Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1122406131.551773.3720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<SNIP>

The whole purpose of "Creationism" is to give Evolutionists an easy
target to prove their "best of class" theories against. When told
that Evolution is not Scientific, Evolutionists can always say,

scientific than Creationism," as though that were the only
alternative.

Scientists don't need to say anything.

But Evolutionists always do. That tells you about a critical
difference. As we say, it divides the shepp from the goats.

Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1122406131.551773.3720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<SNIP>

The whole purpose of "Creationism" is to give Evolutionists an easy
target to prove their "best of class" theories against. When told
that Evolution is not Scientific, Evolutionists can always say, "More
scientific than Creationism," as though that were the only
alternative.

Scientists don't need to say anything.

But Evolutionists

Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1122406131.551773.3720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<SNIP>

The whole purpose of "Creationism" is to give Evolutionists an easy
target to prove their "best of class" theories against. When told
that Evolution is not Scientific, Evolutionists can always say, "More
scientific than Creationism," as though that were the only
alternative.

Scientists don't need to say anything.

But Evolutionists always do. That tells you about a critical
difference. As we say, it divides the shepp from the goats.

When you have something other than
an outrageous assertion demonstrating your stupidity let us know.

I did.

TCross

Creationism is not the only alternative. Creationism was invented in
the last few decades with false premises.

Two or three centuries ago, some country preacher added up the ages of
all the old prophets and their begettings, and decided the world was
6,xxx years old. His theory of the age of the earth was not supported
by the Catholic church or even by the majority of Protestants.

Through the work of modern "Creationists," that doctrine has been
foisted upon orthodox Protestantism as the official Christian
doctrine.

The Orthodox Jewish doctrines I will not speak for, except to note
that the Jewish dating system seems to be based on a rabbinical
calculation on the age of Creation, and that date currently stands at
five thousand and something, not six thousand as the Protestants are
told to believe.
More knowledgeable posters - please correct me on this.

The crux of the Evolution doctrine is Dialectic Materialism, the
vigorous assertion that the Universe is composed exclusively of
Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. Away down deep, after wheedling
arguments that polar bears have warmer fur and only the faster caribou
can outrun wolves, the Evolution preachers arrive at the ultimate goal
for which they were aiming all along:

Therefore (they crow triumphantly), it is all an accident. Life is a
special pond scum, man is mud, ideas are fantasies, purpose is
pointless, ethics are whatever we say they are, and anything you might
wish to say about it is null and void.

What is a mind? Nothing but brain tissue. What is an idea? Electric
impulses. What is love? Brain chemicals. What are dreams?
Indigestion.

"But ..." (the bewildered Joe Public fumbles for an objection) "that
does not seem right ..."

"Oho," says the Evolutionist, "You are a Creationist, then. You
believe ..."
And the Evolutionist trots out all this half-baked artificial doctrine
invented just for the purpose and supported by deliberately bad
science - the ideal False Alternative. "That, he says, "must be what
you believe because Creationism IS the only alternative to Evolution."
And the Evolutionist easily defeats the straw man.

There is the lie. Rastafarianism is not the only alternative to the
Catholic Church, and Creationism is not the only alternative to
Dialectic Materialism.

Creationism is just the False Alternative.

TCross

Misleart Chuff wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122406131.551773.3720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
: The whole purpose of "Creationism" is to give Evolutionists an easy
: target to prove their "best of class" theories against. When told that
: Evolution is not Scientific, Evolutionists can always say, "More
: scientific than Creationism," as though that were the only alternative.
:
: Creationism is not the only alternative. Creationism was invented in
: the last few decades with false premises.

*****, it stinks in here like something died. Name your "other theory"
then, or shut the ***** up, xian.

On your request? Heck no, I owe you nothing. If you want to find it,
you must look for it.

Perhaps the quest will purify your language.
TCross

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 26 Jul 2005 12:28:51 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1122406131.551773.3720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[snip]

The whole purpose of "Creationism" is to give Evolutionists an easy
target to prove their "best of class" theories against.

What an astoundingly odd claim. Are you suggesting that
"evolutionists" are behind the creationist movement? That Ken Ham and
Morris and Wells and such are reaction "evolutionists"? Anyway, actual
biologists usually don't give a hoot about creationists.

Actual biologists do not need Evolution in their daily work. Evolution
is woven onto their concepts by the dogmatists in their training, but
it is not useful to them. They are like the early Catholic scientific
theorists - and many today - whose philosophical doctrines are not
sufficiently crippling to prevent them from doing a day's work.

Creationism
has no place and tries for no place in the scientific discussion, it
is a political movement.

That is what I said.

Real scientists do their work in labs and the
field and publish in Nature and Cell and such.

Real scientists publish wherever they can, of course, just like anyone
else. If Evolution magazines are the only magazines with money to
capture the circulation and pay for good articles, that is where they
published.

When told that
Evolution is not Scientific, Evolutionists can always say, "More
scientific than Creationism," as though that were the only

I would respond: Evolutionary biology is quite scientific. You can
read these FAQs and then look at the referenced peer reviewed
scientific literature.

Evolution biology is constantly shifting, reversing itself, and
adjusting to movements of disagreement within the ranks of
evolutionists.

"Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey"
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

"The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution"
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

"Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Like using the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible.

Creationism is not the only alternative. Creationism was invented in
the last few decades with false premises.

It was invented about 100 years ago following the publication of _The
Fundamentals_.

The Creation Research Institute - source of much of the modern movement
- is quite recent.

Two or three centuries ago, some country preacher added up the ages

all the old prophets and their begettings, and decided the world was
6,xxx years old. His theory of the age of the earth was not

by the Catholic church or even by the majority of Protestants.

For some notion of 2 or 3 and country preacher, sure.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

"James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All
Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly
regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many
works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based
on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean
histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized
version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded
with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself.

Thanks for the information. But this last statement is an opinion, not
a fact.

Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004
BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated
the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam
and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and
that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a
Wednesday'."

- Craig, G. Y. and E. J. Jones. A Geological Miscellany. Princeton
University Press, 1982.

We might as well get a Muslim's view on the Talmud, the Pope's opinion
on the Book of Mormon, and a Jew's opinion of Jesus.

Through the work of modern "Creationists," that doctrine has been
foisted upon orthodox Protestantism as the official Christian

Who has done this foisting?

The faux leaders of modern Fundamentalism.

The crux of the Evolution doctrine is Dialectic Materialism,

How amusing. Are you trolling?

Not at all. Evolution is married so closely with Modern Astrophysics
that folks like Ben Goren think that stars "evolve" and that Evolution
can tell us the age of the Universes.

the
vigorous assertion that the Universe is composed exclusively of

Energy, Space, and Time. Away down deep, after wheedling arguments
that polar bears have warmer fur and only the faster caribou can

wolves, the Evolution preachers arrive at the ultimate goal for which
they were aiming all along:

Sorry, but evolution no more asserts a materialist metaphysics than
does the gravity theory of orbits or the hot/cold air theory of rain.

Evolution has been asserting the random origin of life chemicals for
decades, long before anyone was able to synthesize life chemicals in
the lab, even under ideal artifical conditions. That assertion has
been a fundamental plank of Evolution doctrine from the very beginning.

No Evolution text has been able to resist this leap from field
observations into metaphysics. Dinosaurs, white/black butterflies,
insect camouflage, the fraudulent horse series, walking fish, and then
the miraculous self-replicating DNA molecule that spontaneously
appeared in the warm seas of Evolution mythology.

Secularism is forcefully evangelical. Smithson established his great
Institute partially to promote his atheist-secular-humanist views. Of
course, the only reason Secularists promote Secularism is out of the
generosity of their hearts. They want us to know the truth for the
good of our souls.

Sure. And if you believe that, I have a Book of Mormon for you, too.

TCross