In article <LHptf.7110$oW.2936@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

I respect all of them. I don't believe they are liars. They are
advocates of creation science so as a result, they evaluate evidence
and established facts
in a different way than you would do those same things. The articles
that they write about evidence and established facts are not lies. I
realize that you probably are not able to understand the point that
I am making. It's much easier to just say and think--"they are
liars"--than to understand the the correct way of looking at this
situation.

They may be sincere but if that is the case they do not understand
science or what a theory is.

If they did they would not and could not deny the theory of
evolution or all the evidence from all the other sciences that deny
the YEC or OEC ideas about the universe.

It's odd that no creationist can or will explain why this is true,
yet it is fundamental to the same science that gave us computers -
which contain all kinds of solid state devices and that very odd
thing, the tunnel diode.

I should note that the advocates of creation science are of the
opinion that micro-evolution is a fact.

In article <LHptf.7110$oW.2936@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

I respect all of them. I don't believe they are liars. They are
advocates of creation science so as a result, they evaluate evidence
and established facts
in a different way than you would do those same things. The articles
that they write about evidence and established facts are not lies. I
realize that you probably are not able to understand the point that I
am making. It's much easier to just say and think--"they are
liars"--than to understand the the correct way of looking at this
situation.

They may be sincere but if that is the case they do not understand science
or what a theory is.

If they did they would not and could not deny the theory of evolution or all
the evidence from all the other sciences that deny the YEC or OEC ideas
about the universe.

It's odd that no creationist can or will explain why this is true, yet it is
fundamental to the same science that gave us computers - which contain all
kinds of solid state devices and that very odd thing, the tunnel diode.

I should note that the advocates of creation science are of the opinion
that micro-evolution is a fact.

In article <J8Gtf.1979$Hl6.341@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <1ovbr1htil08l82qptctt3bld6n80gtjvr@4ax.com>, David
Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:38:11 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051938110001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <82ubr19m323v05d6bp5bi0uv2q2dkbhvvs@4ax.com>, David
Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:58:42 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051858430001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article
<1135988750.122357.152320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Thanks for your post. My point was that there is more than
one

theory to

explain why the DNA in great apes and humans is similar. You

assume that

there is a common ancestor. I assume there was not a common
ancestor.
Neither of us have proof.

You don't have proof. You don't have evidence. You don't
even have a
scientific theory. All you have is blind faith if you
believe
everything was created as the Bible claims.

OTOH, science has 150 years of accumulated scientific
evidence and a
scientific theory which explains it all, which is testable,
and which
has passed every single test to which it has been put.

Science does not deal in absolutes as religion claims to do,
but the
Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. And you
can
blindly believe there are other rational explanations as to
why a
chimpanzee and a human are practically identical, but you
cannot
explain your blind belief. You cannot explain why a god
would make two
ostensibly different beings almost exactly the same.

You cannot explain why a god would do this, knowing humans
would
misinterpret his work, and then take no steps whatsoever to
clue us in.

You cannot explain why a god who had all eternity in which to
work, and
infinite resources at his command, would **MAKE THE SAME
MISTAKES** in
the chimpanzee DNA as exist in ours (or vice-versa):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

In short, you can say little green faeries made everything
one second
ago with history and memories and a rationalizing "logic"
already up
and running. Sure, it "explains all the facts", but is it
intelligent?
No. Is it worth consideration? Not any more than I just
gave it.

Budikka

The only proof we have is written evidence (the first three
chapters of
the Bible)

The Bible is not evidence of any sort. The first three chapters
of
Genesis are known to be wrong as history.

and fossil evidence which is discussed in detail in this book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

But the fossils, among other things, prove that 'creation
science' is
false.

Dr. John Morris, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Steven Austin and Dr.
Duane Gish
would all disagree with you.

I have carefully evaluated samples of their work. I would not be
happy
to have them agree with me. They are liars.

I respect all of them. I don't believe they are liars. They are
advocates
of creation science so as a result, they evaluate evidence and
established
facts
in a different way than you would do those same things. The
articles that
they write about evidence and established facts are not lies. I
realize
that you probably are not able to understand the point that I am
making.
It's much easier to just say and think--"they are liars"--than to
understand the the correct way of looking at this situation.
Jason

It's easy to call them liars because they are. It's not just a
matter of
different interpretations of the same observations, it's a matter
of
ignorning what they don't like, making unsupported assertions, not
addressing the areas of disagreement appropriately, and creating
specious, unsupported arguments to support their position.

For most of us the appear to be a liars because they are
propagandists
for their parochial religious beliefs. Either way they are not
credible
in a scientific forum. Apparently they understand this, preferring
to
delude the ignorant rather than defending their positions in the
forums
where they should be.

The journals are controlled by evolutionists. Why waste time writing
and
submitting articles if they will never be published? Visit this site
and
tell my your opinions:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

This is the attitude of lots of people in charge of journals. Do you
think
that they would ever allow an article written by an advocate of
creation
scince or ID to be published in their journals?