As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?

Religions > Atheism > As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"August Pamplona"
Date:	15 Aug 2003 02:17:17 PM
Object:	As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?

New York Times article on how religious belief in the U.S.A. seems
to be becoming more mystical (extreme and irrational?) at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html
August Pamplona
P.S. Reproduced below.
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
-----------------------------------------------------------
August 15, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Believe It, or Not
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the
moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So
here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as
likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in
evolution (28 percent).
So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental
divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith.
Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a
way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible
exception of South Korea.
Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to
believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries
overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13
percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in
this column, go to www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)
The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is
becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage
of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points
in the latest poll.
My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active
Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and
regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline
Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the
number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of
Episcopalians has dropped almost in half.
The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the
industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the
most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious
America.
Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians .
.. . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on
a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this
way:
"God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled
and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who
were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's
choice."
The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine
America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the
evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven
(which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that
it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian
Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a
"collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly
legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were
widespread in many parts of the ancient world.
Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his
book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary
(like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the
Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal
evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been
added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different
kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).
Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite
the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91
percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an
astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.
I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. And I don't pretend to know why
America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of
the world. But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious
Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to
many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society.
But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of
Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the
scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly
because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning
mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large
part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition
and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the
brain.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
.

User: "Jenny6833A"
Title: Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?	15 Aug 2003 04:11:05 PM

"August Pamplona"

says
Nicholas D. Kristof writes in part

My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active
Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and
regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.

But would Grandpop have said that to a pollster?
:-)
Jennifer
.

User: "Wbarwell"
Title: Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?	15 Aug 2003 09:19:35 PM

Jenny6833A wrote:

"August Pamplona"

says

Nicholas D. Kristof writes in part

My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active
Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and
regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.

But would Grandpop have said that to a pollster?

Yes. Many did. At the turn of the century, many educated Christians
were like this, they werre aware of the discoveries of Darwin, Wallace,
Hutton, Lyell and others. The deciphering of old languages, Egyptian,
cunieform scripts and others was bearing fruit, and the discovery that the
bible was the work of many people, with many layers, some old, some newer
and that much of it was based on myths was well known.
Some, did not of course accept reality. There was actually quite a battle
between the intellectually honest and the myth orientated
anti-intellectuals. There was a mass movement to abandon mainstream
churches and found their own churches. Based on a series of books arguing
for such things as Adam and Eve being real people, the myths of a virgin
birth and other claims being real, these books, "the Fundamentals of
Christianity" gave the name to the movement Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism has succeeded because its proponents discovered the power of
radio and later TV, and emotional propaganda.
We tend to think things were like they are now as far as religion goes, but
it wasn't, not a century ago when these battles started. Christian
fundamentalism, the turning away from facts, truths, rationality and reason,
and its influence among mainstream religions and evangelical religions
is historically new.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "August Pamplona"
Title: Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?	15 Aug 2003 09:57:18 PM

"Wbarwell" <Wbarwell@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:3f3d9491$0$127$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...

Jenny6833A wrote:

"August Pamplona"

says

Nicholas D. Kristof writes in part

My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and

active

Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and
regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.

But would Grandpop have said that to a pollster?

Yes. Many did. At the turn of the century, many educated Christians
were like this, they werre aware of the discoveries of Darwin,

Wallace,

Hutton, Lyell and others. The deciphering of old languages, Egyptian,
cunieform scripts and others was bearing fruit, and the discovery that

the

bible was the work of many people, with many layers, some old, some

newer

and that much of it was based on myths was well known.

Some, did not of course accept reality. There was actually quite a

battle

between the intellectually honest and the myth orientated
anti-intellectuals. There was a mass movement to abandon mainstream
churches and found their own churches. Based on a series of books

arguing

for such things as Adam and Eve being real people, the myths of a

virgin

birth and other claims being real, these books, "the Fundamentals of
Christianity" gave the name to the movement Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism has succeeded because its proponents discovered the

power of

radio and later TV, and emotional propaganda.

We tend to think things were like they are now as far as religion

goes, but

it wasn't, not a century ago when these battles started. Christian
fundamentalism, the turning away from facts, truths, rationality and

reason,

and its influence among mainstream religions and evangelical religions
is historically new.

I happened to catch a piece of one of those wonderful movies that
TBN produces absolutely certain that it's going to be the next big
blockbuster (which always seems rather absurd --but these people are in
the faith business, after all). The movie was Time Changer (
http://imdb.com/Details?0295725 ). The protagonist is some Bible college
professor from 1890 who travels to sometime around the present time. I
have my suspicions that the portrayal of this character's extreme
naïvette might be somewhat unrealistic (more like an idealized version
of what fundies would think he'd be like than what someone like him
would actually be like --as they probably think that their exact kind of
fundamentalism has existed unchanging in an unbroken line that spans all
the way back to the beginnings of Christianity). I speculate that such
an upper class character would indeed in some ways find our society
over-sexed and be shocked but in other ways the members of our modern
American society (particularly the fundies) might very well look like
the prudes to him.
Then again, I might be totally wrong.

--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie

August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
.

User: "Thomas Curmudgeon"
Title: Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religiousAmericans slowly becoming nuttier?	16 Aug 2003 02:19:36 PM

August Pamplona wrote:

New York Times article on how religious belief in the U.S.A. seems
to be becoming more mystical (extreme and irrational?) at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html

""Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of
Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).""
I live in a sea of brainwashed morons.
.

User: "Craig McDonald"
Title: 72% of Americans are creationists!? (was Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?)	15 Aug 2003 09:30:30 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:17:17 GMT, "August Pamplona"
<necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale@mail.com> wrote:

If the figure of 28% belief in evolution is correct, then I have one
thing to say:-
Hang your collective heads in shame, America!
Surely that figure is the highest creationist/non-creationist ratio
outside of the arab world? Unless anyone can show different?
Suddenly www.dinosauradventureland.com seems more scary than funny.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.

User: "Dr. Zarkov"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? (was Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?)	15 Aug 2003 11:16:21 PM

"August Pamplona" <necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale@mail.com> wrote in
message news:a4h%a.4900$Nf3.2753@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:pf5rjv8kpnn0k9b77uv7rhqv1lekngjjd4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:17:17 GMT, "August Pamplona"
<necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale@mail.com> wrote:

New York Times article on how religious belief in the U.S.A.

seems

to be becoming more mystical (extreme and irrational?) at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html

If the figure of 28% belief in evolution is correct, then I have one
thing to say:-

Probably a lot of this has to do with how questions are posed in the
polls. Or at least, that's what I like to tell myself when I read of
such polling results.

I've seen similar figures. So much for the value of the opinion of the
majority. As Mencken one remarked, no one ever lost money betting on the
stupidity of the American people--and compared to people in the mid-east and
a lot of other places, Americans are the geniuses of the world.

Hang your collective heads in shame, America!

Surely that figure is the highest creationist/non-creationist ratio
outside of the arab world? Unless anyone can show different?

Suddenly www.dinosauradventureland.com seems more scary than funny.

Red Celt

aa#883

--

Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.

How are we going to come to a consensus?

You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"

Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?

-- the late great Bill Hicks

User: "Lane Lewis"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? (was Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?)	17 Aug 2003 04:36:41 PM

"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:pf5rjv8kpnn0k9b77uv7rhqv1lekngjjd4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:17:17 GMT, "August Pamplona"
<necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale@mail.com> wrote:

Crossposted To alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
49 percent are creationist but a large percentage of those do not want
creation taught in schools. It is small but vocal minority that push for
religion in schools and are easily defeated if the rest of America wakes up.
I know many religious people who are creationist who have no problem with
evolutionist and certainly don't object to having their children taught
evolution. They seem to realize that regardless of their religious belief a
good scientific education is essential to their children's future.
The discrepancy between 28% evolutionist and 49% creationist is that we
have many religions and beliefs in this country. One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have a right
to have their version taught. Creation stories from many different lands and
native Americans would then vie for precious science class time. The fact
that creationist only concern themselves with their own religion being
taught just shows them to be religious bigots with little concern for other
American views.
Lane
snip
.

User: "Baghdad Bob"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? (was Re: As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?)	18 Aug 2003 06:46:20 AM

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lqr%a.51514$On2.2531869@twister.tampabay.rr.com...

"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:pf5rjv8kpnn0k9b77uv7rhqv1lekngjjd4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:17:17 GMT, "August Pamplona"
<necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale@mail.com> wrote:

up.

I know many religious people who are creationist who have no problem with
evolutionist and certainly don't object to having their children taught
evolution. They seem to realize that regardless of their religious belief

good scientific education is essential to their children's future.

The discrepancy between 28% evolutionist and 49% creationist is that

have many religions and beliefs in this country. One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have a

right

to have their version taught. Creation stories from many different lands

and

native Americans would then vie for precious science class time. The fact
that creationist only concern themselves with their own religion being
taught just shows them to be religious bigots with little concern for

other

American views.

Well that, and the fact that there is only one *scientific* theory for
origins of species.
.

User: "R Brown"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	18 Aug 2003 11:18:16 AM

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have a

right

to have their version taught.

Clarification: It has nothing to do with the *inconvenience* of
teaching many versions. The reason various creation myths should not
be taught as science is, well, that they are all myths and not
science.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?
.

User: "Thomas P. "
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	18 Aug 2003 02:31:12 PM

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have a

right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.
Thomas P.
.

User: "Roadrunner"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	23 Aug 2003 07:03:25 PM

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have

right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.
.

User: "Craig McDonald"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	23 Aug 2003 07:42:57 PM

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

<snip>

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax.

As much as gravitationism is a hoax.

Red Celt

aa#883

--

Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.

How are we going to come to a consensus?

You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"

Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?

-- the late great Bill Hicks
..
.

User: "Jari Anttila"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	24 Aug 2003 07:07:46 AM

Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:

As much as gravitationism is a hoax.

gravitationism = a suspicious naturalistic philosophy
that assumes that all matter is affected by
a hypothetical materialistic interaction called 'gravity'.
Only a theory and therefore not science.
Consequences:
God doesn't exist, life is meaningless, moral issues do not matter,
and just about everything is miserable.
Jari
.

User: "Dave"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	24 Aug 2003 06:51:59 AM

"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message news:<uhT1b.25355$dP1.59723@newsc.telia.net>...

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote;

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax.
Those who believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify
at all if they believe it to be a proven fact.

Under what classroom subject in the curriculum should the archaic
fables which define your faith be discussed? Oops, we have to keep the
schoolroom discussion very generic so that any religion is applicable.
This will exclude any specific fables. The students can simply be
asked to chant "Praise the Lord Creator God!" over and over for
several minutes a day.

I really wonder about the bitterness of people such as yourself. You
are so sure that evolution is a hoax when you have never even studied
the subject. Do the fables of Genesis and Noah seem realistic to you?
How would Noah have collected and returned the animals from such
distant places as Australia, New Zealand, and the Galapagos Islands?
Do you believe the Noah story? Please explain it to me.
.

User: "Andrew Arensburger"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	31 Aug 2003 02:17:51 AM

In talk.origins Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Call for you on line 3 from the Students Against the
Defamation of the Destructor God Shiva.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
668--the Neighbor of the Beast.
.

User: "Bill Hudson"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	31 Aug 2003 03:37:29 AM

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:17:51 +0000, Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@glue.umd.edu> wrote:

In talk.origins Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Call for you on line 3 from the Students Against the
Defamation of the Destructor God Shiva.

He's also got one holding from the Buddhist Students Association.
--
Bill Hudson
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	31 Aug 2003 08:10:29 AM

Bill Hudson <hudsonwj@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:17:51 +0000, Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@glue.umd.edu> wrote:

In talk.origins Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Call for you on line 3 from the Students Against the
Defamation of the Destructor God Shiva.

He's also got one holding from the Buddhist Students Association.

What about those religions like the Roman, where the currently biggest
and bestest god on the block actually *killed* the creator gods?
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.

User: "Paul J Gans"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	31 Aug 2003 09:02:30 PM

In talk.origins John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote:

Bill Hudson <hudsonwj@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:17:51 +0000, Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@glue.umd.edu> wrote:

In talk.origins Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:

Call for you on line 3 from the Students Against the
Defamation of the Destructor God Shiva.

He's also got one holding from the Buddhist Students Association.

What about those religions like the Roman, where the currently biggest
and bestest god on the block actually *killed* the creator gods?

Forget them. I'm a member of five different fertility cults
and I want MY religion taught in school. And no, we don't
mess with underage girls. That's just evil propaganda spread
by our enemies.
---- Paul J. Gans
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	25 Aug 2003 09:31:11 AM

In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <uhT1b.25355$dP1.59723@newsc.telia.net>:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

....

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.

Your repeated assertions of this claim show that you have learned a lot
about propaganda, but nothing about science.
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	24 Aug 2003 12:25:24 AM

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC),
Roadrunner <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have

right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.

You don't even know what evolution is. You were completely humiliated when
it was revealed you didn't even know what an allele was. You're a pathetic
joke.
But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:
1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.

User: "Tropical Tim"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	09 Sep 2003 08:42:35 AM

AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbkgj2o.ug.taocow@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>...

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC),
Roadrunner <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have

a
right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.

You don't even know what evolution is. You were completely humiliated when
it was revealed you didn't even know what an allele was. You're a pathetic
joke.

But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:

1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?

Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view. From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
You have a dozen or so of your fanatical science freaks in the group
and you all spend all your time repeating the same crapola over and
over. Let me give you a small example.
Each of the labels that you query about in your snippy little tantrum
above is described and/or defined very simply. Apply this to each of
your questions:
It is a semantic label given to a concept supported by a belief in the
specific set of standards accepted by the group or faction that also
belong to the represented label.
Now I know that this statement will upset your entire bunch of test
tube thinkers, but that is too bad. Your science changes with the
wind.
When are you going to realize that the only people who support your
fanatic scientific claims and so called evidence are the people who
already belong to your cult?
There are a lot of "pathetic jokes" in this group, but you are in the
top 5. When you get to the point of understanding a 6th grade level of
understanding, maybe, just maybe you will see that nothing within your
pathetic little existence is absolutely real. You can prove nothing to
the absolute, and to confine your beliefs to coincide with the
"preponderance of evidence" in your particular little group is truly
pathetic.
Now, lets hear all of you science freaks start squawking. "Look at the
evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the
evidence.
Freakin little parrots with no thoughts of your own.
.

User: "Dale"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	09 Sep 2003 09:33:28 AM

"Tropical Tim" <bankerdt@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5d054692.0309090545.7aba05b9@posting.google.com...

AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message

news:<slrnbkgj2o.ug.taocow@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>...

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC),
Roadrunner <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

[...]

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax.

Those who

believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if

they

believe it to be a proven fact.

You don't even know what evolution is. You were completely humiliated

when

it was revealed you didn't even know what an allele was. You're a

pathetic

joke.

But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:

1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?

Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit.

Warning! Warning! Irony meter overload! Core implosion imminent!

This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view. From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.

Oh, by all means, let us live our lives, conduct our science, find our
truths by the philosophy of the day.

You have a dozen or so of your fanatical science freaks in the group
and you all spend all your time repeating the same crapola over and
over. Let me give you a small example.

Each of the labels that you query about in your snippy little tantrum
above is described and/or defined very simply. Apply this to each of
your questions:

It is a semantic label given to a concept supported by a belief in the
specific set of standards accepted by the group or faction that also
belong to the represented label.

So there is no truth, there are no facts. I suppose when you get right down
to it, this is probably so, but if you really knew it, you wouldn't have
said it.

Now I know that this statement will upset your entire bunch of test
tube thinkers, but that is too bad. Your science changes with the
wind.

Unlike popular opinion.

When are you going to realize that the only people who support your
fanatic scientific claims and so called evidence are the people who
already belong to your cult?

Ah yes, the cult of science, utilizing laws that only exist in their minds.
Oh my...what's this...my computer...it seems...to be...disappearing...

There are a lot of "pathetic jokes" in this group, but you are in the
top 5. When you get to the point of understanding a 6th grade level of
understanding, maybe, just maybe you will see that nothing within your
pathetic little existence is absolutely real. You can prove nothing to
the absolute, and to confine your beliefs to coincide with the
"preponderance of evidence" in your particular little group is truly
pathetic.

....and my television...my refrigerator...my house...my clothes...my
food...all products of my imagination...all...disappearing...

Now, lets hear all of you science freaks start squawking. "Look at the
evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the
evidence.

Freakin little parrots with no thoughts of your own.

....
.

User: "Kermit"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	09 Sep 2003 02:17:12 PM

(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309090545.7aba05b9@posting.google.com>...

AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbkgj2o.ug.taocow@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>...

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC),
Roadrunner <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have

a
right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.

You don't even know what evolution is. You were completely humiliated when
it was revealed you didn't even know what an allele was. You're a pathetic
joke.

But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:

1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?

Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do.

We're not happy about it, but we are painfully aware of the fact.

By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view. From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.

And what does this have to do with how things actually are? Are you
suggesting that truth is *determined by popular vote, or are you
insisting that we should and can believe the majority opinion to be
the truth?
For instance, if the majority of people thought that Shirley MacLaine
was the best spoesperson for God, would you be OK with that?

You have a dozen or so of your fanatical science freaks in the group
and you all spend all your time repeating the same crapola over and
over.

And yet you *still don't seem to get it. <sigh.>
There are slightly more than 5 scientists or people who support
science, BTW, although I radily admit we are a minority.

Let me give you a small example.

Each of the labels that you query about in your snippy little tantrum
above is described and/or defined very simply.

OK. Define them, then.

These questions are an informal way to test a person't grasp of
science. If I said that God was the guy who built my house, the
Christian bible said so; would you be impressed with my grasp of
religion?
So too, this is a quick way to see whether or not it even makes sense
to discuss these matters with certain people.

Now I know that this statement will upset your entire bunch of test
tube thinkers, but that is too bad. Your science changes with the
wind.

No; it changes with the facts. That's the difference between, say, a
myth which people cling to desperately despite any evidence to it's
absurdity, and a model for understanding and manipulating the world
around us, based on repeatable observations, falsifiability, etc.
Cure any diseases lately?

When are you going to realize that the only people who support your
fanatic scientific claims and so called evidence are the people who
already belong to your cult?

When are you going to credit science with pretty much all technical
progress?
BTW, many scientists are theists, and are likely cringing when they
see your words.

Science, of course, cheerfully admits uncertainty, no matter how much
evidence it has. Religion, OTOH, will insist that it has certainty,
despite lack of, or even contrary evidence.

Now, lets hear all of you science freaks start squawking. "Look at the
evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the
evidence.

Whoa! Took the words right our of my mouth. And looking at the
evidence is bad because..?
I'm going to guess, because it makes you really uncomfortable, and you
are fundamentally a timid man, incapable of facing truth. But I'm open
to alternative explanations.
Cure any diseases lately?

Freakin little parrots with no thoughts of your own.

How... ironic. You, of course, are saying words which we have *never
heard before. Gosh, all we have is evidence and clear thinking. While
you have... really, really, really strong emotions. Gosh, I'm
convinced.
Tell you what, let's do a test. You can pray for enlightenment, and
I'll flip the light switch. We'll do the test as often as you like.
--- Kermit
.

User: "Chris Morris"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	10 Sep 2003 01:26:33 AM

(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309090545.7aba05b9@posting.google.com>...

AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbkgj2o.ug.taocow@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>...

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC),
Roadrunner <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have

a
right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.

You don't even know what evolution is. You were completely humiliated when
it was revealed you didn't even know what an allele was. You're a pathetic
joke.

But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:

1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?

It is a good thing that science is not a democracy. Science deals in
observable facts. Scientists have seen evolution take place, Science
has yet to see any creation take place.

You have a dozen or so of your fanatical science freaks in the group
and you all spend all your time repeating the same crapola over and
over. Let me give you a small example.

I would actually say the number of us versed in the Science is more
like a few hundred who post on a regualr basis, we then have the loons
like you who would not know science if it came up and bit them in the
*****.

Each of the labels that you query about in your snippy little tantrum
above is described and/or defined very simply. Apply this to each of
your questions:

It is a semantic label given to a concept supported by a belief in the
specific set of standards accepted by the group or faction that also
belong to the represented label.

You mean like scientists and Biologists? Boy count me in that group.

Now I know that this statement will upset your entire bunch of test
tube thinkers, but that is too bad. Your science changes with the
wind.

It changes when new facts warrant a change, if tomorrow we get new
information on Gravity that will change, that is the nature of science
it is never compleate, all of science is based in theroies that change
with the addtion of new information that proves out over time.

When are you going to realize that the only people who support your
fanatic scientific claims and so called evidence are the people who
already belong to your cult?

So, anyone with enough intellect to view the known facts that support
the theroies and make solid judgemnents, geez what is so tough about
that. Now you want us to buy your explanations bring us something
anything at all that is based not in faith or because the Bible says
it so, but is backed by observable facts then we will stop laughing at
you.

Actually that is the whole point of science the best we can say is
this is the best model to fit the facts we know. Instead of the
burning bush said it happened this way.

We could tell you to look at the evidence it is true, but I am in some
doubt with your rather limited knowledge of anything beyond your Bible
you would be able to comprehend it, much less discuss it rationally.
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	09 Sep 2003 06:32:59 PM

(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309090545.7aba05b9@posting.google.com>...

AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbkgj2o.ug.taocow@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>...

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:25 +0000 (UTC),
Roadrunner <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk>; <>> wrote in message
news:7q92kvgp8v7mi5keh5p92mj5nrkdn8kae9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:18:16 +0000 (UTC), R Brown <brown@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Dunk" <pdunkel@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3f40c925.4863453@news.east.earthlink.net...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:23 +0000 (UTC),

(xyzzy)
wrote:

"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have

a
right

to have their version taught.

Right, diverse versions could be taught in a religion class. The
reason this is not done is that too many people don't want the church
across the street's version taught.

Dunk

Not only that, but as a science teacher what qualifications do I have to
instruct and interpret scripture(s) for students?

After all, it is hard enough to find science teachers who are
qualified to teach science.

Indeed it is, in regard to that evolutionism in itself is a hoax. Those who
believe that (their choice of religion) should not qualify at all if they
believe it to be a proven fact.

You don't even know what evolution is. You were completely humiliated when
it was revealed you didn't even know what an allele was. You're a pathetic
joke.

But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:

1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?

OK, so you can't answer any of Aarons's questions.
Gee, I'm shocked.
<lots of very un-Christian juvenile ranting and raving that sounds
like it came from a five year old who has been ordered to bedtime is
deleted>
I suppose if I were to aks you to tell me what the scientific theory
of creation/ID is, I also would not get any answer (other than another
juvenile rant), right?
What about if I ask you why anyone should pay any more attention to
your particular religious opinions than they should to mine, my next
door neighbor's, my veterinarian's, or the guy who delivered my pizza
last night?
More juvenile rants?
Please, by all means go ahead and demonstrate once again for all the
lurkers who petty, mean-spirited, juvenile, silly, and un-Christian
fundies really are.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
.

User: "Floyd"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	09 Sep 2003 01:54:50 PM

(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309090545.7aba05b9@posting.google.com>...

AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbkgj2o.ug.taocow@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>...

[snip]

But prove me wrong, and answer these questions:

1. What is micro-evolution?
2. What is macro-evolution?
3. What is speciation?
4. What are kinds?
5. What is your definition of religion?
6. What is science?

Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do.

Sadly, you may be correct that the majority of people are
insufficiently aware of the preponderance of evidence to even be able
to answer AC's questions.

By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.

Will you kindly do us the favor of defining precisely what you mean by
"the creationist point of view" in this context? If you mean (a) the
belief that God or a god was in some way involved in the origin of the
universe and the development of biological diversity, I am certain
that you are correct. However, if you mean (b) "the God of the Old
Testament created the entire universe in six days of 24 hours each, in
the precise order described in the first two chapters of Genesis, and
this creation event commenced on 23 October, 4004 BC at 9:00 am," then
I suspect you are over-stating your case a bit and may wish to
reconsider. If you mean something in between these two positions,
please describe it, so that we all know precisely what you are talking
about and can reply in a meaningful manner.

From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.

Again, if you would be so kind as to describe precisely what you mean
by the phrase "the absolute science viewpoint," I would personally be
quite grateful.

And yet you did not take the time to answer those questions; why is
that?

Apply this to each of
your questions:

It is a semantic label given to a concept supported by a belief in the
specific set of standards accepted by the group or faction that also
belong to the represented label.

Now I know that this statement will upset your entire bunch of test
tube thinkers, but that is too bad. Your science changes with the
wind.

The cumulative changes in science are the direct result of cumulative
increases in either (a) accuracy and precision of observation, or (b)
increasingly inclusive understanding of the relationships that exist
between those observations, or (c) usually both. In this
classification, (b) and (c) are indeed influenced by both the social
and the philosophical climate of the time and space bounded society in
which they occur, but both (b) and (c) are limited by (a).
Explanation *must* account for the evidence; if it doesn't, it's not
explanation. Insofar as our observations of the evidence have become
increasingly accurate and precise, we have, perforce, abandoned
several proposed and widely held explanations (geocentrism,
phlogiston, fixity of species, etc.) when we recognised that these
explanations do not account for the evidednce.
Yes, scientists (or more accurately, philosophers and historians of
science) agree that there are social influences that determine the
types of questions we are likely to find interesting and the types of
answers we are likely to find convincing. This recognition of the
social influence on science does not reduce science to purely cultural
whims and fancies however, since it is ultimately bound by the
evidence ("(a)" above).

When are you going to realize that the only people who support your
fanatic scientific claims and so called evidence are the people who
already belong to your cult?

I suppose I would personally be willing to accept the veracity of this
rather extreme proposal if I were to discover that everyone else
eschewed the technology that scientific research has made possible.
The "Christian Science" faith has made steps in this direction by
eschewing modern medicine in favor of prayer. The Amish seem to have
rejected much of the technology that has become available in the past
150 years or so as well. Are these the communities of which you
speak? If so, my understanding is that they do not currently
represent a numerical majority of the world's population.

I missed the place where AC, or indeed anyone else, claimed to be able
to prove anything "to the absolute". Would you be so kind as to
provide the URL for that message? I know that scientific explanations
are always tentative, since new evidence, or increasingly accurate and
precise measurements of existing evidence can always modify our
current knowledge. However, "the lack of absolute knowledge" is not
equivalent to "the absolute lack of knowledge". The fact that all
scientific claims are provisional does not imply that all claims are
equal.
Let me put it this way: there is a possibility, given what I know
about the motion of gasses, that all of the oxygen in the room where I
sit could suddenly rush to the opposite side of the room, leaving me
to suffocate. That is a non-zero possibility. How much emotional
energy do you feel I should invest in worrying about it?

and to confine your beliefs to coincide with the
"preponderance of evidence" in your particular little group is truly
pathetic.

What would you prefer? Should we instead confine our beliefs to those
that are directly and unequivocally at odds with the preponderance of
evidence? I see no pathos involved in sticking with the best bet,
even though we realise that it remains a bet.

Now, lets hear all of you science freaks start squawking. "Look at the
evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the evidence, Look at the
evidence.

It is generally considered a good place to start, if we hope to
explain the nature of the evidence, that we actually discover what the
evidence is. Avoiding observing the evidence prior to attempting to
explain it seems rather, well, silly.

Freakin little parrots with no thoughts of your own.

Ok, you don't care for evolution, I gather that. That's your
decision. However, I do truly wish to understand the nature of your
disagreement, so if you would be so kind, please read what follows
with an open mind, and then answer one question.
1) Variation exists in all populations; with the exceptions of clones
and identical twins, no two organisms are exactly alike.
2) Some of the variation described in (1) is heritable; offspring will
tend to have more in common with their parents than with other,
unrelated individuals in the same population.
3) Some variants increase the chances of an organism that bears them
of surviving and reproducing, while other variants decrease those
chances.
4) Over the course of several generations, variants that tend to
increase the reproductive output of their bearers will become more
common, and those that decrease the reproductive success of their
bearers will become rare or even disappear entirely.
5) Given this relatively simple process, populations will tend to
change in appearance, genetic makeup, and/or behavior over the course
of multiple generations.
Now the question: With which of the preceeding numbered statements do
you disagree? I eagerly await your response.
-Floyd
.

User: "Tropical Tim"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	09 Sep 2003 07:04:42 PM

(Floyd) wrote in message news:<54522494.0309091057.3879703e@posting.google.com>...
(snip)

1) Variation exists in all populations; with the exceptions of clones
and identical twins, no two organisms are exactly alike.

2) Some of the variation described in (1) is heritable; offspring will
tend to have more in common with their parents than with other,
unrelated individuals in the same population.

3) Some variants increase the chances of an organism that bears them
of surviving and reproducing, while other variants decrease those
chances.

4) Over the course of several generations, variants that tend to
increase the reproductive output of their bearers will become more
common, and those that decrease the reproductive success of their
bearers will become rare or even disappear entirely.

5) Given this relatively simple process, populations will tend to
change in appearance, genetic makeup, and/or behavior over the course
of multiple generations.

Now the question: With which of the preceeding numbered statements do
you disagree? I eagerly await your response.
-Floyd

Floyd,
You present your thoughts in a concise manner. I do wish to answer
your question. I work as a software developer and appreciate the
proper use of logic and semantics. My opinion on evolution is that it
does seem that the physical science used to show the likelihood of
this being true is accurate to the extent of the current level of
knowledge as of today. By my phrasing, I'm sure that you see the
direction I'm going. Some or all of our knowledge may be non-real in
the sense of being an illusion. That possibility will always exist.
Do to the lateness of the hour, my health and tomorrows work load, I
have to close for now. I will answer your question as thoroughly as
possible in my next post. That post will be made as soon as possible.
Please forgive me if it takes me a few days to properly answer.
Tim Bankerd
.

User: "Floyd"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	10 Sep 2003 10:51:03 AM

(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309091607.1cb2e558@posting.google.com>...

farchy@u.washington.edu (Floyd) wrote in message news:<54522494.0309091057.3879703e@posting.google.com>...
(snip)

Certainly, the possibility of acquiring "absolute" knowledge is so
remote as to be practically impossible for even "simple" real world
systems; absolute control can only exist in thought experiments, not
in real ones. This is of course no less true of physics, or even
software development, than it is of biology or paleontology. However,
I don't personally see any major problems with our continuing to
operate under the working assumption that we have a very close
approximation to reality, even while admitting that our knowledge is
only an approximation that may later be adjusted to increase in
accuracy and/or precision. The alternative seems to be a sort of
pessimistic nihilism. If we accept that we don't, and perhaps can't
know "everything", we can either (a) carry on to the best of our
abilities, always hoping to improve, or (b) give up our quest to
understand entirely, for philosophical, rather than practical reasons.
I prefer the former course of action because I'm basically an
optimist.

Do to the lateness of the hour, my health and tomorrows work load, I
have to close for now. I will answer your question as thoroughly as
possible in my next post. That post will be made as soon as possible.
Please forgive me if it takes me a few days to properly answer.

Tim Bankerd

That's fine with me, take your time. I am looking forward to hearing
your answer. I've left the numbered statements and the question
unsnipped in this post, for your convenience. Thank you for your
reply.
-Floyd
.

User: "Tropical Tim"
Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!?	12 Sep 2003 11:46:45 PM

(Floyd) wrote in message news:<54522494.0309100754.582bb0df@posting.google.com>...

bankerdt@bellsouth.net (Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309091607.1cb2e558@posting.google.com>...

(Floyd) wrote in message news:<54522494.0309091057.3879703e@posting.google.com>...
(snip)

1) Variation exists in all populations; with the exceptions of clones
and identical twins, no two organisms are exactly alike.

Given that reality is as it appears, there can be no exceptions to
variat