Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Has anyone's opinions changed from anti-Evolution to pro-Evolution by reading this newsgroup?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Frank Sullivan

unread,
May 13, 2005, 2:53:11 PM5/13/05
to
I did. It was the talkorigins.org archive that did it for me. I was
totally anti-evolution and was prepared to start arguing with
everybody, when I decided to read the Creationist Claims database first
(because the site asked me to) and the rest is history.

I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
that I couldn't stop reading!

I know it probably feels like it's the same people here arguing against
the same IDiot ideas over and over again, but I thought I'd let you
know that this site has changed at least one mind 180 degrees.

Mateo

unread,
May 13, 2005, 2:56:42 PM5/13/05
to
Not I. I also assumed evolution was false growing up just because at
church it was frowned upon (even though I didn't go to a political
church like you see today). I never really thought much about whether
it could actually be true until I became an atheist, and then it became
obvious to me. I mostly just have learned about the process of
evolution, and some of the misconceptions about it, from reading this
newsgroup. I consider the archives to be a valuable resource.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
May 13, 2005, 3:16:07 PM5/13/05
to
On Fri, 13 May 2005, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
> that I couldn't stop reading!

Mmmm, crow.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Derek Snider

unread,
May 13, 2005, 4:28:00 PM5/13/05
to
Consider yourself one of the lucky few. Most creationists aren't
open-minded enough to consider other views.

Jim Guillory

unread,
May 13, 2005, 4:46:59 PM5/13/05
to

"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:d62udm$4nb$4...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...

> Austin, Texas <----- mmmm, armadillo.


John Wilkins

unread,
May 13, 2005, 7:43:52 PM5/13/05
to
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
>>that I couldn't stop reading!
>
>
> Mmmm, crow.
>
I personally eat so much of it I have several interesting recipes for it.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

Dylan

unread,
May 13, 2005, 8:37:44 PM5/13/05
to
What a great opening post! You're a creative dude, Frank.

When I started reading Talk.Origins I had an open mind with regard to
evolution, and I had been leaning toward it for a long time, but the
data and the cogent arguments were absolutely convincing. Also I
learned so much about how it actually works. It wasn't so much like
eating crow as eating steak when you're starving.

Dylan

Jeff

unread,
May 13, 2005, 10:14:58 PM5/13/05
to
"Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116010391.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

TO helped me on my journey away from creationism, but it wasn't the primary
instigator of my enlightenment. That honor belongs to Duane Gish and the A
Beka Book textbook publishers.

Growing up, creationism was mercilessly pounded into my head. "The Theory of
Evolution is as likely to be true as the Theory That the Moon Is Made of
Green Cheese," said my dad. "Evolution is a tool of Satan," said my
preacher. I was homeschooled with textbooks that dismissed evolution as
heresy and provided comics to prove the point. It was my wish to meet an
actual evolutionist because 1) it would be cool to see God-Hatred in person
and 2) I had the questions to stop the crafty heretic cold.

To strengthen my faith, I set out with the naivete of an eight-grader to
master the controversy well enough that anything but young earth creationism
(YEC) would appear obviously false. I read and re-read the creationist
literature so much that I spent many nights lying in my bed and struggling
with the issue before falling asleep.

This interest in the topic was my undoing. To my dismay, I discovered that
the A Beka textbooks' pat rebuttals of evolution were distortions. The A
Beka textbooks said that evolution is based on circular reasoning because
"The fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils." But my set of
30-year-old World Book encyclopedias mentioned something about carbon dating
and nuclear decay, which were nowhere to be found in the colorful comic in
the A Beka textbook.

Beginning to question what I had been taught about creationism, I read a
debate between Duane Gish and Hugh Ross on Dr. Dobson's show
(http://tinyurl.com/7mlxm ). Gish attacked Ross, saying, "I don't see any
difference between that [Ross's] view and that of any atheist cosmologist or
any
unbelieving cosmologist who believes in the big bang." That led me to think,
"Well, this is stupid. Who cares if the cosmologist is believing or
unbelieving: what's the evidence say?" Stars were also discussed in the this
debate, leading me to learn that we are receiving ancient light from stars,
such as those in the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2.2 million light-years
distant from our eyes. How would that light reach my eyes if the universe is
less than 10,000 years old? Quoting from another article:

"Let me give you an illustration. Astronomers looking through their
telescopes see a super nova explosion a billion light years away. (Super
nova is when a star explodes and sends its material spewing out into space.)
What exist now, at this moment, are the random bits of the old star which,
allegedly, is the condition God actually created six to ten thousand years
ago.
"What this means is that the star the astronomers saw explode never existed.
The super nova never happened. This seems to suggest that God created the
illusion of the universe and not the universe itself, because that which
allegedly exists, we will never see. That which allegedly exists, we'll
never see, and that which we actually see never existed."

(http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/starligh.htm)

With my belief in YEC in tatters, I became agnostic on the subject,
realizing my ignorance but unable to overcome years of indoctrination. This
agnosticism held until my second year of college when I took a class in
Anatomy and Physiology and did extensive studying on my own. After learning
about parthenogenic lizards and many examples of evolution in my A & P class
and after reviewing TalkOrigin.org's patient, temperate debunking of
creationist claims, I began searching for any honest creationists. I
couldn't find any. Every time I looked deeper into a creationist claim, I
found it to be filled with lies and distortion.

(Parenthetical aside:
As a relatively trivial example, I found YECs spouting urban legends, such
as EYE SEE AHR falling for the urban legend that we only use a small
fraction of our brain potential.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

http://tinyurl.com/chtb3

http://tinyurl.com/aav4h

The group named may remove their claims once I post this, but you'll be able
to see it on Google's cache for a little while at least.

Not having the tool of evolution, the authors of these articles don't
realize that big, expensive brains that are being largely unused would be
strongly selected against.
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth4
As such, they blindly accept an urban legend, supporting this legend with
the idea that the Fall has robbed them of 80-90% of their mental capacity.

End parenthetical aside)

I realized I was not a creationist when I knew I could not present a
compelling and scientific Theory of Creationism on forums like talk.origins.
But it took creationist dishonesty coupled with multiple lines of evidence
supporting evolution to finally allow myself to admit, that yes, I had
become my childhood incarnation of evil: I had accepted evolution.

Dean Chesterman

unread,
May 13, 2005, 11:28:03 PM5/13/05
to

Jeff wrote:

Nominated for Post of the Month

Dean Chesterman


Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
May 13, 2005, 11:57:33 PM5/13/05
to
On Sat, 14 May 2005, "Jeff" <jeff...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

> That led me to think, "Well, this is stupid. Who cares if the
> cosmologist is believing or unbelieving: what's the evidence say?"

And *that* is why you're not a creationist.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
May 13, 2005, 11:58:17 PM5/13/05
to
On Fri, 13 May 2005, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:

What kind of time period was involved?

Mike Dworetsky

unread,
May 14, 2005, 5:30:58 AM5/14/05
to
"Dean Chesterman" <dean.ch...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4285704...@shaw.ca...

I'll second that. Does t.o have a web page for "testimonials" from reformed
creationists? Or are items like this scattered about the place?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)


>
>

Raymond E. Griffith

unread,
May 14, 2005, 7:16:00 AM5/14/05
to
in article 4285704...@shaw.ca, Dean Chesterman at
dean.ch...@shaw.ca wrote on 5/13/05 11:28 PM:

Seconded.

Jeff's experience mirrors my own in many ways.

Raymond E. Griffith

Jeff

unread,
May 14, 2005, 10:50:24 AM5/14/05
to

"Jeff" <jeff...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kadhe.7724$i03....@fe06.lga...

> and after reviewing TalkOrigin.org's patient, temperate debunking of

That should be the talkoriginS.org archive with an "s". Dropping the "s"
will allow Jason Gastrich to witness for Christian honesty. He takes a
domain name that would be commonly mistaken for TO and, in effect, lies by
misrepresenting his website as the answer to a user's search for TO.

AC

unread,
May 14, 2005, 11:58:24 AM5/14/05
to
On 13 May 2005 11:53:11 -0700,

I recall two Jehovah's Witnesses in the last couple of years who definitely
questioned their beliefs. One actually left the JWs and, at least early on,
lost his family (I can't remember the fellow's name, and I feel terrible
about that). The other was Steve B, who I don't think ever resolved the
issues. At least for baptized JWs, accepting evolution has serious personal
repercussions.

--
mightym...@hotmail.com

Richard Clayton

unread,
May 14, 2005, 12:12:11 PM5/14/05
to

Most eloquent. Thank you for sharing that with us, Jeff.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero

Frank J

unread,
May 14, 2005, 1:07:40 PM5/14/05
to

Congratulations, and welcome. Hope you can stay and defend good
science. TO did not convert me to evolution, but it did convert me from
30 years of blindly accepting the caricature of evolution that most
anti-evolutionists target (and thus indirectly promote). I was just as
humbled as you about how little I knew and about how much I had been
mistaken.

While it does get frustrating to have to repeat the same things over
and over to those who just don't get it - or pretend not to get it - it
is a comfort to know that new lurkers stop by regularly and
occasionally pick up something that makes them think.

Frank J

unread,
May 14, 2005, 1:09:33 PM5/14/05
to

John Wilkins wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2005, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so
interesting
> >>that I couldn't stop reading!
> >
> >
> > Mmmm, crow.
> >
> I personally eat so much of it I have several interesting recipes for
it.

Better not make any for Dembski. I hear he's allergic to it.

catshark

unread,
May 14, 2005, 2:58:00 PM5/14/05
to
On 14 May 2005 15:58:24 GMT, AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 13 May 2005 11:53:11 -0700,
>Frank Sullivan <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did. It was the talkorigins.org archive that did it for me. I was
>> totally anti-evolution and was prepared to start arguing with
>> everybody, when I decided to read the Creationist Claims database first
>> (because the site asked me to) and the rest is history.
>>
>> I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
>> that I couldn't stop reading!
>>
>> I know it probably feels like it's the same people here arguing against
>> the same IDiot ideas over and over again, but I thought I'd let you
>> know that this site has changed at least one mind 180 degrees.
>
>I recall two Jehovah's Witnesses in the last couple of years who definitely
>questioned their beliefs. One actually left the JWs and, at least early on,
>lost his family (I can't remember the fellow's name, and I feel terrible
>about that).

I think you're referring to "Lodger".
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html>

>The other was Steve B, who I don't think ever resolved the
>issues. At least for baptized JWs, accepting evolution has serious personal
>repercussions.

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

In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen

- Emily Dickinson -

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
May 14, 2005, 3:12:29 PM5/14/05
to
Frank J wrote:
> Frank Sullivan wrote:
>
>>I did. It was the talkorigins.org archive that did it for me. I was
>>totally anti-evolution and was prepared to start arguing with
>>everybody, when I decided to read the Creationist Claims database
>> first
>>(because the site asked me to) and the rest is history.
>>
>>I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so
>> interesting
>>that I couldn't stop reading!
>>
>>I know it probably feels like it's the same people here arguing
>> against
>>the same IDiot ideas over and over again, but I thought I'd let you
>>know that this site has changed at least one mind 180 degrees.
>
> Congratulations, and welcome.

Do we have to teach him the secret handshake now? We've been
having trouble e-mailing the decoder rings.

--Jeff

--
Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if
there be one, he must more approve
of the homage of reason, then that
of blindfolded fear.
--Thomas Jefferson

JWIL

unread,
May 14, 2005, 3:19:12 PM5/14/05
to
Jeff, that was a great story. Thanks for taking the time to do it.
--John

cub...@aol.com

unread,
May 14, 2005, 3:28:19 PM5/14/05
to

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> "Dean Chesterman" <dean.ch...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:4285704...@shaw.ca...
> >
> >
> > Jeff wrote:

[Frank Sullivan's journey from Creationism to rationality snipped]

> > Nominated for Post of the Month
> >
> > Dean Chesterman
> >
> >
>
> I'll second that. Does t.o have a web page for "testimonials" from
reformed
> creationists?

Not really, but there are a few more such "testimonials" in the POTM
archives...

> Or are items like this scattered about the place?

The POTM archives. And an occasional post in the site's feedback.

Frank J

unread,
May 14, 2005, 3:40:47 PM5/14/05
to

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > Frank Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>I did. It was the talkorigins.org archive that did it for me. I was
> >>totally anti-evolution and was prepared to start arguing with
> >>everybody, when I decided to read the Creationist Claims database
> >> first
> >>(because the site asked me to) and the rest is history.
> >>
> >>I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so
> >> interesting
> >>that I couldn't stop reading!
> >>
> >>I know it probably feels like it's the same people here arguing
> >> against
> >>the same IDiot ideas over and over again, but I thought I'd let you
> >>know that this site has changed at least one mind 180 degrees.
> >
> > Congratulations, and welcome.
>
> Do we have to teach him the secret handshake now? We've been
> having trouble e-mailing the decoder rings.
>


No, but he does have to join the nonexistent EAC.

Frank J

unread,
May 14, 2005, 3:44:25 PM5/14/05
to

Walter Bushell

unread,
May 14, 2005, 8:36:24 PM5/14/05
to
In article <d63e32$upd$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:

> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2005, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
> >>that I couldn't stop reading!
> >
> >
> > Mmmm, crow.
> >
> I personally eat so much of it I have several interesting recipes for it.

How does that recipe start, catch and clean 6 medium crows or one large
penguin set aside and prepare orange sauce?

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

John Wilkins

unread,
May 14, 2005, 8:43:47 PM5/14/05
to
All crow recipes start: "First admit you need to eat this."

AC

unread,
May 14, 2005, 9:43:38 PM5/14/05
to
On Sat, 14 May 2005 14:58:00 -0400,
catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 14 May 2005 15:58:24 GMT, AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 13 May 2005 11:53:11 -0700,
>>Frank Sullivan <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I did. It was the talkorigins.org archive that did it for me. I was
>>> totally anti-evolution and was prepared to start arguing with
>>> everybody, when I decided to read the Creationist Claims database first
>>> (because the site asked me to) and the rest is history.
>>>
>>> I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
>>> that I couldn't stop reading!
>>>
>>> I know it probably feels like it's the same people here arguing against
>>> the same IDiot ideas over and over again, but I thought I'd let you
>>> know that this site has changed at least one mind 180 degrees.
>>
>>I recall two Jehovah's Witnesses in the last couple of years who definitely
>>questioned their beliefs. One actually left the JWs and, at least early on,
>>lost his family (I can't remember the fellow's name, and I feel terrible
>>about that).
>
> I think you're referring to "Lodger".
><http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html>

Yes, that's him. I wonder how he is. His was a very sad but very typical
story. I try not to be too bitter about JWs, but the way they treat those
that leave his horrific, and Lodger sacrificed so very much in rejecting
their crap theology and virulent pseudo-science. I was young and
unbaptized, so other than some uncomfortable conversations and the odd "you
should come back", I never went through anything like he did.

>
>>The other was Steve B, who I don't think ever resolved the
>>issues. At least for baptized JWs, accepting evolution has serious personal
>>repercussions.

I also wonder what happened to Steve B. The last I heard from him was when
Nowhere Man's debate was put on permanent hiatus.

--
mightym...@hotmail.com

Frank Sullivan

unread,
May 14, 2005, 10:05:25 PM5/14/05
to
As far as a time frame is concerned, it literally took just a few hours
of reading. By the time that I had decided to read TO's archives, I
had already gone through a lot of introspection and so I was actually
more prepared to eat crow than I otherwise might have been.

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
May 14, 2005, 11:43:39 PM5/14/05
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
> John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>>On Fri, 13 May 2005, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I usually resist eating so much crow, but I found it all so interesting
>>>>that I couldn't stop reading!
>>>
>>>Mmmm, crow.
>>>
>>
>>I personally eat so much of it I have several interesting recipes for it.
>
> How does that recipe start, catch and clean 6 medium crows or one large
> penguin set aside and prepare orange sauce?

Penguins are the best bird. I do not know if that means "tastiest."

Niels van der Linden

unread,
May 16, 2005, 9:18:25 AM5/16/05
to
POTM

> [..] it took creationist dishonesty coupled with multiple lines of

> evidence supporting evolution to finally allow myself to admit, that yes,
> I had become my childhood incarnation of evil: I had accepted evolution.

Pointing out religions' own inconsistency is indeed one of the biggest
weapons you can use against them.


loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 16, 2005, 2:50:55 PM5/16/05
to
I don't remember where I read it (probably a minor work of fiction) but
someone had constructed a nifty Wise Old Saying to the effect of
"having a truth you're afraid to acknowledge to your own followers is
like handing your enemy a knife."

I think about it a lot, here, when innocent young creationists turn up
to Teach Us The Error Of Our Sinful Ways. Poor lambs. (In the
'sacrificial animals' sense of the word.)

Ken Shackleton

unread,
May 16, 2005, 3:23:46 PM5/16/05
to
I once read that there are two kinds of people in this world:

Some people equate their sense of self with what they know. Therefore,
if you challenge what they know [or more accurately, what they believe
to be true]; they see this as a personal attack, rather than challenge
to their stated position. These people are very rigid once they have
formed an opinion, since it is now incorporated into their sense of
self.

Other people [I like to include myself in this group], do not equate
what they know with who they are. They understand that what they know
is always changing as new information comes along. They see themselves
as being in constant development, ever improving as new ideas get
incorporated and old [and proven incorrect] ideas get tossed.

I was raised in a quasi-Christian household [cultural Christians, not
particularly religious]. I attended Sunday School as a child, but I
always viewed the biblical stories as just that....stories....with a
message to be sure, but I can never recall taking them as literal fact
at all.....ever. I was always encouraged [by my parents] to think for
myself, do not take a person at their word if you have doubts,
investigate for yourself.

So....this newsgroup did not "convert" me, but this forum, and other
sources of information have been invaluable to me. What I find
particularly convincing is the way in which all the sciences support
one another. The fact that different lines of evidence converge to
provide a very broad and inter-related understanding of the universe is
very compelling.

No religious dogma has ever been able to accomplish this, at least with
respect to an undestanding of the workings of nature.

0 new messages