlegible person refers to
"Religion Clauses" in the US Constitution, and as the provisions of the
Constitution dealing with the separation of church and state do not assert
a need for some "religious injury to claim standing" under those provisions
-- indeed, this asserted need for such injury is wholey an original
invention of the sinder_object.

4. Item Four is the most interesting, as each of the several assertions
therein bares only a random relationship to the truth:

4a. "Scientists" have banned nothing; these are the actions of courts and
legislatures;

4b. The issue has never been that "non-science subjects" should be or have
been "banned" from science classes; the issue has been that only science
should be taught *as science* in science classes, and that neither any
particulary religion, or religion itself, can be established as official in
government schools.

4c. And, of course, the reference to the alleged teaching of Latin and
English in science classes has no relationship either with the law, the
facts or, indeed, any non-random relationship at all to the subject at
hand.


Note: The reader must recall when reviewing the responses generated from
the sinder_object that neutral observers have unanimously concluded that
the sinder_object is either machine-driven or mentally ill; therefore no
ethical judgements should be drawn regarding its untruths and its selective
cutting of real people's post.

--
Mitchell Coffey
Header address is an anti-spam fake.
Real email address is: mco...@grci.com.
*********************************************************************

Glendower: "At my nativity
The font of heaven was full of fiery shapes,
Of burning cressets, and at my birth
The frame and huge foundation of the earth
Shaked like a coward!"

Hotspur: "Why, so it would have done at the same season
If your mother's cat had but kittened, though yourself
Had never been born.
...

Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"

Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"

-- Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part One, III, i


Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

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

[[The evolutionists have an interesting argument that
creationism should be banned from science class merely because
it is not science.

However, there is no indication that the evolutionists
would ban NON-science subjects generally from science class.

For example, there is only a very minor faction of
evolutionists that would ban English and Latin from
science classes.]]

-----

>> But English and Latin do not threaten to explain the


>> fossil record better than the current theory of evolution.

-----



> So, you say, evolutionism bans only the speech that appears to
> explain the fossil record better than the current theory
> of evolution.


mag...@erols.com wrote:

> Actually, it's not "evolutionism" doing the "banning."

> It's the U. S. Constitution, as interpreted by a diverse collection
> of federal judges, from Overton and Duplantier to the Circuit Court of
> Appeals and the U. S. Supreme Court.


Exactly the point here. Each and every one of the judges
that voted for banning creationist speech from science classes
personally preferred hearing an evolutionist sermon rather
than a creationist sermon.

And most of these judges professed a personal faith in evolutionism
as an essentially correct explanation of origins.

> The plaintiffs, you will remember, included students, teachers,
> parents, and a substantial number of Christian denominations in official
> capacities.


Exactly.

The ban on creationist speech amounted to the establishment
of an official state religion that approved of the religious
view of the Christian denominations that sued to stop the
creationist speech.

Evidently, the long historic legal battle between evolutionism
and creationism is only a head-to-head competition between
the religions.

> The Supreme Court declared that creationism is religion.

To reach that conclusion, the Supreme Court had to establish
the federal religion that some speech is "religious"
and some speech is "secular."

That distinction can be made ONLY by one indoctrinated into
the religion that such a superstitious idea has any real
component.

James S. Lovejoy

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Translation: I don't like the 1st Amendment, but if I know I can't
eliminate it unless I lie, so I'll say it's just a superstition,
and hope someone is stupid enough to believe me.

Creation 'science' fundamentalism: recruiting arm of Atheists of America

Dr. Monkey Spank

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
> Exactly the point here. Each and every one of the judges
> that voted for banning creationist speech from science classes
> personally preferred hearing an evolutionist sermon rather
> than a creationist sermon.

You pathetic monkey-spank. Creationist speech wasn't banned. Religious
speech was, which be definition must include creationism. And what the
fuck is an evolutionist sermon? Do you call anything you don't like a
religion, and then dismiss it? What a shithead!



> And most of these judges professed a personal faith in evolutionism
> as an essentially correct explanation of origins.

Here you go again. Ascribing a way of thinking, i.e., the scientific
method, with the moniker "faith" and then dismissing it like any old
religion. What an idiot.



> The ban on creationist speech amounted to the establishment
> of an official state religion that approved of the religious
> view of the Christian denominations that sued to stop the
> creationist speech.

You're an ignorant butt-nugget.



> Evidently, the long historic legal battle between evolutionism
> and creationism is only a head-to-head competition between
> the religions.

Yeah, it's like gravity is my religion. So if I ever decide to give
up my faith, I guess I'll go floating off. Right?

You Chicago students are ignorant butt-wipes!

--
Dr. MonkeySpank - Esq., CEO
Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
monke...@beavisandbutthead.com

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
> >I don't recall evolutionary theory needing protection AS a religion,
> >merely protection FROM religion.
>
> =================================
>
> To get standing under the Establishment Clause, even atheists
> must claim "standing" by asserting a personal religious domain which is
> harmed by the state's establishment of a competing religion.

Why couldn't the atheist show that the "competing religion" infringes on
the personal religious domain of... Christians, for example?

In that case, one need not prove one's OWN religious belief (or lack) at
all.

> After all, until you have indoctrinated yourself that doing the
> rosary has some imagined NON-secular significance,

The roasary DOES have non-secular significance.
The significance exists in the minds of those who believe in it;
REGARDLESS of the opinion of the un-indoctrinated person.
[Your claim is akin to saying that a sound which goes unheard is not a
sound,
or that a rainbow which is not seen is not a rainbow.]

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97